DETAILED ACTION
The present application has been made of the record and currently claims 1-20 are pending.
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 abstract of the disclosure is objected to because:
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph preferably within the range of 50 to 150 words in length (ex., 41 words are shown).
Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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, 5-7, 11 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Washkewicz et al. (U.S. Patent No. 3,966,238).
Claim 1, Washkewicz discloses:
A fitting (see annotated fig. 2 below hereinafter) comprising:
a head portion (see annotated fig. 2); and
a barbed portion (see annotated fig. 2) extending axially from the head portion,
wherein the barbed portion includes:
at least one distal barb (42, annotated fig. 2) having a curved edge (44, annotated fig. 2), and
at least one proximal barb (45, 46, annotated fig. 2) having a sharp edge (47, 48, annotated fig. 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
443
970
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 5, Washkewicz discloses:
The fitting of claim 1, wherein the barbed portion has a smaller outer diameter compared to the head portion (see annotated fig. 2 above hereinafter).
Claim 6, Washkewicz discloses:
The fitting of claim 1, wherein an outer diameter of the at least one distal barb is substantially equal to a respective outer diameter of the at least one proximal barb (4:37-38, where all barbs are the same outer diameter).
Claim 7, Washkewicz discloses:
The fitting of claim 1, wherein the at least one proximal barb comprises:
a first proximal barb (45); and
a second proximal barb (46),
wherein the first proximal barb is axially interposed between the at least one distal barb and the second proximal barb (see annotated fig. 2).
Claim 11, Washkewicz discloses:
An assembly (see annotated fig. 2 above hereinafter) comprising:
a refrigerant hose (10) comprising:
an elastomeric inner tube (11;2:46-47, where the inner tube is made of rubber),
a barrier layer (13; 2:44, where braided yarn is used) surrounding the elastomeric inner tube, and
an outer cover layer (15) surrounding the elastomeric inner tube and the barrier layer; and
a fitting (40) comprising:
a head portion (see annotated fig. 2) interfacing with an end of the refrigerant hose, and
a barbed portion (entirety of 41, 42, 44, 45, 47, 46, 48) extending axially from the head portion and inserted into the elastomeric inner tube of the refrigerant hose,
wherein the barbed portion includes: (i) at least one distal barb (42) having a curved edge (44) to facilitate insertion of the barbed portion into the elastomeric inner tube, and (ii) at least one proximal barb (45, 46; 4:35-37) having a sharp edge (47, 48; 4:35-37) to enhance grip between the fitting and the elastomeric inner tube,
wherein the fitting expands the elastomeric inner tube and the barrier layer, thereby compressing the barrier layer and forming a sealed connection (see annotated fig. 2).
Claim 16, Washkewicz discloses:
The assembly of claim 11, wherein the barbed portion has a smaller outer diameter compared to the head portion (see annotated fig. 2).
Claim 17, Washkewicz discloses:
The assembly of claim 11, wherein an outer diameter of the at least one distal barb is substantially equal to a respective outer diameter of the at least one proximal barb (4:37-38).
Claim 18, Washkewicz discloses:
The assembly of claim 11, wherein the at least one proximal barb comprises:
a first proximal barb (45); and
a second proximal barb (46),
wherein the first proximal barb is axially interposed between the at least one distal barb and the second proximal barb (see annotated fig. 2).
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) 2, 3, 8, 9, 13, 14, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Washkewicz as applied to claims 1, 11, and 18 above and in view of Cline et al. (U.S. Patent No. 2,805,088).
In regards to claims 2 and 13, Washkewicz discloses:
The fitting of claim 1 and the assembly of claim 11, wherein the barbed portion further comprises:
a distal straight portion (see annotated fig. 2) followed by a first ramp (see annotated fig. 2) that leads to the at least one distal barb;
a proximal straight portion (see annotated fig. 2) that is interposed between the at least one proximal barb and the head portion,
a second ramp (see annotated fig. 2) that leads to the at least one proximal barb,
but does not disclose:
an intermediate straight portion that is interposed between the at least one distal barb and the second ramp that leads to the at least one proximal barb.
In regards to the straight portions, Cline discloses that providing a cylindrical straight portion between two barbs provides the benefit of allowing a hose to contract itself into the space (3:30-34), and
that the cylindrical straight portion should not be less than approximately 10% of the internal diameter of the bore of the hose to provide clearance for the minimum amount of contraction for the hose (3:53-60), and
that providing a cylindrical surface portion between two barbs aids in the ability of the nipple to hold the hose from being pulled off by an external axially applied force such that the axial distance between barbs should be increased to the greatest length possible (3:53-60).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to modify axial spacing between each barb of Washkewicz such that a cylindrical straight portion is directly in-between each barb to provide the benefits of allowing the hose to contract into the space to prevent the hose from being pulled off the nipple, as taught by Cline (3:50-68; see also 3:68-72, where the axial distance of the proximate straight portion should be greater than the axial distance between each barb).
In regards to claims 3 and 14, Washkewicz in view of Cline discloses:
The fitting of claim 2 and the assembly of claim 13,
but does not disclose:
wherein the sharp edge has a sharp corner formed at a transition from the at least one proximal barb to the proximal straight portion.
In regards to the sharp edge having a sharp corner, Cline discloses that providing cylindrical portions (ex., a straight edge similar to the sharp edge of the present invention) to barbs provides the benefit of protecting the edges against damage prior to assembly (4:24-28).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to modify the proximate barbs of Washkewicz in view of Cline with the provision of a cylindrical outer surface portion directly in-between the sharp edges and ramp surfaces of the proximate barbs of Washkewicz in view of Cline such that the proximal barbs have a sharp edge (ex., cylindrical surface of Cline which depicts a straight edge based on the present invention) which has a sharp corner (ex., 47, 48 of Washkewicz) to provide the benefit of protecting the edges against damage prior to assembly, as taught by Cline (4:24-28).
In regards to claims 8 and 19, Washkewicz in view of Cline discloses:
The fitting of claim 7 and the assembly of claim 18, wherein the barbed portion further comprises:
a distal straight portion followed by a first ramp (see annotated fig. 2) that leads to the at least one distal barb;
a proximal straight portion (see annotated fig. 2) that is interposed between the second proximal barb and the head portion.
a second ramp (see annotated fig. 2) that leads to the first proximal barb,
a third ramp (see annotated fig. 2) that leads to the second proximal barb,
but does not disclose:
a first intermediate straight portion that is interposed between the at least one distal barb and the second ramp that leads to the first proximal barb;
a second intermediate straight portion that is interposed between the first proximal barb and the third ramp that leads to the second proximal barb.
In regards to the straight portions, Cline discloses that providing a cylindrical straight portion between two barbs provides the benefit of allowing a hose to contract itself into the space (3:30-34), and
that the cylindrical straight portion should not be less than approximately 10% of the internal diameter of the bore of the hose to provide clearance for the minimum amount of contraction for the hose (3:53-60), and
that providing a cylindrical surface portion between two barbs aids in the ability of the nipple to hold the hose from being pulled off by an external axially applied force such that the axial distance between barbs should be increased to the greatest length possible (3:53-60).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to modify axial spacing between each barb of Washkewicz such that a cylindrical straight portion is directly in-between each barb to provide the benefits of allowing the hose to contract into the space to prevent the hose from being pulled off the nipple, as taught by Cline (3:50-68; see also 3:68-72, where the axial distance of the proximate straight portion should be greater than the axial distance between each barb).
In regards to claim 9, Washkewicz in view of Cline discloses:
The fitting of claim 8,
but does not disclose:
wherein the first proximal barb has a sharp corner formed at a transition from the first proximal barb to the second intermediate straight portion, and
wherein the second proximal barb has a respective sharp corner formed at a respective transition from the second proximal barb to the proximal straight portion.
In regards to the sharp edge and sharp corner, Cline discloses that providing cylindrical portions (ex., a straight edge similar to the sharp edge as discussed in 0033 of the present invention) to barbs provides the benefit of protecting the edges against damage prior to assembly (4:24-28).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to modify the proximate barbs of Washkewicz in view of Cline with the provision of a cylindrical outer surface portion directly in-between the sharp edges and ramp surfaces of the proximate barbs of Washkewicz in view of Cline such that the proximal barbs have a sharp edge (ex., cylindrical surface of Cline which depicts a straight edge based on the present invention) which has a sharp corner (ex., 47, 48 of Washkewicz) to provide the benefit of protecting the edges against damage prior to assembly, as taught by Cline (4:24-28).
Claim(s) 4, 10, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Washkewicz in view of Cline as applied to claims 3, 9, 14, and 19 above and in further view of Lowles et al. (U.S. Patent No. 3,210,100).
In regards to claims 4 and 15, Washkewicz in view of Cline discloses:
The fitting of claim 3 and assembly of claim 14, wherein the sharp corner and the curved edge has a radius (it is inherent that both the corner and edge comprise a radius as Washkewicz discloses a two proximate sharp barbs and one curved distal barb),
but does not disclose:
wherein the sharp corner has a radius that is an order of magnitude smaller than a respective radius of the curved edge of the at least one distal barb.
In regards to the dimensions of the corners, while Washkewicz in view of Cline does not expressly disclose “the sharp corner has a radius that is an order of magnitude smaller than a respective radius of the curved edge”, the “radius” of the edge and corner 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 because Lowles explicitly discloses that the radiuses of curved and sharp barbs are known design parameters such that the curved edge comprising a radius of 0.030 inches (2:34-36) and sharp edge comprising a radius of 0.003 inches or less (2:47-50).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the radiuses of Washkewicz in view of Cline such that “the sharp corner has a radius that is an order of magnitude smaller than a respective radius of the curved edge”, as the “radius” 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 because Lowles explicitly discloses that it is known to modify the parameters of the edges such that the sharp corner has a radius that is an order of magnitude smaller than a respective radius of the curved edge (2:34-36, curved edge; 2:47-50, sharp edge). See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
In regards to claim 10, Washkewicz in view of Cline discloses:
The fitting of claim 9, wherein the sharp corner has a first radius and the respective sharp corner has a second radius,
but does not disclose:
wherein the first radius and the second radius are an order of magnitude smaller than a respective radius of the curved edge of the at least one distal barb.
In regards to the dimensions of the corners, while Washkewicz in view of Cline does not expressly disclose “the sharp corner has a radius that is an order of magnitude smaller than a respective radius of the curved edge”, the “radius” of the edge and corner 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 because Lowles explicitly discloses that the radiuses of curved and sharp barbs are known design parameters such that the curved edge comprising a radius of 0.030 inches (2:34-36) and sharp edge comprising a radius of 0.003 inches or less (2:47-50).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the radiuses of Washkewicz in view of Cline such that “the sharp corner has a radius that is an order of magnitude smaller than a respective radius of the curved edge”, as the “radius” 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 because Lowles explicitly discloses that it is known to modify the parameters of the edges such that the sharp corner has a radius that is an order of magnitude smaller than a respective radius of the curved edge (2:34-36, curved edge; 2:47-50, sharp edge). See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
In regards to 20, Washkewicz in view of Cline discloses:
The assembly of claim 19,
but does not disclose:
wherein the first proximal barb has a sharp corner formed at a transition from the first proximal barb to the second intermediate straight portion, and
wherein the second proximal barb has a respective sharp corner formed at a respective transition from the second proximal barb to the proximal straight portion,
wherein the sharp corner has a first radius and the respective sharp corner has a second radius, and
wherein the first radius and the second radius are an order of magnitude smaller than a respective radius of the curved edge of the at least one distal barb.
In regards to the sharp edge and sharp corner, Cline discloses that providing cylindrical portions (ex., a straight edge similar to the sharp edge as discussed in 0033 of the present invention) to barbs provides the benefit of protecting the edges against damage prior to assembly (4:24-28).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to modify the proximate barbs of Washkewicz in view of Cline with the provision of a cylindrical outer surface portion directly in-between the sharp edges and ramp surfaces of the proximate barbs of Washkewicz in view of Cline such that the proximal barbs have a sharp edge (ex., cylindrical surface of Cline which depicts a straight edge based on the present invention) which has a sharp corner (ex., 47, 48 of Washkewicz) to provide the benefit of protecting the edges against damage prior to assembly, as taught by Cline (4:24-28).
In regards to the dimensions of the corners, while Washkewicz in view of Cline does not expressly disclose “the sharp corner has a radius that is an order of magnitude smaller than a respective radius of the curved edge”, the “radius” of the edge and corner 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 because Lowles explicitly discloses that the radiuses of curved and sharp barbs are known design parameters such that the curved edge comprising a radius of 0.030 inches (2:34-36) and sharp edge comprising a radius of 0.003 inches or less (2:47-50).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the radiuses of Washkewicz in view of Cline such that “the sharp corner has a radius that is an order of magnitude smaller than a respective radius of the curved edge”, as the “radius” 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 because Lowles explicitly discloses that it is known to modify the parameters of the edges such that the sharp corner has a radius that is an order of magnitude smaller than a respective radius of the curved edge (2:34-36, curved edge; 2:47-50, sharp edge). See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Claim(s) 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Washkewicz as applied to claim 11 above and in view of Halimi (U.S. PGPub No. 2009/0032164).
In regards to claim 12, Washkewicz discloses:
The assembly of claim 11, wherein hoses are known to comprise a core tube and cover made of rubber material with a braided material therebetween (2:2-5),
wherein either the core tube and/or cover can be comprised of PVC (2:15-29),
but does not disclose:
wherein the refrigerant hose further comprises:
an elastomeric layer surrounding the barrier layer; and
a braided layer surrounding the elastomeric layer,
wherein the outer cover layer surrounds the braided layer.
In regards to the material of the hose, Halimi discloses a similar device comprising:
a first hose embodiment (see fig. 3; see 0019 which discloses all materials) comprising a rubber inner tube (210), barrier layer (220), elastomeric layer (230), a braided layer (240), and a rubber cover (250), and
a second hose embodiment (see 0019) comprising the inner and outer layers 210, 250 as well as any number of braided middle layers 220, 240 (ex., does not comprise the middle elastomeric layer similar to Washkewicz).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to simply substitute the hose of Washkewicz with the hose of Halimi such that the hose comprises an rubber inner tube, a barrier layer, a middle rubber layer, a braided layer, and a rubber outer cover to meet the limitations of claim 12 because Washkewicz discloses a device which differs from the claimed device by a simple substitution of the hose of Halimi, Halimi discloses a similar device comprising the hose which can either comprise five layers (see fig. 3) or an inner and outer rubber layers surrounding a braided layer (0019; ex., similar to Washkewicz), Washkewicz explicitly discloses that hoses with an outer and inner rubber layer surrounding a braided layer is known (2:2-5), and one of ordinary skill could have substituted the one known hose for another known hose because simply substituting one known hose comprising an outer layer, braided layer, and inner layer for another similar hose comprising an outer layer, braided layer, middle layer, braided layer, and inner layer would have not produced any new or unexpected results.
In addition, Halimi discloses that there are a finite number of identified and predictable solutions of hose configurations such that the house can either comprise a middle layer between two braided layers surrounded by an inner and outer rubber layer or an inner and outer rubber layer surrounding a braided layer. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill could have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success because using one known hose comprising an outer layer, braided layer, and inner layer for another similar hose comprising an outer rubber layer, braided layer, middle rubber layer, braided layer, and inner rubber layer is within their technical grasp and would produce no new results.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ettlinger (U.S. Patent No. 4,431,031) discloses a similar device comprising a five-layered tube (see fig. 1) and a similar fitting comprising landing (L) to positively engage the tube (3:45-48);
Betzler (U.S. Patent No. 3,711,130) discloses that providing cylindrical landings (20, 21, 22) allow the tube to go to its original size to eliminate the needs of ferrules (2:33-41);
Filipczak (U.S. PGPub No. 2015/0130184) discloses a similar device (see fig. 4) comprising a first barb comprising a rounded edge (44) and a second barb comprising a sharp edge and sharp corner (see 68).
Barbier (FR-2817607) discloses a similarly structured device of the present invention.
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