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 .
Response to Amendment
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on 20 June 2026. As directed by the amendment: no claims have been amended or canceled; and claims 11-14 have been added. Thus, claims 1-14 are presently pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 20 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Bickford would not be obvious to modify in view of Dirmeier ‘383 because Bickford discloses that the adhesive is added after joining the two elements in order to prevent adhesive from getting into the flow path of the syringe. However, although Bickford discloses this, changing the method of assembly as taught by Dirmeier ‘383 would not change the structure of the syringe, which is the concern of the instant claims. In addition, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand how to apply the method of adhering of Dirmeier ‘383 without blocking the flow path of Bickford, which would therefore follow the teachings of Bickford. Regarding analogous art, Dirmeier ‘383 and Bickford are both in the field of connecting two tubular members permanently and thus can be considered analogous art with comparable teachings.
Regarding claim 7, the teachings of Dirmeier ‘500 are used to modify the microcapsules taught by Dirmeier ‘383. As such, Dirmeier ‘500 and Dirmeier ‘383 are in the same art of using microcapsules. The reason for incorporating the dye of Dirmeier ‘500 is not to assist activating the adhesive of Dirmeier ‘383 but to inform a user that the microcapsules have been adequately broken. Similarly, for claim 10, incorporating the dye into the microcapsules of Dirmeier ‘383 would visually indicate the claimed invention compared to a normal connector without the claimed adhesive system and as such would make the subject matter of claim 10 obvious.
As such, the rejections are maintained as detailed below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-6 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bickford et al (US 2006/0047251) in view of Dirmeier et al (US 5938383).
Regarding claim 1, Bickford discloses:
A connecting system (Fig. 4) for medical applications (Abstract – for a syringe or tubing connectors), the connecting system comprising: a male connector (52); a female connector (14); and an adhesive arrangement (54) that is inactive (¶0076 – the adhesive starts as inactive before being activated via setting), the male connector (36’) comprising a plug (36’) and an annular wall (38) that concentrically encloses the plug (36’) while forming an annular gap (gap that is filled by adhesive 54), the male connector (52) also comprising an internal thread (40) facing toward the plug (36’), the female connector (14) comprising a socket (16) complementary to the plug (36’) (¶0076) and an external thread (42) complementary to the internal thread (40), the female connector (14) being inserted into the annular gap of the male connector (52) in a connected state (Fig. 4), the adhesive arrangement (54) being provided in the annular gap.
Bickford is silent regarding the adhesive arrangement having “an activation system … in such a way that activation of the adhesive arrangement takes place as a result of insertion of the female connector into the annular gap of the male connector.” However, Dirmeier teaches a variety of connector systems (Fig. 1; Abstract), thus being in the same field of endeavor, where a male connector (5) is connected to a female connector (3) with an adhesive arrangement (28) in the form of curable adhesive (Col. 3:51-57) or in the form of a microencapsulated two-component adhesive that burst upon connecting the two connectors (3, 5) to mix and form the adhesive (Col. 5:36-43). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the adhesive arrangement of Bickford to have an activation system that take place as a result of connecting the male and female connectors as taught by Dirmeier as such a modification would be the result of a simple substitution of one known element (the microcapsules of Dirmeier) for another known element (the unspecified settable adhesive of Bickford) in order to obtain predictable results (adhering the two parts of the connecting system together).
Regarding claim 2, Bickford in view of Dirmeier discloses the connecting system according to claim 1, wherein the activation system taught by Dirmeier in the rejection of claim 1 comprises encapsulation of the adhesive arrangement by at least one capsule (Dirmeier; Col. 5:36-43).
Regarding claim 3, Bickford in view of Dirmeier discloses the connecting system according to claim 2, wherein outer dimensions of the at least one capsule taught by Dirmeier in the rejection of claim 1 are matched to inner dimensions of the annular gap in such a way that the at least one capsule is receivable in the annular gap as applied to Bickford because the microencapsulated capsules burst between the threads of the two connectors.
Regarding claim 4, Bickford in view of Dirmeier discloses the connecting system according to claim 2, wherein the at least one capsule taught by Dirmeier in the rejection of claim 1 comprises a plurality of capsules, and wherein the adhesive arrangement comprises different adhesive components (Dirmeier; Col. 5:36-43 – the capsules separate a two-component adhesive, so each set of capsules has one of the two components that mix), which are accommodated in the plurality of capsules (Dirmeier; Col. 5:36-43).
