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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/18/2025 has been entered.
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.
Claims 16-21 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gay et al. (U.S. PGPub US 20120017733) in view of Arthun (U.S. Patent 6,779,575, cited in IDS).
Claim 16: Gay et al. discloses a method for the forming of a fluid-tight separating closure of a conduit (e.g. paragraphs 7, 127), the method comprising: positioning a conduit (T) between a die (3a) and a stamp (3b) of a device (1 - paragraphs 71-74); compressing the conduit by a relative movement between the die and the stamp in order to form a closure (as shown in Fig. 3A - e.g. paragraph 120); and severing the closure in a compressed region by a severing tool of the device (2 - e.g. paragraphs 73 and 130), the device having a blade (paragraph 198) including a blade edge length defined as a length of a blade edge of the blade that contacts the sleeve during the entire severing, a contact line along the blade edge between the severing tool and the conduit during severing is shorter than the blade edge length (as evident from Figs. 1 and 3-3A., the blade would begin cutting from the top of the U-shaped compressed tube at ends Tp and continue toward the bottom at Ta, such that the blade would only ever contact a fraction of the overall length of the U-shaped cross section of the severed edge at a given time). It is also noted that the blade 2 is implicitly designed wide enough to cut through the conduit in one pass (e.g. paragraphs 132, 154-155) such that the “blade edge length” would effectively be equal to the length between the outermost surfaces of the ends Tp.
Gay does not disclose the use of a sleeve with the conduit and performing the steps to form a closure in the sleeve. However, Arthun teaches a similar method of compressing and severing a tube for a similar application, wherein a sleeve (3/4) is placed over the conduit (2) and the sleeve is crushed and severed to aid in the sealing (e.g. column 2, lines 51-59). It thus would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a sleeve on the conduit of Gay et al. in order to have aided the sealing thereof.
Claim 17: From Fig. 3A of Gay, the contact line between the severing tool (2) and the sleeve during the severing define an obtained severing edge of the sleeve (the resulting cut cross section represented in Fig. 3A), and it appears that a length of the contact line would be at most 90% of a length of the severing edge (the blade making the most simultaneous contact with the tube/sleeve toward the bottom, which appears to comprise substantially less than 90%, even less than 50%, the total arcuate length of the severed cross section).
Claim 18: Again referring to Fig. 3A, a central portion of the severing edge (bottom center) would be formed (cut) at an end of the severing (it would be last to be cut as the blade moves from top to bottom).
Claim 19: The stamp (3b) and the severing tool (2) are moved relative to the die (3a) independently of each other (the severing tool 2 is moved after/separately from the die and stamp are brought together).
Claim 20: The severing is done by cutting or punching (i.e. cutting by tool 2).
Claim 21: The compressing is limited such that the compressed region of the sleeve (e.g. as shown in Fig. 3A) acquires a predefined shape (as defined by the shape of the parts 3a and 3b).
Claim 36: During the entire severing of the closure (i.e. motion of the blade 2 from top to bottom in Fig. 3A) the contact line along the blade edge is shorter than the blade edge length (the blade would never contact a length of the conduit totaling longer than the blade edge length at any given time during cutting).
Claims 16-18, 20-21, and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arthun in view of Kelly et al. (U.S. Patent 7,351,010).
Claim 16: Arthun discloses a method for the forming of a fluid-tight separating closure of a conduit (e.g. column 2, lines 39-46), the method comprising: positioning a conduit (2) with a sleeve (3/4) of the conduit between a die (9) and a stamp (8) of a device (1); compressing the sleeve by a relative movement between the die and the stamp in order to form a closure in the sleeve (Fig. 4; column 2, line 67 - column 3, line 3); and severing the closure in a compressed region by a severing tool of the device, the device having having a blade (15 - column 3, lines 20-26) including a blade edge length (the direction into the page in Fig. 2) defined as a length of a blade edge of the blade that contacts the sleeve during the entire severing. The severing is not necessarily such that a contact line along the blade edge between the severing tool and the sleeve during severing is shorter than the blade edge length.
However, Kelly et al. teaches a device for cutting a tube wherein the cutter is v-shaped (e.g. column 2, lines 23-26 and Fig. 7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have shaped the cutter in a v-shape since it automatically centers the tube prior to being severed (Id.). The examiner also submits that a v-shaped cutter engaging with the tube, either rounded or in a compressed state as with Arthun, would also engage less than the full length of the severed cross section at a given time such that a contact line along the blade edge between the severing tool and the sleeve during severing is shorter than the blade edge length.
Claim 17: The contact line between the severing tool and the sleeve during the severing would ultimately define an obtained severing edge of the sleeve (the resulting cut cross section of the tube/sleeve). The examiner submits that a v-shaped cutter engaging a round or flattened tube would result in either a straight cutting edge engaging a rounded surface, or else an angled straight edge contacting another straight edge at an oblique angle, such that the cutter would only ever contact a fraction of the tube cross section at a given time (e.g. a pair of substantially point contacts), such that a length of the contact line is at most 90% of the obtained severing edge length.
Claim 18: Given the concave v-shaped cutter, cutting would engage beginning at the outside portion of the tube and work inward such that a central portion of the severing edge would be formed at an end of the severing.
Claim 20: The severing is done by cutting or punching (e.g. cutting by the blade).
Claim 21: The compressing is limited such that the compressed region of the sleeve acquires a predefined shape (a shape as defined by the compressing portions of the tool of Arthun).
Claim 36: During the entire severing of the closure (i.e. motion of the blade 15, as modified by Kelly, from top to bottom in Fig. 2) the contact line along the blade edge is shorter than the blade edge length (the blade would never contact a length of the conduit totaling longer than the blade edge length at any given time during cutting).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “there is no rational underpinning that the sleeve of Arthun would have aided the sealing of the tube of Gay” because “the closing device 1 is non-reversible and includes means to maintain the two parts together. As such, there is no need or reason to add a deformable sleeve as disclosed in Arthun to the closing device 1 of Gay as the closing device 1 is sufficient enough to maintain the hose 2 in a pinched configuration”. However, the examiner maintains that increasing sealing capacity is precisely the reason for adding a sleeve as taught by Arthun, and its provision along with the device 1 does not necessarily detract from this feature. In this case, more is more, and added provisions for sealing would only add to the insurance against leaks, for example.
Applicant also suggests that “including a metal sleeve 2 as disclosed in Arthun about the hose may make it more difficult if not impossible for the two parts of the closing device 1 to fully close and engage one another”, for example due to the polymeric composition of the device 1. However, this is speculatory in nature and lacks objective evidence. Furthermore, the sleeve is not necessarily metal, but could also be plastic, so long as it is “plastically deformable” (column 2, lines 54-56). The device 1 of Gay could very well be capable of deforming such a sleeve.
Regarding Arthun in view of Kelly, Applicant argues that “Kelly is silent as to forming or maintaining a seal in the pipeline when being cut” and that “if the blades 23, 27 were used as the cutting indication 14 of Arthun, the appliance 1 of Arthun may cut the tube 2 before forming the indentation and the seal”. However, the examiner submits that based on Fig. 13B of Kelly, the blades clearly result in some deformation of the severed tube. Nevertheless, Arthun already establishes the sealing and cutting method, and Kelly is narrowly cited to teach that a non-linear shape such as a v-shape may be useful to helping to center the tube during cutting and would not necessarily substantially alter the cutting action otherwise established by Arthun.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW P TRAVERS whose telephone number is (571)272-3218. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00AM-6:30PM.
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, Sunil K. Singh can be reached on 571-272-3460. 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.
/Matthew P Travers/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726