DETAILED ACTION
Non-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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 26 March 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is not within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Claim Objections
Claims 8 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities: the recitation “a face adapted to a seal” in line 2 of claim 8 should read “a face adapted to provide a seal” and the recitation “a portion of first end” in line 1 of claim 20 should read “a portion of the first end”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1, 8, 10-11, 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 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 (1) an internal tapered portion 249 at a first end of the threaded fastener and (ii) a seat portion (bottom surface of 230 receiving 253 and 250) sized and shaped to removably receive the locking ring within the threaded fastener (FIG. 11-14; Col. 13 ln 57-Col. 14 ln 22).
Regarding claim 8, Beemer 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 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).
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
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.
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 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 3-7 and 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beemer.
Regarding claim 3, Beemer 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 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 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 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.
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beemer in view of Graham (U.S. Patent 10,655,761).
Regarding claim 9, Beemer 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.
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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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