DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The status of the claims for this application is as follows.
Claims 1-16 are currently pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 01/23/2025 and 04/07/2026 were considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 01/23/2025.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “A reversibly releasable coupling for a plug-in connection on pipes (3) and hoses”. Said informality appears to imply that there is one coupling for multiple pipes and hoses, and note that later in the body of the claim the claim recites “pipe or hose. It appears that the recitation would be better presented as --A reversibly releasable coupling for a plug-in connection on a pipe or a hose--
Claim 1 recites (fig. 2) and (fig.1, fig. 3). The claim should only set forth the appropriate reference character(s) and not figures. All instances of this type of claim informality in all the claims must be addressed.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 16 recites “at least predominantly of plastic”. Said recitation has been interpreted as anything over 50% of plastic.
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 1-16 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.
Regarding claims 1, 8, 9, , the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claims 1, 5, 6, and 9, the phrase "like" renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "like"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-16 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Reasons for Allowance
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The prior art of record does not anticipate all the limitations as recited in independent claim 1.
The prior art does not provide any teaching, suggestion or motivation (TSM) to modify the prior art as such.
There is no cogent reasoning that is unequivocally independent of hindsight that would have led one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the prior art to obtain the applicant’s invention.
Even though, the individual parts are known per se, there is nothing to teach the specific structures and structural combinations as claimed. More specifically, it is the totality of that which is claimed that is not found in the art of recorded, including the references cited below.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following documents have structural features which are similar to the applicant’s claimed invention; EP-1296089-A1, WO-2009033998-A2, WO-2017105427-A1, and US-4641859-A.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES A LINFORD whose telephone number is (571)270-3066. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday: 8:00 am to 5:00 pm Eastern Time.
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.
JAMES ALBERT LINFORD
Examiner
Art Unit 3679
05/06/2026
/Matthew Troutman/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3679
Prosecution Insights