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
Due to the amendment to claim 19 filed 9/23/2025, claim 19 joins previously-withdrawn claims 16-18 and 21 as being is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7-10, 13-15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Majlhede et al. (PG PUB 2005/0142945).
Re claim 1, Majlhede discloses a connector (similar to connector 1 shown in Fig 1A,1B,2, but wherein the delimiting part 17 of the tube connection piece 9 is “flush with” the delimiting part 20 of the housing 2 as described in Para 32; it is noted that this embodiment – with the delimiting parts 17,20 flush with each other – is not shown in any of the drawings, but that the reference characters cited below refer to Fig 2 unless otherwise noted) for connecting a tube to a connection element (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 in view of Para 57,58), the connector comprising: a housing 2 extending from a first end (directed downward in Fig 2) having a coupling portion 5 to a second end (directed upward in Fig 2) having a recess 6 (best seen in Fig 3, Para 57), wherein the coupling portion is adapted to be at least substantially fluid-tightly connectable to a complementary connection portion of the connection element (as set forth above, the “connection element” is not a part of the claimed invention; this limitation is met in view of Para 58 and since the coupling portion would form a fluid-tight connection with an compatibly-sized connection element); and a tube connection piece 9, which is adapted to be connectable to the tube (as seen in Fig 5) and to the housing (Para 60) in order to make a fluid connection between the tube and the coupling portion (as set forth above, the “tube” is not a part of the claimed invention; this limitation is met in view of Para 57 and since the tube connection piece would form a fluid connection with an compatibly-sized tube), wherein the tube connection piece is secured in the recess of the housing with a terminal end 17 of the tube connection piece at a terminal end 20 of the second end of the housing (not shown in the drawings, but described in Para 32 – “the delimiting part of the edge is flush with the delimiting edge of the outer part”), wherein the housing comprises at least one polyolefin (Para 42, “polypropylene”).
Re claim 2, Majlhede discloses that the tube connection piece comprises at least one solvent-bondable material (Para 41, “polycarbonate”, “poly-methyl-methacrylate”, “PVC”).
Re claim 3, Majlhede discloses that the housing consists of the at least one polyolefin or a mixture of several polyolefins (Para 42, “the outer part is made of a plastics material”, “polypropylene”).
Re claim 4, Majlhede discloses that the tube connection piece is made of the at least one solvent-bondable material (Para 41, “the inner part is made of […]”).
Re claim 5, Majlhede discloses that the at least one solvent-bondable material consists of a solvent-bondable plastic or a solvent-bondable mixture of several plastics (Para 40, “the inner part is made of an amorphous plastics material”; Para 41, “polycarbonate”, “poly-methyl-methacrylate”, “PVC”).
Re claim 7, Majlhede discloses that the at least one polyolefin is a polypropylene (Para 42, “polypropylene”).
Re claim 8, Majlhede discloses that the at least one solvent-bondable material is bondable to the tube using methyl ethyl ketone and/or tetrahydrofuran (the chemical composition of polycarbonate, poly-methyl-methacrylate and PVC render them inherently bondable by methyl ethyl ketone).
Re claim 9, Majlhede discloses 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 (Para 41, “polycarbonate”, “poly-methyl-methacrylate”, “PVC”).
Re claim 10, Majlhede 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 above, 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 polyurethane and/or styrene-butadiene copolymer and/or polyolefin; since Majlhede discloses that an adhesive can be used to attach the tube connection piece to a tube, this limitation is met).
Re claim 13, Majlhede discloses that the coupling portion is formed as a Luer cone (Para 22,58) which is intended to form an at least substantially fluid-tight connection with a Luer counter-cone of the connection element (as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above, the “connection element” is not a part of the claimed invention; this limitation is met since the luer cone of the coupling portion would form a fluid-tight connection with an compatibly-sized luer counter-cone).
Re claim 14, Majlhede discloses that the Luer cone is an external Luer cone (Para 22,58 discloses that the luer cone connects to a complimentary-sized luer cone by insertion of the complimentary-sized luer cone within the luer cone 21; thus, making luer cone 21 an “external” luer cone) and the Luer counter-cone of the connection element is an internal Luer cone (as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above, the “connection element” is not a part of the claimed invention; this limitation is met since the luer cone of the coupling portion would form a fluid-tight connection with a compatibly-sized luer counter-cone).
Re claim 15, Majlhede discloses that the tube connection piece is arranged to be connectable to the housing (as seen in Fig 2).
Re claim 20, Majlhede discloses that the tube connection piece is connectable to the housing in a force-fit manner and/or in a form-fit manner (Para 60, “whereby good gripping is ensured during moulding between the inner part 9 and the outer part 2”).
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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Majlhede et al. (PG PUB 2005/0142945) in view of Adams (US Pat 4,826,477).
Re claim 6, Majlhede discloses that the at least one-solvent bondable material can be PVC (Para 41) but does not explicitly disclose that the PVC is transparent. Adams, however, teaches using transparent PVC to produce a tube connection piece that is flexible and sufficiently elastic to permit the tube connection piece to stretch slightly so that it can be forced over a tube inserted therein (Col 4, Lines 64-68). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Majlhede to include the PVC of the tube connection piece as transparent, as taught by Adams, for the purpose of providing the tube connection piece such that it is flexible and sufficiently elastic to permit the tube connection piece to stretch slightly so that it can be forced over a tube inserted therein (Col 4, Lines 64-68).
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Majlhede et al. (PG PUB 2005/0142945) in view of Bourgeois et al. (PG PUB 2014/0283940).
Re claim 11, Majlhede discloses that the tube connection piece has two connecting portions 15,15 via which a form-fitting and/or force-fitting connection is produced between the tube connection piece and the housing (Para 60, “whereby good gripping is ensured during moulding between the inner part 9 and the outer part 2”), but does not explicitly disclose that either of these connecting portions 15 can be considered a sealing portion by which the form-fitting and/or force-fitting connection between the tube connection piece and the housing is sealable in an at least substantially fluid-tight manner. Bourgeois, however, teaches providing a substantially fluid-tight form-fitting connection between a flexible inner member 10 (Fig 1) and an rigid outer member 20 (Fig 1) such that they seal together (by providing the outer member with an inner diameter “slightly smaller” than an outer diameter of the inner member, as described in Para 48,50) to ensure that fluid within the system maintains sterility (Para 48). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Majlhede to include the form-fitting connection such that it is substantially-fluid tight, as taught by Bourgeois, for the purpose of ensuring that fluid within the system maintains sterility (Para 48).
Re claim 12, Majlhede discloses that the tube connection piece is configured as a bushing intended to receive in its interior an end of the tube (as seen in Fig 5), and wherein the housing has a recess 6 (Fig 3) which is intended to receive the bushing in its interior (as seen in Fig 2), but does not explicitly disclose that there is an at least substantially fluid-tight connection between an outer wall portion of the bushing and an inner wall portion of the recess at least in a sealing region. Bourgeois, however, teaches providing a substantially fluid-tight form-fitting connection between an outer wall portion of a flexible inner member 10 (Fig 2) and an inner wall portion of a rigid outer member 20 (Fig 2) such that they seal together (by providing the outer member with an inner diameter “slightly smaller” than an outer diameter of the inner member, as described in Para 48,50) to ensure that fluid within the system maintains sterility (Para 48). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Majlhede to include the form-fitting connection such that it is substantially-fluid tight, as taught by Bourgeois, for the purpose of preventing fluid from entering/leaking between the tube connection piece and the housing (Col 5, Lines 62-67 and Col 6, Lines 35-39).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/23/2025 have been fully considered.
Applicant argues that providing the tube connection piece such that its terminal end is at the terminal end of the second end of the housing is contradictory to Majlhede’s disclosure. The Examiner respectfully disagrees since Para 32 of Majlhede explicitly discloses such an arrangement (“In one embodiment of the invention the deliminating part of the edge is flush with the delimiting edge of the outer part or even broaches there around and encloses portions of the outer faces of the outer part. In this case what matters is that a sealing is provided to prevent the liquid from penetrating from outside and into the connecting area between the tube and the inner part.”). Therefore, this argument is not persuasive in view of the embodiment of Majlhede that is employed in the present rejection.
Applicant argues that it would not have been obvious to modify Majlhede to incorporate the seal of Miller because Miller’s tube connection piece deforms when a tube is received therein while Majlhede’s tube connection piece does not deform when a tube is received therein. This argument is moot in view of the present rejections that no longer use Miller in the rejections of claims 11 and 12.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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