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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 24 November 2025 has been entered per the request on 23 December 2025.
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) 1-16 and 18-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pre-Grant Publication 2016/0354594 to Uehara et al. (Uehara hereinafter) in view of U.S. Patent 4,266,813 to Oliver (Oliver).
Regarding claims 1 and 16, Uehara teaches a connector body (see second embodiment, Figs. 5A-6C) having a second connector element (40) comprising a second sidewall (40) and a connection surface (having thread 41), and a port (20) coupled to a tubing (8), the second connector element having a greater inner diameter than an outer diameter of the port, the second connector element having a distal end extending away from its distal (top) end. Uehara does not teach a first connector element having a greater diameter than the second as claimed. Oliver teaches a bottle coupling device in which a first (24) and second (26) connector elements are combined to allow coupling with different sized elements (col. 1, ln. 26-45). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the application to provide a first connector as taught by Oliver to the connector of Uehara in order to adapt it to couple with more than one size fitting. Thus provided, the combined apparatus would comprise the second connector above, as well as a first connector element having a sidewall with a thread (24) and a bottom surface (shoulder between e.g. 24 and 26) extending radially therefrom to a lesser diameter connector extending directly therefrom.
Regarding claim 2, Oliver teaches that the outermost connector has the largest diameter, such that the second connector of Uehara in the combination would have a smaller diameter than the first.
Regarding claim 3, Uehara teaches a second thread profile (41).
Regarding claim 4, Uehara teaches compliance with ISO 80369-3 (paragraph 93).
Regarding claim 5, Uehara teaches rigid plastic materials (see paragraph 109, e.g. polycarbonate).
Regarding claim 6, Uehara teaches plastic materials which will have at least some flexibility.
Regarding claim 7, Uehara teaches that the connection surface is smooth (see Fig. 6C) and will flex upon tightening of the threaded member.
Regarding claim 8, Oliver teaches coupling the first connector with bottles (col. 1, ln. 6), which are capable of holding enteral nutrition.
Regarding claim 9, Uehara teaches a connection surface which is inherently configured to connect directly to a properly sized syringe.
Regarding claim 10, Uehara teaches a lumen (17).
Regarding claim 11, Uehara teaches a lumen extension tip (11) configured to facilitate a press-fit interference connection with a medical connector (via standard luer connection, see paragraph 100).
Regarding claim 12, Uehara is silent to an inner surface texture and as such is presumed to allow air to pass with at least some levels of thread tightness.
Regarding claim 13, Oliver teaches concentric threads (24, 26).
Regarding claim 14, Oliver teaches a flange (shoulder between 24, 26).
Regarding claim 15, Uehara teaches a lumen extension tip (11) having an inner surface and an outer surface, a lumen (17), and a proximal (lower in Fig. 5B) end and a distal (upper) end proximate the second bottom surface and the first bottom surface respectively.
Regarding claim 18, Uehara teaches physical affixation of the tubing (via 250 and 32), but is silent to solvent or adhesive bonding. The examiner takes Official Notice that these techniques are well known in the art based on the commercial availability of products embodying the techniques before the effective filing date of the application. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the application to use solvent or adhesive bonding as known in the art either instead of or in addition to the clamping nut (250) of Uehara either as redundant affixation or as the simple substitution of one known affixation technique for another.
Regarding claim 19, Uehara teaches that the tube is flexible (paragraph 112).
Regarding claim 20, Uehara teaches that the tubing is coupled to the port at a proximal end (21) and comprises a connector (250).
Regarding claim 21, Uehara teaches adaptation for coupling via the tubing (8).
Regarding claim 22, Uehara teaches extension from a proximal end of the second connector element.
Regarding claim 23, Oliver teaches a continuous surface as claimed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 6, filed 24 November 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Uehara and Oliver as discussed above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHILIP E STIMPERT whose telephone number is (571)270-1890. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8a-4p.
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, Chelsea Stinson can be reached at 571-270-1744. 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.
/PHILIP E STIMPERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3783 3 February 2026
Prosecution Insights