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 .
Drawings
The replacement Drawings filed 11/25/2025 overcome the objections set forth in the last Office Action.
Specification
The amendments to the Specification filed 11/25/2025 overcome the objections set forth in the last Office Action.
Double Patenting
The amendments to the claims filed 11/25/2025 overcome the double patenting rejections set forth in the last Office Action.
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, 3, 5, 7, 9-12, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mansour et al. (PG PUB 2011/0130724).
Re claim 1, Mansour discloses a needleless connector 750 (seen assembled in Fig 7E; all reference characters cited below refer to Fig 7A-7E unless otherwise noted), comprising: a housing 700+740+730 comprising a cavity 704, a proximal fluid port 702 in fluid communication with the cavity (as seen in Fig 9), and a distal fluid port 734 in fluid communication with the cavity (as seen in Fig 9); and a flexible valve element 710 disposed within the cavity (as seen in Fig 7E-11) and comprising a valve diaphragm 720+722 with a diaphragm body (the entire diaphragm 720+722 itself) that extends towards the distal fluid port (as seen in Fig 7E, the diaphragm body 720+722 has a lengthwise measurement in the direction of the longitudinal axis (extending vertically in Fig 7E) and, therefore, “extends towards the distal fluid port”), wherein the valve diaphragm is configured to expand when a luer is inserted into the proximal fluid port (as seen in Fig 9; Para 62) to permit flow between the proximal fluid port and the distal fluid port (as seen in Fig 9) and retract when the luer is removed from the proximal fluid port (as seen in Fig 10; Para 64).
Re claim 3, Mansour discloses that the flexible valve element comprises a cone 714 coupled to the valve diaphragm and extending toward the proximal fluid port (as seen in Fig 7E).
Re claim 5, Mansour discloses that the valve diaphragm defines a flat portion (connecting the tapered proximal portion to the retention edge 722; seen in Fig 7E and labeled in annotated Fig A below).
PNG
media_image1.png
637
597
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Re claim 7, Mansour discloses that the valve diaphragm comprises a retention edge 722, wherein at least a portion of the retention edge is captured within the housing (as seen in Fig 7E; Para 61).
Re claim 9, Mansour discloses that the flexible valve element comprises a valve tail 724 extending into the cavity (as seen in Fig 7E), wherein the valve tail deflects to selectively permit flow between the proximal fluid port and the distal fluid port (as seen in Fig 9; Para 57).
Re claim 10, Mansour discloses that the valve tail comprises a plurality of bends 726 (as seen in Fig 7B).
Re claim 11, Mansour discloses that the valve tail is configured to minimize insertion force of a luer to permit flow between the proximal fluid port and the distal fluid port (one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that this limitation is met since insertion force is “minimized” by valve tail 724 in comparison to a valve tail having different dimensions or made of a harder material).
Re claim 12, Mansour discloses that the housing comprises a proximal portion 700 and a distal portion 730, wherein the proximal portion and the distal portion are coupled together (as seen in Fig 7E; Para 60).
Re claim 18, Mansour discloses that the housing defines at least one flow channel 708 in fluid communication with the proximal fluid port and the distal fluid port (as seen in Fig 9; Para 56).
