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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/25/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues:
“The outstanding office action acknowledges that Perez Salas et al. fail to teach or suggest all of the limitations of claim 1. For example, Perez Salas et al. fail to teach or suggest "the opening in the cap has at least one recess to allow insertion, in use, of a release tool in a distal direction between the tube and cap to deflect the collet legs away from the tube," as required in claim 1. Dudley fails to remedy the shortcomings of Perez Salas et al.
According to Perez Salas et al., an anti-rotation feature is provided between a collet and a body. This anti-rotation configuration is specifically required in a connector having a screw threaded cap, as it prevents rotation of the collet relative to the body, which might otherwise cause unintended loosening of the cap and release the connection.
Perez Salas et al. further disclose that the connection is both made and released using a screw-threaded lock nut or cap 2 as described in paragraphs [0019] and [0020]. The screw- threaded lock nut or cap 2 is therefore not merely an auxiliary feature, but an essential component that performs the release function of the connector. In view of this, Perez Salas et al. rely on a threaded release mechanism and do not contemplate, suggest, or require the use of a separate release tool. This reliance on a threaded release mechanism weighs against and thus teaches away from incorporating an additional tool-based release arrangement.
For an obviousness rejection to be proper, the Examiner bears the burden of establishing that the prior art relied upon provides some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to modify or combine references. In re Fine, 5 U.S.P.Q.2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Moreover, "[a] patent composed of several elements is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently, known in the prior art." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1741 (2007). Rather, the Examiner must "identify a reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the art in the relevant field to combine the elements in the way the claimed new invention does." Id.
The office action asserts that it would have been obvious to modify Perez Salas et al. in view of Dudley to include an opening in the cap having at least one recess to allow insertion, in use, of a release tool in a distal direction between the tube and cap to deflect the collet legs away from the tube and thereby release the tube from the connector. See page 4 of the Office Action. Applicant respectfully submits that such a modification is unsupported and improper.
First, the proposed modification is unnecessary in view of Perez Salas et al., which already disclose a complete release mechanism using the screw-threaded lock nut or cap 2. More importantly, the proposed modification would render Perez Salas et al. unsatisfactory for their intended purpose.
As shown in Fig. 2 of Perez Salas et al. (see annotated version below), the screw- threaded cap 2 includes a conical portion (cone-portion 2.1 in red below) that applies a force to the collet legs, thereby gripping the tube. This conical surface provides continuous circumferential engagement with the collet legs to ensure reliable retention.
Applicant submits that incorporating recesses in the cap, as proposed based on Dudley, would require removal of portions of this conical surface. In order to permit insertion of a release tool between the collet legs and the body, the recess would need to extend through the full depth of the region corresponding to the conical portion (as illustrated in green in the annotated figure above). This would effectively remove the cap angle over those areas. As a result, portions of the collet legs would no longer be engaged by the conical surface. To illustrate this, reference is made below to Fig. 1 of Perez Salas et al. (left) showing the collet legs facing the open end and Fig. 5 of Dudley (right) showing the openings in the release tool.
For example, if four openings similar to those shown in Dudley were implemented, approximately half of the eight collet legs of Perez Salas et al. would align with the gaps and would not be subjected to the required compressive force. Alternatively, all of the collet legs would experience reduced or uneven engagement. In either case, the gripping performance of the connector would be severely compromised. Accordingly, the proposed modification would degrade the core functionality of Perez Salas et al. and render the device unsatisfactory for its intended purpose of securely gripping a tube. A person of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to implement a modification that undermines the primary function of the device.
Furthermore, Dudley does not remedy these deficiencies and, in fact, teaches a structurally distinct system. Dudley employs a split ring 8 that presents a substantially continuous ring body facing the end cap, rather than a collet having a plurality of discrete, proximally extending legs. The release tool of Dudley is specifically designed to cooperate with this split ring configuration, and openings in Dudley's cap function in conjunction with that structure. Thus, the recessed cap and release tool of Dudley are inextricably linked to the split ring design. Modifying Perez Salas et al. to include only the recessed openings and release tool, while omitting the split ring and retaining a fundamentally different collet structure, would require impermissible hindsight reconstruction. Any such selective combination lacks proper evidentiary support.
For at least these reasons, Perez Salas et al. and Dudley would not have led a person of ordinary skill in the art to the claimed invention. There is no articulated motivation to combine the references, and the proposed modification would render Perez Salas et al. inoperable or unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. Accordingly, reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejection of claim 1, as well as claims depending therefrom, are therefore requested. Applicant does not concede the correctness of the rejection and reserves the right to present additional arguments as necessary.”
