DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because fig. 3 is a cross-sectional view but lacks proper cross-hatching. See 37 CFR 1.84 (h)(3).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.75(i) because elements of the claims are not separated by line indentation.
Claim 1 is further objected to because line 7 recites “a connection piece” when it should recite –the connection piece—as the connection piece as already been recited.
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.
Claims 6-8 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.
Claim 6 recites that it comprises “a connection piece housing as claimed in claim 1”. The claim then later recites “a securing element” (line 2), “a connection piece” (line 3), and “at least one securing tab” (line 5). These elements have already been recited in claim 1 and these recitations make it unclear if the claim is intending to recite additional elements or if the articles are incorrect and this renders the claim indefinite.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the ramp face" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 is rejected based on its dependency.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Senftleben (EP 3850261B1).
In regards to claim 1, Senftleben discloses a connection piece housing (4) for connecting to a fluid line, comprising a sleeve portion (right portion in fig. 6) having an opening (central bore) for introducing a connection piece along a longitudinal axis and a wall which extends in the circumferential direction about the longitudinal axis and which, by way of an internal face, delimits the opening, wherein the internal face has a clearance (48) for passing through a securing tab of a securing element introducible into the opening for locking a connection piece introduced into the connection piece housing via the securing element, and a receptacle (26, see figs. 3 and 5) for receiving at least part of the securing tab, wherein the clearance extends in an axial direction from an axial access on a periphery of the opening, and the receptacle is spaced apart from the periphery of the opening in an axial direction, wherein a locking element (the edges of “26”) for locking the securing tab in the receptacle is disposed between the receptacle and the clearance, wherein the receptacle is disposed so as to be offset from the clearance in a circumferential direction.
In regards to claim 2, Senftleben further discloses the locking element has a latching edge (see edge of 26 in figs. 3 and 5) which extends in the axial direction and is spaced from the access (26) in the axial direction.
In regards to claim 3, Senftleben further discloses the receptacle has a release device (see figs. 3 and 5) for decoupling the securing tab from a connection piece introduced into the opening.
In regards to claim 4, Senftleben further discloses the release device has a ramp (40) face which is beveled radially inward in relation to the longitudinal axis.
In regards to claim 5, Senftleben further discloses the wall, proceeding from the receptacle in an axial direction pointing out of the opening, has a greater radial thickness than proceeding from the clearance in a radial direction (shown in figs. 5 and 7).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-8 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Each of the remaining cited prior art shows a similar connection system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZACHARY T DRAGICEVICH whose telephone number is (571)270-0505. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 - 4:30 EST.
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 D. 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.
/ZACHARY T DRAGICEVICH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3679
08/31/2026
