DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1, 5-10, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abele (USP 4,883,919)
In regards to claim 1, Abele discloses a fluid connection assembly comprising:
a plurality of tubes (2, 3, 4, 5) having a first open end and a second open end opposite the first open end (see column 2, lines 29-34);
a plurality of connectors (6-11), each of the connectors comprising at least two connector portions, wherein each of the at least two connector portions extend from a center of the connector and have a first end (see at “6a” in fig. 3) connected to the center of the connector and a second end (16b) connected to the second open end of one of the plurality of tubes, wherein at least one of the plurality of tubes is at least partly disposed within at least one of the connector portions (shown in fig. 1), wherein the connector portions are continuously formed with the tube and the center of the connector and wherein the connector portions are fluidly connected together (shown in fig. 1),
wherein each of the at least two connector portions are conically tapered from the first end to the second end where an outer diameter of the first end at the center of the connector is larger than an outer diameter of the second end of the connector portion in a way such that the connector portion is flexible (shown in fig. 2),
wherein the connector portions comprise strain relief portions (29a, 29b, 30a, 30b) provided along an outer surface of the respective connector portions wherein the strain relief portions increase the flexibility of the connector portions.
In regards to claim 5, Abele further discloses the strain relief portions comprise segmented core portions removed from the outer surface of the connector portion (shown in fig. 2).
In regards to 6, 7, 15, and 16, Abele further discloses the connector comprises an elastomer (see column 4, lines 13-18). Abele does not expressly disclose the elastomer being EVA. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Abele by making the connector from EVA due to its flexibility, strength, etc., 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, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). See MPEP 2144.07.
In regards to claim 8, Abele further discloses the connector has a design selected from a group consisting of a four-connector cross mold, a six- connector star mold, a tee mold, a y mold, an elbow mold, and a reducer (see fig. 1).
In regards to claim 9, Abele discloses the assembly of claim 1 but does not expressly disclose the first end open end of one of the plurality of tubes is fluidly connected to a bag assembly.
The examiner is taking official notice that it is well-known in the art of hose connectors to connect the hoses to bag assemblies, specifically in dispensing or biomedical applications.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to connect the end of one of the plurality of tubes to a bag assembly, in order to ensure a tight, reliable, connection between the bag assembly and the other end of the tubing.
In regards to claim 10, Abele discloses a connector comprising:
at least two connector portions (6-11), wherein each of the at least two connector portions extend from a center of the connector and have a first end (see at “6a” at fig. 3) connected to the center of the connector and a second end (16b)extending transversely from the center of the connector, wherein the connector portions are continuously formed with the center of the connector and wherein the connector portions are fluidly connected together, and wherein each of the at least two connector portions comprise an inner surface configured to receive a tube such that an outer surface of the tube is complementary with the inner surface of the connector portion (shown in fig. 1),
wherein each of the at least two connector portions are conically tapered from the first end to the second end where an outer diameter of the first end at the center of the connector is larger than an outer diameter of the second end of the connector portion in a way such that the connector portion is flexible (shown in fig. 2),
wherein the connector portions comprise strain relief portions (29a, 29b, 30a, 30b) provided along an outer surface of the respective connector portions wherein the strain relief portions increase the flexibility of the connector portions.
In regards to claim 14, Abele further discloses the strain relief portions comprise block core portions removed from the outer surface of the connector portion (shown in fig. 2).
Claims 3 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abele (USP 4,883,919) as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Melcher (USP 4,893,848).
In regards to claims 3 and 12, Abele discloses the assembly of claim 1 but does not disclose the strain relief portions comprise a plurality of rib sections provided in a parallel arrangement along a length direction of the connector portion, wherein a rib section provided nearer the center of the connector has an outer diameter larger than a rib section provided at the second end of the connector portion.
However, Melcher teaches a similar connector (35) having strain relief portions that are a plurality of rib sections (43) provided in a parallel arrangement along a length direction of the connector portion, wherein a rib section provided nearer the center of the connector has an outer diameter larger than a rib section provided at the second end of the connector portion (shown in fig. 2).
Melcher teaches using parallel ribs instead of notches as strain relief sections, achieving no unexpected results. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it no more obvious than simple substitution to provide apparatus of Abele with parallel ribs in place of notches as taught by Melcher, producing no unexpected results. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious. See MPEP §2143 (I)(B).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 10 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
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 ZACHARY T DRAGICEVICH whose telephone number is (571)270-0505. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 - 4:30 EST.
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, Matthew D. Troutman can be reached at (571) 270-3654. 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.
/ZACHARY T DRAGICEVICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3679 03/05/2026