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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This is responsive to the claims filed 6/9/2025. Claims 1 – 18 are pending in this application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 6/9/2025 is acknowledged by the examiner.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1 – 18 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.
The term “slightly smaller” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “slightly smaller” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is not clear what the metes and bounds of term “slightly smaller” is. Further the “inner sleeve body” is identified as both element 3 and element 5.
Regarding claims 2 – 4, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claims 2 - 4 recite the broad recitation “the amount of the difference between the inside diameter (d3) of the hollow-cylindrical end section (43) of the valve bushing (4) and the outside diameter (d1) of the sliding section (41) of the valve bushing (4) is less than eight tenths”, “the circular surface enclosed by the inside diameter (d3) of the valve bushing (4) is smaller than the circular surface enclosed by the outside diameter (d1) of the valve bushing (4) by less than 12 mm2” and “the sealing groove (52) overlaps the sealing ring (53) by more than half of the ring's mantle surface” respectively and the claims also recite “preferably less than four tenths, particularly preferably less than two tenths of a millimeter”, “preferably less than 8 mm2, particularly preferably less than 4 mm2” and “preferably by more than sixty percent of its mantle surface” which are narrower statements of the range/limitation. The claims are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Regarding claim 10, the phrase “preferably” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether screwed-on connection is required. The phrase “preferably” makes it unclear whether the claim is being limited to the preferred embodiment. Therefore, the use of the phrase “preferably” renders the claim indefinite.
Description of examples or preferences is properly set forth in the specification rather than the claims. If stated in the claims, examples and preferences may lead to confusion over the intended scope of a claim. In those instances where it is not clear whether the claimed narrower range is a limitation, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph should be made. See MPEP 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 14, recites the limitation "the connection part". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 17, the phrase “preferably” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether blocking ball is required. The phrase “preferably” makes it unclear whether the claim is being limited to the preferred embodiment. Therefore, the use of the phrase “preferably” renders the claim indefinite.
Description of examples or preferences is properly set forth in the specification rather than the claims. If stated in the claims, examples and preferences may lead to confusion over the intended scope of a claim. In those instances where it is not clear whether the claimed narrower range is a limitation, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph should be made. See MPEP 2173.05(d).
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, 13 - 18 as far as they are definite, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by European Patent Document to Arosio (EP 0745802).
Regarding claim 1, as far as it is definite, Arosio discloses a coupling part (Fig. 2), in particular a coupling sleeve, for coupling to a corresponding coupling part, in particular a coupling connector, of a coupling for pressure medium lines, in particular hydraulic lines, comprising - a housing (2, Fig. 2) having a continuous first passage that runs in the axial direction, - a valve tappet (10, Fig. 2) that is coaxially arranged in the first passage of the housing (2, Fig. 2), - an inner sleeve body (9, Fig. 2) that is coaxially arranged in the first passage of the housing (2, Fig. 2), lying against it in certain regions, and having a cylindrical guide section by means of which a central second passage is delimited, which is arranged coaxial to the first passage, - a valve bushing (8, Fig. 2) that is arranged to be displaceable in the axial direction, between a first position and a second position, relative to the inner sleeve body, through the guide section of which body the bushing is guided, wherein the valve bushing (8, Fig. 2) forms a seal relative to the inner sleeve body (9, Fig. 2) both in the first position and in the second position, and in the first position forms a seal on the valve tappet (10, Fig. 2) and in the second position delimits a gap between the valve tappet (10, Fig. 2) and the valve bushing (8, Fig. 2), wherein in the first position of the valve bushing (8, Fig. 2), a flow channel is delimited by the inner sleeve body (9, Fig. 2), the valve bushing (8, Fig. 2), and the valve tappet (10, Fig. 2), wherein the valve bushing (8, Fig. 2) has a circumferential shoulder on the inside – shoulder for the tappet 10, which leads into a hollow-cylindrical end section, wherein the inside diameter (d3) of the hollow-cylindrical end section is smaller than the outside diameter (d1) of the sliding section of the valve bushing (8, Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 10, as far as it is definite, Arosio discloses the housing (2, Fig. 2) is formed by a base part (3, Fig. 2) that is connected to a connection piece (2, Fig. 2), screwed onto it the connection piece (2, Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 13, as far as it is definite, Arosio discloses the valve tappet (10, Fig. 2) is positioned fixed in place by way of at least one holding element (12, Fig. 2), by way of which the at least one holding element the tappet is connected to the housing (2, Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 14, as far as it is definite, Arosio discloses the holding element (12, Fig. 2) extends in the axial direction, in certain regions, over – examiner is interpreting end surfaces to meet “in the axial direction … over (butting against), limitation - the connection part (2, Fig. 2) and the inner sleeve body (9, Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 15, as far as it is definite, Arosio discloses the at least one holding element (12, Fig. 2) has an axial passage opening (25, Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 16, as far as it is definite, Arosio discloses a ridge that extends radially outward is arranged on the valve bushing (8, Fig. 2), wherein a first spring device(26, Fig. 2) is arranged between this the ridge and the inner sleeve body (9, Fig. 2), which wherein the first spring device is pre-stressed against the valve bushing (8, Fig. 2), in the direction of the first position.
