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 as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because:
reference character “38” has been used to designate a transfer unit, a spike and an insert
reference character “40” has been used to designate a transfer unit, a spike and an insert
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. 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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "38" and "40" have both been used to designate a spike. 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. 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.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “ledge-like section” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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 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 applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 20-37 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 20, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
With reference to claim 23, the use of the pronouns “their” and “its” render the claim indefinite because it is not clear what element the pronouns represent. Correction and/clarification is required.
Claim 23 recites the limitation "the tip side" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 24-27 refer to a “ledge-like section”. The scope of the claims cannot be determined because a “ledge-like section” is not properly supported by the originally filed specification. While the specification refers to a “ledge section”, it is unclear what encompasses a “ledge-like” section. Correction and/or clarification are required.
Claim 24 recites the limitation "the latter" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 26 recites the limitation "the partial ring section" in lines 2 and 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is noted that claim 25, upon which claim 26 depends, refers to a “bottom-side partial ring section”. It is unclear if the “partial ring section” recited in claim 26 is the same element or a different element. Correction and/or clarification are required.
Claim 26 recites the limitation "the tip side" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 27 recites the limitation "the longitudinal wall section" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
It is noted that claim 26, upon which claim 27 depends, refers to an “inner longitudinal wall section”, however, it is unclear if the “the longitudinal wall section” recited in claim 27 is the same element or a different element. Correction and/or clarification are required.
Claim 27 recites the limitation "on the one hand” in line 3 and “on the other hand” in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 29 recites the limitation "the plane” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 30 recites the limitation "the opening side" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 32 recites the limitation "the 1 piece transfer device" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 34 recites the limitation "the projection” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Additionally, the use of the pronoun “its” renders the claim indefinite because it is not clear what element the pronoun represents. Correction and/clarification is required.
Claim 35 recites the limitation "the bottom side” in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
It is noted that due to the multiple occurrences of indefinite language, the absence of a prior art rejection is not indicative of allowable subject matter.
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.
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.
Claims 20-23, 28-29 and 31-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henninger et al. (US 2017/0290742) and further in view of Fangrow (US 2013/0226128).
With reference to claim 20, Henninger et al. (hereinafter “Henninger”) discloses a transfer device for transferring a medium into or out of a container connected to the transfer device (abstract), comprising a transfer unit (10) extending from a bottom wall (52) with a first lumen carrying the medium and having a first opening (figure 2), and wherein a cover that extends from the transfer unit or is a section thereof and is intersected by a longitudinal axis of the first lumen (see annotated figure 2 below) having the first opening runs at a distance from the first opening as shown in figure 2). Henninger also includes a retaining element extending between the cover and an edge surrounding the first opening or the first lumen in order to keep material of a stopper of a container, pierced by the transfer unit away from the first opening as shown in annotated figure 2 below.
PNG
media_image1.png
619
586
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The difference between Henninger and claim 20 is the provision that the unit includes a second lumen having a second opening, wherein the second opening has a shorter distance from a tip of the transfer unit than the first opening wherein the second lumen permits an air pressure equalization in the container.
Fangrow teaches an analogous transfer device (820) that includes first (845) and second (825) lumens wherein the second lumen has a second opening (850a) having a shorter distance from a tip of the transfer unit than the first opening (846a) as shown in figure 23 wherein the second lumen permits an air pressure equalization in the container as set forth in [0092].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the device of Henninger with a dual lumen adaptor as taught by Fangrow in order to reduce a risk of fluid returning to a fluid source after withdrawal of the fluid from the fluid source as taught by Fangrow in [0009].
As to claim 21, Henninger discloses a transfer device wherein the cover has a first section with first side faces merging into the tip of the transfer unit and a second section with second side faces extending therefrom, wherein each first side face forms an angle α to the longitudinal axis direction of the transfer unit and each second side face forms an angle β to the longitudinal axis as shown in figure 2.
The difference between Henninger and claim 21 is the explicit recitation that α<β.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the angles as desired in order to provide the device with the desired results since it has been held that the mere change in size and/or shape of an element previously disclosed by the prior art is considered to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
With reference to claims 22-23, 29 and 31-33, see the rejection of claim 21.
As to claim 28, Henninger discloses a transfer device wherein the sections of the cover are designed symmetrical to a plane in which the tip and the longitudinal axis of the first lumen are located as shown in figure 2.
As to claim 35, Henninger discloses a transfer device wherein a body of the transfer unit has on the bottom side a cross-section having an oval geometry as shown figure 9.
As to claims 34, 36 and 37, see figure 2 of Henninger.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHELE M KIDWELL whose telephone number is (571)272-4935. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7AM-4PM EST.
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, Rebecca Eisenberg can be reached at 571-270-5879. 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.
/MICHELE KIDWELL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781
Prosecution Insights