DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The status of the claims for this application is as follows.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 12/12/2025 and 07/09/2026 were considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 12/12/2025.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are as follows:
Claims 1, 15 and 20: the limitation "latch mechanism" invokes 112(f) because: (A) the claim limitation uses the generic placeholder "mechanism"; (B) the generic placeholder "mechanism" is modified by functional language e.g., "latch"; and (C) the generic placeholder "mechanism" is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. The disclosed associated structure is a u-shaped member with square plate-shaped latch projections (represented by applicant’s element 30 in the drawing(s) and in the specification). As such, the recitation "latch mechanism" will be interpreted as being a u-shaped member with square plate-shaped latch projections and any structural/functional equivalents.
Claim 12: the limitation "RFID reader device" invokes 112(f) because: (A) the claim limitation uses the generic placeholder "device"; (B) the generic placeholder "device" is modified by functional language e.g., "RFID reader"; and (C) the generic placeholder "device" is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. The disclosed associated structure is a portable computing device or a handheld mobile scanner (represented by applicant’s element 200 in the drawing(s) and in the specification). As such, the recitation "RFID reader device" will be interpreted as being a portable computing device or a handheld mobile scanner and any structural/functional equivalents.
Claim 15: the limitation "radio frequency (RF) blocking member" invokes 112(f) because: (A) the claim limitation uses the generic placeholder "member"; (B) the generic placeholder "member” is modified by functional language e.g., "radio-frequency blocking"; and (C) the generic placeholder "member" is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. The disclosed associated structure is a rectangularly shaped member having an RF reflecting materials, such as, carbon fiber, metallic materials (coatings, foils, fibers, particles made from metals such as, aluminum, copper, iron, nickel or other metals or alloys) or Faraday cloth shields applied in one or more layers on either the upper or lower surface (represented by applicant’s elements 50 and 51 in the drawing(s) and in the specification). As such, the recitation "radio frequency (RF) blocking member" will be interpreted as being a rectangularly shaped member having an RF reflecting materials, such as, carbon fiber, metallic materials (coatings, foils, fibers, particles made from metals such as, aluminum, copper, iron, nickel or other metals or alloys) or Faraday cloth shields applied in one or more layers on either the upper or lower surface and any structural/functional equivalents.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are 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/these limitation(s) 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(s) to avoid it/them 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(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-8 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hunt et al. (US 2024/0068610), (hereinafter, Hunt).
At the outset the applicant is reminded that:
1. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
2. 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 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
PNG
media_image1.png
654
724
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Re Clm 1: Hunt discloses a connector (see Figs. 1-9 and the image above and [0035] and [0042]) comprising:
a connector body (20) surrounding an internal passage (see the central bore) arranged to receive a pipe therein;
a radio-frequency identification (RFID) module (50, see [0035] which indicates that 50 can be an RFID) installed on the connector body (see [0035]);
a latch mechanism (30) positioned in an insertion position and movable into a latched position (see Figs. 1-9); and
a cover (40) attached to the latch mechanism extends over the RFID module and prevents reading of the RFID module (see Figs. 1-9 and [0035] and [0042]),
wherein responsive to the latch mechanism being moved to the latched position the latch retains the pipe to the connector body and moves the cover to allow reading of the RFID module (see Figs. 1-9 and [0035] and [0042]).
Re Clm 2: Hunt discloses wherein the connector body includes first (1001) and second (1002) flanges surrounding the internal passage (see Fig. 2) and defining a receiving portion (see Fig. 2), wherein an opening (he opening that receives 2001) located between the first and second flanges extends into the receiving portion (see Fig. 2) and receives a first leg of the latch mechanism (2001).
Re Clm 3: Hunt discloses wherein the cover is integrally joined to the first leg of the latch mechanism (see Fig. 2) and extends perpendicularly from the first leg (see Fig. 2) to cover the RFID module in the insertion position (see Figs. 1-9 and the image above and [0035] and [0042]) and uncover the RFID module when the latch mechanism is moved to the latched position (see Figs. 1-9 and the image above and [0035] and [0042]).
Re Clm 4: Hunt discloses wherein the first flange including a planar edge surface (see Figs. 1-9 and the image above and [0035] and [0042], where 50 is attached) having the RFID module applied to a first portion of edge surface (see Fig. 2), wherein the cover travels along the first flange edge surface from the first portion to a second portion of the edge surface when the latch mechanism is moved from the pipe insertion position to the latched position (see Figs. 1-9 and the image above and [0035] and [0042]).
Re Clm 5: Hunt discloses wherein the cover is integrally joined to the first leg and extends perpendicularly from the first leg over the flange edge surface (see Figs. 1-9 and the image above and [0035] and [0042]).
Re Clm 6: Hunt discloses wherein the cover includes an upper and lower surface (see Figs. 1-9 and the image above and [0035] and [0042]), each surface arranged to have radio frequency (RF) blocking material applied to either the upper or the lower surface that reflects RF energy (each surface arranged to have a radio frequency (RF) blocking material applied to either the upper or the lower surface that reflects RF energy, note that the radio frequency (RF) blocking material is not a positively recited element of the claim).
