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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 4/7/2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 26 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 3 recites “an inner wall of the recess”, but a “recess” itself is the absence of structure and, therefore, cannot include “an inner wall”. It is suggested to amend line 3 to recite “an inner wall [[of]] forming the recess”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7-10, 12-14 and 22-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brooks et al. (US Pat 5,782,505) in view of Clark et al. (US Pat 4,723,948).
Re claim 1, Brooks discloses a connector 10 (Fig 1, with Fig 3-5 showing detailed views of various components of connector 10 and Fig 7 showing the connector fully assembled; it is noted that all reference characters cited below refer to these figures unless otherwise noted) for connecting a tube to a connection element (it is noted that the italicized text constitutes functional language and, therefore, “a tube” and “a connection element” are not a part of the claimed invention; this limitation is met since Fig 7 shoes the connector connecting tube 12 to connection element 14), the connector comprising: a housing 34+38 extending from a first housing end (labeled in annotated Fig A1 below; it is noted that the term “end” does not denote any specific length and, therefore, can extend any length) having a coupling portion 82 to a second housing end (labeled in Fig A1 below) having a recess (within wall 44), wherein the coupling portion is adapted to be at least substantially fluid-tightly connectable to a complementary connection portion of the connection element (again, it is noted that the italicized text constitutes functional language and, therefore, “a complementary connection portion” is not a part of the claimed invention; this limitation is met in view of Fig 7); and a tube connection piece 36 extending from a first connection piece end (labeled in annotated Fig A2 below) to a second connection piece end (labeled in annotated Fig A2 below), wherein the tube connection piece is adapted to be connectable to the tube (again, it is noted that the italicized text constitutes functional language; this limitation is met in view of Fig 7), and connectable to the housing within the recess with the first connection piece end between the second connection piece end and the first housing end (as seen in Fig A1 below; Col 3, Lines 39-44), wherein the tube connection piece comprises: a sealing portion (labeled in annotated Fig B, C and D below; it is noted that the term “portion” does not define a specific length and, therefore, the three interpretations seen in Fig B, C and D below are all proper) adjacent to the first connection piece end (as seen in Fig A2-D) by which a first connection between the tube connection piece and the housing is produced in an at least substantially fluid-tight manner (Col 3, Lines 24-27 for Fig B; Col 5, Lines 13-17 for Fig C and D), and a connecting portion (labeled in annotated Fig B, C and D below) adjacent to the second connection piece end by which a second connection (as seen in Fig A-D) is produced between the tube connection piece and the housing (Col 3, Lines 24-27 for Fig B, C and D), wherein at least one of the first connection and the second connection comprises a force-fitting connection defined by an oversized portion 64 of the tube connection piece being compressed into a corresponding portion of the recess (Col 3, Lines 24-27 and 39-42). Brooks discloses that the housing comprises a rigid material (Col 2, Lines 64-65 and Col 3, Lines 61-62) but does not explicitly disclose what that material is; therefore, Brooks does not disclose that the housing comprises at least one polyolefin.
Clark, however, teaches providing a connector 17 (Fig 2-4) with a housing 18 comprising polypropylene (Col 5, Lines 42-44, which is known to be a polyolefin) so as to ensure that the housing is biocompatible (Col 5, Lines 42-44). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Brooks to include the housing such that it comprises polypropylene (which is a known polyolefin), as taught by Clark, for the purpose of ensuring that the housing is biocompatible (Col 5, Lines 42-44).
PNG
media_image1.png
411
632
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
558
649
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
708
641
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
728
630
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
692
630
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Re claim 2, Brooks discloses that the tube connection piece comprises a material that is compressible (Col 3, Lines 21-22) but does not explicitly disclose what that material is; therefore, Brooks does not disclose that the tube connection piece comprises at least one solvent-bondable material. Clark, however, teaches providing a connector 17 (Fig 2-4) with a tubing connection piece 33 comprising polyurethane (Col 7, Lines 47-51, which is known to be a solvent-bondable material) since such a material can withstand compression (like in Brooks) without cutting, tearing or thinning (Col 7, Lines 47-51). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Brooks to include the tube connection piece such that it comprises polyurethane (which is a known solvent-bondable material), as taught by Clark, for the purpose of ensuring that the tube connection piece will withstand the compression imparted thereto without cutting, tearing or thinning (Col 7, Lines 47-51).
Re claim 3, Brooks as modified by Clark in the rejection of claim 1 above discloses all the claimed features with Clark teaching that the housing consists of the at least one polyolefin or a mixture of several polyolefins (“a suitable biocompatible plastic material, such as polypropylene” – Col 5, Lines 42-44). The motivation cited in the rejection of claim 1 also applies to this claim.
Re claim 4, Brooks as modified by Clark in the rejection of claim 2 above discloses all the claimed features with Clark teaching that the tube connection piece is made of the at least one solvent-bondable material (“polyurethane” – Col 7, Lines 47-51). The motivation cited in the rejection of claim 2 also applies to this claim.
Re claim 5, Brooks as modified by Clark in the rejection of claim 2 above discloses all the claimed features with Clark teaching that the at least one solvent-bondable material consists of a solvent-bondable plastic or a solvent-bondable mixture of several plastics (“a material such as polyurethane” – Col 7, Lines 47-51). The motivation cited in the rejection of claim 2 also applies to this claim.
Re claim 7, Brooks as modified by Clark in the rejection of claim 1 above discloses all the claimed features with Clark teaching that the at least one polyolefin is a polypropylene (“polypropylene” – Col 5, Lines 42-44). The motivation cited in the rejection of claim 1 also applies to this claim.
Re claim 8, Brooks as modified by Clark in the rejection of claim 2 above discloses all the claimed features with Clark teaching that the at least one solvent-bondable material is bondable to the tube using methyl ethyl ketone and/or tetrahydrofuran (“polyurethane” – Col 7, Lines 47-51 – is known to be solvent-bondable using methyl ethyl ketone). The motivation cited in the rejection of claim 2 also applies to this claim.
Re claim 9, Brooks as modified by Clark in the rejection of claim 2 above discloses all the claimed features with Clark teaching that the at least one solvent-bondable material comprises at least one polymer selected from the group consisting of methyl methacrylate-acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene copolymer, polyvinyl chloride, polymethyl methacrylate, polycarbonate, styrene-acrylonitrile copolymer, polyurethane, and styrene-butadiene copolymer (“polyurethane” – Col 7, Lines 47-51). The motivation cited in the rejection of claim 2 also applies to this claim.
Re claim 10, Brooks as modified by Clark in the rejection of claim 1 discloses that the tube to be connected comprises polyvinyl chloride and/or polyurethane and/or styrene-butadiene copolymer and/or polyolefin (as set forth in the rejection of claim 1, the “tube” is not a part of the claimed invention; therefore, the tube connection piece of the claimed connector only has to be structurally capable of connecting to a tube comprising PVC and/or PU and/or styrene-butadiene copolymer and/or polyolefin; since one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that an appropriate adhesive could be used to connect a tube made of any of these materials, this limitation is met).
Re claim 12, Brooks discloses that the tube connection piece is configured as a bushing defining an interior 70 shaped to receive an end of the tube (as seen in Fig 7).
Re claim 13, Brooks discloses that the coupling portion is formed as a Luer cone which is intended to form an at least substantially fluid-tight connection with a Luer counter-cone of the connection element (Col 3, Lines 64-66; Fig 7).
Re claim 14, Brooks discloses that the Luer cone is an external Luer cone and the Luer counter-cone of the connection element is an internal Luer cone (Col 3, Lines 64-66; Fig 7).
Re claim 22, Brooks discloses that the tube connection piece is secured in the recess of the housing with the second connection piece end flush with the second housing end (as seen in Fig A-D, the right-most surface of the second connection piece end resides in the second housing end and, therefore, the second connection piece is “flush with” the second housing end; it is noted that the claim does not require the right-most surface of the tube connection piece to be flush with the right-most surface of the housing).
Re claim 24, Brooks discloses that the oversized portion of the tube connection piece comprises an outer diameter of the sealing portion that is greater than an inner diameter of the recess at the sealing portion prior to attachment of the tube connection piece to the housing (since the “sealing portion” spans a length of the flange 64 in Fig B above; Col 3, Lines 24-27).
Re claim 24, Brooks discloses that the oversized portion of the tube connection piece comprises an outer diameter of the connecting portion that is greater than an inner diameter of the recess at the connecting portion prior to attachment of the tube connection piece to the housing (since the “connecting portion” spans a length of the flange 64 in each of Fig B, C and D above; Col 3, Lines 24-27).
Re claim 25, Brooks discloses that the tube connection piece continuously tapers down in diameter (within its interior that defines passage 70 – Col 3, Lines 52-54) from the connecting portion to the first connection piece end (as seen in annotated Fig C above and described in Col 3, Lines 52-54).
Re claim 26, Brooks discloses that the tube connection piece is connectable to the housing within the recess with a gap between an outer wall of the tube connection piece and an inner wall of the recess (formed by face 80 and the left-most surface of flange 64, as seen in Fig 7), wherein the gap is located between the sealing portion and the connecting portion (as seen in Fig D above).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brooks et al. (US Pat 5,782,505)/Clark et al. (US Pat 4,723,948) in view of Ryan et al. (PG PUB 2019/0134303).
Re claim 6, Brooks/Clark discloses all the claimed features except that the at least one solvent-bondable material is transparent. Ryan, however, teaches providing a connector 10 (Fig 1-3) having a housing 16 and a tube connection piece 18 therein that are each formed of transparent materials (Para 29) for the purpose of allowing a user to visualize a leakage within the connector if one is present (Para 29). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Brooks/Clark to include the solvent-bondable material of the tube connection piece as transparent (along with the material of the housing as transparent), as taught by Ryan, for the purpose of allowing a user to visualize a leakage within the connector if one is present (Para 29).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/7/2026 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAMI A BOSWORTH whose telephone number is (571)270-5414. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8 am - 4 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, Kevin Sirmons can be reached at (571)272-4965. 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.
/KAMI A BOSWORTH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3783
Prosecution Insights