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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 03/12/26 is acknowledged.
Claims 19-23 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 03/12/26.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 11 is missing a period.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 (8, Fig. 3) between the tube and cap to deflect the collet legs away from the tube, thereby releasing the tube.
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.
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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ericksen discloses a similar conduit coupling having a cap and recesses therein for receipt of a release tool.
Bogert discloses a valve connector of similar construction to the claimed invention.
Rubichon discloses a similar pipe connector coupling having a cap and recesses therein for receipt of a release tool.
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