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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-23 in the reply filed on February 26, 2026 is acknowledged. Non-elected claims 24-30 were canceled.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on May 24, 2023 and October 20, 2023 are being considered by the examiner. In addition, third party submission under 37 CFR 1.290 filed on January 27, 2026 is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 10 and 22 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 10, the recitation “inserted…over” is an oxymoron. The claim should be amended to recite that the tube barb is inserted into the flexible tube.
In claim 22, the reference numeral for the limitation “keyway” is misidentified as “618”.
Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA (or as subject to pre-AIA ) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the rationale supporting the rejection would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
All of the claims, either in itself or via dependency, recite the limitation “e.g.” The claims are indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the “e.g.” are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 1 recites “the second end”. There is no antecedent basis for the limitation.
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kusz et al. (“Kusz”) (US 2012/0284991 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Kusz discloses an assembly comprising a port fitting 14 for a container W (see Fig. 1), the port fitting 14 comprising (see Figs. 2a-2b):
at least one O-ring groove 14b at a first end (bottom) of the port fitting 14 and configured to receive at least one O-ring 22; and
two opposing locking arms 18a/18b between the at least one O-ring groove 14b and a second end (top) of the port fitting, wherein the port fitting 14 is configured to be mounted onto the container by*:
inserting the first end of the port fitting 14 into a port 12 in the container W such that the at least one O-ring 22 forms a seal between the port fitting and the container (see [0051]); and
rotating the port fitting 14 to align and engage the opposing locking arms 18a/18b with respective opposing retention clips 20a/20b of the container (see Fig. 2a).
*The container is not a part of the claimed invention. The limitations directed to the container merely provide context for the claimed port fitting. Consequently, prior art need not disclose the container, let alone the manner in which the container interacts with the port fitting, to anticipate the claim. Nevertheless, Kusz teaches the claimed mounting.
With respect to claim 2, each locking arm 18a/18b comprises:
a rotation stop (horizontal part of the arm) configured to stop the rotation of the port fitting relative to the container at one of the retention clips 20a/20b (the horizontal part fits inside the clip, preventing rotation of the port fitting); and
a detent (the curved part of the arm) configured to inhibit removal of the port fitting from the container by rotation (the curved part imparts a biasing force that retains the arm in the clip, and hence it prevents removal of the port fitting from the container using rotational force).
With respect to claim 3, the first end of the port fitting has a curvilinear shape (cylindrical shape) configured to match a curvilinear shape of an interior of the container at the port fitting when the port fitting is mounted onto the container (see Fig. 2a).
With respect to claim 4, the container comprises one or more ports and two opposing retention clips 20a/20b for each port, each port configured to receive the port fitting 14 (see Fig. 2a).
Regarding the limitations to two different port fittings having differently sized passageways, they merely provide context for the port(s) of the container. The assembly merely requires a single port fitting. Consequently, prior art need not teach port fittings having differently sized passageways to reject the claim. In this case, the port taught by Kusz is configured to receive a port fitting comprising any sized passageway that can be made within the port fitting.
With respect to claim 5, the container comprises two or more of the ports (see Figs. 13a and 13b).
With respect to claim 6, the container W is a flexible bag chamber (see [0043]) permanently connected (see [0045] disclosing welding) to a rigid canoe 12 having the one or more ports and the two opposing retention clips for each port (see Figs. 1 and 2a).
With respect to claim 7, the canoe 12 has a curvilinear inner surface (cylindrical surface inside the port) configured to match a curvilinear shape of the interior (hole) of the flexible bag chamber at the canoe (see Figs. 1 and 2a).
With respect to claim 8, the port fitting is a fixed port fitting having:
a channel from an open first end of the port fitting to an opposing open second end of the port fitting (see Fig. 2b); and
a tube barb 16 at the open second end of the port fitting and configured to receive a flexible tube over the tube barb (see Fig. 2b).
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.
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 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kusz in view of Herweck et al. (“Herweck”) (US 5,380,314).
With respect to claim 9, Kusz does not disclose that the port fitting has one or more additional open ends.
Herweck discloses an analogous port fitting 35 comprising multiple second ends (end 36 and end connected to tubing 31) for connecting to multiple fluid sources (see Fig. 2). In light of the disclosure of Herweck disclosing a need to provide a port fitting with multiple second ends, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the port fitting taught by Kusz with an additional second end.
Claims 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kusz in view of Keltner (US 5,168,720).
With respect to claim 10, Kusz does not disclose the claimed threading.
Keltner discloses an analogous port fitting 111 comprising a male barb 139 situated at one (top) end thereof for connecting to a tube 143 of a valve connector 135 (see Fig. 4). Next to the barb 139 is a threaded portion 141 that interacts with a threaded tube retainer 147 through which the tube 143 passes. To connect the valve connector 135 to the port fitting 111, the tube 143 is fed through an opening in the threaded tube retainer 147, the barb 139 is inserted into the tube 143, and the threaded tube retainer 147 is threaded onto the threaded portion 141 (see lines 30-40, col. 7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the port fitting taught by Kusz with a threaded portion between the barb 16 and the locking arms 18a/18b for securing a valve connector 135 such as the one taught by Keltner.
With respect to claim 11, if the valve connector taught by Keltner is connected to the port fitting taught by Kusz, then the assembly would further comprise the threaded tube retainer 147.
With respect to claim 12, the port fitting 111 taught by Keltner further comprises a port fitting stop 142 adjacent the threaded portion for stopping the rotation of the threaded tube retainer (see Fig. 4). Naturally, the modification of the port fitting of Kusz pursuant to the teachings of Keltner would further involve the provision of a port fitting stop 142 between the threaded portion and the locking arms.
With respect to claim 13, the port fitting stop 142 taught by Keltner is in the form of a retainer locking tab (see Fig. 4) configured to engage at least one anti-rotation feature (bottom end) of the threaded tube retainer 147 to lock the threaded tube retainer 147 in place onto the port fitting (i.e. prevent the threaded tube retainer 147 from threading past the threaded portion 141).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14-23 would be allowable if they are rewritten to overcome the applicable objections and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As discussed above, Kusz discloses an assembly comprising a container having a port, and a port fitting configured to connect to the port. Moreover, it is well-known in the art to connect such port fitting to a valve connector (see Fig. 4 of Keltner illustrating a valve connector 135 connected to an analogous port fitting 111). However, Kusz and other relevant art (e.g. Keltner) do not disclose a valve connector comprising the combination of features recited in claim 14. Naturally, it also would not have been obvious to modify the assembly to arrive at the invention recited in claim 14.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL S HYUN whose telephone number is (571)272-8559. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
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, Luan Van can be reached at 571-272-8521. 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.
/PAUL S HYUN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1796
Prosecution Insights