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 .
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 status of the claims for this application is as follows.
Claims 1-5 are currently pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/13/2025 was considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 08/13/2025.
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.
Claims 2-4 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 “gradually” in claims 2 and 3 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “gradually” 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.
The terms have been removed from the claims to improve clarity of the claims. The claims have been rejected as best understood.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Werschmidt et al. (US 5620427), (hereinafter, US-427).
Re Clm 1: US-427 discloses a locking connector (see Figs. 15, 19, and 20) to connect ends of a pair of tubes to each other, the locking connector comprising:
a first connector portion (such as illustrated in Fig. 15) that is provided at an end of one of the tubes and comprises a male thread portion (76) on an outer circumferential surface (such as illustrated in Fig. 15);
a second connector portion (see Figs. 19 and 20, the male component) that is provided at an end of the other tube and is connected to the first connector portion;
a lock ring (see Figs. 19 and 20, the outer hub) that is formed in an annular shape (see Figs. 19 and 20) covering a periphery of the second connector portion (see Figs. 19 and 20), comprises,
on an inner circumferential surface thereof, a female thread portion (see the internal thread(s)) to be screwed onto the male thread portion and
a movement restricting portion (the portion that includes at least one inward protrusions that abut the male component and the another portion that is not the thread(s)) to restrict movement of the second connector portion toward a base end side (see Figs. 15, 19, and 20), and by screwing the female thread portion onto the male thread portion, locks the first connector portion (see Figs. 15, 19, and 20) and the second connector portion in a connected state while pushing in the second connector portion toward the first connector portion by the movement restricting portion (see Figs. 15, 19, and 20);
(Note that the recitation “to restrict movement of the second connector portion toward a base end side, and by screwing the female thread portion onto the male thread portion, locks the first connector portion and the second connector portion in a connected state while pushing in the second connector portion toward the first connector portion by the movement restricting portion” is a process which can be used to make the product claimed. “Even though product-by-process claim(s) are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior art was made by a different process”. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 946, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).)
not less than one projecting portion formed on one of an outer circumferential surface of the second connector portion (see at least one of the outwardly projecting portion that abuts the outer hub) or an inner circumferential surface of the lock ring (see at least one of the inwardly projecting portion that abuts the male component); and a slope portion (see the sloping portion) that is formed on the other of the outer circumferential surface of the second connector portion or the inner circumferential surface of the lock ring (see Figs. 15, 19, and 20) and comprises not less than one inclined surface formed at an angle with respect to a circumferential direction about an axis of rotation of the screwing so that a diameter gradually increases along a direction of rotation of the screwing (see Figs. 15, 19, and 20), wherein as the female thread portion is screwed onto the male thread portion, the projecting portion rotates relative to the slope portion, the projecting portion interferes with the inclined surface with the rotation, and loosening of the lock ring is thereby prevented (see Figs. 15, 19, and 20).
The recitation “as the female thread portion is screwed onto the male thread portion, the projecting portion rotates relative to the slope portion, the projecting portion interferes with the inclined surface with the rotation, and loosening of the lock ring is thereby prevented” is a process which can be used to make the product claimed. “Even though product-by-process claim(s) are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior art was made by a different process”. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 946, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Re Clm 2: US-427 discloses wherein at least one of the inclined surface and the projecting portion is formed at an angle with respect to an axial direction parallel to the axis of rotation so that a diameter that decreases toward the base end side (see Figs. 19 and 20).
Re Clm 3: US-427 discloses wherein the projecting portion is formed at an angle with respect to the circumferential direction so that the diameter that increases along a screwing direction of the female thread portion (see Figs. 19 and 20).
Re Clm 4: US-427 discloses wherein the number of the projecting portions is the same as the number of the inclined surfaces, and the projecting portions one-to-one correspond to the inclined surfaces (this is the case, if only one projection and one inclined surface is being considered, as claim 1 recites “not less than one projecting portion” and “not less than one inclined surface”).
Re Clm 5: US-427 discloses Claim 5. The locking connector according to claim 1, wherein the number of the projecting portions is different from the number of the inclined surfaces (this is the case, if more than one projection and only one inclined surface is being considered, as claim 1 recites “not less than one projecting portion” and “not less than one inclined surface”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following documents have structural features (such as, threaded members interlocking) which are similar to the applicant’s claimed invention; US-20020099360-A1, US-20240139490-A1, US-5113571-A, and EP-3777936-A1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES A LINFORD whose telephone number is (571)270-3066. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday: 8:00 am to 5:00 pm Eastern Time.
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 ALBERT LINFORD
Examiner
Art Unit 3679
06/25/2026
/Matthew Troutman/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3679
Prosecution Insights