DETAILED ACTION
This action is pursuant to claims filed on 3/23/2026. Claims 1, 3-7, 14, 17-18, and 32-34 are pending. A final action on the merits of claims 1, 3-7, 14, 17-18, and 32-34 is as follows.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 9/11/2025 and 11/29/2025 have been fully considered.
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.
Claim 4 is 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 4 is rejected because “the distal conduit tips of the fluid delivery lumen and the fluid return lumen” lacks antecedent basis. Claim 1 only introduces “a distal tip of the first conduit of the FDL hub” and “a distal tip of the second conduit of the FDL hub.” For the purposes of compact prosecution, these will be the distal tips applied to claim 4.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-7, 14, 17-18, and 32-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richardson (US 20110152982 A1) in view of Ellingboe et al. (hereinafter ‘Ellingboe’, US 20040030372 A1), in further view of Mathieu (GB 2118440 A).
Regarding independent claim 1, Richardson discloses a targeted temperature management (TTM) system (TTM system 100 shown in Fig. 2), comprising:
a TTM module (module 104 in Fig. 2) configured to provide a TTM fluid ([0022]: the heating/cooling unit 104 has a fluid container 106 for holding a fluid supply for circulating through pads);
a fluid delivery line (FDL) (fluid delivery line 108 terminating at hub 114 in Fig. 2) including a FDL hub (hub 114 in Fig. 2), a fluid delivery lumen (supply line 110 in Fig. 2) and a fluid return lumen (return line 112 in Fig. 2), the FDL hub comprising:
a first conduit fluidly coupled with the fluid delivery lumen ([0024]: flow divider manifold 114 includes a supply fluid input 116 connecting manifold 114 in fluid communication with primary fluid supply line 110. Supply fluid input 116 is further in fluid communication with at least one supply fluid output port 118 which is also in fluid communication with at least one secondary supply line 120 – thus there is inherently a conduit between the distal output port and the delivery lumen in the hub), and
a second conduit fluidly coupled with the fluid return lumen ([0025: Flow divider manifold 114 also includes a return fluid output 126 connecting manifold 114 in fluid communication with primary fluid return line 112. Return fluid output 126 is also in fluid communication with return fluid input ports 128 which are in further fluid communication with secondary return line 130– thus there is inherently a conduit between the distal return port and the return lumen in the hub); and
a pad (pad 102 in Fig. 2) configured to facilitate thermal energy transfer between the TTM fluid and a patient ([0021]: system 100 circulates a fluid at a desired temperature through a series of pads 102 to maintain or alter the temperature of an object that is in direct contact with pads 102), the pad comprising:
a pad portion (pad portion 102 in Fig. 2) configured for placement on the patient ([0021]: object is in direct contact with the pads – the object would be the patient like in Fig. 6),
a fluid delivery conduit (supply line 120 in Fig. 2) extending away from the pad portion (line 120 extends away from the pad portion as seen in Fig. 2), the fluid delivery conduit including a delivery conduit connector ([0040]: tubing 151 connects to the primary supply line at a fist end 153 – while this paragraph is describing the first embodiment, the tubing 151 still connects to the secondary supply line 120 as shown in Fig. 2; [0024]: the supply line 120 provides fluid at the desired temperature to the pads 102 – the ability to connect to the pads discloses the presence of a connector) at a proximal end thereof (the connector is present at the proximal end as seen in Fig. 2 since the connection occurs closest to the pad),
a fluid return conduit (return conduit 130 in Fig. 2) extending away from the pad portion (conduit 130 extends away from the pad as shown in Fig. 2), the fluid return conduit including a return conduit connector ([0026]: the pad 102 is also connected in direct fluid communication with the return line 130 – the presence of a connection inherently discloses the presence of a connector that forms that connection) at a proximal end thereof (the connector is present at the proximal end as seen in Fig. 2 since the connection occurs closest to the pad), and
connectors, configured to couple to the FDL hub ([0037] connectors 144 connect to the hub 114), the connectors coupled to a distal end of each of the fluid delivery conduit and the fluid return conduit (quick connect couplings 144 disposed on the distal end of the delivery and return conduits as shown in Fig. 3), the connectors configured to receive a distal conduit tip of the first conduit of the FDL hub (fluid output port 118 connects to supply line 120 in Fig. 3 through coupling 144; output port 118 is a male port that inserts into the female port of 144 as seen in Fig. 3) and a distal conduit tip of a fluid the second conduit of the FLD hub (fluid input port 128 connects to return line 130 in Fig. 3 through coupling 144; port 128 is a male port that inserts into the female port of 144 as seen in Fig. 3).
Richardson also states that while the quick connect couplings are present in the current embodiment, other couplings which produce the same or similar results may be used ([0037]).
However, Richardson does not disclose that the connectors on the distal end of the delivery and return conduits can be connected to each other, forming a single connector.
Ellingboe teaches a system for the interconnection of a medical fluid processing system with at least one patient temperature control pad ([Abstract]). Ellingboe further teaches an intermediate connector system, similar to the connection system of Richardson, that comprises male and female connections ([0062]). Furthermore, the connection system connects to the hose in such a way that both conduits connect to a single connector as shown in Fig. 8a wherein the connector includes conduits for both of the lines connected to it. The design and orientation of this connection device provides the advantage that the wrong channels through the male and female intermediate connectors will not be fluidly connected ([0062]). While the simpler design of Fig. 8a simply shows an intermediate connection between two lines, Ellingboe further shows that this connector system is not only for direct hose to hose connection, but also for the simultaneous connection of multiple sets of connectors to a single hub as seen in Fig. 10 ([0076]). Modifying the hub connectors 144 of Richardson to simply be a different, known style of connector, such as the male connectors of Fig. 8a, is of routine skill in the art and modifying the ports of 118 and 120 such that they are close enough to mate the new connector is also of routine skill in the art. While Ellingboe teaches that the hub comprises the female connectors and the lines comprise the male connectors in Fig. 10, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the male portion on the hub and the female portion on the conduits as shown in Richardson, since it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the connectors of Ellingboe with the system of Richardson to avoid improper connections with the delivery and return lines.
PNG
media_image1.png
449
366
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Richardson further discloses that the quick connect couplings may comprise check valves to prevent fluid leakage upon removal ([0037]).
However, the Richardson/Ellingboe combination does not disclose the connector including a membrane covering an opening of the fluid delivery conduit and covering an opening of the fluid return conduit.
Mathieu teaches a self-sealing tubing connector for medical apparatuses that contains valve disks for sealing in the uncoupled condition ([Abstract]). Mathieu further teaches that the female part of the connector, which would correspond to the connector conduits of the combination, comprises a valve disk 34, which is synonymous with a membrane, that receives the tubing of the male connector, creating a fluid connection ([page 2 of specification]). The substitution of one known element (the check valves of Richardson) for another (the valve disks of Mathieu) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention since the substitution of the valve disk of Mathieu would have yielded predictable and equivalent results to that of Richardson, namely, sealing the connector conduits in the uncoupled condition.
However, the Richardson/Ellingboe/Mathieu combination would create two membranes, one covering each conduit.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to utilize a single membrane covering both connector conduits, since applicant has not disclosed that utilizing a single membrane over separate membrane solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally as well with a single membrane as it would two separate membranes. Using a single membrane to cover both connector conduits is simply one of only two options for a membrane to cover each opening, the second option being utilizing two separate membranes. It is of routine skill in the art to simply pick one of two distinct options when deciding how to incorporate a membrane seal with the connector arrangement of the Richardson/Ellingboe/Mathieu combination. The combination would result in the single membrane covering both connector conduits configured with a first piercing (Mathieu [page 2 of specification]: the valve disk has a star-like cut or slit) configured to receive a distal conduit tip of a fluid delivery lumen (Richardson [0024]: the output port 118 is in fluid connection with supply line 120; this fluid connection means the tip of the output 118 pierces the membrane of the combination as shown in Fig. 3) and a second piercing (Mathieu [page 2 of specification]: the valve disk has a star-like cut or slit) configured to receive a distal conduit tip of a fluid return lumen (Richardson [0025]: the input port 128 is in fluid connection with return line 130; this fluid connection means the tip of the input 128 pierces the membrane of the combination as shown in Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 3, the Richardson/Ellingboe/Matthieu combination discloses the system of claim 1 and described above. The combination further teaches wherein each of the first piercing and the second piercing is formed as one of a circular piercing, a linear slit or a star piercing (Mathieu [page 2 of specification]: the valve disk has a star-like cut or slit).
Regarding claim 4, The Richardson/Ellingboe/Matthieu combination discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the distal conduit tips of the fluid delivery lumen and the fluid return lumen are tapered from a proximal point to a distal point (the conduit tips 118 and 128 taper down from a wide base to a narrow tip as seen in Fig. 3, which is consistent with the definition of taper per Merriam-Webster: to become progressively smaller toward one end).
Regarding claim 5, the Richardson/Ellingboe/Matthieu combination discloses the system of claim 1. The combination further teaches wherein the connector includes a conduit partition that separates the fluid delivery conduit and fluid return conduit (the conduit partition is the block in the middle between the two conduits as seen in Ellingboe Fig. 8a).
Regarding claim 6, the Richardson/Ellingboe/Mathieu combination discloses the system of claim 1 and described above. Ellingboe also teaches the male connector includes a top compression strip (top compression strip of Ellingboe highlighted below) connected to a top latch (latch portion of top compression strip of Ellingboe highlighted below) and a bottom compression strip (bottom compression strip of Ellingboe highlighted below) connected to a bottom latch (latch portion of bottom compression strip of Ellingboe highlighted below), wherein each of the top latch and bottom latch extends proximally from the connector (they both extend away from the ends of the conduits down the length of the hose), the top latch configured to engage a top groove of an FDL hub and the bottom latch configured to engage a bottom groove of the FDL hub in a connected state of the connector and the FDL hub (the latches are capable of engaging in the groove highlighted in the hub of Ellingboe in Fig. 10 below).
However, Ellingboe teaches the latches are on the male side and the grooves are on the female side.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to reverse the latch and groove components such that the compression strips and latch are on the female connector, which is coupled to the fluid delivery and return conduits, and the receiving grooves are on the male connector, which is where the FLD hub is located in the combination, placing the receiving grooves adjacent to male connectors of the combination, since it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167.
PNG
media_image2.png
260
226
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
425
469
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, the Richardson/Ellingboe/Mathieu combination discloses the system of claim 6. The combination further teaches the top and bottom compression strips are configured to cause movement of the top and bottom latches in opposing directions upon application of pressure to the top and bottom compressions strips (Ellingboe [0060]: when a force is applied to the latch arms which moves them closer to the body portion, the latch ends move away from each other).
Regarding independent claim 14, Richardson discloses a targeted temperature management (TTM) pad (pad 102 in Fig. 2) to receive and circulate TTM fluid to facilitate thermal energy transfer between the TTM fluid and a patient ([0021]: system 100 circulates a fluid at a desired temperature through a series of pads 102 to maintain or alter the temperature of an object that is in direct contact with pads 102), the TTM pad comprising:
a pad portion (pad portion 102 in Fig. 2) configured for placement on the patient ([0021]: object is in direct contact with the pads – the object would be the patient like in Fig. 6),
a fluid delivery conduit (supply line 120 in Fig. 2) extending away from the pad portion (line 120 extends away from the pad portion as seen in Fig. 2), the fluid delivery conduit including a delivery conduit connector ([0040]: tubing 151 connects to the primary supply line at a fist end 153 – while this paragraph is describing the first embodiment, the tubing 151 still connects to the secondary supply line 120 as shown in Fig. 2; [0024]: the supply line 120 provides fluid at the desired temperature to the pads 102 – the ability to connect to the pads discloses the presence of a connector) at a proximal end thereof (the connector is present at the proximal end as seen in Fig. 2 since the connection occurs closest to the pad),
a fluid return conduit (return conduit 130 in Fig. 2) extending away from the pad portion (conduit 130 extends away from the pad as shown in Fig. 2), the fluid return conduit including a return conduit connector ([0026]: the pad 102 is also connected in direct fluid communication with the return line 130 – the presence of a connection inherently discloses the presence of a connector that forms that connection) at a proximal end thereof (the connector is present at the proximal end as seen in Fig. 2 since the connection occurs closest to the pad), and
connectors coupled to a distal end of each of the fluid delivery conduit and the fluid return conduit (quick connect couplings 144 disposed on the distal end of the delivery and return conduits as shown in Fig. 3) configured to receive a distal conduit tip of a fluid delivery lumen (fluid output port 118 connects to supply line 120 in Fig. 3 through coupling 144; output port 118 is a male port that inserts into the female port of 144 as seen in Fig. 3) and a distal conduit tip of a fluid return lumen (fluid input port 128 connects to return line 130 in Fig. 3 through coupling 144; port 128 is a male port that inserts into the female port of 144 as seen in Fig. 3).
Richardson also states that while the quick connect couplings are present in the current embodiment, other couplings which produce the same or similar results may be used ([0037]).
However, Richardson does not disclose that the connectors can be connected to each other, forming a single connector.
Ellingboe teaches a system for the interconnection of a medical fluid processing system with at least one patient temperature control pad ([Abstract]). Ellingboe further teaches an intermediate connector system, similar to the connection system of Richardson, that comprises male and female connections ([0062]). Furthermore, the connection system connects to the hose in such a way that both conduits connect to a single connector as shown in Fig. 8a wherein the connector includes conduits for both of the lines connected to it. The design and orientation of this connection device provides the advantage that the wrong channels through the male and female intermediate connectors will not be fluidly connected ([0062]). While the simpler design of Fig. 8a simply shows an intermediate connection between two lines, Ellingboe further shows that this connector system is not only for direct hose to hose connection, but also for the simultaneous connection of multiple sets of connectors to a single hub as seen in Fig. 10 ([0076]). Modifying the connectors 144 to simply be a different, known style of connector, particularly connector 50 in Figs. 8a and b, is of routine skill in the art and modifying the ports of 118 and 120 such that they are close enough to mate the new connector is also of routine skill in the art. While Ellingboe teaches that the hub comprises the female connectors and the lines comprise the male connectors in Fig. 10, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the male portion on the hub and the female portion on the conduits as shown in Richardson, since it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the connector of Ellingboe with the system of Richardson to avoid improper connections with the delivery and return lines.
PNG
media_image1.png
449
366
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Richardson further discloses that the quick connect couplings may comprise check valves to prevent fluid leakage upon removal ([0037]).
However, Richardson does not disclose the connector including a membrane configured to cover at least an opening of one of the fluid delivery conduit or the fluid return conduit.
Mathieu teaches a self-sealing tubing connector for medical apparatuses that contains valve disks for sealing in the uncoupled condition ([Abstract]). Mathieu further teaches that the female part of the connector, which would correspond to the connector conduits of the combination, comprises a valve disk 34, which is synonymous with a membrane, that receives the tubing of the male connector, creating a fluid connection ([page 2 of specification]). The substitution of one known element (the check valves of Richardson) for another (the valve disks of Mathieu) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention since the substitution of the valve disk of Mathieu would have yielded predictable and equivalent results to that of Richardson, namely, sealing the connector conduits in the uncoupled condition.
However, the Richardson/Ellingboe/Mathieu combination would create two membranes, one covering each conduit.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to utilize a single membrane covering both connector conduits, since applicant has not disclosed that utilizing a single membrane over separate membrane solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally as well with a single membrane as it would two separate membranes. Using a single membrane to cover both connector conduits is simply one of only two options for a membrane to cover each opening, the second option being utilizing two separate membranes. It is of routine skill in the art to simply pick one of two distinct options when deciding how to incorporate a membrane seal with the connector arrangement of the Richardson/Ellingboe/Mathieu combination. The combination would result in the single membrane configured with a first piercing (Mathieu [page 2 of specification]: the valve disk has a star-like cut or slit) configured to receive a distal conduit tip of a fluid delivery lumen (Richardson [0024]: the output port 118 is in fluid connection with supply line 120; this fluid connection means the tip of the output 118 pierces the membrane of the combination as shown in Fig. 3) and a second piercing (Mathieu [page 2 of specification]: the valve disk has a star-like cut or slit) configured to receive a distal conduit tip of a fluid return lumen (Richardson [0025]: the input port 128 is in fluid connection with return line 130; this fluid connection means the tip of the input 128 pierces the membrane of the combination as shown in Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 17, the Richardson/Ellingboe/Mathieu combination discloses the TTM pad of claim 14. The combination further teaches each of the first piercing and the second piercing are formed as one of a circular piercing, a linear slit or a star piercing (Mathieu [page 2 of specification]: the valve disk has a star-like cut or slit – each piercing of the membrane in this combination would have this shape).
Regarding claim 18, the Richardson/Ellingboe/Mathieu combination discloses the TTM pad of claim 14. The combination further discloses the distal conduit tips of the fluid delivery lumen and the fluid return lumen are tapered from a proximal point to a distal point (the conduit tips 118 and 128 taper down from a wide base to a narrow tip as seen in Fig. 3, which is consistent with the definition of taper per Merriam-Webster: to become progressively smaller toward one end).
Regarding claim 32, the Richardson/Ellingboe/Matthieu combination discloses the TTM pad of claim 14, wherein the connector includes a conduit partition that separates the fluid delivery and fluid return conduit (the conduit partition is the block in the middle between the two conduits as seen in Ellingboe Fig. 8a).
Regarding claim 33, the Richardson/Ellingboe/Matthieu combination discloses the TTM pad of claim 14. Ellingboe also teaches the male connector includes a top compression strip (top compression strip of Ellingboe highlighted below) connected to a top latch (latch portion of top compression strip of Ellingboe highlighted below) and a bottom compression strip (bottom compression strip of Ellingboe highlighted below) connected to a bottom latch (latch portion of bottom compression strip of Ellingboe highlighted below), wherein each of the top latch and bottom latch extends proximally from the connector (they both extend away from the ends of the conduits down the length of the hose), the top latch configured to engage a top groove of an FDL hub and the bottom latch configured to engage a bottom groove of the FDL hub in a connected state of the connector and the FDL hub (the latches are capable of engaging in the groove highlighted in the hub of Ellingboe in Fig. 10 below).
However, Ellingboe teaches the latches are on the male side and the grooves are on configuration on the female side.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to reverse the latch and groove components such that the compression strips and latch are on the female connector, which is coupled to the fluid delivery and return conduits, and the receiving grooves are on the male connector, which is where the FLD hub is located in the combination, placing the receiving grooves adjacent to male connectors of the combination, since it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167.
PNG
media_image2.png
260
226
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
425
469
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 34, the Richardson/Ellingboe/Matthieu combination discloses the TTM pad of claim 33. The combination further teaches the top and bottom compression strips are configured to cause movement of the top and bottom latches in opposing directions upon application of pressure to the top and bottom compressions strips (Ellingboe [0060]: when a force is applied to the latch arms which moves them closer to the body portion, the latch ends move away from each other).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 5, 7, 14, 32, and 34 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, and 8-9 of copending Application No. 17/849419.
Regarding claims 1 and 14 of the instant application, claim 1 of the copending applications recites all of the limitations of the instant application except for the single membrane. The copending application instead claims a flapper valve configured to alternate between an open and closed position. Based on Figs. 7A-7C of the copending application, the flapper valve covers both the fluid delivery conduit and the fluid return conduit, similar to that of the instant application. Based on [00056] of the copending application, the flapper valve is meant to block the openings of the conduits in the closed state. Based on [00072] of the instant application, the membrane serves the same purpose of sealing the openings of the conduits when decoupled. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that these are obvious variants of each other and it would be a simple substitution to substitute one for the other without creating an unexpected result.
Regarding claims 5, 7 and 32, 34, although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the copending claims anticipate the claims of the instant claimed invention.
Instant Application
Copending Application
Claim 5 and 32: wherein the connector includes a conduit partition separates the fluid delivery conduit and fluid return conduit.
Claim 2: The system of claim 1, wherein the connector includes a connector housing having disposed therein proximal ends of the fluid delivery conduit and the fluid return conduit, a conduit partition separates the fluid delivery conduit and fluid return conduit and the flapper valve.
Claim 7 and 34: wherein the top and bottom compression strips are configured to cause movement of the top and bottom latches in opposing directions upon application of pressure to the top and bottom compressions strips.
Claim 9: The system of claim 8, wherein the top and bottom compression strips are configured to cause movement of the top and bottom latches in opposing directions upon application of pressure to the top and bottom compressions strips
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 112(a) and (b) rejections of claim 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the amendments. The 112(a) and (b) rejection of claim 1 has been withdrawn. The 112(b) rejection of claim 4 remains because there is still an antecedent issue.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the double patenting rejections of claims 1 and 5-7 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. The key difference between claim 1 of the instant application and claim 1 of the co-pending application is the membrane vs the flapper valve. As described above, it is a simple substitution to substitute a flapper valve for a membrane seal in the connector. Therefore, the double patenting rejection remains the same.
Applicant’s arguments regarding claim 1 and the application of the Richardson/Ellingboe/Mathieu combination have been fully considered but are not persuasive. The applicant argues that Ellingboe does not teach a connector positioned at a terminal pad interface, but rather functions as an intermediate hose connector. This is not persuasive. Fig. 10 of Ellingboe, as well as paragraph [0076], show that the couplings of Ellingboe can be applied to a hub that receives multiple conduits at the same time. This is extremely similar to the hub of Richardson. Thus, it would be of routine skill in the art to switch the couplings of Richardson for those of Ellingboe because Ellingboe clearly discloses that the coupling configuration can be implemented into a terminal hub and not just as intermediate connectors.
Therefore, the rejection of claim 1 is maintained because Ellingboe teaches that the connector device can be implemented in a terminal hub, not just as an intermediate connector.
The applicant did not specifically challenge the application of art to the dependent claims or to claim 14. Therefore, the rejections remain.
The rejections to claims 3-7, 17-18, and 32-34 remain because the rejections to claims 1 and 14 remain.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 WILLIAM E MOSSBROOK whose telephone number is (703)756-1936. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Linda Dvorak can be reached at (571)272-4764. 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.
/LINDA C DVORAK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3794
/W.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3794
Prosecution Insights