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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Appropriate correction is required.
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 21 – 25 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.
Claim 21, lines 6 - 7, “the first flexible member;” is unclear as it raises the question what this limitation entails. Examiner interprets as incomplete statement.
Claim 21, lines 6 – 7, the limitation “having a first flexible member and a second flexible member” is unclear as it raises the question if the “having a first flexible member and a second flexible member” refers to “the first rotational connector” or “a protrusion” or both.
Claim 21, lines 6 - 7, “the first flexible member;” is unclear as it raises the question what this limitation entails. Examiner interprets as incomplete statement.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "the groove of the second rotational member" in lines 11 - 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 21, lines 11 – 12, it is unclear if “the groove of the second rotational member” is the same or different as the “connecter groove” of the second rotational member as recited in line 8 of claim 21.
Claim 21, line 8, it is unclear what “the first rotational connector including a protrusion having a first flexible member and a second flexible member” entails as it raises the question what components is “having a first flexible member and a second flexible member”, whether it is “first rotational connector” or “protrusion” or both.
Claims 12, 22, and 27, “the connector in a compressed configuration” is unclear as it raises the question what “the connector” is being referred to, whether it is the connector or first rotational connector, or second rotational connector.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 26 - 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Herrig (US 20130060268 A1).
Regarding claim 26, Herrig teaches a bodily implant comprising:
a connector (“connector 270” [0031] – [0032], [0036], [0038]) configured to connect a first tube member and a second tube member (parts of the “inflow component” [0038]) such that fluid can be transferred through the first tube member and the second tube member ([0038], Examiner interprets “inflow component” can be slid onto one inner connector end.), the connector (270) including:
a first rotational connector (“first [… member] 278” [0032] Figure 4) defining a lumen (Figure 4) and a slot (see annotated Figure 4 below),
the lumen of the first rotational connector (278) extending along a first axis (see annotated Figure 4 below),
the slot (see annotated Figure 4 below) of the first rotational connector (278) extending along a second axis (see annotated Figure 4 below), the first axis being substantially parallel to the second axis (see annotated Figure 4 below);
a second rotational connector (“second [… member] 280” [0032] Figure 4) defining a lumen and a slot (see annotated Figure 4 below),
the lumen (Figure 4) of the second rotational connector (280) extending along a third axis,
the slot (see annotated Figure 4 below) of the second rotational connector (280) extending along a fourth axis (see annotated Figure 4 below), the third axis (see annotated Figure 4 below) being substantially parallel to the fourth axis (see annotated Figure 4 below);
the first rotational connector (278) configured to engage with the second rotational connector and to rotate with respect to the second rotational connector (280) to couple the first rotational connector (278) and the second rotational connector (280) in a locked configuration (“secured or locked engagement” [0036] Figure 4); and
an inner connector (“engagement features 290” [0039] Figure 4) configured to be disposed in the lumen (part of the “inflow component” [0038]) of the first rotational connector (278) and the lumen (part of the “inflow component” [0038]) of the second rotational connector (280).
PNG
media_image1.png
415
801
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
390
776
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 27, Herrig and Lewis teach all limitations of claim 26. Herrig teaches a diameter of the lumen of the first rotational connector (Herrig: “first [… member] 278” [0032] Figure 4) and a diameter of the lumen of the second rotational connector (Herrig: “second [… member] 280” [0032] Figure 4) decrease in response to a rotation of the first rotational connector (Herrig: 278) with respect to the second rotational connector (Herrig: 280) to place the connector (Herrig: “connector 270” [0031] – [0032], [0036], [0038]) in a compressed configuration (Herrig: “closed configuration” [0031] Figure 3) (Herrig: “In other embodiments, a seal can be imposed between these structures by a clamping structure, such as by closing the clam shell members discussed above. The inflow component 362 can be slid axially until one end thereof abuts with a shoulder 388. Engagement features 390 similar to those discussed above in connection with the connector 270 can be positioned on an outer surface of the connector 370 to mechanically engage with the inner surface or engagement features (not shown) positioned on an inner surface of the inflow component 362.” [0065]; Examiner interprets the clamping structure of Figures 3 and 4 causes a decrease in “a diameter of the lumen of the first rotational connector” and in “a diameter of the lumen of the second rotational connector”).
Regarding claim 28, Herrig and Lewis teach all limitations of claim 26. Herrig teaches the first rotational connector includes a protrusion (see annotated Figure 4 below) and a connector groove (see annotated Figure 4 below), and the second rotational connector (see annotated Figure 4 below) includes a protrusion (see annotated Figure 4 below) and a connector groove (see annotated Figure 4 below).
PNG
media_image3.png
415
801
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 29, Herrig and Lewis teach all limitations of claim 28. Herrig teaches the protrusion of the first rotational connector (see annotated Herrig’s Figure 4 above) is configured to be inserted into the connector groove (see annotated Herrig’s Figure 4 above) of the second rotational connector (see annotated Herrig’s Figure 4 above) while the protrusion (see annotated Herrig’s Figure 4 above) of the second rotational connector (see annotated Herrig’s Figure 4 above) is inserted into the connector (see annotated Herrig’s Figure 4 above) groove of the first rotational connector (see annotated Herrig’s Figure 4 above).
Regarding claim 30, Herrig and Lewis teach all limitations of claim 29. Herrig teaches the protrusion (see annotated Herrig’s Figure 4 above) of the first rotational connector (see annotated Herrig’s Figure 4 above) is configured to move along the connector groove (see annotated Herrig’s Figure 4 above) of the second rotational connector (see annotated Herrig’s Figure 4 above) in response to the first rotational connector (see annotated Herrig’s Figure 4 above) being rotated with respect to the second rotational connector (see annotated Herrig’s Figure 4 above). Examiner interprets moving the first rotational connector and the second rotational connector reads on limitation/claim.
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 11 – 14 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herrig in view of Lewis (US 20150306366 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Herrig teaches a bodily implant ([0002], [0023]) comprising:
a connector (“connector 270” [0031] – [0032], [0036], [0038]) configured to connect a first tube member and a second tube member (parts of the “inflow component” [0038]) such that fluid can be transferred through the first tube member and the second tube member ([0038], Examiner interprets “inflow component” can be slid onto one inner connector end.), the connector (270) including:
a first rotational connector (“first [… member] 278” [0032] Figure 4) including a lumen (part of the “inflow component” [0038]),
the first rotational connector including a protrusion (see Herrig annotated Figure 4 below);
a second rotational connector (“second [… member] 280” [0032] Figure 4) including a lumen (part of the “inflow component” [0038]),
the first rotational connector (278) configured to engage with the second rotational connector (280) and to rotate with respect to the second rotational connector (280) to couple the first rotational connector (278) and the second rotational connector (280) in a locked configuration (“secured or locked engagement” [0036] Figure 4); and
an inner connector (“engagement features 290” [0039] Figure 4) configured to be disposed in the lumen (part of the “inflow component” [0038]) of the first rotational connector (278) and the lumen (part of the “inflow component” [0038]) of the second rotational connector (280).
PNG
media_image4.png
644
914
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Herrig does not teach at least a portion of the protrusion having a cylindrical shape.
However, Lewis discloses a “fluid connector includes first and second fluid connector elements with respective first and second base portions” and teaches at least a portion of the protrusion (“pin 42” [0016], Figure 4) having a cylindrical shape (Figure 4).
PNG
media_image5.png
834
624
media_image5.png
Greyscale
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 device of Herrig to incorporate at least a portion of the protrusion having a cylindrical shape, as taught by Lewis, for the benefit of providing compression “against each other” prevent leakage (Lewis: [0017]).
Regarding claim 12, Herrig and Lewis teach all limitations of claim 11. The modified invention of Herrig and Lewis teaches a diameter of the lumen of the first rotational connector (Herrig: “first [… member] 278” [0032] Figure 4) and a diameter of the lumen of the second rotational connector (Herrig: “second [… member] 280” [0032] Figure 4) decrease in response to a rotation of the first rotational connector (Herrig: 278) with respect to the second rotational connector (Herrig: 280) to place the connector (Herrig: “connector 270” [0031] – [0032], [0036], [0038]) in a compressed configuration (Herrig: “closed configuration” [0031] Figure 3) (Herrig: “In other embodiments, a seal can be imposed between these structures by a clamping structure, such as by closing the clam shell members discussed above. The inflow component 362 can be slid axially until one end thereof abuts with a shoulder 388. Engagement features 390 similar to those discussed above in connection with the connector 270 can be positioned on an outer surface of the connector 370 to mechanically engage with the inner surface or engagement features (not shown) positioned on an inner surface of the inflow component 362.” [0065]; Examiner interprets the clamping structure of Figures 3 and 4 causes a decrease in “a diameter of the lumen of the first rotational connector” and in “a diameter of the lumen of the second rotational connector”).
Regarding claim 13, Herrig and Lewis teach all limitations of claim 11. The modified invention of Herrig and Lewis teaches the first rotational connector (Herrig: “first [… member] 278” [0032] Figure 4) includes a connector groove (Herrig: see annotated Herrig’s Figure 4 below), and
the second rotational connector (Herrig: “second [… member] 280” [0032] Figure 4) includes a protrusion (Herrig: see annotated Herrig’s Figure 4 below) and a connector groove (Herrig: see annotated Herrig’s Figure 4 below).
PNG
media_image4.png
644
914
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14, Herrig and Lewis teach all limitations of claim 13. The modified invention of Herrig and Lewis teaches the protrusion of the first rotational connector (Herrig: see annotated Herrig’s Figure 4 above) is configured to be inserted into the connector groove of the second rotational connector (Herrig: see annotated Herrig’s Figure 4 above)
while the protrusion of the second rotational connector (Herrig: see annotated Herrig’s Figure 4 above) is inserted into the connector groove of the first rotational connector (Herrig: see annotated Herrig’s Figure 4 above).
Regarding claim 15, Herrig and Lewis teach all limitations of claim 14. The modified invention of Herrig and Lewis teaches the protrusion of the first rotational connector (see annotated Herrig’s Figure 4 above) is configured to move along the connector groove of the second rotational connector (see annotated Herrig’s Figure 4 above) in response to the first rotational connector (see annotated Herrig’s Figure 4 above) being rotated with respect to the second rotational connector (see annotated Herrig’s Figure 4 above). Examiner interprets moving the first rotational connector and the second rotational connector reads on limitation/claim.
Claims 21 - 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herrig in view of Lloyd et al (US 20090163859 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Herrig teaches bodily implant comprising:
a connector (“connector 270” [0031] – [0032], [0036], [0038]) configured to connect a first tube member and a second tube member (parts of the “inflow component” [0038]) such that fluid can be transferred through the first tube member and the second tube member ([0038], Examiner interprets “inflow component” can be slid onto one inner connector end.), the connector (270) including:
a first rotational connector (“first [… member] 278” [0032] Figure 4) defining a lumen (part of the “inflow component” [0038]),
the first rotational connector (278) including a protrusion having a first member (see annotated Herrig’s Figure 4 below) and a second member (see annotated Herrig’s Figure 4 below), the first member (see annotated Herrig’s Figure 4 below);
a second rotational connector (“second [… member] 280” [0032] Figure 4) defining a lumen (part of the “inflow component” [0038]) and a connector groove (see annotated Herrig’s Figure 4 below),
the first rotational connector (278) configured to engage with the second rotational connector (280) and to rotate with respect to the second rotational connector (280) to couple the first rotational connector and the second rotational connector (280) in a locked configuration (“secured or locked engagement” [0036] Figure 4),
the groove of the second rotational member being configured to receive the first member and the second member (see annotated Herrig’s Figure 4 below); and
an inner connector (“engagement features 290” [0039] Figure 4) configured to be disposed in the lumen (part of the “inflow component” [0038]) of the first rotational connector (278) and the lumen (part of the “inflow component” [0038]) of the second rotational connector (280).
PNG
media_image6.png
415
801
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Herrig does not teach the members being flexible.
However, Lloyd discloses an “adapter and syringe assembly is described in this application which includes a syringe and an adapter for anti-rotation, removal resistant connection to the syringe” (abstract) and teaches members being flexible (“collar portion 32 to be cammed or flexed outwardly to allow teeth 52 to pass or ratchet over ribs 40” [0032]).
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 device of Herrig such that the members are flexible, as taught by Lloyd, for the benefit of letting components pass or ratchet over (Lloyd: [0032]).
Regarding claim 22, Herrig and Lloyd teach all limitations of claim 21. The modified invention of Herrig and Lloyd teaches a diameter of the lumen of the first rotational connector (Herrig: “first [… member] 278” [0032] Figure 4) and a diameter of the lumen of the second rotational connector (Herrig: “second [… member] 280” [0032] Figure 4) decrease in response to a rotation of the first rotational connector (Herrig: 278) with respect to the second rotational connector (Herrig: 280) to place the connector (Herrig: “connector 270” [0031] – [0032], [0036], [0038]) in a compressed configuration (Herrig: “closed configuration” [0031] Figure 3) (Herrig: “In other embodiments, a seal can be imposed between these structures by a clamping structure, such as by closing the clam shell members discussed above. The inflow component 362 can be slid axially until one end thereof abuts with a shoulder 388. Engagement features 390 similar to those discussed above in connection with the connector 270 can be positioned on an outer surface of the connector 370 to mechanically engage with the inner surface or engagement features (not shown) positioned on an inner surface of the inflow component 362.” [0065]; Examiner interprets the clamping structure of Figures 3 and 4 causes a decrease in “a diameter of the lumen of the first rotational connector” and in “a diameter of the lumen of the second rotational connector”).
Regarding claim 23, Herrig and Lloyd teach all limitations of claim 24. The modified invention of Herrig and Lloyd teaches the first rotational connector (Herrig: “first [… member] 278” [0032] Figure 4) includes a connector groove (Herrig: see annotated Herrig’s Figure 4 below), and the second rotational connector (Herrig: “second [… member] 280” [0032] Figure 4) includes a protrusion (Herrig: see annotated Herrig’s Figure 4 below).
PNG
media_image4.png
644
914
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 24, Herrig and Lloyd teach all limitations of claim 23. The modified invention of Herrig and Lloyd teaches the protrusion (Herrig: see annotated Herrig’s Figure 4 under claim 23) of the second rotational connector (Herrig: “second [… member] 280” [0032] Figure 4) is configured to be inserted into the connector groove (Herrig: see annotated Herrig’s Figure 4 under claim 23) of the first rotational connector (Herrig: “first [… member] 278” [0032] Figure 4).
Regarding claim 25, Herrig and Lewis teach all limitations of claim 14. The modified invention of Herrig and Lewis teaches the first flexible member (see annotated Herrig’s Figure 4 above) and the second flexible member of the first rotational connector (see annotated Herrig’s Figure 4 above) are configured to move along the connector groove of the second rotational connector (see annotated Herrig’s Figure 4 above) in response to the first rotational connector (see annotated Herrig’s Figure 4 above) being rotated with respect to the second rotational connector (see annotated Herrig’s Figure 4 above). Examiner interprets moving the first rotational connector and the second rotational connector reads on limitation/claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 6, filed 8 April 2026, with respect to claim objection has been fully considered and is persuasive in light of the amendments. The claim objection for claim 12 of 9 January 2026 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 11 – 15 and 21 – 30 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Barber et al (US 20150320943 A1) discloses a “closure system” (abstract) and “dispenser 1220 includes a pair of facing slots 1223. Each slot 1223 includes a detent 1227 therein” (Barber et al: [0177]).
PNG
media_image7.png
338
652
media_image7.png
Greyscale
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 JULIE T TRAN whose telephone number is (703)756-4677. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday from 8:30 am - 5:00 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, Alexander Valvis can be reached at (571) 272-4233. 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.
/JULIE THI TRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/ALEX M VALVIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights