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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, Claims 1-8 in the reply filed on 10/27/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 9-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 10/27/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 4, it is unclear if the limitation “…clamped between the attachment part, which is designed as an upper part, and a lower part” is intended to mean the attachment part is made of both an upper part and a lower part, or if the upper part is the attachment part and the lower part is a different part. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the limitation is interpreted as the attachment part is made of both an upper part and a lower part. Claims 5-6 are also rejected based on their dependency on Claim 4.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the attachment piece" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of compact prosecution, this limitation is interpreted as “the attachment part.”
Claim 5 recites the limitation “a step” in line 3, “a step” in line 4, “the step” on line 5, and “a step” in line 5. It is unclear which recitation of “a step” the limitation “the step” refers to. Claim 6 also recites the limitations “the step” in both lines 2 and 4-5, and it is similarly unclear which recitation of “a step” these are intended to refer to. For the purpose of compact prosecution, both claims are interpreted as if the reference numerals that have been amended out of the claims are still present to correctly match instances of “the step” to the appropriate “a step”.
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) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kajihara et al (US 2017/0360656) in view of Brandenburger et al (US 2007/0060902).
Regarding Claim 1, Kajihara discloses a connector (port 3, Figs. 1-2) for a medical packaging (medical liquid bag 1, Fig. 1), comprising an attachment part (combination of port body 31 and pulling-out preventing member 32, Fig. 2) with a sealing element (sealing plug 30, Fig. 2), wherein the sealing element (30, Fig. 2) has a sealing head (annular recess part 301 and the top part of sealing element that is inside the pulling-out preventing member 32, Fig. 2), wherein the sealing head (annular recess part 301 and the top part of sealing element that is inside the pulling-out preventing member 32) sits in an inner sleeve (annular support part 310c, Figs. 2 and 4) of the attachment part (combination of 31 and 32, Fig. 2), wherein the sealing head (annular recess part 301 and the top part of sealing element that is inside the pulling-out preventing member 32) is adjoined by at least one trunk portion (annular projection part 303, Figs. 2-3), which has a larger outer diameter than the sealing head (annular recess part 301 and the top part of sealing element that is inside the pulling-out preventing member 32), wherein an interior of the sealing element (30, Fig. 2) is free from a body with a tip, which is intended to assist the opening of the sealing element (30, Fig. 2, there are no bodies within the sealing element to puncture the sealing element when a connector is attached to the device), and wherein a gap (see Image 1) is present between the at least one trunk portion (303, Figs. 2-3) and an opposite inner wall (see Image 1) of the attachment part (combination of 31 and 32, Fig. 2), and wherein the attachment part (combination of 31 and 32, Fig. 2) has an outer sleeve (outer wall part 310a, Figs. 2 and 4), which surrounds the inner sleeve (310C, Figs. 2 and 4) and has an internal thread (312, Figs. 2 and 4) and wherein the attachment part (combination of 31 and 32, Fig. 2) is sealed with a break-off part (P, Figs. 1-2; ¶ [0057]).
PNG
media_image1.png
414
477
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Image 1: Annotated Fig. 2 of Kajihara
Kajihara is silent whether the sealing head has at least one slit.
Brandenburger teaches a connector for medical liquid packages, thus being in the same field of endeavor, with a sealing element (membrane 8, Fig. 2) with a sealing head (upper plate-shaped portion 10, Fig. 2) with at least one slit (12, Fig. 2; ¶ [0036, 0040]). This allows the membrane to be opened with a suitable connector and resealed after the connector is removed (¶ [0036, 0040]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sealing head of Kajihara to have at least one slit, as taught by Brandenburger, to allow the sealing head to be opened by penetration with a suitable connector and for the sealing head to be resealed after the connector is removed (as motivated by Brandenburger ¶ [0036, 0040]).
Regarding Claim 2, Kajihara further discloses a front surface (topmost surface of sealing member 30, Fig. 2) of the sealing head (301, Fig. 2) is spaced apart from a front-side end of the inner sleeve (310C, Figs. 2 and 4).
Regarding Claim 3, Kajihara/Brandenburger discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed as set forth above for Claim 1.
The combination of Kajihara/Brandenburger further discloses the connector is designed to be resealable (Brandenburger ¶ [0036, 0040]).
Regarding Claim 4, Kajihara further discloses the sealing element (30, Figs. 2-3) has a flange (fitting part 322, Figs. 2-3), which is clamped between the attachment part (combination of 31 and 32, Fig. 2), which is designed as an upper part (32, Fig. 2) and a lower part (31, Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 5, Kajihara further discloses the trunk portion (303, Figs. 2-3) has a shoulder (annular groove 300, Figs. 2-3), which abuts on a step (annular restriction part 321, Fig. 2) of the attachment piece (combination of 31 and 32, Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 6, Kajihara further discloses the step (see Image 2) is rounded between the front portion (see Image 2) and the rear portion (see Image 2) of the sealing head 301, Fig. 2).
PNG
media_image2.png
266
587
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Image 2: Annotated Fig. 3 of Kajihara
Regarding Claims 7 and 8, Kajihara is silent whether the break-off part sits on the inner sleeve, and whether the inner sleeve protrudes beyond the outer sleeve.
Brandenburger teaches a connector with an inner sleeve (connection piece 13, Fig. 2) that protrudes beyond the outer sleeve (upper section 3, Fig. 2), wherein the break-off part (17, Fig. 2) sits on the inner sleeve (13, Fig. 2). This allows the connector to be opened when ready for use.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the device of Kajihara to have the break-off part sit on the inner sleeve, and to have the inner sleeve protrude beyond the outer sleeve as taught by Brandenburger, to allow the connector to be opened when ready for use. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the connector of Kajihara with the connector of Brandenburger as Brandenburger shows its structure was well known in the art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jessica Arble whose telephone number is (571)272-0544. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9 AM - 5 PM.
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, Sarah Al-Hashimi can be reached at 571-272-7159. 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.
/JESSICA ARBLE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781