DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Objections
Claims 17-18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 17, line 3, “the second major axis” should be --a second major axis--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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) 1-4 and 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bassaco (US 2016/0131291).
As to claim 1, Bassaco discloses a connector (38) for coupling to a tube (16) comprising: a receptacle having an interior cavity (62) that extends along a longitudinal axis (FIG. 2A) arranged to receive the tube; and a retainer (70) embracing the receptacle, having at least a first leg (74a) positioned within the cavity that engages the tube when the tube is inserted into the cavity (see [0019]), wherein the first leg has a cross-section that has a first minor axis (the axis running through the leg in the vertical direction in FIG. 2A) that is smaller than a second major axis (the axis running through the leg in the longitudinal direction of the connector in FIG. 2A) and, wherein the first minor axis of the first leg is aligned with the cavity of the receptacle, and the second major axis of the first leg runs parallel to the longitudinal axis of the cavity of the receptacle (refer to FIGs. 2A, 2B and 4).
As to claim 2, Bassaco discloses the connector of claim 1, wherein the retainer has a second leg (74b) positioned in the cavity on an opposite side and in a spaced relationship from the first leg, the second leg engages the tube when the tube is inserted into the cavity, the second leg having a cross-section that has a first minor axis that is smaller than a second major axis.
As to claim 3, Bassaco discloses the connector of claim 2, wherein each first and second leg extends from opposite ends of a bight (72) to form a U-shaped assembly, wherein the bight has a cross-section having a first minor axis that is smaller than a second major axis conforming to the cross-section of the first and second legs.
As to claim 4, Bassaco discloses the connector of claim 3, wherein the receptacle includes first and second slots (64a, 64b) formed on opposing walls of the receptacle, the first leg extending into the cavity through the first slot and the second leg extending into the cavity through the second slot, wherein the minor axis of the second leg is aligned with the cavity of the receptacle (refer to FIGs. 2A, 2B and 4).
As to claim 6, Bassaco discloses the connector of claim 3, wherein the major axis of the second leg runs parallel to the longitudinal axis of the cavity of the receptacle (refer to FIGs. 2A, 2B and 4).
As to claim 7, Bassaco discloses the connector of claim 3, wherein the tube includes an annular groove extending circumferentially about a peripheral surface of the tube, the groove having parallel spaced walls that accept the major axis of each first and second leg.
The claim is drawn to a connector for coupling the tube (refer to preamble of claim 1). The tube is only functionally claimed. Therefore, claim 7 has been considered to only further limit a component that is not positively claimed.
As to claim 8, Bassaco discloses the connector of claim 3, wherein the U-shaped assembly is a wire retainer composed of a steel material. Refer to [0021].
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bassaco.
As to claim 5, Bassaco discloses the connector of claim 3. Bassaco is not explicit as to whether the minor axis is 20 percent to 30 percent smaller than the major axis.
However, it is known in the art that altering/varying the relative sizes of a structure can affect the weight, sealing ability, strength, flexibility, etc. of the structure.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Bassaco such that the minor axis is 20 percent to 30 percent smaller than the major axis, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of one or more of: controlling the weight of the structure; ensuring sufficient strength and/or flexibility; providing a structure which would have allowed sufficient sealing and engagement to occur when the joint is properly mated; to aid in the machining of the structure; and to have a structural arrangement which would have been obvious to try, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Alternatively, it would have been obvious matter of design choice to modify Bassaco such that the minor axis is 20 percent to 30 percent smaller than the major axis, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of one or more of: controlling the weight of the structure; ensuring sufficient strength and/or flexibility; providing a structure which would have allowed sufficient sealing and engagement to occur when the joint is properly mated; to aid in the machining of the structure; and to have a structural arrangement which would have been obvious to try, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size and/or proportion of a component. A change in size and/or proportion is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237, (CCPA 1955) and/or Gardener v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Claim(s) 9-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bassaco in view of OI et al (US 2023/0366497 A1).
As to claim 9, Bassaco discloses an assembly (30) of a connector (38) and a tube (16), the assembly comprising: a receptacle with an internal cavity (62) that extends along a longitudinal axis (FIG. 2A); an endform (36) formed on the end of the tube including a groove (40) extending about the periphery of the endform, the endform inserted into a cavity within the receptacle in a mounting position and arranged to slide into a latched position (see [0019]); a retainer (70) embracing the receptacle having first and second legs (74a, 74b) extending into the cavity (FIGs. 2B and 4), wherein the first leg has a cross-section that has a first minor axis (the axis running through the leg in the vertical direction in FIG. 2A) that is smaller than a second major axis (the axis running through the leg in the longitudinal direction of the connector in FIG. 2A) and, wherein the first minor axis of the first leg is aligned with the cavity of the receptacle, and the second major axis of the first leg runs parallel to the longitudinal axis of the cavity of the receptacle (refer to FIGs. 2A, 2B and 4); and wherein the endform engages the first and second legs minor axis that pushes the first and second legs into a spread condition while the endform is sliding from the mounting position into the latched position, wherein in the latched position the first and second legs of the retainer are captured in the groove when the first and second legs retract into a relaxed condition (see [0019]).
Bassaco fails to teach that each leg having an oval cross-section that has a first minor axis and a second major axis, wherein the second major axis of the first and second legs runs parallel to the longitudinal axis of the cavity of the receptacle.
In paragraph [0021], Bassaco states that the spring clip (70) preferably has a rectangular cross-section, wherein the interior and exterior surfaces and sides are generally flat. Bassaco also indicates that alternative profiles may be used, especially if a corresponding groove is present in the male member.
OI et al teaches a pipe connector similar to Bassaco, wherein the retaining clip can have a circular or elliptical (oval) cross-section (see paragraph [0054]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Bassaco such that the spring clip takes an elliptical profile, as taught by OI et al, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to secure an endform like that of tube (11) in Fig. 6 of US 2015/0176738.
As to claim 10, Bassaco/OI et al discloses the assembly of claim 9, wherein the receptacle includes first and second slots (64a, 64b) formed on opposing walls of the receptacle, the first leg extending into the cavity through the first slot and the second leg extending into the cavity through the second slot, with the minor axis of each first and second leg oriented towards the cavity of the receptacle (refer to FIGs. 2A, 2B and 4).
As to claim 11, Bassaco/OI et al discloses the assembly of claim 10, wherein each first and second leg is pushed outward from its respective first and second slot when the endform slides from the mounting position into the latched position. Refer to [0019] in Bassaco.
As to claim 12, Bassaco/OI et al discloses the assembly of claim 9, wherein the major axis of each first and second leg is parallel with the longitudinal axis of the receptacle cavity (refer to FIGs. 2A, 2B and 4 of Bassaco).
As to claim 13, Bassaco/OI et al discloses the assembly of claim 9, wherein the groove has spaced parallel walls (as at 41 and 46 in FIG. 2A of Bassaco) that accept the major axis of each first and second leg between the walls when in the relaxed condition in the latched position.
As to claim 14, Bassaco/OI et al discloses the assembly of claim 10, wherein the endform includes a ramped surface (53, Bassaco) that engages each first and second leg and that urges pushes each leg into the spread condition when the endform traverses from the mounting position into the latched position (refer to [0019] and FIGs. 2A, 2B and 4 of Bassaco).
As to claim 15, Bassaco/OI et al discloses the assembly of claim 9, wherein the first minor axis is smaller than the second major axis.
As to claim 16, Bassaco/OI et al discloses the assembly of claim 15. Bassaco is not explicit as to whether the minor axis is 20 percent to 30 percent smaller than the major axis.
However, it is known in the art that altering/varying the relative sizes of a structure can affect the weight, sealing ability, strength, flexibility, etc. of the structure.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Bassaco such that the minor axis is 20 percent to 30 percent smaller than the major axis, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of one or more of: controlling the weight of the structure; ensuring sufficient strength and/or flexibility; providing a structure which would have allowed sufficient sealing and engagement to occur when the joint is properly mated; to aid in the machining of the structure; and to have a structural arrangement which would have been obvious to try, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Alternatively, it would have been obvious matter of design choice to modify Bassaco such that the minor axis is 20 percent to 30 percent smaller than the major axis, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of one or more of: controlling the weight of the structure; ensuring sufficient strength and/or flexibility; providing a structure which would have allowed sufficient sealing and engagement to occur when the joint is properly mated; to aid in the machining of the structure; and to have a structural arrangement which would have been obvious to try, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size and/or proportion of a component. A change in size and/or proportion is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237, (CCPA 1955) and/or Gardener v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
As to claim 17, Bassaco/OI et al discloses the assembly of claim 9, wherein each first and second leg extends from opposite ends of a bight to form a U-shaped assembly, wherein the bight has a cross-section having a first minor axis smaller than the second major axis conforming to the cross-section of the first and second legs.