Regarding claim 17, as far as it is definite, Arosio discloses a closure bushing (23, Fig. 2) is arranged to encompass the valve tappet head (10, Fig. 2), which wherein the closure bushing is arranged to be displaceable between the housing (3, Fig. 2) and the valve bushing (8, Fig. 2), wherein at least one radial passage is introduced into the housing (3, Fig. 2), in which passage wherein a blocking element, preferably a blocking ball (Fig.2) is positioned in the at least one radial passage, and a blocking ring (4, Fig. 2) is arranged to be displaceable on the outside of the housing (3, Fig. 2), which wherein the blocking ring extends beyond the radial passage.
Regarding claim 18, as far as it is definite, Arosio discloses a second spring device (24, Fig. 2) is arranged between the closure bushing (23, Fig. 2) and the inner sleeve body (9, 2, Fig. 2), examiner for this claim only, is interpreting the element 3 to be part of the inner sleeve, wherein the second spring device is pre-stressed against the closure bushing (23, Fig. 2), so as to hold it the closure bushing (23, Fig. 2) in a position in which the at least one radial passage is covered by the closure bushing (23, Fig. 2).
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.
Claims 4 - 6, as far as they are definite, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over European Patent Document to Arosio (EP 0745802) in view of European Patent Document to Bechis et al. (EP 3473912).
Regarding claims 4 – 6, as far as they are definite, Arosio does not disclose a seal in the tappet.
However, Bechis et al. also teaching a coupling teach a non-round cross-section seal (11, Fig. 9) held by a holding ring (Fig. 9) in a sealing groove, formed in part by the holding ring, on the valve tappet head and overlapping the more than half of the sealing ring’s mantle surface.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art at a time prior to the effective filing date of the application to have modified tappet disclosed by Arosio with the sealing ring on the tappet taught by Bechis et al. as a combinations of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
In the combination of the prior art elements, one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably expected the elements to maintain their respective properties or functions.
Claims 11 - 12 , as far as they are definite, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over European Patent Document to Arosio (EP 0745802) in view of European Patent Document to Stucchi (EP 0744572).
Regarding claims 11 – 12, as far as they are definite, Arioso does not disclose inner sleeve body is held in certain regions between the base part and the connection piece or inner sleeve body is sealed off relative to the connection piece by way of a seal.
However, Stucchi also teaching a coupling teaches an inner sleeve body (6, Fig. 2) is held in certain regions between the base part (3, Fig. 2) and the connection piece (4, Fig. 2), Stucchi also teaches the inner sleeve body (6, Fig. 2) is sealed off relative to the connection piece (4, Fig. 2) by way of a seal (8, Fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art at a time prior to the effective filing date of the application to have adapted the structure taught by Stucchi to the connector disclosed by Arosio as a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 – 3, 7 – 9 would be allowable if rewritten 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 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Patent to Wilcox et al. (4,086,939) and US Patent to Caroll et al. (4,612,953) disclosing fluid couplings.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to UMASHANKAR VENKATESAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5602. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30 AM - 6:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner' s supervisors Craig Schneider can be reached at (571) 272-3607 or Ken Rinehart can be reached at (571) 272-4881. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/UMASHANKAR VENKATESAN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights