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.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in France on 09/10/2024. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the FR2409617 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
Changes to the drawings filed on 06/24/2026 are accepted.
Claim Interpretation
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that uses the word “means,” and is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation uses “means” without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “locating means”. Since this claim limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim 2 has been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
Paragraph [0091] recites “locating pins of the spacer 61, 63”.
For purposes of the examination, examiner will interpret “locating means” as “locating pins”.
Because the above claim limitation is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it is being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this limitation interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may:
(1) amend the claim limitation to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or
(2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth 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 1, 3, 6-8, and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ishida et al. (US 2010/0052313 A1, hereinafter “Ishida”).
In regard to claim 1, Ishida discloses a quick connector (Fig. 4 shows a quick connector) comprising:
-a tubular connector body (Fig. 4, tubular connector body at 20) defining an insertion axis (Fig. 4, 20 has at least a longitudinal axis defining an insertion axis) and having a sealing zone in the form of an inner annular groove for receiving a male element (Fig. 4, inside of 20 defines a sealing zone in a form of an inner annular groove for receiving a male element at 12);
-an axial retaining element (Fig. 4, bush 26 defines an axial retaining element);
-the inner annular groove comprising a bottom (See image below, indicated bottom) and a side wall (See image below, indicated side wall that extends from the bottom) which are defined by an inner shoulder of the tubular connector body (See image below, indicated inner shoulder defines the bottom and the side wall similar to applicant’s invention);
characterized in that
-the inner shoulder is not contained in a transverse plane, perpendicular to the insertion axis (See image below, indicated inner shoulder is angled, therefore, it is not contained in a transverse plane, perpendicular to the insertion axis);
-the quick connector comprises, between the axial retaining element and the bottom, at least two seals (Fig. 4, pair of seals 22) and a flexible or rigid spacer (Fig. 4, spacer 24 is at least rigid or flexible) located between the seals (Fig. 4, 24 is between the seals 22) which the at least two seals are capable of having a same profile as the inner shoulder (Fig. 4, seals 22 are both elastomeric O-rings which both are capable of having a same profile as the inner shoulder by elastic deformation).
PNG
media_image1.png
366
478
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 3, Ishida discloses the quick connector according to claim 1, wherein the inner annular groove comprises an inner stop defining a stage and a second side wall (See image below, the inner annular grooves include at least the indicated inner stop that defines a stage and a second side wall for retaining 29).
PNG
media_image2.png
379
360
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 6, Ishida discloses the quick connector according to claim 1, wherein the axial retaining element comprises at least one notch (Fig. 4, slits at 28 define at least one notch of the axial retaining element 26).
In regard to claim 7, Ishida discloses the quick connector according to claim 1, further comprising a locking element (Figs. 3 and 4, the part 36 defines a locking element for locking the male element 12).
In regard to claim 8, Ishida discloses the quick connector according to claim 1, wherein the at least two seals are O-rings made of the same material (Fig. 4, the pair of seals 22 are identical O-rings which are made of the same material).
In regard to claim 11, Ishida discloses a method for assembling a quick connector, the method comprising:
providing the quick connector according to claim 1 (See claim 1 above);
- initially inserting the at least two seals into the inner annular groove of the tubular connector body (Fig. 4, the two seals 22 must be initially inserted prior to at least 26, 36, and 12), said at least two seals being separated by the spacer (Fig. 4, spacer 24 is between both 22); and
- subsequently positioning the axial retaining element (Fig. 4, after inserting 22 and 24, the axial retaining element 26 is inserted);
wherein, during assembly, the spacer retains its original shape (Fig. 4, spacer 24 is a more rigid component than O-rings 22 in order to allow the O-rings 22 to elastically deform to form a seal around the inner annular groove and the male element 12).
12. In regard to claim 12, Ishida discloses the method for assembling a quick connector according to claim 11, wherein the spacer is oriented in a predefined direction before the spacer is inserted into the inner annular groove (Fig. 4, 24 must at least be oriented in a predefined direction such as a center hole axis of 24 aligns with the insertion axis in order to fit into the position shown).
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishida (US 2010/0052313 A1) in view of Yoshida et al. (US 2005/0136741 A1, hereinafter “Yoshida”).
Ishida discloses the quick connector according to claim 1, but does not expressly disclose wherein the rigid spacer is provided with locating pins.
In the related field of quick connectors, Yoshida teaches a spacer having locating pins (Fig. 7, locating pins 47 and 63) in order to have the advantage of preventing unwanted rotation relative to a male element and a tubular connector body (In [0047] discloses 47 fits into a recess of a rim of a male element 12 in order to prevent unwanted rotation and in [0058] discloses 63 allows preventing rotation relative to a tubular connector body at 17).
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 spacer and tubular connector body of Ishida to include locating pins on the spacer with respective recesses the tubular connector body with a reasonable expectation of success in order to have the advantage of a strong prevention of unwanted rotation of the spacer relative to the tubular connector body as taught by Yoshida.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishida (US 2010/0052313 A1) in view of Ti Automotive Fuldabrueck GmbH (DE 202020105671, hereinafter “Ti Automotive”).
Ishida discloses the quick connector according to claim 1, but does not expressly disclose wherein the profile of the bottom of the inner annular groove is not axisymmetric along the insertion axis of the tubular connector body.
In the related field of quick connectors, Ti Automotive teaches a profile of a bottom of an inner annular groove (Fig. 5, inner annular groove near 7 which has a bottom adjacent and contacting O-ring 7) is not axisymmetric along an insertion axis of a tubular connector body (Fig. 5 shows the bottom is angled similar to the angle of O-ring 7, therefore, the bottom is not axisymmetric along an insertion axis of a tubular connector body of 4) in order to have the advantage of reduced insertion forces allowing for at least ease of assembly (In paragraphs [0022-0024] of the English translation discloses the advantage of the angled bottom that allows the O-ring 7 to be angled which provides reduced insertion forces allowing for at least ease of assembly).
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 profile of the bottom of Ishida to be not axisymmetric along the insertion axis of the tubular connector body with a reasonable expectation of success in order to have the advantage of reduced insertion forces allowing for at least ease of assembly as taught by Ti Automotive.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishida (US 2010/0052313 A1) in view of Sanzone et al. (US 2010/0171308 A1, hereinafter “Sanzone”).
Ishida discloses the quick connector according to claim 1, but does not expressly disclose wherein the at least two seals are O-rings made of different materials.
In the related field of quick connectors, Sanzone teaches a quick connector having two O-rings and a spacer in between the two O-rings (Fig. 1, quick connector shown having two O-rings 46 and 48 and a spacer 50), wherein the two O-rings are made of different material in order to have at least the advantage of both materials of the O-rings (In [0019] discloses one O-ring can be made of nitrile and the other O-ring can be made of viton which at least suggest having the advantages of both materials).
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 material of the O-rings of Ishida to be different such that one is made of nitrile and the other made of viton with a reasonable expectation of success in order to have the known advantages of both nitrile and viton as taught by Ti Automotive. See https://www.nes-ips.com/viton-vs-nitrile-o-rings/ that discloses the advantages of nitrile providing excellent abrasion and tear resistance and being cost-effective and the advantages of viton providing resistance to chemicals, degradation by UV, weather, ozone and mold.
Additionally, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. 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 material of the O-rings of Ishida to be different such that one is made of nitrile and the other made of viton with a reasonable expectation of success in order to have the known advantages of both nitrile and viton for the advantages of nitrile providing excellent abrasion and tear resistance and being cost-effective and the advantages of viton providing resistance to chemicals, degradation by UV, weather, ozone and mold.
Claims 1, 3-8, and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McNaughton et al. (US 5,324,082 hereinafter “McNaughton”) in view of Ti Automotive (DE 202020105671).
In regard to claim 1, McNaughton discloses a quick connector (Fig. 9 shows a quick connector) comprising:
-a tubular connector body (Fig. 9, tubular connector body at 24) defining an insertion axis (Fig. 9, longitudinal axis of 24 defines an insertion axis for a male element at 66) and having a sealing zone in the form of an inner annular groove for receiving a male element (Fig. 9, inside of 24 defines a sealing zone in the form of an inner annular groove for receiving a male element at 66);
-an axial retaining element (See image below, indicated axial retaining element);
-the inner annular groove comprising a bottom (See image below, indicated bottom) and a side wall (See image below, indicated side wall) which are defined by an inner shoulder of the tubular connector body (See image below, indicated inner shoulder defines the bottom and side wall similar to applicant’s invention);
characterized in that
-the quick connector comprises, between the axial retaining element and the bottom, at least two seals (Fig. 9, two seals 74 and 76) and a flexible or rigid spacer (See image below, indicated spacer is at least flexible or rigid) located between the seals which the at least two seals are capable of having a same profile as the inner shoulder (Fig. 9 and see image below, 74 and 76 are elastomeric O-rings which both are capable of elastic deformation to have a same profile as the inner shoulder).
PNG
media_image3.png
324
608
media_image3.png
Greyscale
McNaughton does not expressly disclose the inner shoulder is not contained in a transverse plane, perpendicular to the insertion axis.
In the related field of quick connectors, Ti Automotive teaches a profile of a bottom of an inner annular groove (Fig. 5, inner annular groove near 7 which has a bottom adjacent and contacting O-ring 7) is not contained in a transverse plane, perpendicular to the insertion axis (Fig. 5 shows a profile of the bottom is angled, therefore, is not contained in a transverse plane, perpendicular to the insertion axis) in order to have at least the advantage of reduced insertion forces allowing for at least ease of assembly (In paragraphs [0022-0024] of the English translation discloses the advantage of the angled bottom that allows the O-ring 7 to be angled which provides reduced insertion forces allowing for at least ease of assembly).
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 profile of the bottom of McNaughton to be not contained in a transverse plane, perpendicular to the insertion axis with a reasonable expectation of success in order to have the advantage of reduced insertion forces allowing for at least ease of assembly as taught by Ti Automotive.
In regard to claim 3, McNaughton and Ti Automotive disclose the quick connector according to claim 1, and McNaughton further discloses wherein the inner annular groove comprises an inner stop defining a stage and a second side wall (See image below, indicated inner stop defines a stage and a second side wall within the inner annular groove).
PNG
media_image4.png
278
628
media_image4.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 4, McNaughton and Ti Automotive disclose the quick connector according to claim 1, and McNaughton further discloses wherein the at least two seals are O-rings of different diameters (Fig. 9 shows 74 and 76 are O-rings of different diameters).
In regard to claim 5, McNaughton and Ti Automotive disclose the quick connector according to claim 1, and Ti Automotive further teaches wherein the profile of the bottom of the inner annular groove is not axisymmetric along the insertion axis of the tubular connector body (See claim 1 above for similar reasons such that the bottom of Ti Automotive is also angled and not axisymmetric along the insertion axis to allow for ease of insertion. See claim 1 above for the same reasons to combine McNaughton and Ti Automotive.).
In regard to claim 6, McNaughton and Ti Automotive disclose the quick connector according to claim 1, and McNaughton further discloses wherein the axial retaining element comprises at least one notch (See image below, indicated notch of the axial retaining element is for at least latching onto an inner surface of the tubular connector body).
PNG
media_image5.png
261
525
media_image5.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 7, McNaughton and Ti Automotive disclose the quick connector according to claim 1, and McNaughton further discloses further comprising a locking element (Fig. 9, the part at 32 defines at least a locking element for locking the male element at 66).
In regard to claim 8, McNaughton and Ti Automotive disclose the quick connector according to claim 1, and McNaughton further discloses wherein the at least two seals are O-rings made of the same material (Fig. 9, 74 and 76 are made of the same O-ring material).
In regard to claim 11, McNaughton and Ti Automotive disclose a method for assembling a quick connector, the method comprising:
providing the quick connector according to claim 1 (See claim 1 above);
and McNaughton further discloses - initially inserting the at least two seals into the inner annular groove of the tubular connector body (Fig. 9, 74 and 76 are initially inserted into the inner annular groove), said at least two seals being separated by the spacer (Fig. 9 and see image above for claim 1, indicated spacer is between 74 and 76); and
- subsequently positioning the axial retaining element (See image above for claim 1, after positioning the seals 74 and 76 and the spacer, the axial retaining element is inserted);
wherein, during assembly, the spacer retains its original shape (Figs. 7-9 and see image above for claim 1, the spacer retains its original shape).
12. In regard to claim 12, McNaughton and Ti Automotive disclose the method for assembling a quick connector according to claim 11, and McNaughton further discloses wherein the spacer is oriented in a predefined direction before the spacer is inserted into the inner annular groove (See image above for claim 1, indicated spacer is at least oriented in a predefined direction before the spacer is inserted into the inner annular groove in order to be in the position shown in Fig. 9).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McNaughton (US 5,324,082) in view of Ti Automotive (DE 202020105671) and further in view of Yoshida et al. (US 2005/0136741 A1, hereinafter “Yoshida”).
McNaughton and Ti Automotive disclose the quick connector according to claim 1, but does not expressly disclose wherein the rigid spacer is provided with locating pins.
In the related field of quick connectors, Yoshida teaches a spacer having locating pins (Fig. 7, locating pins 47 and 63) in order to have the advantage of preventing unwanted rotation relative to a male element and a tubular connector body (In [0047] discloses 47 fits into a recess of a rim of a male element 12 in order to prevent unwanted rotation and in [0058] discloses 63 allows preventing rotation relative to a tubular connector body at 17).
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 spacer and tubular connector body of McNaughton in view of Ti Automotive to include locating pins on the spacer with respective recesses the tubular connector body with a reasonable expectation of success in order to have the advantage of a strong prevention of unwanted rotation of the spacer relative to the tubular connector body as taught by Yoshida.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McNaughton (US 5,324,082) in view of Ti Automotive (DE 202020105671) and further in view of Sanzone (US 2010/0171308 A1).
McNaughton in view of Ti Automotive discloses the quick connector according to claim 1, but does not expressly disclose wherein the at least two seals are O-rings made of different materials.
