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 drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the limitations must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
---Claim 9. The needleless connector of Claim 1, wherein a second section of opposing walls are angled radially inward in a direction away from the inlet port.
Notice that intervening claim 1 already recites “a second section of opposing walls that extend distally at an angle radially outward, relative to the longitudinal axis of the housing”. It is unclear and indefinite if the applicant is attempting to claim in claim 9 a non-illustrated embodiment where there is provided a third section of opposing walls that are angled radially inward in-addition-to/distinct-from the first section of opposing walls and the second section of opposing walls of intervening claim 1 or if the applicant is attempting to claim a non-illustrated embodiment where the second section of opposing walls are somehow both angled radially inward and extend distally at an angle radially inward. See also the 112b/d rejections below.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s response filed on 28 October 2025 overcomes the previously raised Claimed Objections and 112 Rejections. However, applicant’s amendments to the claims and the response filed on 28 October 2025 fails to overcome the prior art rejections of record, they also introduce new clarity issues and applicant has failed to overcome the previously raised Double Patenting Rejections as such the application is not in condition for allowance and a final rejection is being issued.
Applicant's arguments filed 28 October 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive:
---The applicant argues that the amended limitations of claims 1, 11 and 20 overcome the prior art of record (in particular Burnard US-9695953) since Burnard fails to disclose the amended limitations of these claims since “the present Application is directed to features in which the head portion of the compressible valve are pinched between the two points on the opposing inwardly-angled inner walls of the housing such that the top surface of the valve head transitions from a substantially flat planar surface to a concavely shaped recess or depression, and a flow path may be defined by the concavely shaped recess or depression and a gap defined between the top section the valve head and the outwardly-angled internal walls” (see at least P6-9 of 12 of the remarks).
---The Office respectfully disagree, it is noted that the amendments to claims 1, 11 and 20 included limitations of previously rejected claims 6 and 18 with the minimal addition of “a distal direction”, however, the way the claims were previously written, a “distal direction” (a direction toward the opening/base 160 / rearwards the male luer 300 / downwards Figs. 6B of the application) was implied by the claim language and as such a similar rejection to the amended claims are being applied as it will be explained in detail in the present Office Action. It is further noted that applicant’s arguments appear to rely on features that are not being claimed. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “the present Application is directed to features in which the head portion of the compressible valve are pinched between the two points on the opposing inwardly-angled inner walls of the housing such that the top surface of the valve head transitions from a substantially flat planar surface to a concavely shaped recess or depression, and a flow path may be defined by the concavely shaped recess or depression and a gap defined between the top section the valve head and the outwardly-angled internal walls”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). 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 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).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Additionally, claims 7-9 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 for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
---Claims 7-8 are dependent on claim 6, however claim 6 is now a cancelled claim. As such, claims 7-8 are improper dependent claims that fails to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, and/or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends; and due to this, the scope of claims 7-8 are unclear and indefinite. As best understood by the Office, the Office will assume that claims 7-8 should be dependent on claim 1.
---Claim 9 recites the following:
9. The needleless connector of Claim 1, wherein a second section of opposing walls are angled radially inward in a direction away from the inlet port.
Notice that intervening claim 1 already recites “a second section of opposing walls that extend distally at an angle radially outward, relative to the longitudinal axis of the housing”. It is unclear and indefinite if the applicant is attempting to claim in claim 9 a non-illustrated embodiment where there is provided a third section of opposing walls that are angled radially inward in addition to the first section of opposing walls and the second section of opposing walls of intervening claim 1 or if the applicant is attempting to claim a non-illustrated embodiment where the second section of opposing walls are somehow both angled radially inward and extend distally at an angle radially inward. Assuming that “a second section of opposing walls” (i.e. a third section of opposing walls) is distinct from the previous recitation of intervening claim 1 raises Drawing Objection issues; assuming that it is somehow the same as the previous recitation raises multiple Drawing issues and clarity issues since the second section of opposing walls cannot be both radially inward and radially outward at the same time; lastly, assuming that a claim drafting error occurred and the applicant meant to claim “wherein the second section of opposing walls are angled radially outward in a direction away from the inlet port”, the claim potentially raises 112d issues for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends since it appears to merely reiterate the limitations already mentioned in claim 1 in a slightly different manner that amounts to the same scope. As such, it is unclear and indefinite what is the scope of the claim that the applicant is attempting to claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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(s) 1-5, 7-16 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1/a2 as being anticipated by Burnard US-9695953.
Regarding claims 1-5, 7-16 and 20, Burnard US-9695953 teaches in Figs. 1-39b (see at least Figs. 1-2, 6-11 and 14-16) the limitations of:
---Claim 1. A needleless connector, comprising: a housing (valve housing 68, best shown in Fig. 8) having an upper portion (main body section 90) comprising an inlet port (see the inlet port defined by inlet opening 72), a lower portion (nut fitting 98) comprising an opening (the opening that allows fluid to be transferred to the outlet port 100 when the valved connector is opened), and an inner surface (see the inner interior surface of the body 90) forming an inner cavity (interior cavity 86) extending from the inlet port in a distal direction (rearwards the housing 68 / downwards as seen in Figs. 6 and 8) to the opening, the upper portion having a first section of opposing walls that extend distally at an angle radially inward (reduced section 32 in Fig. 6, see also reference number 80 in Fig. 8), relative to a longitudinal axis of the housing, and a second section of opposing walls (see the outwardly tapered walls of inlet opening 72) that extend distally at an angle radially outward, relative to the longitudinal axis of the housing; and a compressible valve (elastomeric piston 10/152, best shown in Figs. 1-2, 6-7 and 15-16) having a head portion (see the upper portion close to inlet port 72) and a compressible body portion (see the lower portion which comprises the flexible elastomeric body 12 which allows the valve member to be compressible and function in a similar manner as applicant’s invention) extending distally from the head portion (see at least Figs. 1-2, 6-7, 15-16, 29-29 and 34-36), the compressible valve positioned within the inner cavity and compressible between a closed state (see at least Fig. 6 and 15) and an open state (see at least Fig. 7 and 16), wherein, in the closed state, a top section of the head portion is engaged against the inner surface to resist movement of a fluid between the inlet port and the inner cavity (see at least Fig. 6 and 15), and in the open state, the top section of the head portion is engaged against the first section of opposing walls that are angled radially inward to bias the top section of the head portion and form a fluid flow path between the top section of the head portion and the inner surface (see at least Fig. 7 and 16).
---Claim 2. The needleless connector of Claim 1, wherein the first section of opposing walls are spaced approximately 180 degrees apart from each other (see at least Fig. 7 and 16).
---Claim 3. The needleless connector of Claim 1, wherein the head portion comprises at least one notch (50 / 160) disposed along an outer surface of the head portion.
---Claim 4. The needleless connector of Claim 1, wherein an inner surface of the head portion forms a core cavity (40) extending in a direction from the compressible body portion toward the top section of the head portion.
---Claim 5. The needleless connector of Claim 4, wherein an inner surface of the compressible body portion forms a void (38) extending from the opening to the core cavity.
---Claim 7. The needleless connector of Claim 6 (as best understood by the Office as being dependent on claim 1 since claim 6 is now cancelled), wherein, in the open state, the fluid flow path is formed by a gap between the top section of the head portion and the second section of opposing walls (see at least Fig. 7 and 16, when the valved connector is coupled to the tip 69 of another connector, the valve 10/152 is moved downward away from opening 72 allowing fluid to flow).
---Claim 8. The needleless connector of Claim 6 (as best understood by the Office as being dependent on claim 1 since claim 6 is now cancelled), wherein the first section of opposing walls and the second section of opposing walls are axially aligned (see at least Figs. 6-7 and 15-16).
---Claim 9. The needleless connector of Claim 1, wherein a second section of opposing walls (as far as it is definite, see the Drawing Objections and 112 Rejections above; see the outwardly tapered walls of inlet opening 72) are angled radially inward in a direction away from the inlet port.
---Claim 10. The needleless connector of Claim 1, wherein the top section of the head portion comprises a top surface having a planar shape in the closed state, and a non-planar shape in the open state (see Figs. 6-7 and 15-16).
---Claim 11. A needleless connector, comprising: a housing (valve housing 68, best shown in Fig. 8) having an upper portion (main body section 90) comprising an inlet port (see the inlet port defined by inlet opening 72), a lower portion (nut fitting 98) comprising an opening (the opening that allows fluid to be transferred to the outlet port 100 when the valved connector is opened), and an inner surface (see the inner interior surface of the body 90) forming an inner cavity (interior cavity 86) extending from the inlet port in a distal direction (rearwards the housing 68 / downwards as seen in Figs. 6 and 8) to the opening, the inner cavity along the upper portion having a diameter that decreases along a first section of opposing walls in the direction away from the inlet port (angled radially inward reduced section 32 in Fig. 6, see also reference number 80 in Fig. 8), wherein the diameter decreases relative to a second section of opposing walls (see the outwardly tapered walls of inlet opening 72) that are axially aligned with the first section of opposing walls; and the second section of opposing walls comprise a width that increases in the distal direction away from the inlet port (see at least Fig. 6-7 and 15-16); and a compressible valve (elastomeric piston 10/152, best shown in Figs. 1-2, 6-7 and 15-16) having a head portion (see at least Figs. 1-2, 6-7, 15-16, 29-29 and 34-36) and a compressible body portion (see the lower portion which comprises the flexible elastomeric body 12 which allows the valve member to be compressible and function in a similar manner as applicant’s invention) extending distally from the head portion, the compressible valve positioned within the inner cavity and compressible between a closed state (see at least Fig. 6 and 15) and an open state (see at least Fig. 7 and 16), wherein, in the closed state, a top section of the head portion is engaged against the inner surface to resist movement of a fluid between the inlet port and the inner cavity, and in the open state, the top section of the head portion is engaged against the first section of opposing walls to bias the top section of the head portion and form a fluid flow path between the top section of the head portion and the second section of opposing walls (see at least Fig. 6-7 and 15-16, when the valved connector is coupled to the tip 69 of another connector, the valve 10/152 is moved downward away from opening 72 allowing fluid to flow).
---Claim 12. The needleless connector of Claim 11, wherein the first section of opposing walls are spaced approximately 180 degrees apart from each other (see at least Fig. 7 and 16).
---Claim 13. The needleless connector of Claim 11, wherein the head portion comprises at least one notch (50 / 160) disposed along an outer surface of the head portion.
---Claim 14. The needleless connector of Claim 11, wherein an inner surface of the head portion forms a core cavity (40) extending in a direction from the compressible body portion toward the top section of the head portion.
---Claim 15. The needleless connector of Claim 14, wherein an inner surface of the compressible body portion forms a void (38) extending from the opening to the core cavity.
---Claim 16. The needleless connector of Claim 11, wherein, in the open state, the fluid flow path is formed by a gap between the top section of the head portion and the second section of opposing walls (see at least Fig. 7 and 16, when the valved connector is coupled to the tip 69 of another connector, the valve 10/152 is moved downward away from opening 72 allowing fluid to flow).
---Claim 20. A needleless connector, comprising: a housing (valve housing 68 with main body section 90, best shown in Fig. 8) having a first port (see the inlet port defined by inlet opening 72) in a distal direction (rearwards the housing 68 / downwards as seen in Figs. 6 and 8), a base (nut fitting 98) having a second port (the opening that allows fluid to be transferred to the outlet port 100 when the valved connector is opened), and an inner surface (see the inner interior surface of the body 90) forming an inner cavity (interior cavity 86) extending from the first port to the second port, the inner cavity having a first section of opposing walls having a width that decreases in the distal direction away from the first port (angled radially inward reduced section 32 in Fig. 6, see also reference number 80 in Fig. 8), wherein the width decreases relative to a second section of opposing walls (see the outwardly tapered walls of inlet opening 72) axially aligned with the first section of opposing walls; and the second section of opposing walls comprise a width that increases in the distal direction away from the inlet port (see at least Fig. 6-7 and 15-16); and a compressible valve (elastomeric piston 10/152, best shown in Figs. 1-2, 6-7 and 15-16) having a head portion (see the upper portion close to inlet port 72) and a compressible body portion (see the lower portion which comprises the flexible elastomeric body 12 which allows the valve member to be compressible and function in a similar manner as applicant’s invention) extending distally from the head portion, the compressible valve positioned within the inner cavity and compressible between a closed state (see at least Fig. 6 and 15) and an open state (see at least Fig. 7 and 16), wherein, in the closed state, a top section of the head portion is engaged against the inner surface to resist movement of a fluid between the first port and the inner cavity, and in the open state, the top section of the head portion is engaged against the first section of opposing walls to bias the top section of the head portion and form a fluid flow path between the top section of the head portion and the second section of opposing walls (see at least Fig. 6-7 and 15-16, when the valved connector is coupled to the tip 69 of another connector, the valve 10/152 is moved downward away from opening 72 allowing fluid to flow).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-5, 7-16 and 20-23 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of US Patent “Feith” US-11904131.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because either explicitly or implicitly the device of the claims of the patent anticipates all the limitations of the present application and/or any missing structure or detail would be obvious over the cited prior art. A comparison of claims 1-5, 7-16 and 20-23 of the application with claims 1-19 of the US Patent show that the claims of the application mirrors the limitations of the patent with the claims of the application being broader than those of the patent and with minor changes in naming conventions that does not significantly narrow the scope of the claims (see for example claim 1 of the patent claims: “A needleless connector, comprising: a housing having a proximal end defining an inlet port of the housing, a distal end including a base defining an outlet port of the housing” vs. “A needleless connector, comprising: a housing having an upper portion comprising an inlet port, a lower portion comprising an opening” and “opposing walls of an inwardly angled portion of the inner surface” vs. “the upper portion having a first section of opposing walls that extend distally at an angle radially inward”). Following the rationale in In re Goodman cited in the preceding paragraph, where the applicant has once been granted a patent containing a claim for the specific or narrower invention, the applicant may not then obtain a second patent with a claim for the generic or broader invention without first submitting an appropriate terminal disclaimer. Note that since the claims of the application are anticipated by the claims of the patent and since anticipation is the epitome of obviousness, then the claims of the application are obvious over the claims of the patent. Additionally, it is noted that claims 11 and 20 recites limitations directed to diameters and widths with “the inner cavity along the upper portion having a diameter that decreases along a first section of opposing walls in a direction way from the inlet port, wherein the diameter decreases relative to a second section of opposing walls that are axially aligned with the first section of opposing walls” and “the inner cavity having a first section of opposing walls having a width that decreases in the distal direction away from the first port, wherein the width decreases relative to a second section of opposing walls axially aligned with the first section of opposing walls” and while the claims of the patent fails to explicitly disclose mentions of widths and diameters it is noted that at least claim 14 of the patent does teaches of “an internal cavity defined by an internal surface of the body wherein a portion of the internal surface is angled inwardly in a direction from the inlet toward the outlet to form pinch points at opposing walls of the internal surface within the inlet” and “wherein the fluid path is defined between opposing walls of the internal surface which are angled outwardly away from each other” teaching the first section of opposing walls that are angled radially inward and a second section of opposing walls that are angled radially outward. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art can recognize that angled inward surface equates to a surface in which the width decreases inward and an angled outward surface equates to a surface in which the width increases outward as such inherently meeting the limitations related to the width. Additionally, one or ordinary skill in the art can recognize that the needleless connector of the patent is a valved fluid connector for selectively allowing fluid flow and that fluid components such as valved connectors are often cylindrically-shaped (see for example Burnard US-9695953 teaching of a similar valved fluid connector having a cylindrical shaped housing with inwardly angled and outwardly angled surfaces as mentioned in the rejections above). As it is known in the art, fluid conduits are predominantly cylindrically shaped having circular cross-sections since cylindrical shaped conduits provides: a) even pressure distribution across the entire circumferences which reduces stress concentration and structural failure, b) efficient flow by minimizing turbulence and friction as compared to conduit shaped with corners and c) a circular cross-section offers optimum surface area to volume ratio making the shape more material efficient and economical as compared to other possible shapes. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the shape of the needleless connector of the device of the patent to be cylindrically shaped (having a width as seen in a first view and having a diameter as seen in an orthogonal view to the first view) in a similar manner as taught by Burnard since cylindrically shaped fluid components are well-known since the shape aids fluid conduits by providing a) even pressure distribution across the entire circumferences which reduces stress concentration and structural failure, b) efficient flow by minimizing turbulence and friction as compared to conduit shaped with corners and c) a circular cross-section offers optimum surface area to volume ratio making the shape more material efficient and economical as compared to other possible shapes.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 19 is 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. The Office notes that claim 19 is not being rejected under Double Patenting.
Claims 21-23 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 and once the Double Patenting Rejections are overcome (see the Double Patenting Rejections above).
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest prior art are as follows:
References A: Chen US-11123534, Truitt US-10478607 US-8636720, Ueda US-10322274, Zollinger US-9370651, US-8840577, Quach US-9278205, Yeh US-9089682, US-8708976), Panian US-9067049, Burkholz US-20170120028, Mansour US-8715247).
References B: Burnard US-9695953, Mansour US-9144672, Cote US-6585229, WO-03018104 and Panian US-20140358073.
References A teaches of various examples of needleless medical connectors comprising a collapsible/resilient/compressible valve member that when it is pushed by a male member during the coupling process, the valve is pushed backwards and allows for fluid flow through the couplings and when the couplings are disconnected, the valve member returns to the closed position due to the resiliency of the material of the valve and thus the coupling achieves a dry-disconnect similar to applicant’s general invention. Similarly, References B teaches of other examples of needless medical connector with a compressible valve similar to applicant’s invention, in particular, Burnard, Mansour and Panian teaches of examples where the top surface changes from a planar to a non-planar shape when the valve is opened and/or teaches examples where at least one portion of the top part of the valve is engages against inwardly angled walls similar to key features of the claimed invention. Notice that while having some similarities, the closest prior art fails to disclose or render obvious without impermissible hindsight the particular structure and function of: “19. The needleless connector of Claim 11, wherein the top section of the head portion comprises a top surface having a concave shape in the closed state” and “The needleless connector of Claim 1/11/20, wherein the second section of opposing walls are radially oriented 90 degrees from the first section of opposing walls” in combination with all the limitations as claimed in claim 19 and 21-23 and as shown in at least Figs. 5A-6E of the application.
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 DAVID COLON-MORALES, whose telephone number 571-270-1741 and fax number is 571-270-2741. If the applicant has authorized internet communications via the filling of form PTO/SB/439, the examiner can be reached via email at david.colon-morales@uspto.gov , email communication is not permitted if the applicant has not filed an authorization for internet communication (see MPEP 502.03 for more details on internet communications). The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (7:30AM-3:30PM 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 supervisors can be reached by phone. KENNETH RINEHART can be reached at 571-272-4881 or CRAIG SCHNEIDER can be reached at 571-272-3607. 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.
/DAVID COLON-MORALES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753