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 were received on 18 June 2026. These drawings are acceptable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s response filed on 18 June 2026 overcomes the previously raised Drawing Objection. Applicant's amendments to the claims filed on 18 June 2026 have been fully considered. Applicant's amendment has overcome the previous rejection of record. However, a new ground of rejection is applied to the amended claims.
The applicant argues that Phillips alone or in combination with Coambs and Shi fails to disclose the amended limitations of the claims since Phillips fails to teach a magnetic coupling and while Shi and Coambs teaches some form of magnetic coupling, Shi and Coambs fails to show the mating surfaces, the connection plane, the one-way valves, the protrusion and how the magnetic coupling spatially interact with the rests of the claimed limitation (see pages 7-10 of 12 of the remarks).
The Office respectfully disagrees, in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). In response to applicant's argument that the Phillips alone or in combination with Coambs and Shi fails to show the spatial relationship of the magnetic coupling and the protrusion as claimed, 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). It is noted that Phillips is a break-away valved coupling having nearly similar structure and function as applicant’s general invention mainly with Phillips including one connector portion with a protrusion 210 and a check valve 500 and the other connector portion having a check valve 502 that is actuated when the protrusion 210 enters the connection when they are coupled such that valve 502 is opened via the engagement of the protrusion and valve 500 opens via fluid pressure similar to applicant main invention (compare Figs. 7-8 of the application with Figs. 5 and 9 of Phillips). Notice that the main difference between Phillips and applicant’s invention is the use of a magnetic coupling (230/270) being used as a magnetic break-away coupling whereas Phillips utilizes snap couplings 206 and 204 as the break-away coupling. Coambs teaches of a valved coupling used as a medical break-away coupling similar to both applicant’s general invention and the invention by Phillips. Coambs teaches of a snap coupling serving as the break-away coupling (similar to Phillips’) but also teaches of other possibilities such as a magnetic coupling serving as the break-away coupling. Shi teaches of a specific structure of a magnetic coupling wherein each connector includes a magnetic ring attached and surrounding the connector that allows for two fluid lines to be detachably coupled using magnetic forces similar to a key feature of the claimed invention. When the teaching of Coambs and Shi are applied to the device of Phillips, the snap couplings 206 and 204 of Phillips are replaced by a magnetic coupling such as by the use of magnetic rings 2 similar to those taught by Shi and with Coambs acting as a linking reference between Phillips and Shi teaching of break-aways coupling using magnetic coupling instead of snap fittings. In order to aid the applicant in understanding the rejection, see FIG. A (annotated Figs. 5 and 9 of Phillips) below showing a schematic representation of the device of the combination of Phillips US-10315025 in view of Coambs US-20080197626 and Shi CN-107126621. Notice that this image is not to scale and merely show a representation on how the snap fitting 206 and 204 of Phillips may be replaced via a magnetic coupling such as via the use of magnetic ring 2 as taught by Shi to arrive at the claimed invention. Notice that the device of the combination includes similar structure and function as applicant’s claimed invention and as such the claims are being rejected accordingly.
PNG
media_image1.png
658
560
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
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.
Claim(s) 15-20 and 23-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phillips US-10315025 in view of Coambs US-20080197626 and Shi CN-107126621.
Regarding claims 15-20 and 23-26, Phillips US-10315025 teaches in Figs. 1-9 (see at least Figs. 4-5 and 8-9) of an auto-shutoff breakaway coupling 100 for supplying medical fluids to a patient. The coupling assembly 100 comprises at least a female coupling 200 with a compliant material check valve 502 and a male coupling 202 comprising a protrusion 210 and a compliant material check valve 500 and a break-away locking means (206 and 204) that allows the couplers to couple and selectively “break-away” once a predetermined pulling force is reached. When the couplers are coupled, the protrusion 210 of the male coupling displaces the check valve 502 of the female coupling and fluid pressure opens the check valve 500 of the male coupling, thus creating a continuous fluid pathway between the upstream end of the female coupling and the downstream end of the male coupling. When the couplings are uncoupled, such as in the case where the patient inadvertently and forcibly pulls the connection, the couplers break-away and the valves automatically closes, thus achieving a dry-disconnect while preventing harm to the patient in a similar manner as applicant’s general invention. Notice that Phillips fails to disclose the use of magnets as the break-away coupling between the two adapters as claimed. However, magnetic breakaway couplings are known in the art.
