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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application (CON of 16/216,592, filed 11 December 2018) under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority (DE102017129674.3, filed 12 December 2017) under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. 16/216,592, filed on 11 December 2018.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 recites the following phrases “a capillary comprising a capillary distal face”, “a portion of the sealing element is located distal from the capillary distal face”, “to force the capillary against a proximal face…”, and “a thrust piece surrounding a distal end of the capillary” (emphases added). These phrases are intended to show that Applicant has distinctly defined the invention such that a “face”, i.e., “a distal face” or “a proximal face”, is distinguished from an “end”, i.e., “distal end”. By broadest reasonable interpretation, contextually a “face” is the very furthest surface along an object whether in the distal direction or proximal direction relative to a reference point along the object, whereas an “end” is broader and defines a region rather than a singular point or surface but also encompasses the “face”. For example, in this invention, a “distal face” of the capillary is distinguished from a “distal end” of the capillary in that a “distal face” references the very furthest surface of the capillary away from a reference point, whereas a “distal end” of the capillary references a segment or region of the capillary furthest away from a reference point and includes the “distal face” but should not necessarily be interpreted as solely the “distal face”.
Applicant is entitled to be their own lexicographer and may rebut the presumption that claim terms are to be given their ordinary and customary meaning by clearly setting forth a definition of the term that is different from its ordinary and customary meaning(s) in the specification at the time of filing (See In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1674; Fed. Cir. 1994; MPEP §2111.01 IV). To act as their own lexicographer, the Applicant must clearly set forth a special definition of a claim term in the specification that differs from the plain and ordinary meaning it would otherwise possess. The specification may also include an intentional disclaimer, or disavowal, of claim scope.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 23 February 2025 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of US Patent No. 11,554,330 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-14, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TODOSIEV et al. (US 6,494,500 B1) in view of GRAHAM et al. (US 2016/0305586 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, TODOSIEV discloses a universal self-adjusting high pressure liquid connector for use in columns requiring leak free seals (abstract). The apparatus comprises a body 1 (i.e., a housing assembly), stem 2, removable ferrule 3, fixed ferrule 4, capillary tube 5 (i.e., a capillary comprising a capillary distal face), and biasing spring 6 (i.e., a biasing element) (c4/60-65; FIG. 2 annotated). TODOSIEV further discloses stem 2 is slidingly engaged with the capillary tube 5, which is restricted by fixed ferrule 4 and housing body 1 at one end (proximal end) and interface point 8 at the other distal end (i.e., a thrust piece surrounding a distal end of the capillary, and wherein the capillary is configured to move axially with [respect] to the thrust piece; c5/28-34; c5/49-57). TODOSIEV is deficient in disclosing a sealing element, wherein at least a portion of the sealing element is located distal from the capillary distal face.
[AltContent: textbox (Body (housing assembly))][AltContent: textbox (Distal end of capillary)][AltContent: oval][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (Distal face of capillary)][AltContent: textbox (Capillary tube (capillary))][AltContent: textbox (Biasing spring (biasing element))][AltContent: textbox (Fixed ferrule)][AltContent: textbox (Stem (thrust piece))]
PNG
media_image1.png
192
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
GRAHAM discloses a tubing assembly that provides a sealing connection that produces sufficient axial force necessary to create an effective seal for high-pressure applications (p0029). The tubing assembly comprises a tube 94 (i.e., a capillary) having a tip 93 (i.e., a sealing element) at a first end of the tube that defines (1) a substantially flat surface adapted to contact and form a seal against a flat-bottomed port and (2) extends beyond the first end of the tube (p0031; p0109; FIGs. 9B, 10). Tube 94 and tip 93 meet at a distal surface 99 of the tube and a proximal surface of the tip (i.e., at least a portion of the sealing element is located distal from the capillary distal face; FIG. 10). Advantageously, the tip 93 serves to transfer load from the tubing 94 to form a more effective seal against a port bottom or port sealing face (p0112). Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to provide a sealing element wherein at least a portion of the sealing element is located distal from the capillary distal face as disclosed by GRAHAM in the plug unit disclosed by TODOSIEV.
[AltContent: textbox (Interference fit between transfer tubing and tip)][AltContent: textbox (Transfer tubing (thrust piece))][AltContent: textbox (Tube (capillary))][AltContent: textbox (Distal face of capillary)][AltContent: textbox (Tip (sealing element))]
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In order to secure the disclosing tubing assembly to a port, GRAHAM discloses that a transfer tubing 92 (i.e., a thrust piece surrounding a distal end of the capillary) is slidingly engaged to the tip 93 to secure the tubing 94 to a port (p0109). It is acknowledged that GRAHAM teaches the transfer tubing 92 to be secured via interference fit to the tip 93 (p0109), i.e., after being secured, transfer tubing 92 and tip 93 are considered to not be separable (i.e., not able to be moved axially). However, GRAHAM nevertheless teaches that in order to secure the tip 93 (and thus tubing 94) to a port, the transfer tubing 92 must be slidingly engaged across this interference fit via transference of a load from the rotational torque of a nut on the transfer tubing 92 to the tip 93 (p0109), i.e., the transfer tubing 92 must move axially along the tubing 92/tip 93, thereby meeting the required limitation that “wherein the capillary is configured to move axially with respect to the thrust piece”.
Regarding Claims 3 and 4, modified TODOSIEV makes obvious the plug unit of Claim 1. As shown in FIG. 10 of GRAHAM, the tip 93 (i.e., the sealing element) is located at a distal end of the transfer tubing 92 (i.e., thrust piece). GRAHAM further discloses that the transfer tubing 92 provides an interference fit with the tip 93 (i.e., wherein the sealing element is fixed to the thrust piece; p0112).
Regarding Claims 5-7, modified TODOSIEV makes obvious the plug unit of Claim 1. TODOSIEV further shows that the body 1 includes an interior surface for engaging with the stem 2, fixed ferrule 4, and spring 6 (i.e., a second housing section; the second housing section houses the biasing element; FIG. 2; c5/35-41). Body 1 further includes a knurled exterior surface for facilitating tightening (i.e., a first housing section; a connection mechanism… wherein the connection mechanism is located on the first housing section; c5/40-47).
The limitation “for connecting the plug unit to a socket unit” is directed toward an intended use of the plug unit. If a prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use as recited, then it meets the limitations of the claim (In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997); MPEP §2111.02 II).
Furthermore, the limitation “socket unit” is not considered a patentable element of the inventive plug unit because the claimed “socket unit” does not define any structural or functional property of the claimed plug unit.
Regarding Claim 8, modified TODOSIEV makes obvious the plug unit of Claim 1. TODOSIEV further discloses stem 2 slidingly engaged with the capillary tube 5 restricted by fixed ferrule 4 and housing body 1 at one end and interface point 8 at the other distal end (i.e., the thrust piece is configured to move axially with respect to the housing assembly; c5/28-34; c5/49-57).
Regarding Claims 9 and 10, modified TODOSIEV makes obvious the plug unit of Claim 1. TODOSIEV further discloses stem 2 includes a threaded interface with the body 1 (i.e., the housing assembly is configured to receive the thrust piece and prevent the thrust piece from falling out of the housing assembly; the housing assembly comprises a thrust piece receiving opening; at least a section of the thrust piece is received in the thrust piece receiving opening; c5/35-37).
Regarding Claims 11 and 12, modified TODOSIEV makes obvious the plug unit of Claim 10. As further shown in FIG. 2, TODOSIEV shows the stem 2 shape relative to the interior of body 1 (i.e., the thrust piece further comprises a proximal section with a proximal thrust piece diameter, wherein the proximal section is received in the thrust piece receiving opening, and wherein the thrust piece receiving opening comprises an inner diameter being greater than the proximal thrust piece diameter; the thrust piece comprises a distal section with a distal thrust piece diameter wherein the housing assembly further comprises a distal section having an inner diameter being greater than the distal thrust piece diameter and smaller than the proximal thrust piece diameter; FIG. 2).
Regarding Claims 13 and 14, modified TODOSIEV makes obvious the plug unit of Claim 1. TODOSIEV further discloses a fixed ferrule 4 swaged or otherwise fixedly attached to the capillary tubing 5, i.e., the fixed ferrule 4 is secured upon the capillary tubing 5 (i.e., a thrust transmission element fixed to the capillary; c5/4-9). Further, the fixed ferrule 4 provides a stationary location for the proximally located spring 6 to act upon against the body 1 (i.e., the thrust transmission element is configured to transmit an axial force from the biasing element to the capillary; the thrust transmission element comprises a proximal face configured to be subjected by an axial force of the biasing element; c5/14-16).
Regarding Claim 19, modified TODOSIEV makes obvious the plug unit of Claim 12. As further shown in FIG. 1 and 5-7, TODOSIEV shows the body 1 (i.e., housing assembly) includes an inward flange (i.e., wherein the distal section of the housing assembly is flanged inwardly).
Response to Arguments/Amendments
Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed 20 February 2026 have been fully considered.
Regarding the Claim Objections of Claim 1, Applicant’s amendments are persuasive; these objections have been withdrawn.
Regarding the rejections of Claims 3, 4, 8-12, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form, Applicant’s amendments are persuasive; these rejections have been withdrawn.
Regarding the rejection of at least Claim(s) 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TODOSIEV et al. (US 6,494,500 B1) in view of GRAHAM et al. (US 2016/0305586 A1), Applicant argues that GRAHAM fails to disclose the feature " wherein the capillary is configured to move axially with respect to the thrust piece" because “[n]owhere does GRAHAM disclose or suggest that, in the assembled tubing assembly, the conduit tubing 94 is capable of axial displacement relative to the transfer tubing 92” (pg. 6, bottom) and further because “the assembled plug unit must possess structural features enabling such relative axial movement” (pg. 7, bottom). Applicant further highlights that “GRAHAM expressly teaches that, the tip 93 is retained by an interference fit with the transfer tubing, which fixes the components relative to one another, thereby precluding axial movement between the conduit tubing 94 and the transfer tubing 92” (pg. 7, bottom).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
It is appreciated that if the claimed plug unit is claimed to be “assembled” as argued, e.g., such that the plug unit is securely connected to whatever port the plug unit is designed to secure to, then the arguments directed toward the limitation “the capillary being configured to move axially with respect to the thrust piece” would conceivably be persuasive so as to overcome the prior art rejection, especially the teachings of GRAHAM. However, no such “assembled” configuration is claimed. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Claim 1 only requires a plug unit having a capillary, a sealing element, a biasing element, a housing assembly, and a thrust piece. There is no language or limitation or express claim that the plug unit must be in an assembled state/configuration as argued/envisioned by Applicant. The claim is broadly interpreted to validly include configurations of the plug unit in either assembled or disassembled states, e.g., secured to a port and yet-to-be secured to a port, respectively—one of ordinary skill in the art expects such plug units to be in a disassembled state when disconnected from ports; such a disassembled plug unit is still considered a “plug unit” as claimed.
As described in the above prior art rejections, in order to secure the disclosing tubing assembly to a port, GRAHAM discloses that the transfer tubing 92 (i.e., the claimed thrust piece) is slidingly engaged to the tip 93 to secure the tubing 94 to a port (p0109); it is further acknowledged that GRAHAM teaches the transfer tubing 92 to be secured via interference fit to the tip 93, i.e., after being secured, transfer tubing 92 and tip 93 are considered to not be separable (i.e., not able to be moved axially as correctly interpreted by the Applicant). However, GRAHAM nevertheless teaches that in order to secure the tip 93 (and thus tubing 94) to a port, the transfer tubing 92 must be slidingly engaged across this interference fit via transference of a load from the rotational torque of a nut on the transfer tubing 92 to the tip 93 (p0109), i.e., the transfer tubing 92 must move axially along the tubing 92/tip 93, thereby meeting the required limitation that “wherein the capillary is configured to move axially with respect to the thrust piece”.
Applicant further argues that TODOSIEV fails to disclose the claimed feature “a thrust piece surrounding a distal end of the capillary” (pg. 8, top). Applicant has further interpreted the Office Action’s “Claim Interpretation” section of “a distal end” to “necessarily encompass the distal face” (pg. 8, par. 3) and has based their arguments on this interpretation and also on the argument that the claimed invention is directed toward an assembled plug unit (see pg. 8, second half).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Claim Interpretation section has made abundantly clear that “a distal face” is expressly distinguished from “a distal end” and not to be confused or equated with each other. As noted, while “distal end” does indeed encompass “distal face”, a “distal end” also encompasses a broader region along the capillary tubing such that other regions of the distal end not including the distal face is still considered the distal end. The claimed limitation “a thrust piece surrounding a distal end of the capillary” does not require that the thrust piece entirely cover the entire distal end of the capillary, e.g., a thrust piece can be envisaged to be annular in shape having a through hole through which a capillary tubing can be inserted such that the distal face of the tubing is distal to the thrust piece itself—the thrust piece is still oriented such that it encircles (i.e., surrounds) a distal end of the capillary tubing. If Applicant so chooses to claim a limitation as argued, then the limitation should be constructed such that the “distal face” is included. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant’s arguments directed toward the combination of TODOSIEV and GRAHAM being inappropriate due to one of ordinary skill having to “modify the adjustability mechanism of TODOSIEV to adopt GRAHAM’s interference-based retention structure without altering the principle of operation of the TODOSIEV connector” (pg. 8, bottom) have been addressed earlier, i.e., GRAHAM does in fact teach an axially movable capillary with respect to the thrust piece of a plug unit, and is thus, considered moot
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 RYAN B HUANG whose telephone number is (571)270-0327. The examiner can normally be reached 9 am-5 pm 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, In Suk Bullock can be reached on 571-272-5954. 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.
/Ryan B Huang/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777