In the related field of quick connectors, Sanzone teaches a quick connector having two O-rings and a spacer in between the two O-rings (Fig. 1, quick connector shown having two O-rings 46 and 48 and a spacer 50), wherein the two O-rings are made of different material in order to have at least the advantage of both materials of the O-rings (In [0019] discloses one O-ring can be made of nitrile and the other O-ring can be made of viton which at least suggest having the advantages of both materials).
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 material of the O-rings of McNaughton in view of Ti Automotive to be different such that one is made of nitrile and the other made of viton with a reasonable expectation of success in order to have the known advantages of both nitrile and viton as taught by Ti Automotive. See https://www.nes-ips.com/viton-vs-nitrile-o-rings/ that discloses the advantages of nitrile providing excellent abrasion and tear resistance and being cost-effective and the advantages of viton providing resistance to chemicals, degradation by UV, weather, ozone and mold.
Additionally, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. 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 material of the O-rings of McNaughton in view of Ti Automotive to be different such that one is made of nitrile and the other made of viton with a reasonable expectation of success in order to have the known advantages of both nitrile and viton for the advantages of nitrile providing excellent abrasion and tear resistance and being cost-effective and the advantages of viton providing resistance to chemicals, degradation by UV, weather, ozone and mold.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments that Ishida does not disclose “the inner shoulder is not contained in a transverse plane, perpendicular to the insertion axis” of claim 1 because the inclined surface of Ishida remains axisymmetric, however, the Examiner respectfully disagree because the recitation of “the inner shoulder is not contained in a transverse plane, perpendicular to the insertion axis” is not the same as “not axisymmetric”. It is not until claim 5 that requires the limitation of “not axisymmetric” which the Examiner agrees that Ishida, alone, does not expressly disclose “not axisymmetric”. However, the inclined surface of Ishida does disclose “the inner shoulder is not contained in a transverse plane, perpendicular to the insertion axis” because in order to be contained in a transverse plane perpendicular to the insertion axis, the surface of Ishida would have to be perpendicular. See the following attached image illustrating the inclined surface of Ishida relative to the insertion axis and claimed transverse plane.
PNG
media_image6.png
331
507
media_image6.png
Greyscale
As shown above, the inclined surface of Ishida is reasonably considered not contained in the transverse plane because the transverse plane is perpendicular to the insertion axis and the inclined surface of Ishida has portions that are not within the transverse plane, therefore, the inclined surface of Ishida is “not contained” in the transverse plane. Additionally, claim 1 does not claim the location of such a transverse plane, therefore, a transverse plane perpendicular to the insertion axis that does not even intersect the inclined surface of Ishida would also allow the inclined surface of Ishida to meet the limitation of claim 1. Therefore, applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments to claim 2, the applicant relied upon the same arguments to claim 1. Therefore, applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive for the same reasons above for claim 1.
In response to applicant’s arguments that Ishida and Ti Automotive do not disclose claim 5 for the same reasons for claim 1, however, the Examiner respectfully disagree because Ti Automotive teaches a surface that is not axisymmetric and the combination of Ishida and Ti Automotive would reasonably disclose all the features of claim 5. Applicant’s arguments failed to provide any arguments against the teachings of Ti Automotive with regard to claim 5 and Ishida in view of Ti Automotive. Therefore, applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments to claim 9, the applicant relied upon the same arguments to claim 1. Therefore, applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive for the same reasons above for claim 1.
In response to applicant’s arguments that McNaughton in view of Ti Automotive does not disclose claim 1 and Ti Automotive discloses at most, an angled surface that remains axisymmetric, however, the Examiner respectfully disagree because Ti Automotive discloses both “the inner shoulder is not contained in a transverse plane, perpendicular to the insertion axis” of claim 1 and “not axisymmetric” of claim 5. First, Ti Automotive discloses an angle surface, as agreed by applicant’s arguments, therefore, meets the limitation of claim 1 for similar reasons above for Ishida. Second, the angled surface of Ti Automotive is also at an angle alpha shown in Fig. 5 which the profile of the angled surface of Ti Automotive is not axisymmetric in order to have the advantage of reduced insertion forces allowing ease of assembly. This advantage is the same as applicant argues about reduced insertion forces by compression against a varying profile circumferentially. Accordingly, applicant’s arguments appear to interpret Ti Automotive as simply an inclined surface without considering the inclined surface as shown in Fig. 5 of Ti Automotive is also inclined relative to the insertion axis to allow the same advantage of applicant’s invention. Therefore, applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive and failed to reasonably consider the teachings of Ti Automotive.
In regard to claims 2 and 9, the applicant’s arguments relied upon the same arguments for claim 1. Therefore, applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive for the same reasons above for claim 1.
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