Re claim 20, Mansour discloses a needleless connector 750 (seen assembled in Fig 7E; all reference characters cited below refer to Fig 7A-7E unless otherwise noted), comprising: a housing 700+740+730 comprising a proximal portion 700; a distal portion 730, wherein the proximal portion and the distal portion are coupled together to cooperatively define a cavity 704 (as seen in Fig 7E; Para 60); a proximal fluid port 702 in fluid communication with the cavity (as seen in Fig 9); and a distal fluid port 734 in fluid communication with the cavity (as seen in Fig 9); and a flexible valve element 710 comprising: a valve diaphragm 720+722 comprising a diaphragm body (the entirety of 720+22) that extends towards the distal fluid port (as seen in Fig 7E, the diaphragm body 720+722 has a lengthwise measurement in the direction of the longitudinal axis (which extends vertically in Fig 7E) and, therefore, it “extends towards the distal fluid port” as claimed), wherein the valve diaphragm is configured to expand when a luer is inserted into the proximal fluid port (as seen in Fig 9; Para 62) and retract when the luer is removed from the proximal fluid port (as seen in Fig 10; Para 64); a cone 714 coupled to the valve diaphragm and extending toward the proximal fluid port (as seen in Fig 7E); a retention edge 722, wherein at least a portion of the retention edge is captured within the housing (as seen in Fig 7E; Para 61); and a valve tail 724 extending into the cavity (as seen in Fig 7E), wherein the valve tail deflects to selectively permit flow between the proximal fluid port and the distal fluid port (as seen in Fig 9; Para 57).
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 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Mansour et al. (PG PUB 2011/0130724).
Re claim 13, Mansour discloses all the claimed features except explicitly disclosing what material the proximal and distal portions are made of; therefore, Mansour does not disclose that at least one of the proximal and distal portions comprises polypropylene or polyethylene. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify at least one of the proximal and distal portions of the housing to include polypropylene or polyethylene since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Additionally, claim 13 has been rejected with art below.
Re claim 14, Mansour discloses all the claimed features except explicitly disclosing what material the proximal and distal portions are made of; therefore, Mansour does not disclose that at least one of the proximal and distal portions comprises polycarbonate or copolyester. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify at least one of the proximal and distal portions of the housing to include polycarbonate or copolyester since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Additionally, claim 14 has been rejected with art below.
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mansour et al. (PG PUB 2011/0130724) in view of Aydin (PG PUB 2015/0129065).
Re claim 13, Mansour discloses all the claimed features except explicitly disclosing what material the proximal and distal portions are made of; therefore, Mansour does not disclose that at least one of the proximal and distal portions comprises polypropylene or polyethylene. Aydin, however, teaches a needleless connector 1 (Fig 1) comprising a flexible valve element 15 (Fig 1) and a housing 3+4 (Fig 1) comprising a proximal portion 3 (Fig 1) and a distal portion 4 (Fig 1) wherein each of the portions comprises polypropylene (Para 89) since this material tends to be dimensionally stable (Para 89). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Mansour, to include at least one of the portions such that it comprises polypropylene, as taught by Aydin, for the purpose of ensuring that the housing is dimensionally stable (Para 89).
Re claim 14, Mansour discloses all the claimed features except explicitly disclosing what material the proximal and distal portions are made of; therefore, Mansour does not disclose that at least one of the proximal and distal portions comprises polycarbonate or copolyester. Aydin, however, teaches a needleless connector 1 (Fig 1) comprising a flexible valve element 15 (Fig 1) and a housing 3+4 (Fig 1) comprising a proximal portion 3 (Fig 1) and a distal portion 4 (Fig 1) wherein each of the portions comprises polycarbonate (Para 89) since this material tends to be dimensionally stable (Para 89). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Mansour, to include at least one of the portions such that it comprises polycarbonate, as taught by Aydin, for the purpose of ensuring that the housing is dimensionally stable (Para 89).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/25/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that “the Office Action has not shown that Mansour discloses ‘a flexible valve element disposed within the cavity and comprising a valve diaphragm with a diaphragm body that extends towards the distal fluid port,’ as recited by independent Claim 1”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees since Fig 7E, for example, shows the diaphragm body 720+722 having a lengthwise measurement in the direction of the longitudinal axis (running vertically in Fig 7E); because the diaphragm body has such a length, it “extends towards the distal fluid port” as claimed. To put this in visual context, please see the annotated version of Fig 7E below that shows the diaphragm body 720+722 extending from point A “towards the distal fluid port” in the direction of arrow B until it reaches point C.
PNG
media_image2.png
347
575
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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
Prosecution Insights