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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 8-14, and 16, 17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruckwied et al. (US 2019/0285217 hereinafter "Ruckwied").
In regards to claim 1, Ruckwied discloses a quick connecting and disconnecting fluid
coupling, comprising a female fluid connector (14) and a male fluid connector (12), wherein the
female fluid connector and the male fluid connector are arranged along an axial direction;
the male fluid connector comprising:
a housing (body of 12) with at least an axially arranged section;
a contact pressure surface (62) that is arranged at an angle (ß) with respect to the axial direction of the axially arranged section of the housing of the male fluid connector; the female fluid connector comprising:
a housing (70) with an axially arranged inner recess (72) for receiving the axially arranged section of the male connector,
a latching pin (96, 98), and
a guiding slot (92, 94) that is provided in the housing for guiding said latching pin during a movement of the latching pin, wherein said guiding slot is arranged at an angle (α) with respect to the axial direction;
wherein the male fluid connector may be reversible fixated inside the female fluid
connector in a latching position (shown in fig. 1),
wherein in the latching position the latching pin of the female fluid connector contacts the
contact pressure surface of the male fluid connector (shown in fig. 1),
wherein the angle of the guiding slot and the angle of the contact pressure surface differ
by at least 1° (see paragraph [0087] where α is 45° and ß = 55°).
While Ruckwied does not expressly disclose the angles differing by less than 5°; the
angles of the slot and surface may be determined through the use of routine experimentation
during the engineering design process to optimize the functionality of the device, suited to the
intended use and desired parameters.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to one having ordinary skill in
the art to modify Ruckwied to have the angles differ by less than 5°, as angles of the slot and
surface may be optimized to the desired operational parameters through the use of routine
experimentation. A person of ordinary skill in the art undertaking such experimentation would
have had a reasonable expectation of success and the results would have been predictable.
In regards to claim 2, Ruckwied discloses the coupling of claim 1. While
Ruckwied does not expressly disclose the angle of the guiding slot being larger than the angle of
the contact pressure surface; the angles may be determined through the use of routine
experimentation during the engineering design process to optimize the functionality of the
device, suited to the intended use and desired parameters.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to one having ordinary skill in
the art to modify Ruckwied to have the angle of the guiding slot be larger than the angle of the
contact pressure surface, as the angles may be optimized to the desired operational parameters through the use of routine experimentation. A person of ordinary skill in the art undertaking such
experimentation would have had a reasonable expectation of success and the results would have
been predictable.
In regards to claim 4, Ruckwied further discloses the angle of the guiding slot of the
female fluid connector smaller than 55° (paragraph [0087] discloses 45°).
In regards to claim 5, Ruckwied further discloses the angle of the contact pressure
surface of the male fluid connector is larger than 35° (paragraph [0087] discloses 55°).
In regards to claim 6, Ruckwied further discloses the latching pin of the female fluid
connector is mechanically biased in a direction toward a latching position (see paragraph [0113]
and fig. 1).
In regards to claim 8, Ruckwied further discloses the female fluid connector comprises
at least two latching pins (96, 98 )and/or guiding slots (92, 94) (see fig. 5).
In regards to claim 9, Ruckwied further discloses the female fluid connector comprises
at least one cover member (120), covering at least the area comprising the guiding slots [and/or
the latching pins.
In regards to claims 10 and 16, Ruckwied further discloses the contact pressure surface
of the male fluid connector is provided by a bulged part of the housing (see region 48 in in fig.
2).
In regards to claim 11, Ruckwied further discloses a symmetrically arranged contact
pressure surface (42, 62).
In regards to claims 12 and 20, Ruckwied further discloses the angle of the guiding slot
and the angle of the contact pressure surface differ by at least at least 2° (see paragraph [0087] where α is 45° and ß = 55°).
In regards to claim 13, Ruckwied further discloses wherein the angle (α) of the guiding
slot of the female fluid connector is smaller than 50° (see paragraph [0087] where a is 45°).