As for Clm 7: the RF blocking material can be applied to both the upper and the lower surface of the cover (this claim is merely further defining the non-positively recited element of the radio frequency (RF) blocking material).
As for Clm 8: the RF blocking material can be molded into the material comprising the cover (this claim is merely further defining the non-positively recited element of the radio frequency (RF) blocking material).
Re Clm 20: Hunt discloses a method for confirming the latching of a pipe to a connector body using a radio-frequency identification (RFID) module (see Figs. 1-9 and [0035] and [0042]), the method comprising:
providing a latch mechanism (30) movable between a first position that allows insertion of the pipe into the connector body to a second position that latches the pipe to the connector (see Figs. 1-9 and [0035] and [0042]);
preventing the RFID module from receiving radio frequency (RF) energy from an RF reader when the latch mechanism is in the first position (see Figs. 1-9 and [0035] and [0042]), and moving the latch mechanism to a second position when the pipe is inserted into the connector body allowing the RFID module to receive RF energy from the RF reader activating the RFID module to transmit latched confirmation information to the RF reader (see Figs. 1-9 and [0035] and [0042]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 9-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hunt et al. (US 2024/0068610), (hereinafter, Hunt) as applied to claims 1-8 and 20 above.
Re Clm 9: Hunt discloses the RFID module and the connector body.
Hunt fails to disclose that the disclosed RFID module is comprised of an RFID chip and an antenna mounted to a substrate, wherein the substrate is attached to the disclosed connector body.
An RFID chip and an antenna mounted to a substrate, wherein the substrate is attached to a body allows for the RFID module to have a form, a means to send and/or receive a signal and/or data, and the means to be mounted. The examiner is taking Official notice that it is old and well-known to have an RFID module comprise of an RFID chip and an antenna mounted to a substrate, wherein the substrate is attached to a body, for the purpose of providing a means to send and/or receive a signal and/or data, and the means to be mounted.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention at the time the invention was made to have modified the device of Hunt, to have included the disclosed RFID module is comprised of an RFID chip and an antenna mounted to a substrate, wherein the substrate is attached to the disclosed connector body, with a reasonable expectation of success because Hunt already discloses the use of an RFID tag, it being mounted to a structurer, and it having the ability of being processed by a computer or device, thus having the specifics of the RFID module is merely insuring the proper functionality of said RFID module, for the purpose of providing a means to send and/or receive a signal and/or data, and the means to be mounted.
Re Clm 10: Hunt discloses wherein the RFID module substrate is attached to the first portion of the first flange edge surface (see Fig. 1).
Re Clm 11: Hunt discloses the RFID chip stores data.
Hunt fails to disclose that the disclosed RFID chip stores latched confirmation information that includes at least an RFID module ID and latched verification data.
An RFID chip storing latched confirmation information that includes at least an RFID module ID and latched verification data aids in verifying the purpose of the structure and/or its operation. The examiner is taking Official notice that it is old and well-known to have an RFID chip stores latched confirmation information that includes at least an RFID module ID and latched verification data, for the purpose verifying the purpose of the structure and/or its operation.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention at the time the invention was made to have modified the device of Hunt, to have included the disclosed RFID chip stores latched confirmation information that includes at least an RFID module ID and latched verification data, with a reasonable expectation of success because Hunt already discloses the use of an RFID tag, it being mounted to a structurer, and it having the ability of being processed by a computer or device, thus having such data is merely an alternative type of data the RFID can have, for the purpose of verifying the purpose of the structure and/or its operation.
Re Clm 12: Hunt discloses the RFID module, transmits information, and an RFID reader device, where information can be moved when the RFID module is uncovered by the cover.
Hunt fails to disclose that the disclosed RFID module transmits latched confirmation information using RFID protocol.
An RFID module transmitting latched confirmation information using RFID protocol aids in verifying the purpose of the structure and/or its operation. The examiner is taking Official notice that it is old and well-known to have an RFID module transmitting latched confirmation information using RFID protocol, for the purpose verifying the purpose of the structure and/or its operation.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention at the time the invention was made to have modified the device of Hunt, to have included the disclosed RFID module transmits latched confirmation information using RFID protocol, with a reasonable expectation of success because Hunt already discloses the use of an RFID tag, it being mounted to a structurer, and it having the ability of being processed by a computer or device, thus having such data is merely an alternative type of data the RFID can have/employ, for the purpose of verifying the purpose of the structure and/or its operation.
Re Clm 13: Hunt discloses wherein the RFID reader is a designed for interrogating and communicating with RFID modules using the RFID protocol.
Hunt fails to disclose that the disclosed computer is a portable computing device, or a handheld mobile scanner.
A portable computer allows for RFID tags to be used and/or read in remote locations. The examiner is taking Official notice that it is old and well-known to have a computer to be portable, for the purpose of reading remote RFID tags.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention at the time the invention was made to have modified the device of Hunt, to have had the disclosed computer is a portable computing device, or a handheld mobile scanner, with a reasonable expectation of success because Hunt already discloses the use of an RFID tag, it being mounted to a structurer, and it having the ability of being processed by a computer or device, thus having a computer being able to be portable is merely an alternative design of a computer, for the purpose of reading remote RFID tags.
