ETAILED ACTION
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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
References to the claims are to be removed. See paragraph [0014], for example.
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 1-12 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 1 recites the broad recitation “the angle...is larger than 45.5°”, and the claim also recites “preferably larger than 46°”, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 2 recites the broad recitation “the angle...is smaller than 60°”, the claim also recites “preferably smaller than 55°”, and still further recites “more preferred smaller than 50° “, and even still further recites “even more preferred smaller than 47° “, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 7, the use of three “and/or” clauses renders the claim unclear.
Claim 10, it is unclear as to what constitutes a standard male fluid connector. Although the specification expounds on the term “standard male fluid connector”, there is no defined standard to which one can refer to ascertain exactly what constitutes a
Claim 12, the use of two “and/or” clauses renders the claim unclear.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-12 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-11 of copending Application No. 19/077,358.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the subject matter of the ‘358 claims substantially encompasses the recitations of claims 1-12 of the instant application. Those recitations not explicitly encompassed by, or recited in, the ‘358 claims are considered either inherent or obvious. The claims of the instant application, if allowed, would improperly extend the "right to exclude" if the ‘358 application issues to patent.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-9 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pastore et al (US 2022/0290787).
As to claim 1, Pastore et al discloses a female fluid connector (100) for a quick connecting and disconnecting fluid coupling, the female fluid connector comprising: a housing (102) with an axially arranged inner recess (108) for receiving a corresponding male connector of the quick connecting and disconnecting fluid coupling; a latching pin (134) for reversible fixation of the male fluid connector inside the female fluid connector of the quick connecting and disconnecting fluid coupling in a latching position; and a guiding slot (160) 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 (α160) with respect to the axial direction, wherein the angle that is enclosed by the direction of the guiding slot and the axial direction is 45.5° larger than preferably larger than 46° (refer to paragraph [0129]).
As to claim 2, Pastore et al discloses the female fluid connector according to claim 1, wherein the angle that is enclosed by the direction of the guiding slot and the axial direction is smaller than 60°, preferably smaller than 55°, more preferred smaller than 50°, even more preferred smaller than 47° (refer to paragraph [0129]).
As to claim 3, Pastore et al discloses the female fluid connector according to claim 1, wherein the latching pin is mechanically biased (via spring 158) in a direction toward a latching position.
As to claim 4, Pastore et al discloses the female fluid connector according to claim 1, wherein the female fluid connector is designed and arranged to couple to a standard male fluid connector with a contact pressure surface for the latching pin that is arranged at a 45° angle (β).
As to claim 5, Pastore et al discloses the female fluid connector according to claim 1, wherein the female fluid connector is designed and arranged to couple to a male fluid connector comprising a contact pressure surface for the latching pin, where the angle (α) of the guiding slot and the angle (β) of the contact pressure surface differ by at least 1 and/or by not more than 10°.
As to claim 6, Pastore et al discloses the female fluid connector according to claim 1, wherein it comprises a fluid shut-off system (valves 50, 170).
As to claim 7, Pastore et al discloses the female fluid connector according to claim 1, wherein at least two latching pins (134) and/or guiding slots (160) and/or by symmetrically arranged latching pins (134) and/or guiding slots (160).
As to claim 8, Pastore et al discloses the female fluid connector according to claim 1, wherein at least one cover member (154), covering at least the area comprising the guiding slots and/or the latching pins.
As to claim 9, Pastore et al discloses a quick connecting and disconnecting fluid coupling, comprising a female fluid connector (100) and a male fluid connector (10), wherein the female fluid connector is designed and arranged as a female fluid connector according to claim 1.
As to claim 12, Pastore et al discloses the quick connecting and disconnecting fluid coupling according to claim 9, wherein the male fluid connector and/or the female fluid connector and/or the quick connecting and disconnecting fluid coupling is designed and arranged as a fluid shut-off device (valves 50, 170).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 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.
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pastore et al in view of Highlen et al (US 5,570,910).
As to claim 10, Pastore et al discloses the quick connecting and disconnecting fluid coupling according to claim 9, except that the male connector is a standard male fluid connector (see foregoing 112 rejection) with a contact pressure surface for the latching pin that is arranged at a 45° angle (β).
However, Highlen et al teaches a similar quick connecting and disconnecting fluid coupling comprising a male connector (20) with a contact pressure surface (32) for a latching pin (60) that is arranged at a 45° angle (β). See col. 2, lines 61-63.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Pastore et al such that the male connector is a standard male fluid connector (see foregoing 112 rejection) with a contact pressure surface for the latching pin that is arranged at a 45° angle (β), as taught by Highlen et al, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to effectively accommodate a ribbed male connector for making a barbed connection to another fluid component.
As to claim 11, Pastore et al discloses the quick connecting and disconnecting fluid coupling according to claim 9, except that the angle (a) of the guiding slot of the female connector and the angle (β) of the contact pressure surface of the male connector differ by at least 1° and/or by not more than 10°.
However, Highlen et al teaches a similar quick connecting and disconnecting fluid coupling comprising a male connector (20) with a contact pressure surface (32) for a latching pin (60) that is arranged at a 45° angle (β). See col. 2, lines 61-63.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Pastore et al such that the male connector is a standard male fluid connector (see foregoing 112 rejection) with a contact pressure surface for the latching pin that is arranged at a 45° angle (β), as taught by Highlen et al, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to effectively accommodate a ribbed male connector for making a barbed connection to another fluid component.
Modifying Pastore et al by Highlen et al results in a difference in the angle of the slot of the female connector and the angle of the contact pressure surface of the male connector to be between 1 and 10 degrees, since Pastore et al’s slot angle can be between 40 and 50 degrees, and Highlen et al’s contact pressure surface angle can be between 35 and 55 degrees.
Refer to [0129] in Pastore et al and col. 2 ll. 61-63 in Highlen et al.
Examiner’s Note:
The italicized portions in the foregoing claims are functional recitations. These clauses, as well as other statements of intended use do not serve to patently distinguish the claimed structure over that of the reference(s), as long as the structure of the cited reference(s) is capable of performing the intended use. See MPEP 2111-2115.
See also MPEP 2114, which states:
A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ 2d 1647;
Claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531; and
[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525,1528.
Any one of the systems in the cited reference(s) is capable of being used in the same manner and for the intended or desired use as the claimed invention. Note that it is sufficient to show that said capability exists, which is the case for the cited reference(s).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hansen discloses a hose coupling having a pin and slot coupling arrangement.
CN ‘330 discloses a hose coupling having a pin and slot coupling arrangement, wherein the slot is arranged at 45°.
DE ‘233 discloses a hose coupling having a clip and slot coupling arrangement.
Karl discloses male connector having a rib with a back end having a range of acceptable angles to cooperate with a pin and slot pipe coupling arrangement.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James M Hewitt II whose telephone number is (571)272-7084. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-930pm, mid-day flex 2-4pm.
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 M. Hewitt II
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3679
/JAMES M HEWITT II/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3679