DETAILED ACTION
Non Final
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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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 1-2 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 limitation “configured to…” has been evaluated under the three-prong test set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, but the result is inconclusive. Thus, it is unclear whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because merely striking the language “configured” would not change the scope of the claim. For example:
Claim 1 recites:
“A quick-connect device configured to fluidly…” in line 1 can be interpreted as – A quick-connect device to fluidly…--;
“ a coupling fixture configured to removably hold…” in line 3, can be interpreted as – a coupling fixture to removably hold…--;
The boundaries of this claim limitation are ambiguous; therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
In response to this rejection, applicant must clarify whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Mere assertion regarding applicant’s intent to invoke or not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph is insufficient. Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim to clearly invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by reciting “means” or a generic placeholder for means, or by reciting “step.” The “means,” generic placeholder, or “step” must be modified by functional language, and must not be modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function;
(b) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, should apply because the claim limitation recites a function to be performed and does not recite sufficient structure, material, or acts to perform that function;
(c) Amend the claim to clearly avoid invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by deleting the function or by reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to perform the recited function; or
(d) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, does not apply because the limitation does not recite a function or does recite a function along with sufficient structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the stem" in 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 and 2 is/are rejected (as indefinitely understood) under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Langenfeld (US 7021668), and further in view of Weh (US 4716938);
Claim(s) (in the alternative) 2 is/are rejected (as indefinitely understood) under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Langenfeld in view of Weh, as applied to claim 1 (as indefinitely understood) and further in view of Houze (US 0543871.)
Langenfeld discloses in claim 1: A quick-connect device (see abstract and figures 1-7) configured to fluidly and sealingly connect a source of pressurized fluid (via 154/156) to at least one female coupling (184/186 where 184 is a single thread for coupling), the quick-connect device comprising: a coupling fixture (at 166/123) configured to removably hold the at least one female coupling (the second plate can hold any number of female couplings so as to match the pressurized fluid supply side, Col 6 ln 24-30); at least one male coupling (154/129) insertable into the at least one female coupling; and a clamp (112 including 144/126/114/116) operatively connected to the at least one male coupling (see at least figure 2B where the couplings can be fitted to the clamp for fluid pressure supply), wherein the clamp is configured to linearly move relative to the coupling fixture (when 150 is inserted into 179 via opening of 174, the handle/arm 144 when operated, will leverage and axially compress the male and female couplings into fluid tight engagement…) to insert the stem (ends of 154/142) of the at least one male coupling into the at least one female coupling, wherein the clamp is configured to impart sealing and non-threaded engagement of the at least one male coupling (154) with the at least one female coupling (186) to create a fluid-tight seal therebetween; Langenfeld does not disclose: a threaded female coupling; but Weh teaches: a threaded female coupling (10 figure 1) which is arranged to be connected to a male quick disconnect without threadedly connecting the male and female couplings (provided for the purpose of for example, allowing a non threaded or threaded connection between couplings depending upon the supply side male coupling connection, thus providing a wider range of coupling connection);
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to provide Langenfeld as taught in Weh with a threaded female coupling as taught in Weh that can be arranged and connected to a male quick disconnect (as taught in either Weh or Langenfeld) without threadedly connecting the male and female couplings as taught in Weh, and all provided for the purpose of for example, allowing a non-threaded or threaded connection between couplings depending upon the supply side male coupling connection, thus providing a wider range of coupling connection.
Langenfeld discloses (as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 2: The quick-connect device set forth in claim 1, wherein the at least one male coupling includes a stem (right end of 154) and a seal (154 appears to have a seal, and Weh also teaches a seal at 28 figure 1, provided for the purpose of fluid sealing at high pressure) attached to a distal end of the stem, wherein the clamp is configured to compress the seal against a non-threaded portion of an interior surface of the at least one threaded female coupling (Langenfeld teaches this as part of the non threaded female coupling, for the purpose of for example maintaining an effective seal during coupling); if it could be persuasively argued at some future unforeseen date that Langenfeld does not explicitly disclose: an o-ring carried on a male coupling to seal against a non threaded interior surface of a threaded female coupling; it is noted that Houze teaches: an o-ring seal 5 carried on the male coupling to seal against a non threaded interior surface (qat 3) of the threaded (base of 13) female coupling (for the purpose of providing a fluid tight seal);
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to provide Langenfeld as taught and/or suggested in Langenfeld and as taught in Houze an o-ring seal carried on the male coupling so as to seal against a non threaded interior surface as taught in Houze of the threaded female coupling of Langenfeld/Weh as taught in Houze, and all for the purpose of providing for example, a fluid tight seal.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Sturgis (US 4105046) discloses a coupling arrangement with a platform for a lever arm and linkage to bring the male and female couplings into sealing engagement; Hazelrigg (US 4426104) discloses a leverage arm handle with linkage to bring the male and female couplings into engagement.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW W JELLETT, whose telephone number is 571-270-7497. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (9:30AM-6:00PM EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisors can be reached by phone. Ken Rinehart can be reached at (571)-272-4881, or Craig Schneider can be reached at (571) 272-3607. 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.
/Matthew W Jellett/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights