DETAILED ACTION
The present application and its arguments have been reviewed and currently claims 1-7 and 9-19 are rejected and claim 8 is cancelled.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/2/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicants argument on page 8 that claim 12 is revised to remove the phrase “on which the bead is caught”, the examiner respectfully disagrees as the claim was not amended.
Applicant’s remaining arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-7 and 9-19 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 3/2/2026. These drawings are accepted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In regards to claim 12, the limitation “a locking protrusion on which the bead is caught” is unclear to the examiner how “the bead 24 may be caught by a locking protrusion 44 protruding from a rear surface of the locking body 32” when as shown in annotated fig. 7 below it appears that it would be impossible for the locking protrusion 44 to engage with bead 24.
To proceed with prosecution, the limitation “a locking protrusion on which the bead is caught” will be considered the limitation “a locking protrusion”.
PNG
media_image1.png
860
743
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 7, 9, 11-13, and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poder et al. (U.S. Patent No. 7,802,822) in view of Frick (U.S. Patent No. 9,671,051) and in further view of Kinder (U.S. Patent No. 6,293,596).
In regards to claim 1, Kim discloses:
A pipe connector (see fig. 7 hereinafter unless otherwise noted) comprising:
a female connector (1);
a male connector (7) connected to one side of the female connector and having a bead (14) protruding from an outer circumferential surface thereof; and
a locking member (15) which allow the bead to be caught on one surface thereof (see annotated fig. 8 below) by moving on a chamber part (ex., see tangential opening in fig. 7) when the male connector is coupled while the locking member is coupled to the chamber part formed on the female connector (for illustrative purposes, see fig. 4, where the bead is caught on the locking member near 14),
wherein a closed-loop shaped reinforcement plate (see fig. 9) is coupled to “the” one surface of the locking body on which the bead is caught (see fig. 7, where the plate is in direct contact with the one surface in the assembled state),
but does not disclose:
male connectors connected to both sides of the female connector,
the locking member is a plurality of locking members,
wherein a locking body is made of synthetic resin, and
wherein a closed-loop shaped metal reinforcement plate is coupled to one surface of the locking body on which the bead is caught.
In regards to comprising a duplicate end, Frick discloses that it is known to either comprise a first configuration (see fig. 4b) where only one end comprises a male connector (52’) and a locking member (14), and
a second configuration (see fig. 16c) where both ends are duplicates of each other,
a third configuration (see fig. 16e, where a t-shaped connector is disclosed) where both ends are duplicate and the perpendicular end can be either a male or female end (7:48-67)
wherein the third configuration can be a t-shaped connector (ex., see 7:52-54, where the male end 82 could be the female connector, ex., traverse portions 18x).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to modify the device of Poder to comprise identical duplicate ends such that the device is a t-shaped connector comprising 3 duplicate female connector ends each comprising locking members and male connectors because Frick discloses that it is known to either have one end comprising a locking member and male connector (see fig. 4b) or that both ends can be identical duplicated ends (see fig. 16c) or that there could be three duplicate ends to form a t-shaped connector (see fig. 16E) and it has been held that a mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (see In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) in MPEP2144.04(VI)(B)). In this case, modifying the device of Poder such that there are three identical ends to form a t-shaped connector, which is a known configuration as disclosed by Frick, would not produce any new and unexpected results.
In regards to the material selection, Kinder discloses a similar device comprising a plastic retainer (10, fig. 5; 5:43-44) comprising a metal clip (124, fig. 5; 7:55-58).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to use a synthetic resin material for the retainer and a metal material for the plate of Poder in view of Frick because Kinder discloses that it is known to use a plastic material for a retainer (5:43-44) and metal for a plate (7:55-58) and it has been held that a selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See MPEP 2144.07.
PNG
media_image2.png
597
761
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 2, Poder further discloses:
The pipe connector of claim 1, wherein the locking members provide an elastic force in a direction perpendicular to an axial direction of the female connector while the beads are caught (ex., see 16 in annotated fig. 8 above hereinafter, which act as springs; for illustrative purposes, see fig. 4 where the springs are pushing the connector up and the bead is caught).
In regards to claim 3, Poder further discloses:
The pipe connector of claim 2, wherein the locking member includes:
a locking body having a through hole (see near 17 in annotated fig. 8) through which the male connector passes; and
elastic parts (16, annotated fig. 8) protruding from a lower portion of the locking body and providing the elastic force while in contact with an inner circumferential surface of the female connector.
In regards to claim 4, Poder further discloses:
The pipe connector of claim 3, wherein the elastic parts extend downward from both sides of the lower portion of the locking body and have a leg shape having front ends extending and curved to face each other (see annotated fig. 8).
In regards to claim 6, Poder further discloses:
The pipe connector of claim 3, wherein a guide surface (17, annotated fig. 8) on which the bead slides when the male connector is coupled is obliquely formed in the locking body.
In regards to claim 7, Poder further discloses:
The pipe connector of claim 6, wherein the guide surface is inclined upward from a front side toward a rear side of the locking body (see annotated fig. 8).
In regards to claim 9, Poder in view of Frick and Kinder discloses:
The pipe connector of claim 1,
but does not disclose:
wherein the reinforcement plate is mounted in a mounting groove formed by recessing the one surface of the locking body.
In regards to the mounting groove, Poder discloses another embodiment (see fig. 2 hereinafter) where a locking body (15) comprises a recess (see near 24) on one surface directly contacting a reinforcing plate (20) comprising a hook (24) such that the reinforcing plate is mounted in the recess via the hook to limit the upward movement of the plate (3:65-67).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to modify the plate with the provision of a hook and the locking body with a recess such that the recess directly engages the recess to further limit the upward movement of the plate, as taught by Poder (3:65-67).
In regards to claim 11, Poder further discloses:
The pipe connector of claim 9, wherein the locking body includes a reduction portion, and the reduction portion includes a compressing hole (see annotated fig. 8) for compressing during insert molding (there is nothing structural of preventing the functional limitation).
In regards to claim 12, as best understood, Poder further discloses:
The pipe connector of claim 3, wherein the locking body includes a locking protrusion.
In regards to claim 13, Poder in view of Frick and Kinder further discloses
The pipe connector of claim 1, wherein coupling parts (for illustrative purposes, see annotated fig. 4, which shows the female connector used throughout the invention) for coupling with the male connector are formed on both sides of the female connector (it is inherent that both sides of the connector would be identical), and
tool holes (see annotated fig. 4) are formed on the coupling parts.
PNG
media_image3.png
561
884
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 15, Poder further discloses:
The pipe connector of claim 1, wherein a catching protrusion (ex., see near 11), on which one end of the male connector is caught when the male connector is coupled, is provided in an axial direction of the female connector.
In regards to claim 16, Poder in view of Frick and Kinder further discloses:
The pipe connector of claim 1, wherein the female connector is at least partially bent (ex., it is inherent that a t-shaped connector is bent).
In regards to claim 17, Poder further discloses:
The pipe connector of claim 1, wherein an O-ring (10) for sealing an inner surface of the female connector is provided on an outer surface of the male connector.
In regards to claim 18, Poder discloses:
A pipe connector (see fig. 7 hereinafter) comprising:
a female connector (1);
a male connector (7) coupled to an end of the female connector and having a bead (14) protruding from an outer circumferential surface thereof; and
a locking member (15) which allow the beads to be caught on one surface thereof when the male connector is coupled while pre-coupled to an end of the female connector and provide an elastic force (16) in a direction perpendicular to the axial direction of the female connector when the bead is caught (for illustrative purposes, compare fig. 1 with fig. 4),
but does not disclose:
wherein the female connector has three or more ends, and
the male connectors and locking members are each coupled to one of the three ends.
wherein a locking body is made of synthetic resin, and
wherein a closed-loop shaped metal reinforcement plate is coupled to one surface of the locking body on which the bead is caught.
In regards to comprising a duplicate end, Frick discloses that it is known to either comprise a first configuration (see fig. 4b) where only one end comprises a male connector (52’) and a locking member (14), and
a second configuration (see fig. 16c) where both ends are duplicates of each other,
a third configuration (see fig. 16e, where a t-shaped connector is disclosed) where both ends are duplicate and the perpendicular end can be either a male or female end (7:48-67)
wherein the third configuration can be a t-shaped connector (ex., see 7:52-54, where the male end 82 could be the female connector, ex., traverse portions 18x).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to modify the device of Poder to comprise identical duplicate ends such that the device is a t-shaped connector comprising 3 duplicate female connector ends each comprising locking members and male connectors because Frick discloses that it is known to either have one end comprising a locking member and male connector (see fig. 4b) or that both ends can be identical duplicated ends (see fig. 16c) or that there could be three duplicate ends to form a t-shaped connector (see fig. 16E) and it has been held that a mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (see In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) in MPEP2144.04(VI)(B)). In this case, modifying the device of Poder such that there are three identical ends to form a t-shaped connector, which is a known configuration as disclosed by Frick, would not produce any new and unexpected results.
In regards to the material selection, Kinder discloses a similar device comprising a plastic retainer (10, fig. 5; 5:43-44) comprising a metal clip (124, fig. 5; 7:55-58).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to use a synthetic resin material for the retainer and a metal material for the plate of Poder in view of Frick because Kinder discloses that it is known to use a plastic material for a retainer (5:43-44) and metal for a plate (7:55-58) and it has been held that a selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See MPEP 2144.07.
In regards to claim 19, Poder in view of Frick and Kinder further discloses:
The pipe connector of claim 18, wherein the female connector is T-shaped (ex., see rejection of claim 18 above).
Claim(s) 5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poder in view of Frick and Kinder as applied to claims 2 and 3 above and in further view of Le Clinche (U.S. Patent No. 5,895,078).
In regards to claims 5 and 14, Poder in view of Frick and Kinder discloses:
The pipe connector of claims 2 and 3, wherein hooks protrude from both sides of the elastic parts (see annotated fig. 8 above),
but does not disclose:
wherein the hooks are caught by fastening protrusions formed on both sides of the female connector.
In regards to the protrusions, Le Clinche discloses a similar device (see fig. 2 hereinafter) comprising a female fitting comprising fastening protrusions (22) that allows sliding abutment of hooks (23) of a retainer (3:39-42).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to modify the female connector of Poder in view of Frick and Kinder with the provision of fastening protrusions on both sides of the female connector to allow a sliding abutment of the hooks, as taught by Le Clinche (3:39-42).
Claim(s) 1, 10, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Usui (U.S. Patent No. 5,141,264) in view of Frick.
In regards to claim 1, Usui discloses:
A pipe connector (see fig. 1 hereinafter unless otherwise noted) comprising:
a female connector (1’);
a male connector (P, left side) connected to one side of the female connector and having a bead (P, right side) protruding from an outer circumferential surface thereof; and
a locking member (5) which allow the bead to be caught on one surface thereof (ex., the entire inner surface of 5 is being considered as the “one surface”) by moving on a chamber part (ex., entire camber near 3; ex., both male connector and locking member directly contact the chamber and are movable) when the male connector is coupled while the locking member is coupled to the chamber part formed on the female connector (ex., see the crimped portion that coupled the locking member and female connector),
wherein a locking body (ex., the body of locking member 5) is made of resin (4:42-44), and
wherein a closed-loop shaped metal-reinforcement plate (7; 4:54-57, where metal is used) is coupled to one surface (ex., the entire inner surface of 5) of the locking body on which the bead is caught (see fig. 1, where the bead is also caught on the inner surface of the locking body/member),
but does not disclose:
male connectors connected to both sides of the female connector,
the locking member is a plurality of locking members,
wherein the locking body is made of synthetic resin,
In regards to comprising a duplicate end, Frick discloses that it is known to either comprise a first configuration (see fig. 4b) where only one end comprises a male connector (52’) and a locking member (14), and
a second configuration (see fig. 16c) where both ends are duplicates of each other,
a third configuration (see fig. 16e, where a t-shaped connector is disclosed) where both ends are duplicate and the perpendicular end can be either a male or female end (7:48-67)
wherein the third configuration can be a t-shaped connector (ex., see 7:52-54, where the male end 82 could be the female connector, ex., traverse portions 18x).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to modify the device of Usui to comprise identical duplicate ends such that the device is a t-shaped connector comprising 3 duplicate female connector ends each comprising locking members and male connectors because Frick discloses that it is known to either have one end comprising a locking member and male connector (see fig. 4b) or that both ends can be identical duplicated ends (see fig. 16c) or that there could be three duplicate ends to form a t-shaped connector (see fig. 16E) and it has been held that a mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (see In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) in MPEP2144.04(VI)(B)). In this case, modifying the device of Usui such that there are three identical ends to form a t-shaped connector, which is a known configuration as disclosed by Frick, would not produce any new and unexpected results.
In regards to the material selection, Kumagai discloses a similar device (see fig. 4) comprising a retainer (3) made of a synthetic resin such as nylon (10:5-6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to use a synthetic resin material for the locking body of Usui in view of Frick because Usui explicitly discloses a locking body is made of resin (4:42-44), Kumagai discloses it is known to use synthetic resin for similar devices (10:5-6) and it has been held that a selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See MPEP 2144.07.
In regards to claim 10, Usui further discloses:
The pipe connector of claim 1, wherein the reinforcement plate is integrally formed with the locking body through insert molding (4:66-68; see note below).
It is noted that “formed with the locking body through insert molding” is a product-by-process limitation. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). It is the patentability of the product that is to be determined and not recited process steps irrespective of whether or not only process steps are set forth.
In regards to claim 15, Usui further discloses:
The pipe connector of claim 1, wherein a catching protrusion (ex., see crimped section in fig. 1), on which one end of the male connector is caught when the male connector is coupled, is provided in an axial direction of the female connector.
In regards to claim 16, Usui in view of Frick and Kumagai further discloses:
The pipe connector of claim 1, wherein the female connector is at least partially bent (ex., see rejection of claim 1 above regarding t-shaped connector).
In regards to claim 17, Usui further discloses:
The pipe connector of claim 1, wherein an O-ring (6) for sealing an inner surface of the female connector is provided on an outer surface of the male connector.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER TYLER RUFRANO whose telephone number is (571)272-6223. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:30AM to 4:30PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matthew Troutman can be reached at (571) 270-3654. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/A.T.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3679
/Matthew Troutman/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3679
Prosecution Insights