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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-6, 8-10, 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Paradis (US 6,168,1347 B1).
With regard to claim 1 and 9, Paradis discloses A fluid connector assembly (Fig. 1a) and method providing/comprising: a first connector (see annotated drawing below); a second connector (see annotated drawing below) configured to couple with the first connector (see Fig. 1a), the second connector having a snap member (right at the label 11-2 in Fig. 1a) disposed on an end of the second connector; and a connecting mechanism (11-k) coupled to the second connector for detachably coupling the first connector and the second connector, the connecting mechanism comprising: a body (the arms formed by the part labeled 11-k) having a channel (where 14 is labeled) extending therethrough for providing fluid communication between the first connector and the second connector (fluid communication is allowed through tubing 8 that is located in the space formed by 14); and at least one projection (11-k) extending from an end of the body and comprising an outwardly extending portion that projects away from a longitudinally extending axis of the connecting mechanism (see Fig. 1a), wherein, when the connecting mechanism is coupled to the second connector, at least a portion of the connecting mechanism is positioned within an opening of the snap member (see Fig. 1a) and secured to the snap member by the at least one projection (Fig. 1a), and wherein actuation of the snap member allows the connecting mechanism to be disconnected from the second connector (snap member would allow for connecting and disconnecting as there is no specific lock or mechanism that would break if connected or disconnected).
PNG
media_image1.png
630
481
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 2 and 12, Paradis discloses wherein the connecting mechanism remains coupled to the second connector by a threshold force (this would be inherent as the device would have some specific force that is holding the two connectors together), and wherein, when an external force greater than the threshold force is applied to at least one of the first connector and the second connector, the connecting mechanism is decoupled from the second connector (if a force is applied to try and disconnect the two connectors it would inherently be greater than the threshold force in order to disconnect the two pieces. The definition of the threshold force would need to be further defined in order to overcome the current rejection).
With regard to claim 5 and 13, Paradis discloses wherein the connecting mechanism further comprises a valve member (12) disposed within the channel, and wherein, when the first connector and the second connector are coupled, the valve member is configured to allow fluid communication between the first connector and the second connector (Fig. 1a and 3c), and wherein, when the first connector and the second connector are decoupled, the valve member is configured to prevent a flow of a fluid through the channel (col 4, lines 10-18).
With regard to claim 6, Paradis discloses wherein an exterior surface profile of the at least one projection corresponds to an interior profile of the opening of the snap member (see Fig. 1a).
With regard to claim 8, Paradis discloses wherein the fluid connector assembly is a closed-system drug transfer device (Fig. 1a).
With regard to claim 10, Paradis discloses wherein coupling the end of the connecting mechanism to the second connector includes positioning the at least one projection within the opening of the snap member such that an exterior surface of the at least one projection abuts an interior surface of the snap member in a snap fit configuration (see Fig. 1a).
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.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paradis (US 6,168,1347 B1).
With regard to claim 3, Paradis discloses an external force that is greater than the threshold force (see rejection of claim 2 above). Paradis does not explicitly disclose a pulling force of at least five pounds.
However, it would be prima facie obvious and within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the pulling force to be at least five pounds as doing so would not alter the overall function of the device.
Claim(s) 4, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paradis (US 6,168,1347 B1) in view of Christensen et al. (US 2011/0009849 A1).
With regard to claim 4, Paradis discloses the claimed invention except for a snap arm.
Christensen teaches a similar fluid connector assembly (Fig. 3a and 3b) and further includes a snap member (190) that includes at least one snap arm (210) from an end of the snap member and wherein actuation of the at least one snap arm allows for the connecting mechanism to be decoupled from the second connector (see between Fig. 3a and 3b).
Therefore, it would be prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the connection mechanism of Paradis with a snap arm as taught by Christensen for the purpose of facilitating removal and attachment ([0016]).
With regard to claim 11, Paradis discloses the claimed invention except for the snap member providing clearance.
Christensen teaches wherein decoupling the connecting mechanism from the second connector includes actuating the snap member to provide clearance between the at least one projection and the interior surface thereby allowing the connecting mechanism to be removed from the opening (210 the arms are squeezed in order to open the snap arms in order to provide clearance to facilitating removal of the connecting mechanisms).
Therefore, it would be prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the connection mechanism of Paradis with a snap arm as taught by Christensen for the purpose of facilitating removal and attachment ([0016]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14-20 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 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 LAUREN P FARRAR whose telephone number is (571)270-1496. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 5pm.
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.
/Lauren P Farrar/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3783
Prosecution Insights