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. Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. 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. 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 and 10 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. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT TASNIM M AHMED whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-9536 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Bhisma Mehta can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (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