As to claim 18, Bassaco/OI et al discloses the assembly of claim 17, wherein the U-shaped assembly is a wire retainer composed of a steel material. Refer to [0021] of Bassaco.
As to claim 19, Bassaco discloses a process for coupling a tube (16) to a cavity (62) that extends along a longitudinal axis of a receptacle, comprising: forming an endform (36) on an end of the tube, the endform having a groove (40) about the periphery of the endform and locating the endform within the cavity in a mounting position, wherein the endform is slidable into a latched position (see [0019]); installing a retainer (70) having a first and a second legs (74a, 74b) in the cavity, each leg having a first minor axis (the axis running through the leg in the vertical direction in FIG. 2A) and a second major axis (the axis running through the leg in the longitudinal direction of the connector in FIG. 2A), wherein the second major axis of each of the first and second legs runs parallel to the longitudinal axis of the cavity; sliding the endform from the mounting position to the latched position causing the endform to engage the first and second legs minor axis and push the first and second legs into a spread condition while the endform is traversing from the mounting position to the latched position, wherein in the latched position the major axis of each of the first and second legs are captured by parallel walls forming the groove when the first and second legs retract to a relaxed condition (see [0019]).
Bassaco fails to teach the legs are oval.
In paragraph [0021], Bassaco states that the spring clip (70) preferably has a rectangular cross-section, wherein the interior and exterior surfaces and sides are generally flat. Though Bassaco also indicates that alternative profiles may be used, especially is a corresponding groove is present in the male member.
OI et al teaches a pipe connector similar to Bassaco, wherein the retaining clip can have a circular or elliptical (oval) cross-section (see paragraph [0054]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Bassaco such that the spring clip takes an elliptical profile, as taught by OI et al, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to secure an endform like that of tube (11) in Fig. 6 of US 2015/0176738.
As to claim 20, Bassaco/OI et al discloses the process of claim 19, except that the first minor axis is smaller by 20-30 percent than the second major axis.
However, it is known in the art that altering/varying the relative sizes of a structure can affect the weight, sealing ability, strength, flexibility, etc. of the structure.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Bassaco/OI et al such that the minor axis is 20 percent to 30 percent smaller than the major axis, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of one or more of: controlling the weight of the structure; ensuring sufficient strength and/or flexibility; providing a structure which would have allowed sufficient sealing and engagement to occur when the joint is properly mated; to aid in the machining of the structure; and to have a structural arrangement which would have been obvious to try, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Alternatively, it would have been obvious matter of design choice to modify Bassaco such that the minor axis is 20 percent to 30 percent smaller than the major axis, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of one or more of: controlling the weight of the structure; ensuring sufficient strength and/or flexibility; providing a structure which would have allowed sufficient sealing and engagement to occur when the joint is properly mated; to aid in the machining of the structure; and to have a structural arrangement which would have been obvious to try, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size and/or proportion of a component. A change in size and/or proportion is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237, (CCPA 1955) and/or Gardener v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Examiner’s Note:
The italicized portions in the foregoing claims are functional recitations. These clauses, as well as other statements of intended use do not serve to patently distinguish the claimed structure over that of the reference(s), as long as the structure of the cited reference(s) is capable of performing the intended use. See MPEP 2111-2115.
See also MPEP 2114, which states:
A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ 2d 1647;
Claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531; and
[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525,1528.
Any one of the systems in the cited reference(s) is capable of being used in the same manner and for the intended or desired use as the claimed invention. Note that it is sufficient to show that said capability exists, which is the case for the cited reference(s).
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 James M Hewitt II whose telephone number is (571)272-7084. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 730am-930pm (MST), mid-day flex.
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 M HEWITT II/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3679
James M. Hewitt II
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3679
Prosecution Insights