DETAILED ACTION
Receipt is acknowledged of Applicant’s Response, dated 10 June 2026, which papers have been made of record.
Claims 1-3, 5-8, 19, and 29 are currently presented for examination.
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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
The indicated allowability of claim4 is withdrawn in view of the newly discovered reference(s) to United States 3,083,750 to Macleod et al.
Rejections based on the newly cited reference(s) follow.
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 1-3, 5-8, 19, and 29 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.
Claim 1 recites “wherein the control portion is configured to initiate the operation of crimping only after the fitting of the hose and fitting assembly is positioned against the die stop” at lines 10-11. A review of the Specification as filed appears to provide literal support for this limitation in paragraph [0034], but is not understood to fairly apprise one having ordinary skill in the art as to what aspect of the control portion is specially adapted and designed for performing the claimed function. The Specification does not appear to provide one having ordinary skill in the are with guidance as to how the control portion would initiate crimping only when the fitting is at the die stop in combination with the hose, rather than when only a fitting is present.
Claims 2-3, 5-8, 19, and 29 each depend from claim 1, and therefore are rejected for at least the reasons presented above with respect to claim 1.
Claim 2 recites” wherein the crimping portion is horizontal and the die set is positioned along a horizontal axis” at lines 1-2. To the best of the examiner’s understanding, the crimping portion is a three dimensional structure, having geometry which extends along three orthogonal directions. While the Specification as filed provides literal support for the claimed language at paragraph [0032], the Specification does not appear to clarify how one having ordinary skill in the art would determine that a three dimensional structure is vertical or horizontal. As best understood, any three dimensional structure is at least horizontal and vertical. The examiner notes that the Response of 10 June 2026 attempts to redefine the claim to identify a “horizontal crimper system” as a type of crimping device, however the phrase “the crimping portion is vertical” does not necessarily define the entire crimping system as a conventional vertical crimping device.
Claim 3 recites” wherein the crimping portion is vertical and the die set is positioned along a vertical axis” at lines 1-2. To the best of the examiner’s understanding, the crimping portion is a three dimensional structure, having geometry which extends along three orthogonal directions. While the Specification as filed provides literal support for the claimed language at paragraph [0033], the Specification does not appear to clarify how one having ordinary skill in the art would determine that a three dimensional structure is vertical or horizontal. As best understood, any three dimensional structure is at least horizontal and vertical. The examiner notes that the Response of 10 June 2026 attempts to redefine the claim to identify a “vertical crimper system” as a type of crimping device, however the phrase “the crimping portion is horizontal” does not necessarily define the entire crimping system as a conventional horizontal crimping device.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-8, 19, and 29
Claims 1-3, 5-8, 19, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent 4,641,407 to Blevins et al. (hereinafter “Blevins”) in view of United States Patent 3,082,750 to Macleod et al. (hereinafter “Macleod”).
Regarding claim 1, Blevins discloses a crimping system (2; see Fig. 1) for crimping a hose and fitting assembly, the crimping system comprising: a control portion (at least controlled via biasing springs 14 and pistons 4, 6; see Col. 4, line 66 – Col. 5, line 8) for controlling operation of the crimping system; a crimping portion (collar 10; see Col. 4, line 66 – Col. 5, line 3) that mechanically engages a die set (split die 12; see Figs. 1 and 2) against the hose (70) and fitting (72) assembly based on the operation of the control portion (see Col. 7, lines 7-22); the die set (12) includes a die (die insert 40) having a die stop (at 42; see Col. 5, lines 59-61); and wherein the die stop mechanically positions an edge of a fitting (see Fig. 8, fitting 72 shown to align with stop portion at 42, see also Figs. 6 and 7; intended use) of the hose and fitting assembly.
Blevins does not explicitly disclose that the control portion is configured to initiate the operation of crimping only after the fitting of the hose and fitting assembly is positioned against the die stop.
It is known in the art of hose crimping assemblies to provide automated controllers. For example, Macleod teaches such a crimping device.
Macleod teaches a hose crimping device (see Fig. 1) having a base (15) which supports a hose (45) and a fitting (couplings 40). Macleod teaches that its machine may be controlled automatically (see Col. 1, lines 51-54). Macleod teaches that it is desirable to prevent operation of the automatic coupling machine when couplings are not positioned properly (see Col. 1, lines 64-68). The automatic operation of the crimping device is initiated by a switch when the coupling is properly positioned (Col. 6, lines 46-64). Macleod teaches that its automated system may be used with any person whether skilled or not, to allow for production of quality crimped hoses. The automated system further advantageously prevents accidents (Col. 7, lines 4-11).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the device taught by Blevins to include an automated control which is initiated when the coupling is properly positioned, as taught by Macleod. (See MPEP 2143(1)(C)). The resulting device would advantageously allow for proper hose crimping to be achieved when driven by any person, not only a skilled artisan.
Thus, the combination of Blevins and Macleod teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Blevins and Macleod teaches the limitations of claim 1, and further Blevins teaches that the crimping portion (10) is horizontal (see Fig. 1; overall assembly 2 understood to extend horizontally) and the die set (12) is positioned along a horizontal axis (die members of split die are located horizontally relative to the central linkage at 8; see Figs. 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Blevins and Macleod teaches the limitations of claim 1, and further Blevins teaches the crimping portion (10) is vertical (see Fig. 1; body 10 can be defined by a vertically extending through center of body) and the die set (12) is positioned along a vertical axis (die members of split die are located vertically relative to the longitudinal axis of tubular 70 in Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Blevins and Macleod teaches the limitations of claim 1, and further Blevins teaches that the die set includes one or more additional dies (40; three segments, see Col. 5, lines 52-55) having die stops (portions 42).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Blevins and Macleod teaches the limitations of claim 1, and further Blevins teaches that the die (40) is positioned toward a back of the crimping portion (see Fig. 5; left side with respect to the figure understood to extend toward back of crimping portion).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Blevins and Macleod teaches the limitations of claim 1, and further Blevins teaches that the die stop (portions 42) is in the form of a stop pin or screw (insert portions 40, including stop cavity 42, is attached to crimping portion 10 via screws 46; see Col. 5, lines 47-55).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Blevins and Macleod teaches the limitations of claim 1, and further Blevins teaches that the die stop (42) is in the form of an edge (stop cavity at 42 includes plurality of edges shown to receive and abut fitting portions 72).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Blevins and Macleod teaches the limitations of claim 1, and further Blevins teaches the die set (12) including a second die (also 40; three segments, see Col. 5, lines 52-55) having a second die stop (also 42).
Regarding claim 29, the combination of Blevins and Macleod teaches the limitations of claim 1, and further Blevins teaches that the die set (different dies 40 may be provided to accommodate different couplings/ferrules; see Col. 5, lines 55-61 and anvil insert 52; Col. 7, lines 1-6) includes a plurality of dies, each die having a die stop (e.g. 42 in Fig. 10 and unnumbered keyed portions of 52 in Fig. 13).
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Applicant’s arguments, see Response, filed 10 June 2026, with respect to rejections of claims 1-8 and 16-19 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Rejection of claim 1 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 10 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The examiner notes that dependent claims 2-3 were previously rejected under 35 USC 112. Applicant asserts that the claimed phrase are better understood to indicate machine types. Applicant offers Amazon web searches for teaching allegedly conventional machines.
The examiner appreciates such, however the phrasing used does not appear to be the conventional terminology for the machine types. As currently claimed, the terms “horizontal” and “vertical” appear to define the crimping portion of the machine, not the machine overall.
Claim 4 was previously rejected for reciting a method step. Applicant has re-presented the limitation as “configured to” language, which is interpreted by the examiner as indicating a machine or structure specially adapted to perform a function. A review of the Specification does not appear to fairly teach one having ordinary skill in the art how to perform the claimed function. The examiner does not bring an enablement rejection at this time, but it is unclear how one having ordinary skill in the art would determine that the control portion initiates the operation only after the fitting of the hose and fitting assembly is positioned against the die stop.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Applicant’s arguments, see Response, filed 10 June 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-3, 5-8, and 16-19 under 35 USC 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Macleod.
Claims 1-3, 5-8, and 16-19 were previously rejected as anticipated by Blevins.
Claims 1-3, 5-8, and 16-19 were previously rejected as anticipated by Reynolds.
Applicant notes that previous claim 4 was indicated to overcome the prior art of record. The limitation has been amended into claim 1 and rewritten in an apparatus fashion. Applicant requests that the anticipation rejection be withdrawn.
The examiner has presented a new rejection under 35 USC 103.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
United States Patent Application Publication 2016/0256914 to Orcutt et al. (hereinafter “Orcutt”) teaches a crimping machine (10) for crimping a hose (see paragraph [0018]), the machine having a safety switch (90, 92; see paragraph [0033]) which allows the machine to begin crimping operations. The machine does not explicitly disclose that the switches are triggered only after the fitting of a hose and fitting assembly against a die stop.
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 DARRELL C. FORD whose telephone number is (313)446-6515. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM to 5:15 PM, Monday to Friday.
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, Thomas Hong can be reached at (571) 272-0993. 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.
/DARRELL C FORD/Examiner, Art Unit 3726
Prosecution Insights