DETAILED ACTION
Final Rejection
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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 17 April 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application.
Specification
Pursuant to the amendment to the Abstract submitted 17 April 2026, the objection to the Specification of 17 December 2025 is overcome.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 11, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Beemer (U.S. Patent 9,310,008).
Regarding claim 11, Beemer discloses a biocompatible fluidic connection system 200 comprising:
a locking ring 253 having (i) a first inner diameter (FIG. 14, bottom radially inner portion of 253 not in contact with 250) at a first end (FIG. 14, bottom), (ii) a second inner diameter at a second end that is smaller than the first inner diameter (FIG. 14, upper radially inner portion of 253 in contact with 250), and (iii) a tapered portion at the second end (see FIG. 14);
a ferrule 250 sized and shaped to be positioned within the first inner diameter of the locking ring; and
a threaded fastener 230 having a passageway 245 sized and shaped to removably receive a tubing 260 therein, the threaded fastener also having a tapered portion (bottom of 230, see FIG. 14) at a first end of the threaded fastener sized and shaped to mate with the tapered portion of the locking ring (the opening is sized and shaped to accommodate the entirety of the ring 253, therefore is shaped to mate with the tapered end portion) (FIG. 11-14; Col. 13 ln 57-Col. 14 ln 22).
Regarding claim 18, Beemer discloses each of the locking ring and the ferrule have an end that is a substantially flat face (FIG. 14, in contact with the second ends of 253 and 250) adapted to provide a seal against the bottom of a flat-bottomed port (FIG. 14).
Regarding claim 20, Beemer discloses a portion of the first end of the locking ring and an end of the ferrule extend beyond first end of the threaded fastener when assembled (FIG. 14).
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.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 3-8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beemer in view of Schick (U.S. Patent 5,472,598).
Regarding claim 1, Beemer discloses a fluidic connection system 200 comprising:
a locking ring 253 having a first inner diameter (FIG. 14, radially inner portion of 253 not in contact with 250) at a first end (FIG. 14, bottom) and a second end (FIG. 14, top), wherein a second inner diameter (FIG. 14, radially inner portion of 253 in contact with 250) in a central region of the locking ring is smaller than the first inner diameter;
a ferrule 250 sized and shaped to be positioned within the first inner diameter of the locking ring; and
a threaded fastener 230 having a passageway 245 sized and shaped to removably receive a tubing 260 therein, the threaded fastener also having (ii) a seat portion (bottom surface of 230 receiving 253 and 250) sized and shaped to removably receive the locking ring within the first end (bottom in FIG. 14) of the threaded fastener (FIG. 11-14; Col. 13 ln 57-Col. 14 ln 22).
Beemer is silent regarding an internal tapered portion at a first end of the threaded fastener.
However, Schick teaches a connection assembly 100 comprising: a threaded fastener 26 having a passageway 26e sized and shaped to removably receive a tubing 32 therein, the threaded fastener also having (i) an internal tapered portion (vertical tapered portion of 26b) at a first end (bottom FIG. 5) of the threaded fastener (ii) a seat portion (horizontal portion of 26b) sized and shaped to removably receive the a ferrule 26 within the first end of the threaded fastener (FIG. 3-5; Col. 7 ln 20-38).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Beemer by making the bottom of the threaded fastener tapered as opposed to squared off, as taught by Schick, since one of skill in the art would recognize that changes in configuration are a matter of design choice such that using the tapered end as taught by Schick rather than squared off end of Beemer is obvious when the particular configuration result in no change in the seating effect of the opening.
Regarding claim 3, Beemer, as modified above, discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1.
Beemer is silent regarding said locking ring and said ferrule each comprise a biocompatible material.
However, Beemer discloses that it is known to make components on the fitting/connecting system out of biocompatible material (Col. 9 ln 6-19).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the material used to make the locking ring and ferrule of Beemer to biocompatible material, as taught by Beemer, for the purpose of utilizing a known material with properties known to succeed in the environment within which it is utilized, and since it has been held that use of suitable equivalent structures involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 4, Beemer, as modified above, discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1.
Beemer is silent regarding the tubing has an outer diameter of 1/16”.
Beemer does disclose “[t]hese various components may typically be connected by a miniature fluid conduit, or tubing, such as metallic or polymeric tubing (for ion chromatography), usually having an internal diameter of 0.003 to 0.040 inch” (Col. 3 ln 48-52).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Beemer such that the outer diameter of the tubing is 1/16”, since it has been held that use of suitable equivalent structures, in this instance tubing of different diameters, involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 5, Beemer, as modified above, discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1.