Re Clm 14: Hunt fails to disclose wherein the RFID reader is a portable mobile device including a data pad, a smartphone, or a wearable smart wristwatch that are arranged to execute a software application that when executed is designed to interrogate the RFID module using the RFID protocol.
However, a portable computer, such as a data pad, a smartphone, or a wearable smart wristwatch, can be arranged to execute a software application that when executed is designed to interrogate the RFID module using the RFID protocol allows for the reading of remote RFID tags.
The examiner is taking Official notice that it is old and well-known to have a portable computer, such as a data pad, a smartphone, or a wearable smart wristwatch, can be arranged to execute a software application that when executed is designed to interrogate the RFID module using the RFID protocol, for the purpose of reading remote RFID tags.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention at the time the invention was made to have modified the device of Hunt, to have had the RFID reader is a portable mobile device including a data pad, a smartphone, or a wearable smart wristwatch that are arranged to execute a software application that when executed is designed to interrogate the RFID module using the RFID protocol, with a reasonable expectation of success because Hunt already discloses the use of an RFID tag, it being mounted to a structurer, and it having the ability of being processed by a computer or device, thus having a computer being able to be portable is merely an alternative design of a computer, for the purpose of reading remote RFID tags.
Claim(s) 15-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cardwell et al. (2025/0284909), (hereinafter, Cardwell) in view of Hunt et al. (US 2024/0068610), (hereinafter, Hunt).
At the outset the applicant is reminded that:
1. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
2. 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 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Re Clm 15: Cardwell discloses a connector (see Figs. 1, 3, and 4) comprising:
a connector body (11) having a receiving portion surrounding an internal passage (see Fig. 1), the internal passage arranged to receive a pipe therein;
a latch mechanism (30) having a first leg (32 and 35) retained in the receiving portion in an insertion position (see Figs. 1, 3, and 4), the latch mechanism and the first leg movable into a latched position (see Figs. 1, 3, and 4); and an identification module (70) installed on the first leg (see Figs. 1, 3, and 4), the module shielded by a blocking member (70) in the insertion position preventing the reading of the module (see Fig. 3), wherein responsive to the latch mechanism being moved to the latched position the latch retains the pipe to the connector body and causing and first leg to move and unshield the module allowing the reading of the module (see Fig. 4).
Cardwell fails to disclose that the disclosed module is a radio-frequency identification (RFID) module and that the disclosed blocking member is a radio frequency (RF) blocking member.
However, Hunt discloses a joint and joint fastening means, similar to that of Cardwell. Hunt also teaches in Figs. 1-9, the image above, and in [0035] and [0042] the use of a radio-frequency identification (RFID) module (50) and that the disclosed blocking member is a radio frequency (RF) blocking member (see [0035] and [0042]). Where such would be used an alternative means of providing information for the structure(s)/joint
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to have modified the device of Cardwell, to have had the disclosed module be a radio-frequency identification (RFID) module and the disclosed blocking member be a radio frequency (RF) blocking member, as taught by Hunt, with a reasonable expectation of success because one means of identification is being replaced with an alternative means of identification, for the purpose of providing a different means of conveying information.
Re Clm 16: Cardwell as modified by Hunt discloses wherein the connector body includes first and second flanges (Cardwell, the flanges on the sides of 32, see Figs. 3 and 4) the first and second flanges defining the receiving portion (Cardwell, the portion that receives 32), and an opening located between the first and second flanges extending into the receiving portion for receiving the latch mechanism first leg (Cardwell, the opening that receives 32).
Re Clm 17: Cardwell as modified by Hunt discloses wherein the RF blocking member is a cross-member (the cross-member 49 of Cardwell) that extends between the first and second flanges (Cardwell, see Figs. 3 and 4), wherein in the pipe insertion position the RFID module is located behind and shielded by the RF blocking member (Cardwell, see Fig. 3).
Re Clm 18: Cardwell as modified by Hunt discloses wherein in the latched position the RFID module is moved from behind the RF blocking member (Cardwell, see Fig. 4).
Re Clm 19: Cardwell as modified by Hunt discloses wherein the RF blocking member has at least either an upper or a lower surface covered by RF blocking material (during the insertion of 30 into 11 and/or when 30 is being pushed into its locking position in 11).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following documents have structural features (tubes locked to tubes) which are similar to the applicant’s claimed invention; US-20210285581-A1, US-20220010907-A1, US-20220163153-A1, US-20220243850-A1, US-20220299143-A1, US-20230055432-A1, US-20230184360-A1, and US-20240185009-A1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES A LINFORD whose telephone number is (571)270-3066. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday: 8:00 am to 5:00 pm Eastern Time.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matthew Troutman can be reached at (571) 270-3654. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
JAMES ALBERT LINFORD
Examiner
Art Unit 3679
07/23/2026
/Matthew Troutman/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3679
Prosecution Insights