In response, on page one, first and second paragraphs, Dudley (WO 97/03314) explains that unscrewing an end cap from a tube coupling has disadvantages, namely cross-threading or thread seizing, and potential damage to the grip ring and seal. Another issue with grip rings which have teeth, is that depending on the material of the pipe being joined, for instance, if elastomeric, the teeth may not disengage from the pipe after the unscrewing operation. These issues pose serious shortcomings and impediments. Dudley offers using a release tool to solve these issues and other issues of the prior art. Perez-Salas et al (EP 3064821) discloses a tube coupling device having a threaded end cap or lock nut (2) that can be subject to cross-threading or seizing with the tube connector (1), and a locking piece (4) having teeth, which may not disengage from an elastomeric pipe or other pipe after unscrewing. This poses serious issues, as described in Dudley. Dudley looks to solve such an issue, teaching a tube coupling very similar to Perez-Salas et al, one that includes a locking piece having teeth and an O-ring seal disposed in a cavity. The locking piece is also fixed against axial movement (see page 6, lines 5+); in Perez-Salas, the locking piece (4) is fixed against movement by a lug (4.3). Dudley uses an end cap (6) that includes apertures for a release tool (21, Fig. 6). Notably, Dudley states on page 5, lines 11-12, “The release tool may be provided as an item which can be used as desired with any coupling.”
Applicant’s assertion that the combination of Perez-Salas et al and Dudley is not feasible or is impossible to make without destroying Perez-Salas et al, is unreasonable. The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). "A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). "[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle." Id. at 420, 82 USPQ2d 1397. Office personnel may also take into account "the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ." Id. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. It wouldn’t involve rocket science to incorporate a release tool in Perez-Salas et al.
Accordingly, the skilled artisan could certainly modify Perez-Salas et al to include a release tool, as taught by Dudley, in order to solve the problems posited by Dudley, namely, cross-threading or thread seizing between the end cap and connector body, and potential damage to the grip ring and seal, and additionally the potential for the gripping teeth to remain engaged with the pipe after unscrewing of the end cap.
For the foregoing reasons, the 103 rejections of Perez-Salas et al in view of Dudley have been maintained.
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.
Claim(s) 1-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perez Salas et al (EP 3064821 A1) in view of Dudley (WO 97/03314).
As to claim 1 and with reference to the following annotated figure, Perez Salas et al discloses a tube connector to receive and secure a tube, the connector comprising: a body with a throughway with an open proximal end to receive a tube; an O-ring within the throughway to seal on the wall of the tube; a collet comprising a collet ring at a distal end of the collet and a plurality of resilient collet legs extending proximally from the ring, the legs having teeth to grip, in use, a tube in the connector; and a cap fitted to the body to retain the collet, the cap having an opening at the open end to allow entry of the tube and having a cap angle configured to cooperate with the collet legs to push the teeth into engagement with the tube, in use, when the tube is moved proximally.
Perez Salas et al fails to teach that the opening in the cap has at least one recess to allow insertion, in use, of a release tool in a distal direction between the tube and cap to deflect the collet legs away from the tube.
However, Dudley teaches a similar tube connector having a collet with teeth to secure a tube. The connector also includes a cap (6) used to retain the collet, the cap having an angled end adjacent the collet and an opposing end at the opening of the connector which includes recesses to allowance insertion of a release tool (21, Fig. 6) between the tube and cap to deflect the collet legs away from the tube, thereby releasing the tube. Dudley (WO 97/03314) explains that unscrewing the end cap from a tube coupling has disadvantages, namely cross-threading or thread seizing, and potential damage to the grip ring and seal. Another issue with grip rings, which have teeth, is that depending on the material of the pipe being joined, for instance, if elastomeric, the teeth may not disengage from the pipe after the unscrewing operation. These issues pose serious shortcomings and impediments. Dudley offers using a release tool to solve these issues and other issues of the prior art. Perez-Salas et al (EP 3064821) discloses a tube coupling device having a threaded end cap or lock nut (2) that can be subject to cross-threading or seizing with the tube connector (1), and a locking piece (4) having teeth, which may not disengage from an elastomeric pipe or other pipe after unscrewing. This poses serious issues, as described in Dudley. Dudley teaches a tube coupling very similar to Perez-Salas et al, one that includes a locking piece having teeth and an O-ring seal disposed in a cavity. Dudley’s locking piece is also fixed against axial movement (see page 6, lines 5+); in Perez-Salas, the locking piece (4) is fixed against movement by a lug (4.3). Dudley uses an end cap (6) that includes apertures for a release tool (21, Fig. 6). Dudley states “The release tool may be provided as an item which can be used as desired with any coupling.” See page 5, lines 11-12.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Perez Salas et al such that the opening in the cap has at least one recess to allow insertion, in use, of a release tool in a distal direction between the tube and cap to deflect the collet legs away from the tube, as taught by Dudley, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a viable means by which to release the tube from the connector, and avoid potential issues with release of the tube and damage to the tube coupling components.
PNG
media_image1.png
496
540
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to claim 2, Perez Salas et al in view of Dudley discloses a tube connector according to claim 1, wherein the cap is captive on the body. Refer to Figs. 1 and 2 of Perez Salas et al.
As to claim 3, Perez Salas et al in view of Dudley discloses a tube connector according to claim 1, wherein the collet ring limits the movement of the O-ring. Refer to Figs. 1 and 2 of Perez Salas et al.
As to claim 4, Perez Salas et al in view of Dudley discloses a tube connector according to claim 1, wherein the cap is axially fixed with respect to the body (via threads). Refer to Figs. 1 and 2 of Perez Salas et al.
As to claim 5, Perez Salas et al in view of Dudley discloses a tube connector according to claim 1, wherein the collet is axially movable when, in use, the connector receives a tube and is in a fully engaged position. Refer to Figs. 1 and 2 of Perez Salas et al.
As to claim 6, Perez Salas et al in view of Dudley discloses a tube connector according to claim 1, wherein the cap extends proximally beyond the collet. Refer to Figs. 1 and 2 of Perez Salas et al.
As to claim 7, Perez Salas et al in view of Dudley discloses a tube connector according to claim 1, wherein the collet extends into the body. Refer to Figs. 1 and 2 of Perez Salas et al.
As to claim 8, Perez Salas et al in view of Dudley discloses a tube connector according to claim 1, wherein the collet ring is a continuous ring. Refer to Figs. 1 and 2 of Perez Salas et al.
As to claim 9, Perez Salas et al in view of Dudley discloses a tube connector according to claim 1, wherein the collet ring projects radially outwardly with respect to the collet legs. Refer to Figs. 1 and 2 of Perez Salas et al.
As to claim 10, Perez Salas et al in view of Dudley discloses a tube connector according to claim 1, wherein each collet leg has an enlarged head which engages, in use, with the cap angle. Refer to the foregoing annotated figure.
As to claim 11, Perez Salas et al in view of Dudley discloses a tube connector according to claim 1, wherein the cap only has a single cap angle. Refer to the foregoing annotated figure.
As to claim 12, Perez Salas et al in view of Dudley discloses a tube connector according to claim 1, wherein the only teeth are at the proximal end of the collet. Refer to Figs. 1 and 2 of Perez Salas et al.
As to claim 13, Perez Salas et al in view of Dudley discloses a combination of a tube connector according to claim 1 and a release tool (8, Dudley), the release tool being insertable into the connector in a distal direction between the tube and cap to deflect the collet legs away from the tube. Refer to Fig. 9 of Dudley.
As to claim 14, Perez Salas et al in view of Dudley discloses a combination of the tube connector according to claim 13, wherein the release tool has a split ring configuration, with sufficient resilience for the tool to be fitted in a radial direction over the tube before being moved axially into the connector. Refer to Figs. 3, 6, 7 and 9 in Dudley.
As to claim 15, Perez Salas et al in view of Dudley discloses a combination of the tube connector according to claim 13, wherein the release tool has a radially extending flange portion (23, Dudley) providing a bearing surface via which a user can, in use, push the tool axially into the connector and an engagement portion (21, Dudley) extending axially from the flange to enter the connector.
As to claim 16, Perez Salas et al in view of Dudley discloses a combination of the tube connector according to claim 13, wherein the engagement portion comprises a plurality of engagement elements (27, Dudley) arranged circumferentially, and wherein the connector requires each of the engagement elements to be inserted in order to allow release of the tube (Fig. 9, Dudley).
As to claim 17, Perez Salas et al in view of Dudley discloses a combination of the tube connector according to claim 13, wherein, in an unstressed state and at its greatest circumferential extent, the tool extends through an angle of at least 270 degrees (Figs. 3 and 6, Dudley).
As to claim 18, Perez Salas et al in view of Dudley discloses a combination of the tube connector according to claim 13, wherein the tool has a chamfered end face (29, Dudley) which is complementary with a chamfered end face of the collet legs (Fig. 9, Dudley).
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
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 James M Hewitt II whose telephone number is (571)272-7084. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 730am-930pm (MST), mid-day flex.
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
Prosecution Insights