Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 19/096,864

RADIO-FREQUENCY IDENTIFICATION FLUID CONNECTION

Non-Final OA §101§102§DP
Filed
Apr 01, 2025
Examiner
DUNWOODY, AARON M
Art Unit
3679
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Oetiker Ny Inc.
OA Round
2 (Non-Final)
75%
Grant Probability
Favorable
2-3
OA Rounds
2y 10m
To Grant
87%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 75% — above average
75%
Career Allow Rate
1201 granted / 1605 resolved
+22.8% vs TC avg
Moderate +12% lift
Without
With
+11.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 10m
Avg Prosecution
46 currently pending
Career history
1651
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
13.7%
-26.3% vs TC avg
§102
50.5%
+10.5% vs TC avg
§112
31.1%
-8.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1605 resolved cases

Office Action

§101 §102 §DP
DETAILED 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 . Double Patenting A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957). A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101. Claims 1-6 and 8-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 1-15 of prior U.S. Patent No. 12292140. This is a statutory double patenting rejection. Claims 1-6 and 8-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 1-18 of prior U.S. Patent No. 11933433. This is a statutory double patenting rejection. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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) 1-6 and 9-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20050063125, Kato. In regards to claim 1, in Figures 10 and 12D along with paragraphs detailing said figures, Kato discloses a radio-frequency identification (RFID) fluid connection, comprising: a tube (310), including a radially outward facing surface; and a RFID assembly (see [0018]-[0019] and [0036]-[0038]) connected to the radially outward facing surface, including: a RFID tag (100) including an antenna (implied); and at least one contact (124, 125) electrically connected to the RFID tag. In regards to claim 2, in Figures 10 and 12D along with paragraphs detailing said figures, Kato discloses the tube further comprises a shoulder (320) connected to the radially outward facing surface; and the RFID assembly is arranged proximate the shoulder. In regards to claim 3, in Figures 10 and 12D along with paragraphs detailing said figures, Kato discloses the RFID assembly is arranged on a first layer (110) and the first layer is connected to the radially outward facing surface. In regards to claim 4, in Figures 10 and 12D along with paragraphs detailing said figures, Kato discloses the at least one contact comprises: a first contact electrically connected to the RFID tag; and a second contact electrically connected to the RFID tag, the second contact being separated from the first contact to form an open state of the RFID assembly. In regards to claim 5, in Figures 10 and 12D along with paragraphs detailing said figures, Kato discloses in a closed state, the first contact is electrically connected to the second contact. In regards to claim 6, in Figures 10 and 12D along with paragraphs detailing said figures, Kato discloses the first contact is operatively arranged to be electrically connected to the second contact via a retaining ring (360) when the tube is connected to a fluid connector. In regards to claim 9, in Figures 10 and 12D along with paragraphs detailing said figures, Kato discloses a radio-frequency identification (RFID) fluid connection, comprising: a tube, including a radially outward facing surface; and a RFID assembly connected to the radially outward facing surface, including: a RFID tag; and at least one contact electrically connected to the RFID tag. In regards to claim 10, in Figures 10 and 12D along with paragraphs detailing said figures, Kato discloses the tube further comprises a shoulder connected to the radially outward facing surface; and the RFID assembly is arranged proximate the shoulder. In regards to claim 11, in Figures 10 and 12D along with paragraphs detailing said figures, Kato discloses the RFID assembly is arranged on a first layer and the first layer is connected to the radially outward facing surface. In regards to claim 12, in Figures 10 and 12D along with paragraphs detailing said figures, Kato discloses the at least one contact comprises: a first contact electrically connected to the RFID tag; and a second contact electrically connected to the RFID tag, the second contact being separated from the first contact to form an open state of the RFID assembly. In regards to claim 13, in Figures 10 and 12D along with paragraphs detailing said figures, Kato discloses in a closed state, the first contact is electrically connected to the second contact. In regards to claim 14, in Figures 10 and 12D along with paragraphs detailing said figures, Kato discloses the first contact is operatively arranged to be electrically connected to the second contact via a retaining ring when the tube is connected to a fluid connector. In regards to claim 15, in Figures 10 and 12D along with paragraphs detailing said figures, Kato discloses the at least one contact comprises a pressure sensitive contact electrically connected to the RFID tag via a first conductor and a second conductor. Claim(s) 17-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20190236425, Fonk. In regards to claim 17, in Figures 2-5B and paragraphs detailing said figures, Fonk discloses a radio-frequency identification (RFID) assembly for a connection assembly, comprising: an integrated circuit ([0017]); an antenna (91) connected to the integrated circuit; and at least one contact ([0022]) connected to the integrated circuit; wherein: when the integrated circuit is open, the RFID assembly indicates a first state of the connection assembly (79, 81, 92, 94); and when the integrated circuit is closed, the RFID assembly indicates a second state of the connection assembly, different from the first state. In regards to claim 18, in Figures 2-5B and paragraphs detailing said figures, Fonk discloses the at least one contact comprises a first contact and a second contact. In regards to claim 19, in Figures 2-5B and paragraphs detailing said figures, Fonk discloses when the second contact is not electrically connected to the first contact, the RFID assembly indicates the first state; and when the second contact is electrically connected to the first contact, the RFID assembly indicates the second state. In regards to claim 20, in Figures 2-5B and paragraphs detailing said figures, Fonk discloses the integrated circuit, the antenna, and the at least one contact are arranged on an adhesive layer ([0015]). In regards to claim 21, in Figures 2-5B and paragraphs detailing said figures, Fonk discloses the RFID tag is programmable with a unique identification number. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 1/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Kato does not disclose a RFID tag. The Examiner disagrees. Kato recites: [0140] The data processor 156 compares the thus-transmitted echo waves B with the receiving level at a specified frequency stored in the data storage means 157. In the case where the receiving level is drastically higher, the circuit of the LC resonance tag 100 is confirmed to be closed and functioning as a resonance circuit. When the circuit of the LC resonance tag 100 is thus confirmed to be functioning as a resonance circuit, the alert display apparatus 158 displays a message to this effect or issues a notice to this effect. Therefore, an operator can be informed instantaneously of whether or not fastening of a fastener or connection of a connecting tool on which the LC resonance tag 100 is attached has been completed. [0148] The detection apparatus 150 is provided with an induction magnetic field generator. An induction magnetic field is transmitted from the detection apparatus 150 to the IC resonance tag which has been closed upon completion of fastening or connecting operation and acts as a resonance circuit, thereby controlling the control circuit. As a result, exchange of data between the detection apparatus 150 and the control circuit and computation of the data are enabled, and storage of data in both a connection section or a fastening section and the detection apparatus 150 is enabled as well. The Kato invention is a RFID tag in general which meets the claim limitation. Further, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., programmed data and transmitted data) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Applicant argues that Kato does not disclose an antenna. The Examiner disagrees. Kato recites: [0138] When transmission radio waves A having approximately the same frequency as the resonance frequency of the LC resonance tag 100 are transmitted from the transmitting antenna 153 by way of the transmitting controller 151 and the transmitting amplifier 152, the LC resonance tag 100 resonates and generates echo waves B. The echo waves B are received by the receiving antenna 154, and are transmitted to the data processor 156 via the receiving amplifier 155. The prior art meets the claim limitation. Further, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., antenna on a radially outward surface of the tube) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Furthermore, Wikipedia is not a credible source as anyone on the planet change it at any time. Applicant argues that Fonk does not disclose a radio-frequency identification (RFID) assembly for a connection assembly. The Examiner disagrees. Fonk clearly illustrates a radio-frequency identification (RFID) assembly for a temperature connection assembly, which meets the claim limitation. Applicant argues that Fonk does not disclose an integrated circuit. The Examiner disagrees. Fonk clearly discloses a RFID integrated circuit 86 as claimed. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AARON M DUNWOODY whose telephone number is (571)272-7080. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 6:00 pm. 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. /AARON M DUNWOODY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3679
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 01, 2025
Application Filed
Dec 12, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §101, §102, §DP
Jan 21, 2026
Response Filed
Mar 23, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §101, §102, §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601441
METHOD, DEVICE AND SYSTEM OF A HOSE RESTRAINT DEVICE INSTALLABLE ON A HOSE CARRYING A PRESSURIZED FLUID AND A FITTING THEREOF DURING OPERATION OF THE HOSE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12601368
Split Coupler For Pipes
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12601434
FLUID CONNECTION ASSEMBLY
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12584575
QUICK CONNECT RELEASE SYSTEM FOR A FLUID COUPLING
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12584572
V-CLAMP WITH BAND LOCK
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

2-3
Expected OA Rounds
75%
Grant Probability
87%
With Interview (+11.9%)
2y 10m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 1605 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month