Coambs US-20080197626 teaches in Figs. 1-14 and at least Para. [0073] of yet another example of a medical valved coupling assembly 8 comprising at least a female coupler 10 and a male coupler 12 with a breakaway safety feature via the use of a snap-fit connection between protrusions 16 of the female coupler and groove 30 of the male coupler (notice that this is similar to the break-away feature as taught by Phillips). Para. [0073] of Coambs teaches that while the break-away feature shown in at least Fig. 1 of Coambs is a snap-fit breakaway connection, other alternative break-away arrangements are possible such as using a magnetic coupling.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time that the invention was effectively filed to modify the break-away coupling of the device of Phillips to be a magnetic break-away coupling in a similar manner as taught by Coambs since such an arrangement is a known alternative method of providing a quick, easy and secure fluid coupling that provides a break-away safety feature once a predetermined amount of separating force is achieved. Notice that while the device of the combination of Phillips in view of Coambs teaches of a magnetic breakaway coupling, the device of the combination fails to disclose the particular structure of the magnetic coupling such as being magnetic rings. However, magnetic rings couplings are well known in the art.
Shi CN-107126621 teaches in Figs. 1-12 (see at least Figs. 1-3B) of a medical tube coupling comprising pipelines 1 surrounded by a magnetic ring 2 and shell 3 that allows the pipelines 1 to be easily coupled using the magnetic attraction of the magnetic rings 2 while providing magnetic shielding to the outside.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time that the invention was effectively filed to modify the magnetic coupling of the device of the combination of Phillips in view of Coambs to be a magnetic coupling similar to the one as taught by Shi which includes magnetic rings 2 and shell 3 surrounding the pipelines since such a modification allows the couplers to be quick and easily coupled using magnetic rings while providing magnetic shielding to the outside as taught by Shi while maintaining the magnetic break-away feature as taught by Coambs.
As such, the device of the combination of Phillips US-10315025 in view of Coambs US-20080197626 and Shi CN-107126621 teaches the limitations of:
---Claim 15. A coupling (100 of Phillips as modified by Coambs and Shi to include magnetic rings acting as the breakaway coupling) comprising: a first assembly (200 of Phillips as modified by Coambs and Shi to include at least magnet ring 2 of Shi acting as the magnetic breakaway coupling as taught by Coambs) comprising: an inlet port (the upstream port of 200 of Phillips that is fluidly connected to feeding source 102); a first valve chamber (the interior of 200 of Phillips) housing a first one-way valve (502 of Phillips) formed of a compliant material (see at least Figs. 4-5 and 8-9 of Phillips); a second assembly (202 of Phillips as modified by Coambs and Shi to include at least magnet ring 2 of Shi acting as the magnetic breakaway coupling as taught by Coambs) comprising: an outlet port (see the downstream port of 202 of Phillips that is fluidly connected to patient 106); a second valve chamber (the interior of 202 of Phillips) housing a second one-way valve (500 of Phillips); a protrusion (210 of Phillips) extending from the second assembly toward the first assembly; a magnetic coupling (see magnetic rings 2 of Shi replacing the snap coupling 206 and 204 of Phillips which can act as a magnetic break-away coupling as taught by Coambs, see also FIG. A above) configured to magnetically join the first assembly and the second assembly, the first assembly and the second assembly meeting at a connection plane (see at least Fig. 3B of Shi showing the magnetic connection via magnetic rings 2 along a connection plane where the two magnets meet, see also at least Fig. 5 of Phillips with the snap-on coupling 206 and 204 being replaced by the magnetic coupling as taught by Shi, see also FIG. A above); wherein, the coupling moves between a connected state, where the two assemblies are magnetically joined together (see at least Fig. 3A of Shi and Fig. 9 of Phillips), and a disconnected state (Fig. 5 of Phillips); wherein, when the coupling is in its connected state, the protrusion extends across the connection plane and into the first valve chamber to mechanically engage with and displace the first one-way valve, while the first assembly and the second assembly remain magnetically joined at the connection plane, creating a continuous fluid pathway between the inlet port and the outlet port (see at least Fig. 9 of Phillips, see also at least Fig. 5 of Phillips with the snap-on coupling 206 and 204 being replaced by the magnetic coupling as taught by Shi); and wherein, when the coupling is in its disconnected state, the first one-way valve automatically returns to a sealed position preventing fluid discharge (see Fig. 5 of Phillips).
---Claim 16. The coupling of claim 15, wherein the magnetic coupling comprises a first magnetic ring (see magnetic ring 2 of Shi which can act as a magnetic break-away coupling as taught by Coambs) circumferentially disposed about the first assembly and a second magnetic ring (see the other magnetic ring 2 of Shi which can act as a magnetic break-away coupling as taught by Coambs) circumferentially disposed about the second assembly, the first and second magnetic rings being oriented with opposite polarities to create an attractive force when the assemblies are brought into proximity (it is noted that while the device of the combination fails to explicitly disclose this limitation, this limitation is inherently met by the teachings of at least Shi and Coambs with both teaching of the use of magnetic attraction for coupling the fluid lines. In order for magnetic attraction to occur, the magnets require to have opposite polarities, N – S, otherwise if the polarities are the same, N – N or S – S, magnetic repulsion would occur which would hinder the fluidic coupling. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art can recognize that in order to provide the magnetic attraction for the magnets 2 to effectively couple the fluid lines 200 and 202, the magnetic rings 2 must be oriented with opposite polarities to create the attractive force when the assemblies are brought into proximity, otherwise the magnets would repulse each other and hinder the operation of the device).
---Claim 17. The coupling of claim 15, wherein the first valve chamber and second valve chamber are generally cylindrical in shape with diameters sufficient to accommodate their respective valves (see at least Figs. 4-5 and 8-9 of Phillips).
---Claim 18. The coupling of claim 15, wherein the first one-way valve is oriented to permit fluid flow toward the second assembly while preventing backflow toward the inlet port, and the second one-way valve is oriented to prevent backflow from the outlet port (see at least Figs. 4-5 and 8-9 of Phillips).
---Claims 19. The coupling of claim 15, wherein the magnetic coupling separates when a predetermined tensile force is applied to prevent patient harm (Phillips teaches of a break-away coupling that aids in preventing harm to patient 106, Shi teaches of a magnetic coupling comprising magnetic rings 2 and at least Para. [0073] of Coambs teaches of using magnets as an alternative method of providing the break-away coupling feature).
---Claim 23. The coupling of claim 15, wherein the protrusion of the second assembly engages and displaces the first one-way valve while the second one-way valve remains undisturbed by the protrusion (see at least Figs. 5 and 9 of Phillips notice that both applicant’s connector and the one as taught by Phillips function in the same manner with the protrusion actuating the first valve 502 due to the protrusion engaging the first valve and while the second valve 500 remains closed until sufficient fluid pressure actuates the second valve).
---Claim 24. The coupling of claim 19, wherein the predetermined tensile force is established by a material and dimensions of the magnetic coupling (it is noted that while the device of the combination fails to explicitly disclose this limitation, this limitation is inherently met by the teachings of at least Shi and Coambs with both teaching of the use of magnetic attraction for coupling the fluid lines. Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art can recognize that the magnetic fields of the magnets is governed by at least the magnetic material of the magnets and dimensions of the magnets and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the material and/or dimensions of the magnets to provide a desired magnetic attraction force of the coupling which would be required to be overcome by the user to provide the desired break-away feature as discussed by Coambs).
---Claim 25. The coupling of claim 15, wherein the magnetic coupling is circumferentially arranged about the connection plane to provide a separation force that is substantially uniform regardless of a direction of an applied force (see at least Fig. 3b of Shi and Fig. 5 of Phillips, considering that the magnets as taught by Shi are circumferentially arranged as a ring, that both rings are identical and that the coupling of the combination would function in the same manner as applicant’s invention since regardless if the pulling force is from one side of the connection or from both sides of the connection, the magnetic force maintaining the connection must be overcome in order to separate the coupling).
---Claim 26. The coupling of claim 15, wherein the first one-way valve returns to the sealed position by an inherent material bias of the first one-way valve in conjunction with fluid pressure within the coupling (see at least Fig. 5 of Phillips, notice that at least Phillips generally functions in a similar manner as applicant’s invention).
