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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/17/25 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 12/01/25, with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chapman et al. (US 5,317,799) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Applicant has amended claim 1 to recite a connection system that includes a flexible tubing having protrusions on an outer surface and then argued this feature is not taught by the prior art Chapman. See amended claim 1 and pages 6-7 of Applicant’s Remarks. The Examiner agrees; therefore the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made below.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 12/01/25, with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being anticipated by Chapman et al. (US 5,317,799) in view of Weems (US 4,955,645) have been fully considered but they are NOT persuasive. Applicant has argued that combined the Weems device with the device of Chapman would destroy the operation of the device of Chapman. Applicant has also argued that there is no suggestion anywhere in Chapman and Weems that the connection system of Chapman is deficient in any way and that further connection is not needed. Therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would not combine the references. See pages 6-7 of Applicant’s Remarks. The Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits the following in rebuttal.
The Examiner submits – in response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references – that the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the Examiner first submits that adding projections to tubing for mating with connection elements are well known as knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art and that these features are, in fact, provided by the Weems reference. Weems teaches a tube having protrusions (threads 52) that are mated with other elements on the connector to provide a secure fit with the connector. The Examiner submits the additional connection elements on the tubing would be an improvement over the prior art Chapman; AND submits that one of ordinary skill in the art could add the protrusions to the tube of Chapman without destroying the Chapman device given the teachings of Weems. See MPEP 2143, Section I, C – Use of a Known Technique to Improve Similar Devices.
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.
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chapman et al. (US 5,317,799). This rejection was first applied in Paragraphs 9-14 of the Final Rejection mailed 11/20/24. The rejection was then maintained in Paragraphs 11 and 22-24 of the Non-Final Rejection mailed 06/04/25 and Paragraphs 8-13 of the Final Rejection mailed 10/02/25. The rejection remains in effect. Please see Response to Arguments above.
Regarding claims 12 and 13 - As stated in the previous actions, Chapman teaches a tube holding assembly (hose coupling 24). The assembly includes a tube (hose 21) fitted over a barb (30) of a tube insert (insert 26), the tube insert (26) comprising a proximal end for inserting into the tube, and a distal end (61) which is connectable to or part of other bioprocessing apparatus, the holding assembly (24) further comprising a tube locking ring (ferrule 28) comprising an annular gap (annular recess 23) extending along the same axis as the tube insert (insert 26) and comprising a plurality of locking protrusions (annular ridges 29) respectively spaced along the axis and extending into the annular gap
(recess 23) for engaging the tube (hose 21) in use, wherein a respective adjacent pair of the plurality of
locking protrusions (ridges 29) of the locking ring are together configured to clamp the tube onto the tube insert on each side of the barb (barbs 30).
Inventorship
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 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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7 and 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chapman et al. (US 5,317,799) in view of Weems (US 4,955,645).
Chapman teaches a hose coupling. The coupling is best shown in Figures 1-4 and described in columns 4-7.
Regarding claims 1, 5, 7 and 9-13 – As shown in the cited Figures Chapman teaches a connector having a first hollow insert (insert 26) for allowing fluid flow, having a proximal end configured to fit
inside the tubing (hose 21); a first outer part (ferrule 28); a joining member (annular groove 60) rigidly
connecting the first hollow insert (insert 26) to the first outer part (ferrule 28) at a region spaced from
the proximal end of the first hollow insert (insert 26); and a generally annular gap (recess 23) between
the first hollow insert (insert 29) and the first outer part (ferrule 28), which forms a tubing accepting
opening at or adjacent the proximal end of the first hollow insert; the first outer part further (ferrule 28)
comprising plural resilient protrusions extending into the gap, allowing the tubing to be inserted, but
resisting removal of the tubing once inserted; and wherein at least the first hollow insert, the joining
member and the first outer part are formed as a single integral molding; wherein the first hollow insert
has at least one barb on its outer surface to facilitate insertion of the tubing over the first hollow insert.
With respect to the method claim 11, Chapman recites a method that includes the steps of providing the connector element(s) and inserting the tubing element. Chapman does not teach a tubing element having a having a plurality of protrusions formed on an outer part.
Weems teaches a device and method for coupling tubes. The embodiments of the device most relevant to the instant claims are shown in Figures 5 and 6 and described in columns 3-4. As shown in the cited Figures, the coupling of Weems includes a hose having projections (threads 52) on an outer surface for sealing with the connector. The Examiner submits it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective date of the invention to combine the hose threads from Weems with the device of Chapman. One of ordinary skill in the art would add the threaded hose to Chapman in order to provide an additional mating and sealing feature between the hose and connector as taught by Weems.
Regarding claim 2 - Chapman teaches forming the hose coupling from metallic material in column 3, lines 52-53.
Regarding claim 3 - The Examiner submits that the resilient protrusions (annular ridges 29) as
shown in the Figures of Chapman are formed separate from the annular gap (recess 23) and may be moved into the gap towards the tube by deformation. See Figures 3-4 and column 5-7.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chapman et al. (US 5,317,799) in view of Weems (US 4,955,645), and further in view of Lossie (US 3,788,676).
Chapman and Weems as described in Paragraphs 13-17 above teaches every element of claim 6 except for a second insert and second outer part fluidly connected to the first insert. Lossie teaches a hose connector. The coupler unit is best shown in Figures 2-3 and described in columns 1-2. As shown in the Figures, the coupler (10) includes first and second inserts (dual ends 15 and 16) with each insert for inserting into a hose section and also first and second outer parts (nuts 13 and 14) for securing the hoses (11, 12) on the ends of the coupler (10). The Examiner considers the end 15 and nut 13 to be analogous to the first insert and first outer part. The Examiner submits it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective date of the invention to combine the second insert and second outer part from Lossie with the modified system of Chapman and Weems. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time would have added the second insert and second outer part to Chapman and Weems in order to secure a second hose to the connector as taught by Lossie.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chapman et al. (US 5,317,799) in view of Weems (US 4,955,645), and further in view of Berg (US 2003/0047943).
Chapman and Weems as described in Paragraphs 13-17 above teaches every element of claim 8 except for the bioprocessing element. Berg teaches a hose coupler. As shown in Figure 1, Berg teaches a connector comprising a first hollow insert (stem 12) for allowing fluid flow, having a proximal end configured to fit inside the tubing (hose 10); a first outer part (sleeves 18 and 18'); a joining member (bumper 22), rigidly connecting the first insert (stem 12) to the outer part (sleeves 18 and 18') at a region spaced from the proximal end of the first insert; and a generally annular gap (unlabeled in Figure 1 containing hose 10) between the first insert (stem 12) and the first outer part (sleeves 18 and 18'), which forms a tubing accepting opening at or adjacent the proximal end of the insert (stem 12); the first outer part (sleeves 18 and 18') further comprising plural resilient protrusions (threading or teeth 19) extending into the gap, allowing the tubing (hose 10) to be inserted, but resisting removal of the tubing once inserted. Berg recites using their connector as part of a fluid container or bioprocessing instrument in Paragraphs 0003-0010. The Examiner submits it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the piping, hoses, and tanks from Berg with the modified connector of Chapman and Weems. One of ordinary skill in the art would add the additional devices to Chapman and Weems in order to connect a processing device to a hose as taught by Berg.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DWAYNE K HANDY whose telephone number is (571)272-1259. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM-7PM.
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, Charles Capozzi can be reached at 571-270-3638. 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.
/DWAYNE K HANDY/Examiner, Art Unit 1798 February 04, 2026
/CHARLES CAPOZZI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1798