In regards to claim 14, Ruckwied further discloses the angle (B) of the contact pressure
surface of the male fluid connector is larger than 40° (see paragraph [0087] ß = 55°).
In regards to claim 17, Ruckwied further discloses the contact pressure surface is a
single circumferentially arranged surface and/or a single circumferentially arranged inclined
surface (shown in fig. 2).
In regards to claim 19, Ruckwied discloses a quick connecting and disconnecting fluid coupling, comprising a female fluid connector (14) and a male fluid connector (12), wherein the female fluid connector and the male fluid connector are arranged along an axial direction;
the male fluid connector comprising:
a housing (body of 12) with at least an axially arranged section;
a contact pressure surface (62) that is arranged at an angle (β) with respect to the axial direction of the axially arranged section of the housing of the male fluid connector; the female fluid connector comprising:
a housing (70) with an axially arranged inner recess (72) for receiving the axially arranged section of the male connector,
a latching pin (96, 98), and
a guiding slot (92, 94) that is provided in the housing for guiding said latching pin during a movement of the latching pin, wherein said guiding slot is arranged at an angle (α) with respect to the axial direction;
wherein the male fluid connector may be reversible fixated inside the female fluid connector in a latching position (shown in fig. 1),
wherein in the latching position the latching pin of the female fluid connector contacts the
contact pressure surface of the male fluid connector (shown in fig. 1)
wherein the angle of the guiding slot and the angle of the contact pressure surface differ by at least 1° (see paragraph [0087] where α is 45° and ß = 55°).
While Ruckwied does not expressly disclose the angle of the guiding slot being larger
than the angle of the contact pressure surface; the angles may be determined through the use of
routine experimentation during the engineering design process to optimize the functionality of
the device, suited to the intended use and desired parameters.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to one having ordinary skill in
the art to modify Ruckwied to have the angle of the guiding slot be larger than the angle of the
contact pressure surface, as the angles may be optimized to the desired operational parameters
through the use of routine experimentation. A person of ordinary skill in the art undertaking such
experimentation would have had a reasonable expectation of success and the results would have
been predictable.
Claims 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruckwied
as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Pastore et al. (US 2022/0290787 hereinafter
"Pastore").
In regards to claims 7 and 15, Ruckwied discloses the coupling of claim 1 but does not
disclose the female fluid connector or the male fluid connector comprise a fluid shut-off system.
However, Pastore teaches a similar coupling (10, 100), wherein the female fluid
connector (100) comprises a fluid shut-off system (170) and the male connector (10) comprises a fluid shut-off system (50).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to one of ordinary skill in the
art to provide the coupling of Ruckwied with a fluid shut-off system in order to stop unwanted
fluid flow in the event of disconnection of the connectors.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not
persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the range of claim 1 is critical, this is not found persuasive. Paragraph [0034] of the instant specification merely states that the critical difference is 10 degrees, and the smaller differences are listed as merely alternatives. It specifically states “preferably not more than 5 degrees” (emphasis added). The term “preferably” specifically states that being less than 5 degrees is not critical but merely preferred. It is noted that lacking criticality, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See also In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 1997)(Claims were unpatentable because appellants failed to submit evidence of criticality to demonstrate that that the wear resistance of the protective layer in the claimed thickness range of 50-100 Angstroms was "unexpectedly good"); Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874) (a change in form, proportions, or degree "will not sustain a patent"); In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438, 4 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1929) ("It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions.").
Applicant argues that the angle difference of Ruckwied is not a result-effective variable. The examiner disagrees. Paragraphs [0047] - [0049] of Ruckwied establish this angle difference as a result-effective variable. This section describes why this range of angles was chosen and the benefits, thus establishing it as result-effective.
In response to applicant's argument that the instant invention leads to improved behavior of the resulting quick connecting and disconnecting fluid coupling, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 ZACHARY T DRAGICEVICH whose telephone number is (571)270-0505. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 - 4:30 EST.
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 D. 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.
/ZACHARY T DRAGICEVICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3679 06/17/2026
Prosecution Insights