DETAILED ACTION
Non Final
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/27/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
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) 1, 3, 6, 7, 10, 11 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rowley (US 8980161) further in view of Hartel (US 5447341) (and see exemplary Phelps (US 6607105));
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rowley in view of Hartel as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gardner (US 11358851);
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rowley in view of Hartel as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Currey (US 10760716);
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rowley in view of Hartel as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ladouceur (US 5090440);
Rowley discloses in claim 1: (see at least annotated figure 15 below);
PNG
media_image1.png
924
1292
media_image1.png
Greyscale
A reservoir system (400 figure 13-15) comprising: a first container portion (at 1000a) including a first side wall (at 1002a) having a first neck (at 1004a) defining a first opening (at 1006a); a second container portion (at 1000b) including a second side wall (at 1002b) having a second neck (at 1004b) defining a second opening (at 1006b); a first fitting (at 464) including a longitudinally extending first projection (the body of 468) received within the first opening of the first container portion, and a connector (at 456) in fluid communication with the first projection; a first tube (at 458) including a proximal end and a distal end (necessarily), the first tube fluidly coupled to the first fitting (via 472); a first overmold (of 464) securing the proximal end of the first tube to the first fitting (per Col 14 ln 21-23); a second fitting (at 464a) including a longitudinally extending second projection (468a) received within the second opening of the second container portion, and [the] connector in fluid communication with the second projection, the connector fluidly [coupling] the first fitting with the second fitting; a second tube (460) including a proximal end and a distal end (necessarily), the second tube fluidly coupled to the second fitting; and a second overmold (of 464a per Col 14 ln 21-23) securing the proximal end of the second tube to the second fitting; Rowley does not disclose: longitudinally barbed projections fluidly coupled to a transversely extending male/female connectors; Hartel teaches: longitudinally barbed projection (for example 3 can be the longitudinally lower connection, figure 1) fluidly coupled to a transversely extending male/female connectors (for example, 5 can be the transversely extending male connector, with 8 acting as the female connector portion, all provided for the purpose of for example, assembling the tube connections in-situ for manufacturing of the fluid device, Comment: it is noted that it is common in the art to provide Tee shaped pipe connectors for connecting various passages for fluid communication there between, see exemplary Phelps figure 6);
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to provide Rowley as taught in Hartel with first and second longitudinally barbed projections that are fluidly coupled to a transversely extending male/female connectors, all provided for the purpose of for example, assembling the tube connections in-situ for manufacturing of the fluid device; and where it is common in the art to provide Tee shaped pipe connectors for connecting various passages for fluid communication there between.
Rowley discloses (as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 2: The reservoir system of claim 1, wherein: the first container portion is an upper portion of a first [half] container; and the second container portion is an upper portion of a second [half] container positioned in spaced relation to the first container (the portions are separate containers at the top that are in spaced transverse relation.); Rowley does not disclose: separately formed first and second containers, but Gardner teaches: separately formed containers 200.1 an 200.2 figure 2, provided for example a ganged reservoir system of reproducible parts. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to provide Rowley as taught in Gardner, with separately formed containers as taught in Gardner, all provided for example a ganged reservoir system of reproducible parts.
Rowley discloses (as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 3: The reservoir system of claim 1, wherein a single container defines the first container portion and the second container portion (the separate container with top potions are connected in U-shape arrangement below.)
Rowley discloses (as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 4: The reservoir system of claim 1, but does not disclose: a sealing ring positioned between the male connector and the female connector; although Currey teaches: an o-ring (120 figure 11) between the male connector and female connector to reduce fluid leakage out of the connection;
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to provide Rowley as modified by Hartel for the reasons discussed above, with an o-ring seal as taught in Currey between the male connector and female connector for the purpose of reducing fluid leakage out of the connection.
Rowley discloses (as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 5: The reservoir system of claim 1, Rowley does not disclose, although Ladouceur teaches: a fluid coupler overmolded (at 62 figure 2) around a distal end of the first tube (66, provided for the purpose of making a tubular connection between parts in a fluid tight manner.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to provide Rowley as taught in Ladouceur, a fluid coupler overmolded around a distal end of the first tube of Rowley as taught in Ladouceur, and all provided for the purpose of making a tubular connection between parts in a fluid tight manner.
Rowley discloses (as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 6: The reservoir system of claim 1, wherein: the first overmold comprises a first collar (464 is a collar shape) concentrically received around the proximal end of the first tube; and the second overmold comprises a second collar (464a is a collar shape) concentrically received around the proximal end of the second tube.
Rowley discloses (as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 7: The reservoir system of claim 6, wherein: the first fitting further includes a longitudinally extending first upper projection (Rowley/Hartel at 4 figure 1 as applied to fitting 464 of Rowley) in fluid communication with the first barbed projection; the first tube (as modified by Hartel, the tube of Rowley at 458 as shown in 7 of Hartel…) is captured between the upper projection and the first collar (464 of Rowley and 12 of Hartel); the second fitting further includes a longitudinally extending second upper projection (Rowley/Hartel at 4 figure 1 as applied to fitting 464 of Rowley) in fluid communication with the second barbed projection; and the second tube is captured between the upper projection and the second collar (as discussed);
where it would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to provide Rowley as taught in Hartel with an upper protruding barbed projections with the tubes captured between the collar of Rowley/Hartel as taught therein and the upper projections of Rowley/Hartel, all for the purposes as discussed above.
Rowley discloses (as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 10: The reservoir system of claim 1, wherein the first fitting and the second fitting are formed of a polymer (Col 2 ln 25-30.)
Rowley discloses (as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 11: The reservoir system of claim 10, wherein the polymer of the first fitting and the second fitting are formed of a cross-linked polyethylene (id.)
Rowley discloses (as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 12: The reservoir system of claim 1, but figure 15 does not disclose, although figures 8a and 8b teach: the first neck includes a first inset tube (162) defining the first opening; and the second neck includes a second inset tube (162 for that side) defining the second opening (provided for the purpose of mitigating thermal expansion and contraction and fluid leakage there through by maintaining a constant and consistent material profile during use (Col 6 ln 28-37.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to provide as taught in figure 8b for that of figure 15, a first and second inset tube in the first and second necks, all for the purpose of mitigating thermal expansion and contraction and fluid leakage there through by maintaining a constant and consistent material profile during use.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13- 34 are allowed. Claim 8 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. Claim 9 depends from claim 8, and so is allowable based merely on the dependency.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art fails to disclose or render obvious the following:
in claim 8: “a releasable retainer extending between the male connector and the female connector” in combination with the other limitations set forth above;
in claims 13 and 26: “…first and second longitudinally extending upper projection.. a transversely extending male connector… transversely extending female connector… the male connector received within the female connector to fluidly couple the first fitting with the second fitting… a releasable retainer extending between the male connector and the female connector” in combination with the other limitations set forth in those independent claims.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW W JELLETT, whose telephone number is 571-270-7497. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (9:30AM-6:00PM EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisors can be reached by phone. Ken Rinehart can be reached at (571)-272-4881, or Craig Schneider can be reached at (571) 272-3607. 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.
/Matthew W Jellett/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753