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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 119-127 are pending and examined on the merits.
Claims 119, 121, and 126 are currently amended.
Claims 128-151 are withdrawn for being drawn to non-elected inventions.
Claims 1-118 are cancelled.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/18/2026 was filed before the mailing date of the Final Office Action on the Merits. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments filed 05/07/2026 have been fully considered.
Claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112:
Applicant amended independent claim 119 to correct antecedent basis issue. Accordingly, the rejections of claims 119-127 under 35 U.S.C. 112 are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant provided amendments to the independent claim 119 which necessitates a new ground of rejection. Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments filed 05/07/2026 have been fully considered. Tunesi (U.S. Pre Grant Pub. No. 2018/0168930 A1) has been introduced as a secondary reference in the present rejection for disclosing and rendering obvious the limitations presented via the amendments. Harding (U.S. Pre Grant Pub. No. 2008/0108973 A1) is reintroduced as a primary reference in the present rejection for disclosing and rendering obvious the limitations presented via the amendments.
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.
Claims 119-127 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harding (U.S. Pre Grant Pub. No. 2008/0108973 A1) in view of Tunesi (U.S. Pre Grant Pub. No. 2018/0168930 A1).
[AltContent: textbox (closure
element)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
849
746
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 119, Harding, with reference to Image 1 above, teaches:
A connecting arrangement (see Image 1) for a connecting system for producing a fluidic connection between a first container and a second container (see Image 1 and at least para. [0035]), it being possible, for producing the fluidic connection, the connecting arrangement of the first container is coupled to a second connecting arrangement of the second container (as shown in Image 1, the two connecting arrangements of the first and second containers are coupled) as a result of which a passage is produced which is suitable for interconnecting the interiors of the containers (see Image 1),
the connecting arrangement comprising a tubular coupling arrangement (as shown in Image 1, the connecting arrangement is tubular in shape) having a tube axis (see Image 1), the coupling arrangement being closed by a closure element (see Image 1) in an original state (see Fig. 3, for example) and being openable to form the passage by deforming the tubular connecting arrangement transversely to a longitudinal axis of the tubular coupling arrangement when the first and second connecting arrangements are rotated relative to each other (see Image 1; as broadly recited, when the second container is inserted into the first container, as shown in Fig. 4, the tubular coupling arrangement is deformed transversely to a longitudinal axis; additionally, when a user rotates the first and second connecting arrangements relative to each other while the second container is inserted into the first container, the tubular coupling arrangement is deformed),
wherein the connecting arrangement comprises a step portion (see Image 1) that extends substantially radially relative to the longitudinal axis of the tube (see Image 1) and is arranged between a first portion (see Image 1) extending at least substantially in parallel with the tube axis (see Image 1) and a second portion (see Image 1) extending at least substantially in parallel with the longitudinal axis of the tube (see Image 1).
However, Harding fails to explicitly teach that the tubular coupling arrangement has an at least partially non-circular cross section, as required by the claim.
Tunesi teaches an analogous connecting arrangement for producing a fluidic connection between a first container and a second container (see Abstract) comprising a coupling arrangement (see connecting arrangements 3A’ and 3B’ in Fig. 5 and para. [0260]) having an at least partially non-circular cross section (see para. [0260]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Harding to incorporate the teachings of Tunesi by making the tubular connecting arrangement have an at least partially non-circular cross section at least since it has been held that changes in shape is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration was significant (see In reDailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966); see also MPEP 2144). Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the tubular connecting arrangement have an at least partially non-circular cross section at least because Tunesi teaches that having an oval cross section is beneficial in order to ensure substantial continuous deformation, as taught by Tunesi (see para. [0286]).
Regarding claim 120, Harding in view of Tunesi teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 119. Additionally, Harding teaches: wherein the step portion forms a bellows together with the connecting arrangement (see for example Image 4 and Fig. 3; elements 40 form a bellow-type structure).
Regarding claim 121, Harding in view of Tunesi teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 119. Additionally, Harding in view of Tunesi teaches: wherein the non-circular cross section has at least one first half-axis having a minimum length (for example, a half-axis running horizontally in Image 1) and at least one second half-axis having a maximum length (for example, a half-axis running vertically in Image 1), and the step portion having a greater extension in alignment with or in the extension of the first half-axis than in alignment with the second half-axis (the step portion will have a greater extension in alignment with a horizontal half-axis than a vertical one).
Regarding claim 122, Harding in view of Tunesi teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 121. Additionally, Harding teaches: wherein the step portion forms a bellows in alignment with or in the extension of the first half-axis (see Image 1).
Regarding claim 123, Harding in view of Tunesi teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 121. Additionally, Harding teaches: wherein the step portion tapers in the direction of the alignment with the second half-axis (see Image 1s showing a taper in the vertical direction).
Regarding claim 124, Harding in view of Tunesi teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 121. Additionally, Harding teaches: wherein the step portion tapers to zero in the direction of the alignment with or in the extension of the second half-axis, such that a step portion is not provided in alignment with the second half-axis (as shown in Image 1, the tapered area tapers to zero in the vertical direction).
Regarding claim 125, Harding in view of Tunesi teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 121. Additionally, Harding teaches: wherein the radial extension of the step portion, proceeding from the alignment with or in the extension of the second half-axis, increases on either side in the direction of the alignment with or in the extension of the first half-axis (as shown in Image 1, the radial extension of the step portion, i.e., in the horizontal direction, increases in the direction of the first half-axis, i.e., in the horizontal direction).
Regarding claim 126, Harding in view of Tunesi teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 119. Additionally, Harding in view of Tunesi teaches: wherein the step portion adapts the shape of the non-circular cross section, to a circular shape (as shown in Image 1 the step portion has a circular shape cross section in the horizontal direction).
Regarding claim 127, Harding in view of Tunesi teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 119. Additionally, Harding teaches: wherein the step portion lies at least substantially in a plane which is perpendicular to the coupling direction (the first portion of the step portion, for example, lies in a plane perpendicular to the coupling direction).
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 JIHAD DAKKAK whose telephone number is (571)272-0567. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 9AM - 5PM ET.
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.
/JIHAD DAKKAK/ Examiner, Art Unit 3781
/KAI H WENG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781
Prosecution Insights