Regarding claim 5, Bickford in view of Dirmeier discloses the connecting system according to claim 4, wherein the plurality of capsules taught by Dirmeier in the rejection of claim 1 with the different adhesive components are positioned in the annular gap in accordance with an activation sequence of the different adhesive components (Dirmeier; Col. 5:36-43 – the capsules separate a two-component adhesive, so each set of capsules has one of the two components that mix).
Regarding claim 6, Bickford in view of Dirmeier discloses the connecting system according to claim 4, wherein the plurality of capsules taught by Dirmeier in the rejection of claim 1 are configured with such a low resistance that destruction of the plurality of capsules with release of the different adhesive components takes place during connection of the female connector to the male connector, as applied to Bickford, by contact between the female connector and the plurality of capsules (Dirmeier; Col. 5:36-43 – the capsules break from the shearing force of the threads engaging with one another).
Regarding claim 8, Bickford in view of Dirmeier discloses the connecting system according to claim 2, wherein the at least one capsule taught by Dirmeier in the rejection of claim 1 is fixed in the annular gap with a force or form fit or materially (Dirmeier; Col. 5:36-43 – the capsules are contained in the flights of the threads and are therefore materially held within the annular gap).
Regarding claim 9, Bickford in view of Dirmeier discloses the connecting system according to claim 1, wherein the activation system taught by Dirmeier in the rejection of claim 1 has a chemical or physical activation function assigned to the adhesive arrangement (Dirmeier; Col. 5:36-43 – the capsules break from the shearing force of the threads engaging with one another, which is a physical activation).
Claims 7, 10, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bickford in view of Dirmeier (hereinafter Dirmeier ‘383) further in view of Dirmeier et al (US 6059500, hereinafter Dirmeier ‘500).
Regarding claim 7, Bickford in view of Dirmeier ‘383 discloses the connecting system according to claim 6 but is silent regarding “the plurality of capsules are configured in such a way that destruction of the plurality of capsules is perceptible to a user when the female connector is connected to the male connector.” However, Dirmeier ‘500 teaches a connecting system (Fig. 3; Abstract), thus being in the same field of endeavor, that uses microcapsules (19) that also have dye in order to visually indicate the presence of the microcapsules (Col. 4:41-67). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the microcapsules of Dirmeier ‘383 to incorporate a means for being perceived during breakage of the capsules as taught by Dirmeier ‘500 in order to provide sufficient structure to indicate the presence and the breakage of microcapsules in a threaded connection, as recognized by Dirmeier ‘500.
Regarding claim 10, Bickford in view of Dirmeier ‘383 discloses the connecting system according to claim 1 but is silent regarding “the male connector and/or the female connector has a visually or haptically recognizable coding that allows a user to distinguish the male connector and/or the female connector from a known connecting system without an adhesive arrangement.” However, Dirmeier ‘500 teaches a connecting system (Fig. 3; Abstract), thus being in the same field of endeavor, that uses microcapsules (19) that also have dye in order to visually indicate the presence of the microcapsules (Col. 4:41-67). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the microcapsules of Dirmeier ‘383 to incorporate a means for being perceived during breakage of the capsules as taught by Dirmeier ‘500 in order to provide sufficient structure to indicate the presence and the breakage of microcapsules in a threaded connection, as recognized by Dirmeier ‘500.
Regarding claim 14, Bickford in view of Dirmeier ‘383 discloses the connecting system according to claim 1 but is silent regarding “the male connector and/or the female connector has a visual mark that allows a user to distinguish the male connector and/or the female connector from a known connecting system without an adhesive arrangement.” However, Dirmeier ‘500 teaches a connecting system (Fig. 3; Abstract), thus being in the same field of endeavor, that uses microcapsules (19) that also have dye in order to visually indicate the presence of the microcapsules (Col. 4:41-67). Such a dye would provide a visual mark of the system having the claimed adhesive arrangement. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the microcapsules of Dirmeier ‘383 to incorporate a means for being perceived during breakage of the capsules as taught by Dirmeier ‘500 in order to provide sufficient structure to indicate the presence and the breakage of microcapsules in a threaded connection, as recognized by Dirmeier ‘500.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-13 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.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 TASNIM M AHMED whose telephone number is (571)272-9536. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm Pacific time.
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, Bhisma Mehta can be reached at (571)272-3383. 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.
/TASNIM MEHJABIN AHMED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3783
Prosecution Insights