---Claim 20. A coupling (100 of Phillips as modified by Coambs and Shi to include magnetic rings acting as the breakaway coupling) comprising: a first assembly (200 of Phillips as modified by Coambs and Shi to include at least magnet ring 2 of Shi acting as the magnetic breakaway coupling as taught by Coambs) comprising a first valve chamber (the interior of 200 of Phillips) housing a first one-way valve (502 of Phillips); a second assembly (202 of Phillips as modified by Coambs and Shi to include at least magnet ring 2 of Shi acting as the magnetic breakaway coupling as taught by Coambs) comprising a second valve chamber (the interior of 202 of Phillips) housing a second one-way valve (500 of Phillips) and a protrusion (210 of Phillips); a magnetic coupling (see magnetic rings 2 of Shi replacing the snap coupling 206 and 204 of Phillips which can act as a magnetic break-away coupling as taught by Coambs, see also FIG. A above) configured to magnetically join the first assembly and the second assembly at a planar magnetic interface (see at least Fig. 3B of Shi showing the magnetic connection via magnetic rings 2 along a connection plane where the two magnets meet, see also at least Fig. 5 of Phillips with the snap-on coupling 206 and 204 being replaced by the magnetic coupling as taught by Shi, see also FIG. A above) in a connected state; wherein the second one-way valve is disposed within the second assembly on a second- assembly side of the planar magnetic interface (rearwards, see at least Fig. 5 of Phillips notice that the second valve 500 is rearward of the snap coupling 204 which is replaced by a magnetic ring coupling as taught by Shi); wherein, in the connected state, the protrusion is the only structure of the second assembly that crosses the planar magnetic interface (see at least Fig. 5 of Phillips, notice that where snap coupling 204 is, it is replaced with a magnetic coupling as taught by Shi with protrusion 210 being the only structure crossing the planar magnetic interface in a similar manner as applicant’s invention), the protrusion extending into the first valve chamber to displace the first one-way valve and create a continuous fluid pathway through the coupling (see at least Fig. 5 and 9 of Phillips).
Claim(s) 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phillips US-10315025 in view of Coambs US-20080197626 and Shi CN-107126621 as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Arnold US-3586048.
The device of the combination of Phillips in view of Coambs and Shi fails to disclose the particular structure of the first and second assemblies with each assembly comprising a two-part housing structure with a tube connector portion and a valve housing portion that are removably attached via threads as claimed. However, one of ordinary skill in the art can recognize that if it is desired to have the housing assembly 200, 206 of the device of the combination (see at least Fig. 5 of Phillips) to be made a two-part separable structure for the purpose of cleaning or servicing the internal components, it would have been a mere design choice to do so to allow easier access to the interior of the housings (see MPEP 2144.04 V C). Furthermore, such a removable two-part housing structure is known in the art.
Arnold US-3586048 teaches in Figs. 1-2 of a valved coupling assembly 10 comprising a first connector assembly 11 and a second connector assembly 12 wherein each connector assembly comprises at least a two-part housing structure with a forward-facing valve housing portion 13 and 59 housing valves 50 and 85 and a rearward-facing tube connector portion 35 and 73 including a portion 36 and 74 that allows for the coupling to fluid conduits 37 and 75. Notice that the valve housing portion and the tube connector portions include interlocking threads (25, 69) that allows for the removable attachment. of the two-part housing.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time that the invention was effectively filed to modify the housing design of the first and second assemblies of the device of the combination (see at least Fig. 5 of Phillips) to be a two-part housing structure comprising a forward-facing valve housing portion (13 and 59) and a rearward-facing tube connector portion (35 and 73) that are coupled together using a removable connection such as interlocking threads in a similar manner as taught by Arnold since such a modification is a known effective method of forming the housing of a valved coupling assembly with the added advantage that such an arrangement allows the two housing components to be separable allowing a user to be capable of accessing the interior for inspecting, cleaning and/or servicing the components of the valved coupling.
As such, the device of the combination of Phillips US-10315025 in view of Coambs US-20080197626, Shi CN-107126621 and Arnold US-3586048 teaches the limitations of:
---Claim 21. The coupling of claim 15, wherein each of the first assembly and the second assembly comprises a respective tube connector portion (see the connectors 200 and 202 of Phillips as modified by Arnold to include rearward-facing tube connector portions 35/73 that are removably attached to the forward-facing valve housing portions 13/59) and a respective valve housing portion (see the connectors 200 and 202 of Phillips as modified by Arnold to include forward-facing valve housing portion 13/59 that are removably attached to the rearward-facing tube connector portions 35/73) that are removably connected to one another, the respective one-way valve being retained between the tube connector portion and the valve housing portion such that the assembly is separable for cleaning (see at least Fig. 5 of Phillips and Figs. 1-2 of Arnold, see also MPEP 2144.04 V C).
---Claim 22. The coupling of claim 21, wherein the tube connector portion and the valve housing portion of each assembly are joined by interlocking threads (see at least Figs. 1-2 of Arnold showing a threaded interface 25/69).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 DAVID COLON-MORALES, whose telephone number is 571-270-1741 and fax number is 571-270-2741. If the applicant has authorized internet communications via the filling of form PTO/SB/439, the examiner can be reached via email at david.colon-morales@uspto.gov , email communication is not permitted if the applicant has not filed an authorization for internet communication (see MPEP 502.03 for more details on internet communications). The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (7:30AM-3:30PM 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 supervisors can be reached by phone. KENNETH 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.
/DAVID COLON-MORALES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights