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 .
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 04/28/2026 is disapproved because the terminal disclaimer identifies a party who is not the applicant. The applicant cited on the terminal disclaimer must be cited exactly as it is cited on the ADS and/or filing receipt and also in its entirety. If more space for applicant section is required, please us smaller fonts or submit an attachment page to the terminal disclaimer. Applicant may correct and resubmit the terminal disclaimer (No new fee required).
Drawings
The drawings filed on 05/23/2025 are accepted in view of applicant’s amendments to the claims filed on 04/28/2026.
Specification
Changes to the specification filed on 04/28/2026 are accepted.
It is noted that on pages 13-15 of the specification appears to include the original set of the claims and abstract, however, these are not to be confused with the separately filed claims and abstract.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 17-25 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 17 recites “the outside diameter of the male transition portion” which lacks antecedent basis and unclear if this intended to mean an outside diameter of the male transition portion or all the outside diameters of the male transition portion since the male transition portion is an inclined surface that has more than one outside diameter. For examination purposes, the limitation will be interpreted as “ at least one outside diameter of the male transition portion” such that it is at least one outside diameter of the male transition portion.
All dependent claims of these claims are rejected under 112th second paragraph by virtue of their dependency. Thus, claims 18-25 are rejected under 112th second paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Salter et al. (US 5,797,627 hereinafter “Salter”).
In regard to claim 17, Salter discloses a hose connector (Fig. 13 shows a hose connector), comprising:
a male fitting defining a male longitudinal through hole (Fig. 13, the part 446 defines a male fitting which has a male longitudinal through hole for fluid transfer), wherein the male fitting comprises a male coupling portion (Fig. 13, the portion from 456 to 460 defines a male coupling portion for 448), a first hose connection portion (Fig. 13, at 214 of 446) and the male coupling portion defines a recess (Fig. 13, groove 462 defines a recess), wherein an outside diameter of the first hose connection portion is smaller than an outside diameter of the male coupling portion (Fig. 13, at least one outside diameter at 214 is smaller than an outside diameter of the male coupling portion) and the male fitting comprises a male transition portion at an angle greater than ninety degrees and less than one hundred and seventy degrees relative to the first hose connection portion between the first hose connection and the male coupling portion (See image below, indicated male transition portion is similar to applicant’s invention and has an angle greater than 90 degrees and less than 170 degrees relative to the first hose connection portion between the first hose connection portion and the male coupling portion); and
a female fitting defining a female longitudinal through hole (Fig. 13, part 448 defines a female fitting that receives 446 and 448 has a longitudinal through hole for fluid transfer), wherein the female fitting comprises a second hose connection portion (Fig. 13, at 214 of 448), a female coupling portion (Fig. 13, at 454 defines a female coupling portion for receiving the male coupling portion), and defines a radial through hole through a wall of the female fitting (Fig. 13, radial through hole at 464), wherein an outside diameter of the second hose connection portion is smaller than an outside diameter of the female coupling portion (Fig. 13, at least one outside diameter at 214 is smaller than an outside diameter of the female coupling portion) and the female fitting comprises a female transition portion at an angle greater than ninety degrees and less than one hundred and seventy degrees relative to the second hose connection portion between the second hose connection and the female coupling portion (Figs. 13-14 and see image below, the female fitting 448 has an identical transition portion to indicated male transition portion and is at the same angle but relative to the second hose connection portion); and
a locking member configured to be received through the radial through hole (Fig. 13, fastener 466 defines at least a locking member received through the radial through hole at 464) and into the recess thereby fastening the male fitting to the female fitting (Fig. 14 shows 466 is into the recess which fastens the male fitting to the female fitting),
PNG
media_image1.png
401
479
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the outside diameter of the female coupling portion is larger than at least one outside diameter of the male transition portion to form a raised female coupling portion (See image below, the female coupling has at least two outside diameters such that one circumscribes the tips of the ridges and another at a base of where the ridges extend from which is larger than at least an outside diameter of the male transition portion near where the male transition portion begins. This interpretation is similar to applicant’s invention since the female coupling portion of Salter is also a raised female coupling portion defined by the inclination of the male transition portion.).
PNG
media_image2.png
426
665
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 18, Salter discloses the hose connector of claim 17, wherein the male coupling portion is received within the female coupling portion (Fig. 14 shows the male coupling portion is received within the female coupling portion).
In regard to claim 19, Salter discloses the hose connector of claim 17, wherein the recess is a circumferential recess around the male coupling portion (Fig. 13, 462 is a circumferential recess around the male coupling portion).
In regard to claim 20, Salter discloses the hose connector of claim 19, wherein a center line of the circumferential recess aligns with a center line of the radial through hole when the female fitting is connected to the male fitting (Fig. 14 shows a center line of the recess aligns with a center line of the radial through hole in order to insert the locking member through the hole and connect to the recess).
In regard to claim 21, Salter discloses the hose connector of claim 17, wherein the locking member is a rod with a friction or interference fit (Figs. 13-14 and 17, 466 is at least a bent rod or having at least one pin/rod 474 that is in a friction or interference fit with the groove 462).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 21-22 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salter (US 5,797,627) in view of LaMarca et al. (US 6,447,028 B1, hereinafter “LaMarca”).
In regard to claim 21, Salter discloses the hose connector of claim 17, but does not expressly disclose the locking member is one of a set screw, spring biased pin, and a twist lock member.
In the related field of pipe couplings with radial locking members to prevent unwanted axial disconnection between at least two parts, LaMarca teaches at least a locking member (Fig. 4B, at least one locking member 50) that can be reasonably interpreted as a bolt (Fig. 4B, 50 is at least a bolt because it has a head and a threaded portion), a screw (Fig. 4B, 50 is at least a screw because it has threads), a set screw (Fig. 4B, 50 is at least a set screw because it threads into a threaded radial through hole and prevents axial disconnection between two parts), or a twist lock member (Fig. 4B, 50 is at least a twist lock member because it requires twisting/turning in order to lock an end of 50 at 54 to a recess of a male fitting) inserted into a radial through hole of a female fitting (Fig. 1A and 4B, 10 defines a female fitting with a radial through hole for 50) and connected to a recess of a male fitting (Fig. 2B and 4B, male fitting 20 with a recess at 29) in order to lock the female fitting with the male fitting to prevent unwanted axial disconnection (In 6:46-51 discloses 50 provides reduced axial movement between 20 and 10).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the locking member of Salter for the locking member of LaMarca with a reasonable expectation of success in order to have the advantage of a known and reliable locking member to prevent unwanted axial disconnection between a male fitting and a female fitting as taught by LaMarca. See MPEP 2143(I)(B) with regard to simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
In regard to claim 22, Salter and LaMarca disclose the hose connector of claim 21, and LaMarca further discloses wherein a diameter of the locking member is less than a width of the recess such that the locking member may be received within the recess (Fig. 4B, diameter at 54 of 50 is less than a width of the recess 29 in order for 54 to fit within 29. See claim 21 above for the same reasons to combine Salter and LaMarca.).
In regard to claim 25, Salter discloses the hose connector of claim 1, and Salter in view of LaMarca further discloses wherein the locking member is a set screw and the radial through hole is a threaded radial through hole (Fig. 4B of LaMarca, 50 is at least a set screw and the radial through hole is threaded. See claim 21 above for the same reasons to combine Salter and LaMarca.).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salter (US 5,797,627) in view of Lee (US 2004/0150224 A1).
Salter discloses the hose connector of claim 17, but does not expressly disclose wherein the locking member is a spring biased pin.
In the related field of pipe couplings with radial locking members to prevent unwanted axial disconnection between at least two parts, Lee teaches a locking member as a spring-biased pin (Figs. 4C and 5, spring biased pin 28) to lock a male fitting with a female fitting (Fig. 4C, male fitting at 12b and female fitting at 16 and 28 has an end at 36 that fits in a groove 14 of 12b in order lock 16 and 12b together) in order to prevent unwanted axial disconnection between the male fitting and the female fitting (In [0033] discloses 28 is to prevent unwanted axial disconnection between 16 and 12b)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the locking member of Salter for the locking member of Lee with a reasonable expectation of success in order to have the advantage of a known and reliable locking member to prevent unwanted axial disconnection between a male fitting and a female fitting as taught by Lee. See MPEP 2143(I)(B) with regard to simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Claims 23 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salter (US 5,797,627) in view of Wolff (US 2013/0049360 A1).
In regard to claim 23, Salter discloses the hose connector of claim 17, but does not expressly disclose wherein the male longitudinal through hole comprises a chamfer on an interior of the first hose connection portion.
In the related field of pipe couplings, Wolff teaches a chamfer/bevel at openings of a fitting (Fig. 2, fitting at 1 and chamfers at both 10) in order to allow smooth fluid flow in and out of the fitting (In [0040] discloses the chamfer at both 10 allow for smooth fluid flow in and out of the fitting 1).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the male longitudinal through hole on an interior of the first hose connection portion of Salter to include a chamfer with a reasonable expectation of success in order to have the advantage of a smooth fluid flow in or out of the first hose connection portion as taught by Wolff.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the male longitudinal through hole on an interior of the first hose connection portion of Salter to include a chamfer with a reasonable expectation of success in order to have the advantage of reducing sharp corners which are known to be stress risers and can cause cuts or injuries during handling or assembly as disclosed at https://www.hlc-metalparts.com/news/chamfer-a-complete-guide-85104972.html.
In regard to claim 24, Salter discloses the hose connector of claim 17, and Salter in view of Wollf disclose wherein the female longitudinal through hole comprises a chamfer on an interior of the second hose connection portion (See claim 23 for the same reasons to combine Salter and Wolff to have chamfers at both ends at the first hose connection portion and at the second hose connection portion).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 17-25 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,313,198. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following.
In regard to claim 17, U.S. Patent No. 12,313,198 discloses a hose connector, comprising:
a male fitting defining a male longitudinal through hole, wherein the male fitting comprises a male coupling portion, a first hose connection portion and the male coupling portion defines a recess, wherein an outside diameter of the first hose connection portion is smaller than an outside diameter of the male coupling portion and the male fitting comprises a male transition portion at an angle greater than ninety degrees and less than one hundred and seventy degrees relative to the first hose connection portion between the first hose connection and the male coupling portion (Claim 1 discloses “A hose connector…and the male coupling portion”); and
a female fitting defining a female longitudinal through hole, wherein the female fitting comprises a second hose connection portion, a female coupling portion, and defines a radial through hole through a wall of the female fitting (Claim 1 discloses “a female fitting…a wall of the female fitting”); and
a locking member configured to be received through the radial through hole and into the recess thereby fastening the male fitting to the female fitting (Claim 1 discloses “a locking member…to the female fitting”).
U.S. Patent No. 12,313,198 does not expressly disclose wherein an outside diameter of the second hose connection portion is smaller than an outside diameter of the female coupling portion and the female fitting comprises a female transition portion at an angle greater than ninety degrees and less than one hundred and seventy degrees relative to the second hose connection portion between the second hose connection and the female coupling portion.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified U.S. Patent No. 12,313,198 to include an outside diameter of the second hose connection portion is smaller than an outside diameter of the female coupling portion and the female fitting comprises a female transition portion at an angle greater than ninety degrees and less than one hundred and seventy degrees relative to the second hose connection portion between the second hose connection and the female coupling portion with a reasonable expectation of success in order to have the advantage of ease of manufacturing identical dimensions for both the male fitting and the female fitting and allowing the same type of hose to be connected at both ends of the first hose connection portion and the second hose connection portion.
In regard to claim 18, U.S. Patent No. 12,313,198 discloses the hose connector of claim 17, wherein the male coupling portion is received within the female coupling portion (Claim 2 recites the same).
In regard to claim 19, U.S. Patent No. 12,313,198 discloses the hose connector of claim 17, wherein the recess is a circumferential recess around the male coupling portion (Claim 3 recites the same).
In regard to claim 20, U.S. Patent No. 12,313,198 discloses the hose connector of claim 19, wherein a center line of the circumferential recess aligns with a center line of the radial through hole when the female fitting is connected to the male fitting (Claim 4 recites the same).
In regard to claim 21, U.S. Patent No. 12,313,198 discloses the hose connector of claim 17, wherein the locking member is one of a bolt, a screw, a set screw, spring biased pin, a rod with a friction or interference fit, twist lock member, and cam lock fitting (Claim 5 recites the same).
In regard to claim 22, U.S. Patent No. 12,313,198 discloses the hose connector of claim 21, wherein a diameter of the locking member is less than a width of the recess such that the locking member may be received within the recess (Claim 6 recites the same).
In regard to claim 23, U.S. Patent No. 12,313,198 discloses the hose connector of claim 17, wherein the male longitudinal through hole comprises a chamfer on an interior of the first hose connection portion (Claim 7 recites the same).
In regard to claim 24, U.S. Patent No. 12,313,198 discloses the hose connector of claim 17, wherein the female longitudinal through hole comprises a chamfer on an interior of the second hose connection portion (Claim 8 recites the same).
In regard to claim 25, U.S. Patent No. 12,313,198 discloses the hose connector of claim 1, wherein the locking member is a set screw and the radial through hole is a threaded radial through hole (Claim 9 recites the same).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments that Salter does not disclose the outside diameter of the female coupling portion is larger than the outside diameter of the male transition portion thus forming a raised female coupling, however, the Examiner respectfully disagree because the female coupling portion of Salter is similar to applicant’s claimed invention since it has a male transition portion that inclines upward to define a raised female coupling portion. See the updated rejection above. Therefore, applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive.
Also, see above under the section Terminal Disclaimer such that the terminal disclaimer filed on 04/28/2026 was disapproved.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to William S. Choi whose telephone number is (571)272-8223. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30-5:30.
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.
/WILLIAM S. CHOI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3679
Prosecution Insights