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 .
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it refers to the purported merits of the invention and begins with the implied phrase “The present application relates to”. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-10, 12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kluss et al. (US 2021/0071793 hereinafter “Kluss”).
In regards to claim 1, Kluss discloses a retainer cap (50) for use with a connector, the connector including a connector body having first and second end openings, the retainer cap comprising:
a main body including a substantially continuous outer surface that is dimensioned to fit within one of the first and second end openings of the connector body (shown in fig. 5), the main body having first (bottom in fig. 4) and second ends (top in fig. 4);
a rim (58) positioned at the first end of the main body, the rim overhanging the outer surface of the main body such that, when the retainer cap is inserted into one of the first and second end openings of the connector body, the rim abuts an end face of the connector body and prevents the retainer cap from being inserted further into one of the first and second end openings (shown in fig. 5);
a plurality of longitudinal through-slots (68) spaced uniformly around the main body, the plurality of longitudinal through-slots having an open side at the second end of the main body and an opposite closed side; and
a plurality of flexible legs (56) defined by the main body remaining between adjacent through- slots, the plurality of flexible legs each having a free end, and wherein the plurality of flexible legs each include a retention tab (64) at the free end for securing the retainer cap to the connector body.
In regards to claim 2, Kluss further discloses the retention tab of the plurality of flexible legs includes a ramped surface that tapers outwardly in a direction from the second end of the retainer cap toward the first end of the retainer cap (shown in fig. 4).
In regards to claim 3, Kluss further discloses the rim is dimensioned to be larger than an opening of the retainer cap (shown in fig. 4).
In regards to claim 5, Kluss further discloses the plurality of longitudinal through- slots extend along a substantial portion of the main body (shown in fig. 4).
In regards to claim 6, Kluss further discloses the retainer cap includes four longitudinal through-slots spaced uniformly around the main body (shown in fig. 4).
In regards to claim 7, Kluss further discloses the retainer cap includes four flexible legs spaced uniformly around the main body between adjacent through-slots (shown in fig. 4).
In regards to claim 8, Kluss further discloses the retention tab includes a locking edge (see edge of 64) configured to hook the retention tab into an aperture defined in the connector body to form an internal snap-fit connection therewith.
In regards to claim 9, Kluss further discloses the retention tab extends radially outward from the main body (shown in fig. 4).
In regards to claim 10, Kluss further discloses the plurality of longitudinal through- slots have a U-shape (shown in fig. 4).
In regards to claim 12, Kluss further discloses the plurality of flexible legs are integrally formed with the main body of the retainer cap (shown in fig. 4).
In regards to claim 14, Kluss further discloses a width of an individual flexible leg is greater than a width of an individual retention tab (shown in fig. 4).
Claims 1-12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Morant et al. (EP 1,146,275A1 hereinafter “Morant”).
In regards to claim 1, Morant discloses a retainer cap (12) for use with a connector, the connector including a connector body having first and second end openings, the retainer cap comprising:
a main body including a substantially continuous outer surface that is dimensioned to fit within one of the first and second end openings of the connector body (shown in fig. 1), the main body having first (at “32”) and second ends (opposite of “32”);
a rim (32) positioned at the first end of the main body, the rim overhanging the outer surface of the main body such that, when the retainer cap is inserted into one of the first and second end openings of the connector body, the rim abuts an end face of the connector body and prevents the retainer cap from being inserted further into one of the first and second end openings (shown in fig. 1);
a plurality of longitudinal through-slots (30) spaced uniformly around the main body, the plurality of longitudinal through-slots having an open side at the second end of the main body and an opposite closed side; and
a plurality of flexible legs (36) defined by the main body remaining between adjacent through- slots, the plurality of flexible legs each having a free end, and wherein the plurality of flexible legs each include a retention tab (38) at the free end for securing the retainer cap to the connector body.
In regards to claim 2, Morant further discloses the retention tab of the plurality of flexible legs includes a ramped surface that tapers outwardly in a direction from the second end of the retainer cap toward the first end of the retainer cap (shown in fig. 1).
In regards to claim 3, Morant further discloses the rim is dimensioned to be larger than an opening of the retainer cap (shown in fig. 1).
In regards to claim 4, Morant further discloses the retention tab has a trapezoidal shape (shown in fig. 1).
In regards to claim 5, Morant further discloses the plurality of longitudinal through- slots extend along a substantial portion of the main body (shown in fig. 1).
In regards to claim 6, Morant further discloses the retainer cap includes four longitudinal through-slots spaced uniformly around the main body (shown in fig. 1).
In regards to claim 7, Morant further discloses the retainer cap includes four flexible legs spaced uniformly around the main body between adjacent through-slots (shown in fig. 1).
In regards to claim 8, Morant further discloses the retention tab includes a locking edge (see edge of 38) configured to hook the retention tab into an aperture defined in the connector body to form an internal snap-fit connection therewith.
In regards to claim 9, Morant further discloses the retention tab extends radially outward from the main body (shown in fig. 1).
In regards to claim 10, Morant further discloses the plurality of longitudinal through- slots have a U-shape (shown in fig. 1).
In regards to claim 11, Morant further discloses the closed side of each one of the plurality of longitudinal through-slots includes a flat inner surface (shown in fig. 1).
In regards to claim 12, Morant further discloses the plurality of flexible legs are integrally formed with the main body of the retainer cap (shown in fig. 4).
In regards to claim 14, Morant further discloses a width of an individual flexible leg is greater than a width of an individual retention tab (shown in fig. 4).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morant as applied to claim 1 above.
In regards to claim 13, Morant discloses the retainer cap of claim 1 and further discloses alternating longitudinal through-slots and flexible legs form an edge surface that is continuous the edge surface comprising substantially flat inner surfaces at the closed side of individual longitudinal through- slots and substantially flat surfaces at the free ends of the flexible legs (shown in fig. 1).
Morant does not disclose curved transitions. However, there is no disclosed criticality for the curved transition surfaces. Absent any criticality, a change in the shape of a prior art device is design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Accordingly, it would have been no more than an obvious matter of engineering design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the slot of Morant with curved transitions, achieving no new or unexpected results.
Claims 16-19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morant in view of Watson et al. (US 2021/0239348 hereinafter “Watson”).
In regards to claim 16, Morant discloses a connector assembly comprising:
a connector body (2) having a first end that defines a first end opening and an opposite second end that defines a second end opening, the connector body defining a fluid passage (central bore) that extends through the first and second ends, the connector body including a plurality of apertures (20);
a first sealing member (4) configured to be inserted into the first end opening of the connector body to form a sealing engagement with a first fluid conduit, t;
a first grab ring (8) comprising a plurality of teeth configured for coupling to the first fluid conduit,
a first protection ring (6) partially positioned within the connector body adjacent the first end thereof between the first grab ring and the first sealing ring; and
a first cap (12) having a main body with a substantially continuous outer surface, the first retainer cap being dimensioned to respectively fit within the first opening of the connector body, the main body of the first cap each having first (at “32”) and second (opposite from “32”) ends, the first retainer cap comprising:
a rim (32) positioned at the first end of the main body of the first retainer cap, the rim overhanging the outer surface of the main body such that, when the first retainer cap is inserted into the first end opening of the connector body, the rim abuts an end face of the connector body at the first end thereof and prevents the first cap from being inserted further into the first end opening (see paragraph [0023]);
a plurality of longitudinal through-slots (30) spaced uniformly around the main body, the plurality of longitudinal through-slots having an open side at the second end of the main body and an opposite closed side (shown in fig. 1); and
a plurality of flexible legs (36) defined by the main body remaining between adjacent through-slots, the plurality of flexible legs each having a free end, and wherein the plurality of flexible legs each include a retention tab (38) at the free ends for securing the first retainer cap to the connector body.
Morant does not disclose a second sealing member configured to be inserted into the second end opening of the connector body to form a sealing engagement with a second fluid conduit, a second grab ring comprising a plurality of teeth configured for coupling to the second fluid conduit; a second protection ring partially positioned within the connector body adjacent the second end thereof between the second grab ring and the second sealing ring, or a second identical retainer cap.
However, Watson teaches that it is known in the art to provide connector bodies (1) with identical first and second ends including identical sealing rings (9), grab rings (100), and retaining caps (2).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the connector body of Morant with an identical second end including a second sealing ring, second grab ring, second protection ring, and second retaining cap, in order to allow two tubes to be connected together, achieving no new or unexpected results.
It is further noted that duplication of working parts of a prior art device has been held to be a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
In regards to claim 17, Morant further discloses the plurality of flexible legs are integrally formed with the main bodies of the first and second retainer caps (shown in fig. 1).
In regards to claim 18, Morant further discloses the respective first and second retainer caps are inserted into the respective first and second end openings of the connector body, the retention tabs of the plurality of flexible legs are adapted to engage a respective one of the plurality of apertures of the connector body (see paragraph [0024]).
In regards to claims 19 and 21, Morant further discloses the connector body includes four apertures adjacent the first end thereof, wherein the four apertures are spaced uniformly around the connector body (shown in fig. 1), and wherein when the first and retainer cap is inserted into the first opening of the connector body, the retention tabs of the four flexible legs align with the four apertures to snap therein to secure the first retainer cap to the connector body (see paragraph [0024]). It is inherent in providing an identical second end that the second end would also contain four apertures and that the tabs would interact in the same manner.
Claims 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morant in view of Watson as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Crompton et al. (US 2019/0257454 hereinafter “Crompton”).
In regards to claims 24-26, at the onset it is noted that the first and second conduit are not recited structurally in claims 16 and 24-26, but are rather recited functionally. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function.
Morant in view of Watson teach the connector assembly of claim 16. Morant further discloses a visible indication zone, wherein the visible indication zone provides visual indication of two positions of the first and second fluid conduits inside the connector body, wherein a first position of the first and second fluid conduits includes a position where the first and second fluid conduits are respectively inserted beyond a seal portion of the connector body but not fully inserted to a predetermined depth defined by a conduit stop (see shoulder adjacent seal) within the connector body, wherein a second position of the first and second conduits includes a position where the first and second conduits are sealed and fully inserted within the connector body to the predetermined depth (fig. 1 shows the capability of these two positions).
They do not disclose the connector body includes at least a portion having a plastic construction that is light transmissive, wherein the portion of the connector body including the plastic construction that is light transmissive.
However, Crompton teaches a similar connector (400) having a plastic, light-transmissive connector body (12, see paragraph [0061]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the connector body of Morant in view of Watson as a plastic-light transmissive body in order to allow an installer, inspector or other individual to visually determine very quickly whether a fitting has been properly pushed, and whether there is a proper and complete seal, as taught by Crompton at paragraph [0014].
Claims 4, 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kluss as applied to claim 1 above.
In regards to claims 4, 11, and 13, Kluss discloses the cap of claim 1 and further discloses alternating longitudinal through-slots and flexible legs form an edge surface that is continuous with curved transitions (shown in fig. 4) and substantially flat surfaces at the free ends of the flexible legs (shown in fig. 4).
but does not expressly disclose the retention tab has a trapezoidal shape, or the closed side of each one of the plurality of longitudinal through-slots includes a flat inner surface.
However, there is no disclosed criticality for the trapezoidal shape or the flat inner surface. Absent any criticality, a change in the shape of a prior art device is design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Accordingly, it would have been no more than an obvious matter of engineering design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the retention tab with a trapezoidal shape and the closed side of each one of the plurality of longitudinal through-slots with a flat inner surface, achieving no new or unexpected results.
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 connector assembly.
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
10/02/2026
