DETAILED ACTION
The present application and its arguments have been reviewed and currently claims 1-7 and 10-19 are rejected and claims 8-9 are 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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 8/17/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicants arguments on page 6 that Poder would not meet the limitation of “fixing a position of the reinforcement plate in the mounting groove”, the examiner respectfully disagrees as “fixing a position of the reinforcement plate in the mounting groove” is a broad recitation as “position” can be interpreted as either an axial or radial position and the mounting groove shown in fig. 3 of Poder would meet the limitation of fixing an axial position of the plate.
In response to applicants arguments on page 8 that using a metal material for the plate would cause relative sliding to become impossible, the examiner respectfully disagrees as a metal material for a thin plate comprising protruding tabs does not appear would cause relative sliding to become “impossible” (ex., the secondary reference Kinder 596’ shows how the metal tabs 130 in fig. 7 latch onto post 136).
Applicant's remaining arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-7 and 10-19 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.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 3, the limitation “a locking body” should be “the locking body” as “a locking body” was previously present in claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-7 and 10-19 are 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 claims 1 and 18, the limitation “locking members … locking body” is unclear to the examiner as to how the “pipe connector” comprises both “locking members” and “locking body” but are referring to the same “locking body”. It appears as though applicant is attempting to claim that each side of the pipe connector comprises locking member and each locking member is comprised of a locking body (ex., as opposed to having both locking members and a locking body as the claim currently states).
To proceed with examination, the limitation “wherein a locking body is made of synthetic resin” will be interpreted to mean “wherein a locking body of each of the locking members is made of synthetic resin”.
It is noted that while the examiner is interpreting the claims to proceed with prosecution, the applicant is still required to amend the claims.
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, 10, 12, 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. 4 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. 3 below, where the surface is considered the outside surface and entire recessed surface within 21, 22 that accepts indicator 20; ex., a “surface” is a broad recitation) by moving on a chamber part (ex., see tangential opening in fig. 4) when the male connector is coupled while the locking member is coupled to the chamber part formed on the female connector (see fig. 4, where the bead is caught on the locking member near 14),
wherein a closed-loop shaped reinforcement plate (see annotated fig. 3) 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),
wherein the reinforcement plate is mounted in a mounting groove formed by recessing the one surface of the locking body (ex., see annotated fig. 3, where the entire surface is recessed to allow the plate to slide therein; ex., if the plate was removed, the entire front surface would be completely recessed compared to fig. 1 of the prior art which does not have a recessed face to accept a plate), and
wherein the reinforcement plate includes position fixing portions (see both sides of the plate which comprise fixing portions) protruding from the reinforcement plate and fixing a position of the reinforcement plate in the mounting groove (ex., similar to the mounting groove in the present invention, the plate is fixed within a plate-shaped groove),
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 the closed-loop shaped reinforcement plate is metal.
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_image1.png
793
924
media_image1.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. 3 above hereinafter, which act as springs; 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:
“the” locking body having a through hole (see near 17 in annotated fig. 3) through which the male connector passes; and
elastic parts (16, annotated fig. 3) 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. 3).
In regards to claim 6, Poder further discloses:
The pipe connector of claim 3, wherein a guide surface (17, annotated fig. 3) 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. 3).
In regards to claim 10, Poder further discloses:
The pipe connector of claim 1, wherein the reinforcement plate is integrally formed with the locking body through insert molding (see note below).
It is noted that “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 this case, using a process such as insert molding would not change the structure of the product as claimed (ex., creating a mold to join the two pieces together).
In regards to claim 12, Poder further discloses:
The pipe connector of claim 3, wherein the locking body includes a locking protrusion (see annotated fig. 3).
In regards to claim 13, Poder in view of Frick and Kinder further discloses
The pipe connector of claim 1, wherein coupling parts (see annotated fig. 4 below) 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_image2.png
561
884
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 15, Poder further discloses:
The pipe connector of claim 1, wherein a catching protrusion (ex., see near 11 in fig. 2), 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. 4 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 (ex., compare fig. 1 with fig. 4),
wherein a closed-loop shaped reinforcement plate (see annotated fig. 3) 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),
wherein the reinforcement plate is mounted in a mounting groove formed by recessing the one surface of the locking body (ex., see annotated fig. 3, where the entire surface is recessed to allow the plate to slide therein; ex., if the plate was removed, the entire front surface would be completely recessed compared to fig. 1 of the prior art which does not have a recessed face to accept a plate), and
wherein the reinforcement plate includes position fixing portions (see both sides of the plate which comprise fixing portions) protruding from the reinforcement plate and fixing a position of the reinforcement plate in the mounting groove (ex., similar to the mounting groove in the present invention, the plate is fixed within a plate-shaped groove),
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 reinforcement plate is metal.
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. 3 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) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poder in view of Frick and Kinder as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Szabo et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,730,481).
In regards to claim 11, Poder in view of Frick and Kinder discloses:
The pipe connector of claim 1,
but does not disclose:
wherein the locking body includes a reduction portion, the reduction portion includes a compressing hole for compressing during insert molding.
In regards to the hole, Szabo discloses a similar device where reduction portions (186, fig. 12) are used to provide the benefit of weight and material reductions (11:48-52).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to modify the locking body of Poder in view of Frick and Kinder with the provision of a compression hole to provide the benefit of weight and material reduction, as taught by Szabo (11:48-52).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Gaudiau et al. (U.S. Patent No. 12,546,423) discloses a similar device (see fig. 1) comprising a locking body (10) and locking plate (12) comprising fixing portion (18) that engage in a mounting groove (17).
Barthel et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,674,626) discloses a similar device (see fig. 4) comprising a locking body (9) and a locking plate (11) and fixing portions (16) locking the locking plate and body together.
Stieler (U.S. Patent No. 10,738,926) discloses a similar device (see fig. 3) comprising a locking body (46) and a locking plate (48) and fixing portions (see left and right side near bore).
Stieler (U.S. Patent No. 6,634,679) discloses a similar device comprising a metal plate directly attached to a surface of a locking body (see fig. 2).
Burquier et al. (EP-77743) discloses a similar device comprising a circular ring inserted into a recess of a locking body to hold a pipe flange (see fig. 1 near ring 14).
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