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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/10/26 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
Claim 41 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 04/15/25.
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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claim(s) 28-31, 34-38, 40 and 43-47 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gajewski et al (US 5,447,343) in view of Juan (US 2015/0176741).
As to claim 28, Gajewski et al discloses a connector for a port of a medical device, comprising: a connector body (10); a receptacle (30) configured to be at least partially housed within the connector body and to define a fluid path at least partially through the connector body, wherein the receptacle includes a distal end and a proximal end (with barb 34), the distal end being configured to engage the port of the medical device; a shuttle plate (20); and a spring (25) configured to bias the shuttle plate laterally to extend over the receptacle and interface with the port engaging the receptacle to releasably engage the shuttle plate with the port of the medical device. Gajewski’s springs (25) bias the plates laterally outwardly to the closed position, as shown in Fig. 1. The spring (31) biases the receptacle (30) outward from the connector body into the channels (13) and against the shuttle plates (21). The cover plate (11) secures the outwardly biased receptacle (30) and shuttle plates (21).
Gajewski et al fails to teach a spring configured to bias the shuttle plate laterally, wherein the receptacle is configured to extend out of the connector body to hold the shuttle plate in an open configuration in which the spring biases the shuttle plate laterally against the receptacle, and wherein engagement of the distal end of the receptacle with the port of the medical device pushes the receptacle into the connector body to enable the shuttle plate to move to a closed configuration in which the spring biases the shuttle plate laterally to extend over the receptacle and interface with the port engaging the receptacle to releasably engage the shuttle plate with the port of the medical device.
Gajewski et al teaches that his shuttle plates are biased to the closed position, whereas in the claimed invention, Applicant biases the shuttle plates in the open position. So, in Gajewski et al, one has to press the spring-biased plates to open and insert the port, and in Applicant’s, a user inserts the port and the spring-biased plates close.
However, Juan teaches a similar connector assembly, comprising spring-biased plates that are biased to the open position. Inserting a male pipe (1) into the open female connector results in locking the connection. Depressing the two push buttons (202) results in release of the lock, and uninstallation of the assembly. Refer to paragraphs [0025] - [0026], and Figures 3-6.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Gajewski et al such to include a spring configured to bias the shuttle plate laterally, wherein the receptacle is configured to extend out of the connector body to hold the shuttle plate in an open configuration in which the spring biases the shuttle plate laterally against the receptacle, and wherein engagement of the distal end of the receptacle with the port of the medical device pushes the receptacle into the connector body to enable the shuttle plate to move to a closed configuration in which the spring biases the shuttle plate laterally to extend over the receptacle and interface with the port engaging the receptacle to releasably engage the shuttle plate with the port of the medical device, as taught by Juan, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide an alternative biasing-lock configuration by which to secure the connection, one which may better suit design preference or requirement depending on the application and desires of the user.
The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
"A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). "[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle." Id. at 420, 82 USPQ2d 1397. Office personnel may also take into account "the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ." Id. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
As to claim 29, Gajewski et al/Juan discloses the connector of claim 28, wherein the proximal end of the receptacle has a barb geometry (34, Gajewski et al) for connection with medical tubing.
As to claim 30, Gajewski et al/Juan discloses the connector of claim 28, except that the receptacle comprising a proximal portion and a distal portion that includes the distal end, and wherein an additional spring (31, Gajewski et al) is disposed around the proximal portion and is configured to bias the receptacle out of the connector body.
As to claim 31, Gajewski et al/Juan discloses the connector of claim 30, wherein the proximal portion of the receptacle comprises a plurality of longitudinal guide members (corners) to facilitate sliding of the receptacle within the connector body, and each longitudinal guide member of the plurality of longitudinal guide members extends into the connector body.
As to claim 34, Gajewski et al/Juan discloses the connector of claim 28, wherein the connector body includes one or more gripping elements (13, Gajewski et al).
As to claim 35, Gajewski et al/Juan discloses the connector of claim 28, wherein comprising a dowel pin (126, Fig. 3, Gajewski et al) extending through the shuttle plate and into the connector body to guide movement of the shuttle plate relative to the connector body (4: 36-45, Gajewski et al).
As to claim 36, Gajewski et al/Juan discloses the connector of claim 28, comprising: wherein the spring is configured to bias the shuttle plate laterally against and surround an exterior surface of the port to establish a liquid-tight seal against the exterior surface of the port.
As to claim 37, Gajewski et al/Juan discloses the connector of claim 28, further comprising a retainer (11, Gajewski et al) configured to movably secure the shuttle plate to the connector body.
As to claim 38, Gajewski et al/Juan discloses the connector of claim 37, wherein the retainer defines one or more cut-outs (5, Gajewski et al) configured to at least partially accept the second shuttle plate during lateral movement of the shuttle plate.
As to claim 40, Gajewski et al/Juan discloses the connector of claim 28, comprising an additional shuttle plate (20, Gajewski et al) and an additional spring (25, Gajewski et al) configured to bias the additional shuttle plate laterally to releasably engage the additional shuttle plate with the port of the medical device, wherein the shuttle plate and the additional shuttle plate are mirror images of each other (Fig. 2, Gajewski et al).
As to claim 43, Gajewski et al/Juan discloses the connector of claim 28, comprising an additional shuttle plate (20, Gajewski et al) and an additional spring (21, Gajewski et al) configured to bias the additional shuttle plate laterally to extend over the receptacle and interface with the port engaging the receptable to releasably engage the additional shuttle plate with the port of the medical device.
As to claim 44, Gajewski et al/Juan discloses the connector of claim 43, wherein the shuttle plate and the additional shuttle plate cooperatively define an opening (23, Gajewski et al) configured to receive the port of the medical device, and the spring and the additional spring bias the shuttle plate and the additional shuttle plate, respectively, to reduce a size of the opening.
As to claim 45, Gajewski et al/Juan discloses the connector of claim 44, wherein the receptacle is configured to extend into the opening.
As to claim 46, Gajewski et al/Juan discloses the connector of claim 37, wherein the retainer comprises a hole (5, Gajewski et al) configured to receive the port.
As to claim 47, Gajewski et al/Juan discloses the connector of claim 28, wherein the spring biases the shuttle plate laterally away from the connector body.
Claim(s) 32-33 and 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gajewski et al in view of Juan, and further in view of Takazawa (US 2016/0135667).
As to claim 32, Gajewski et al/Juan discloses the connector of claim 28, further comprising: a shuttle plate retainer (11, Gajewski et al) attached to a distal end of the connector body, yet fails to teach a seal disposed at the distal end of the receptacle adjacent the shuttle plate retainer, wherein the shuttle plate has a portion disposed around the seal.
However, Takazawa teaches an endoscope connecting arrangement, comprising a pipe sleeve joint that connects a tube (1c) to an endoscope (50). The joint includes a spring-biased connecting plate (2) that includes a face seal (6) sealing the interior face of the plate to the cover portion (4).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Gajewski et al/Juan to include a seal between the receptacle and retainer, as taught by Takazawa, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide sealing between the retainer and connector body and to prevent fluid leakage.
As to claim 33, Gajewski et al/Takazawa/Juan discloses the connector of claim 32, wherein the distal end of the receptacle comprises an undercut feature and a protruding rim, and wherein the seal is disposed around the protruding rim. Refer to Fig. 2 of Gajewski et al.
"A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). "[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle." Id. at 420, 82 USPQ2d 1397. Office personnel may also take into account "the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ." Id. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
As to claim 39, Gajewski et al in view of Juan discloses the connector of claim 28, except for further comprising at least one seal configured to seal the receptacle against the port.
However, Takazawa teaches an endoscope connecting arrangement, comprising a pipe sleeve joint that connects a tube (1c) to an endoscope (50). The joint includes a spring-biased connecting plate (2) that includes a face seal (6) sealing the interior face of the plate to the cover portion (4).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Gajewski et al/Juan to include a seal between the receptacle and retainer, as taught by Takazawa, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide sealing between the retainer and connector body and to prevent fluid leakage.
"A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). "[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle." Id. at 420, 82 USPQ2d 1397. Office personnel may also take into account "the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ." Id. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
Examiner’s Note:
The italicized portions in the foregoing claims are functional recitations. These clauses, as well as other statements of intended use do not serve to patently distinguish the claimed structure over that of the reference(s), as long as the structure of the cited reference(s) is capable of performing the intended use. See MPEP 2111-2115.
See also MPEP 2114, which states:
A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ 2d 1647;
Claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531; and
[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525,1528.
Any one of the systems in the cited reference(s) is capable of being used in the same manner and for the intended or desired use as the claimed invention. Note that it is sufficient to show that said capability exists, which is the case for the cited reference(s).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 42 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James M Hewitt II whose telephone number is (571)272-7084. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-930pm, mid-day flex 2-4pm.
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, Matthew Troutman can be reached at 571-270-3654. 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.
James M. Hewitt II
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3679
/JAMES M HEWITT II/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3679
Prosecution Insights