Beemer is silent regarding at least one of said locking ring and said ferrule comprises at least one of the following: polyetheretherketone (PEEK), polyaryletherketone (PAEK), polyetherketoneketone (PEKK), fluorinated ethylene propylene (FEP), ethylene tetrafluoroethylene (ETFE), polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), perfluoroalkoxy (PFA, also called perfluoroalkoxyethylene), or polychlorotrifluoroethylene (PCTFE).
However, Beemer discloses that it is known to make components on the fitting/connecting system out of biocompatible material, specifically PEEK (Col. 9 ln 6-19).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the material used to make the locking ring and ferrule of Beemer to biocompatible material, specifically PEEK, as taught by Beemer, for the purpose of utilizing a known material with properties known to succeed in the environment within which it is utilized, and since it has been held that use of suitable equivalent structures involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 6, Beemer, as modified above, discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 5.
Beemer is silent regarding the locking ring comprises PEEK.
However, Beemer discloses that it is known to make components on the fitting/connecting system out of biocompatible material, specifically PEEK (Col. 9 ln 6-19).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the material used to make the locking ring of Beemer to biocompatible material, specifically PEEK, as taught by Beemer, for the purpose of utilizing a known material with properties known to succeed in the environment within which it is utilized, and since it has been held that use of suitable equivalent structures involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 7, Beemer, as modified above, discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 6.
Beemer is silent regarding the locking ring comprises reinforced PEEK.
However, Beemer discloses that it is known to make components on the fitting/connecting system out of biocompatible material, specifically PEEK (Col. 9 ln 6-19).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the material used to make the locking ring of Beemer to biocompatible material, specifically reinforced PEEK, as taught by Beemer, for the purpose of utilizing a known material with properties known to succeed in the environment within which it is utilized, and since it has been held that use of suitable equivalent structures involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 8, Beemer, as modified above, discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1.
Beemer further discloses each of the locking ring and the ferrule have an end that defines a face (FIG. 14, in contact with the second ends of 253 and 250) adapted to provide a seal against the bottom of a flat-bottomed port (FIG. 14).
Regarding claim 10, Beemer, as modified above, discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1.
Beemer further discloses a portion of the first end of the locking ring and an end of the ferrule extend beyond first end of the threaded fastener when assembled (FIG. 14).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beemer in view of Schick in further view of Graham (U.S. Patent 10,655,761).
Regarding claim 9, Beemer, as modified above, discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 8.
Beemer is silent regarding the seal is sufficient to withstand fluidic pressures between 0 and 200 psi.
However, Graham teaches a face sealing fluidic connection system 1 similar to the one disclosed in Beemer, the fluidic connection system comprising in relevant part, tubing 13, an end of the tubing held in place by a sleeve 12, the sleeve having a retainer feature 16, which allows for “[e]ach of the fitting assembly, tubing assembly, and analytical instrument system of the present disclosure are adapted to provide at least one sealing connection for a fluid connection in which the fluid has a pressure of between 0 psi and 25,000 psi, between 1,000 psi and 20,000 psi, and/or between 2,500 psi and 10,000 psi” (Col. 8 ln 42-47).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Beemer by adding a retainer feature to the exterior of the locking ring, as taught by Graham, for the purpose of creating a more robust seal to allow for higher pressure fluids to pass through the connection.
Claims 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beemer.
Regarding claim 13, Beemer discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 11.
Beemer is silent regarding said locking ring and said ferrule each comprise a biocompatible material.
However, Beemer discloses that it is known to make components on the fitting/connecting system out of biocompatible material (Col. 9 ln 6-19).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the material used to make the locking ring and ferrule of Beemer to biocompatible material, as taught by Beemer, for the purpose of utilizing a known material with properties known to succeed in the environment within which it is utilized, and since it has been held that use of suitable equivalent structures involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 14, Beemer discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 11.
Beemer is silent regarding the tubing has an outer diameter of 1/8”.
Beemer does disclose “[t]hese various components may typically be connected by a miniature fluid conduit, or tubing, such as metallic or polymeric tubing (for ion chromatography), usually having an internal diameter of 0.003 to 0.040 inch” (Col. 3 ln 48-52).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Beemer such that the outer diameter of the tubing is 1/8”, since it has been held that use of suitable equivalent structures, in this instance tubing of different diameters, involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 15, Beemer discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 11.
Beemer is silent regarding at least one of said locking ring and said ferrule comprises at least one of the following: PEEK, PAEK, PEKK, FEP, ETFE, PTFE, PFA, or PCTFE.
However, Beemer discloses that it is known to make components on the fitting/connecting system out of biocompatible material, specifically PEEK (Col. 9 ln 6-19).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the material used to make the locking ring and ferrule of Beemer to biocompatible material, specifically PEEK, as taught by Beemer, for the purpose of utilizing a known material with properties known to succeed in the environment within which it is utilized, and since it has been held that use of suitable equivalent structures involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 16, Beemer, as modified above, discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 15.
Beemer is silent regarding the locking ring comprises PEEK.
However, Beemer discloses that it is known to make components on the fitting/connecting system out of biocompatible material, specifically PEEK (Col. 9 ln 6-19).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the material used to make the locking ring of Beemer to biocompatible material, specifically PEEK, as taught by Beemer, for the purpose of utilizing a known material with properties known to succeed in the environment within which it is utilized, and since it has been held that use of suitable equivalent structures involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 17, Beemer, as modified above, discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 16.
Beemer is silent regarding the locking ring comprises reinforced PEEK.
However, Beemer discloses that it is known to make components on the fitting/connecting system out of biocompatible material, specifically PEEK (Col. 9 ln 6-19).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the material used to make the locking ring of Beemer to biocompatible material, specifically reinforced PEEK, as taught by Beemer, for the purpose of utilizing a known material with properties known to succeed in the environment within which it is utilized, and since it has been held that use of suitable equivalent structures involves only routine skill in the art.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beemer in view of Graham.
Regarding claim 19, Beemer discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 18.
Beemer is silent regarding the seal is sufficient to withstand fluidic pressures between 0 and 200 psi.
However, Graham teaches a face sealing fluidic connection system 1 similar to the one disclosed in Beemer, the fluidic connection system comprising in relevant part, tubing 13, an end of the tubing held in place by a sleeve 12, the sleeve having a retainer feature 16, which allows for “[e]ach of the fitting assembly, tubing assembly, and analytical instrument system of the present disclosure are adapted to provide at least one sealing connection for a fluid connection in which the fluid has a pressure of between 0 psi and 25,000 psi, between 1,000 psi and 20,000 psi, and/or between 2,500 psi and 10,000 psi” (Col. 8 ln 42-47).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Beemer by adding a retainer feature to the exterior of the locking ring, as taught by Graham, for the purpose of creating a more robust seal to allow for higher pressure fluids to pass through the connection.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 12 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the closest prior art fails to anticipate or make obvious the locking ring and ferrule are each symmetrical across a plane normal to its longitudinal axis such that it may be positioned on the tubing in either direction, along with the other limitations of the claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-9 of applicant’s response, filed 17 April 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Beemer (U.S. Patent 9,310,008) 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 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beemer in view of Schick (U.S. Patent 5,472,598).
Applicant's arguments, see page 9 of applicant’s response, filed 17 April 2026, with respect to Claim 11 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the bottom surface of the fastener of Beemer does not meet the requirements of a tapered portion as set forth in the claim. The bottom, exterior of the fastener 230 is tapered. The size and shape of the exterior of the fastener is directly responsible for the size and shape of the interior surface of the fastener that contacts the tapered portion of the locking ring. The exterior tapered portion of the fastener is located at the first end of the fastener. Furthermore, the exterior tapered portion mates with the tapered portion of the locking ring. To mate is defined as to “match or fit together” (Merriam-Webster). The size and shape of the exterior tapered portion of the fastener are such that they fit together with the taper of the locking ring. The claim language does not require the taper be an interior taper such as is required in Claim 1. If the tapered portion was required to be an interior tapered portion as in claim 1, Beemer would not anticipate such a limitation. However, Schick would teach a connection assembly 100 comprising: a threaded fastener 26 having a passageway 26e sized and shaped to removably receive a tubing 32 therein, the threaded fastener also having (i) an internal tapered portion (vertical tapered portion of 26b) at a first end (bottom FIG. 5) of the threaded fastener (ii) a seat portion (horizontal portion of 26b) sized and shaped to removably receive the a ferrule 26 within the first end of the threaded fastener (FIG. 3-5; Col. 7 ln 20-38).
Accordingly, applicant’s argument with respect to claim 11 is not persuasive.
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 CHRISTOPHER D BALLMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9984. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 6:00-3:00.
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, Craig M 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.
/CHRISTOPHER D BALLMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3753
/CRAIG M SCHNEIDER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights