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. Drawings The drawings are objected to because in Fig. 3, bodily implant 300 is written as 200 . 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. Claim Interpretation The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: In claims 1 and 16 , " inflatable member " : the corresponding structure(s) of which are found in paragraph [0044] In claims 1-12 and 15 -20 , “coupling member” : the corresponding structures of which are found in the following: paragraph [0038] - “a spring-biased member or clip”, paragraph [0057]; and Figs. 8-10 - coupling members 720, 820, 920 Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Claim Objections Claim s 6 and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities: Regarding claim 6 , “the coupling member includes” should be changed to “ - and the coupling member including - ”. Regarding claim 7 , “includes an overlapping wire member” should be changed to “including an overlapping wire member, and-“ . Appropriate correction is required. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claim 11 and 12 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. Regarding claim 11 , it is unclear if “a portion of the coupling member” at line 5 is the same or different than “a first portion” of the coupling member recited at line 1 . Regarding claim 1 2 , it is unclear if “a portion of the coupling member” at line 5 is the same or different than “a first portion” of the coupling member recited at line 1. 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 -6 , and 10 -20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over DiLoreto (US 20180042724 A1) in view of Porter et al. ( US 20050137614 A1 ) . Regarding claim 1 , DiLoreto teaches an implant (penile prosthesis 200, shown in annotated Fig. 3 below) comprising: An inflatable member (inflation chamber 222, shown in annotated Fig. 3 below) A pump assembly (pump assembly 201, shown in annotated Fig. 3 below), the pump assembly being configured to facilitate a transfer of fluid to and from the inflatable member ( “user may actuate the pump bulb of the pump assembly to further transfer the fluid from the reservoir to the inflatable member”, paragraph [0028]; pump assembly 201, shown in annotated Fig. 3 below ) A tubular member extending between the inflatable member and the pump assembly (conduit connectors 205 between inflatable member and pump assembly shown in annotated Fig. 3 below) DiLoreto does not teach a coupling member. However, Porter et al. teaches a coupling member for connecting implanted conduits (“connector comprises…a first end…to receive a first body fluid conduit, a second end adapted to receive a second body fluid conduit”, paragraph [0006]; connector 2, shown in annotated Fig. 1A ) , the coupling member able to be configured to facilitate a coupling of the tubular member to the pump assembly ( shown in annotated Fig. 1A below ). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the implant of DiLoreto with the coupling member of Porter et al. in order to facilitate a coupling of the tubular member to the pump assembly in order to ensure a secure connection between parts and allow for the inflation of the inflatable members. Regarding claim 2 , DiLoreto in view of Porter et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1 . Furthermore , Porter et al. teaches a coupling member ( connector 2, shown in annotated Fig. 1A below ), including a first portion disposed within a lumen defined by the tubular member ( second end 8, lumen 10, shown in annotated Fig. 1A below ) and a second portion disposed within another tubular member ( first end 4, shown in annotated Fig. 1A below ). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the implant of DiLoreto in view of Porter et al. and have the second portion of the coupling member be disposed within the housing of the pump assembly (shown in annotated Fig. 4D of DiLoreto below), in order to facilitate a fluid connection between the tubular member and the pump assembly, and allow for the pump assembly to inflate the inflatable members. Regarding claim 3 , DiLoreto in view of Porter et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1 . Furthermore, Porter et al. teaches the first portion being disposed within a lumen defined by the tubular member, and the first portion of the coupling member having a projection member ( shown in annotated Fig. 1A below ). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the first portion of the coupling member of DiLoreto in view of Porter et al. to have a projection member in order to attach and conform to the tubular member. Regarding claim 4 , DiLoreto in view of Porter et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Furthermore, Porter et al. teaches the first portion being disposed within a lumen defined by the tubular member, and the first portion of the coupling member having a barb member (“barb-like protrusions 64…located on the second or outflow end 8 of a connector 2”, paragraph [0059]; barb-like protrusions 64, end 8, Fig. 10). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the first portion of the coupling member of DiLoreto in view of Porter et al. to have a barb member, in order to create a ridge or protrusion to engage the tubular member and help couple the first portion to the tubular member. Regarding claim 5 , DiLoreto in view of Porter et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as well as the pump assembly including a housing member having a projection (shown in annotated Fig. 4D below) . Furthermore, Porter et al. teaches the projection of the housing being disposed within a lumen defined by the tubular member (shown in annotated Fig. 4 below) , the coupling member including a spring biased cli p (“compression sleeve may comprise a metal selected from…spring metal”, paragraph [0006]; compression sleeve 48, shown in annotated Fig. 4 below ) , the coupling member being disposed such that a portion of the tubular member is disposed between the spring biased clip and a portion of the projection (shown in annotated Fig. 4 below). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the coupling member of DiLoreto in view of Porter et al. and have one end of the coupling member coupled to the projection of the pump assembly and one end coupled to the tubular member, which is all encased by a spring biased clip to secure the coupling between parts. Regarding claim 6 , DiLoreto in view of Porter et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Furthermore, Porter et al. teaches the projection of the housing member being disposed within a lumen defined by the tubular member, the coupling member including an overlapping wire member ( “wires to secure the conduits 12, 14”, paragraph [0054] ). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the coupling member of DiLoreto in view of Porter et al. and have the coupling member include an overlapping wire to secure the coupling of parts. Regarding claim 10 , DiLoreto teaches all the limitations of claim 1, but does not teach the first portion of the coupling member being laser welded to the housing of the pump assembly. However, this claim is directed to a product - by - process , where “the coupling member” is the product and “laser welded to the housing” is the process. “[E] ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Regarding claim 11 , DiLoreto in view of Porter et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Furthermore, Porter et al. teaches the coupling member including a first portion disposed within a lumen defined by the tubular member, the implant further comprising: A form member (“connector sleeve 44 comprises silicone”, paragraph [0047]; connector sleeve 44, also shown in annotated Fig. 2A below) disposed such that a portion of the tubular member is disposed between the form member and a portion of the coupling member ( “connector sleeve 44 is radially expanded as it is placed over the connector 2 and joined conduits 12 and 14”, paragraph [0047]; shown in annotated Fig. 2A below ). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the coupling member of DiLoreto in view of Porter et al. and implement a silicone form member to help with the connection of the tubular members to the housing of the pump assembly. Regarding claim 12 , DiLoreto in view of Porter et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1 , but does not teach the form member being disposed within a housing of the pump assembly. However, it is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the form member to either be outside or within the housing member (shown in annotated Fig. 2A above) of the pump assembly, as it is to connect the coupling member and the tubular member since they are functionally equivalent. Regarding claim 13 , DiLoreto in view of Porter et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as well as a first and second tubular member (conduit connectors 205, Fig. 3), however does not teach a form member defining a first and second lumen. Porter et al. teaches a form member defining a first lumen, but does not teach it defining a second lumen. However, i t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the form member to define a second lumen for the second tubular member to inflate its respective inflatable member , since it has been held that mere duplication of essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2144.04 St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co. , 193 USPQ 8. Regarding claim 14 , DiLoreto in view of Porter et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1, but does not teach the form member being disposed within the housing of the pump assembly. However, it is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the form member to either be outside or within the housing member (shown in annotated Fig. 2A above) of the pump assembly, as it is to connect the coupling member and the tubular member since they are functionally equivalent. Regarding claim 15 , DiLoreto in view of Porter et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1 , as well as a first and second tubular member (conduit connectors 205, Fig. 3). Porter et al. teaches a form member defining a first lumen and a second lumen, the first tubular member extending through the first lumen of the form member, the second tubular member extending through the first lumen of the form member, the form member being disposed such that a portion of the first tubular member is disposed between the coupling member and the form member (shown in annotated Fig. 2A below). However, it is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the bodily implant of DiLoreto in view of Porter et al. and have the tubular member be between the coupling member and the form member in order to provide secure coupling between parts. Regarding claim 16 , DiLoreto teaches an implant (penile prosthesis 200, shown in annotated Fig. 3 below) comprising: An inflatable member (inflation chamber 222, shown in annotated Fig. 3 below) A pump assembly (pump assembly 201, shown in annotated Fig. 3 below), the pump assembly being configured to facilitate a transfer of fluid to and from the inflatable member ( “user may actuate the pump bulb of the pump assembly to further transfer the fluid from the reservoir to the inflatable member”, paragraph [0028]; pump assembly 201, shown in annotated Fig. 3 below ) A first and second tubular member extending between the inflatable member and the pump assembly ( conduit connectors 205 between inflatable member and pump assembly shown in annotated Fig. 3 below ) DiLoreto does not teach a first and second coupling member. Porter et al. teaches a coupling member for connecting implanted conduits (“connector comprises…a first end…to receive a first body fluid conduit, a second end adapted to receive a second body fluid conduit”, paragraph [0006]; connector 2, shown in annotated Fig. 1A ) , the coupling member able to be configured to facilitate a coupling of the tubular member to the pump assembly (shown in annotated Fig. 1A below). Furthermore, Porter et al. fails to teach a second coupling member. However, i t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a second tubular member to ensure flow from the pump assembly to its respective inflatable member, since it has been held that mere duplication of essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2144.04 St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co. , 193 USPQ 8. Regarding claim 17 , DiLoreto in view of Porter et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 16. Furthermore, Porter et al. teaches the first coupling member (connector 2, shown in annotated Fig. 1A below), including a first portion disposed within a lumen defined by the tubular member (second end 8, lumen 10, shown in annotated Fig. 1A below) and a second portion disposed within another tubular member ( first end 4, shown in annotated Fig. 1A below ). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the implant of DiLoreto in view of Porter et al. and have the second portion of the first coupling member be disposed within the housing of the pump assembly (shown in annotated Fig. 4D of DiLoreto below), in order to facilitate a fluid connection between the tubular member and the pump assembly, and allow for the pump assembly to inflate the inflatable members. Regarding claim 18 , DiLoreto in view of Porter et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 16. Furthermore, Porter et al. teaches the first portion of the first coupling member being disposed within a lumen defined by the first tubular member, and the first portion of the first coupling member having a projection member (shown in annotated Fig. 1A below). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the first portion of the first coupling member of DiLoreto in view of Porter et al. to have a projection member in order to attach and conform to the first tubular member. Regarding claim 1 9, DiLoreto teaches all the limitations of claim 16, but does not teach the first portion of the coupling member having a barb member. However, Porter et al. teaches the first coupling member including a first portion disposed within a lumen defined by the first tubular member, the first portion of the first coupling member having a barb member (“barb-like protrusions 64…located on the second or outflow end 8 of a connector 2”, paragraph [0059]; barb-like protrusions 64, end 8, Fig. 10) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the bodily implant of DiLoreto with the first coupling member with a first portion having a barb of Porter et al., in order to create a ridge or protrusion to engage the tubular member and help couple the first portion to the first tubular member. Regarding claim 20, DiLoreto in view of Porter et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1 6 , as well as the pump assembly including a housing member having a projection (shown in annotated Fig. 4D below). Furthermore, Porter et al. teaches the projection of the housing being disposed within a lumen defined by the first tubular member (shown in annotated Fig. 4 below), the first coupling member including a spring biased clip (“compression sleeve may comprise a metal selected from…spring metal”, paragraph [0006]; compression sleeve 48, shown in annotated Fig. 4 below), the first coupling member being disposed such that a portion of the first tubular member is disposed between the spring biased clip and a portion of the projection (shown in annotated Fig. 4 below). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the first coupling member of DiLoreto in view of Porter et al. and have one end of the first coupling member coupled to the projection of the pump assembly and one end coupled to the first tubular member, which is all encased by a spring biased clip to secure the coupling between parts. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over DiLoreto in view of Porter et al. and further in view of Forsell (US 20090240100 A1) . Regarding claim 7 , DiLoreto in view of Porter et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1 , but does not teach the overlapping wire member including a screw member. However, Forsell teaches a screw member (“turns the clamping screw in the opposite direction to increase the diameter of the core 37”, paragraph [0332]) for regulating the flow o f intestinal contents in the tubular intestinal passageway of a patient (“for controlling a flow of intestinal contents in the intestinal passageway”, paragraph [0305]; tubular housing 1, Fig. 2-4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the bodily implant of DiLoreto in view of Porter et al. with the screw member of Forsell , and implement a screw member that is configured to be turned to tighten the coupling member in order to adjust the diameter size of the coupling member and help with fluid flow from the pump assembly to the inflatable members. Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over DiLoreto in view of Porter et al. and further in view of Wirbisky et al. (US 20120157759 A1) . Regarding claim s 8 and 9 , DiLoreto in view of Porter et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as well as the coupling member including a first portion disposed within a lumen defined by the tubular member and a second portion disposed within a housing of the pump assembly, but does not teach a filter disposed within the lumen defined by the coupling member , as well as the filter being a gyroid filter. Wirbisky et al. teaches a bodily implant (shown in Fig. 2) where there is a filter disposed within the pump system being configured to modify a flow of fluid through the lumen (“a vent and filter device 124 can be included in communication with the pump 110 to assist in controlling pressure and fluid within this system”, paragraph [0039]). Furthermore, Wirbisky et al. does not teach the filter being a gyroid filter. However, i t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a gyroid filter for better filtration of debris within the tubular members and prevent blockage of the pump components , as it is a design choice and can perform equally well as another type of filter, as Applicant did not disclose if a gyroid filter provides an advantage. It would have also been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the bodily implant of DiLoreto in view of Porter et al. with the implant that contains a filter of Wirbisky et al. in order to help with flow of fluid through the lumen of the tubular members into the inflatable members and help filter out debris and prevent blockage from pump components. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT LARA LINH TRAN whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-3598 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 7:30am-5:00pm M-F . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Alexander Valvis can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 5712724233 . 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. /L.L.T./ Examiner, Art Unit 3791 /CHRISTINE H MATTHEWS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791