DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 21-40 are currently pending.
Claims 1-20 are cancelled.
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.
Claim(s) 21-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blake et al. (US 2016/0186906), (hereinafter, Blake).
At the outset the applicant is reminded that:
1. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
2. A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Re Clm 21: Blake discloses an aseptic fluid coupling (see Figs. 7A-7B, [003-0115], [0063], and Figs. 1-5 per [0106]) comprising:
a main body (the main body of 1) defining a longitudinal axis and a bore (see Figs. 7A-7B and 1), wherein a fluid flow path is defined along the longitudinal axis (see Figs. 7A-7B and 1), the main body comprising:
a front face (that 73 abuts);
an alignment post (6) monolithically formed with the main body (see Figs. 7A-7B and 1); and
an alignment guide (the structure that is penetrated by a 6 on 1” and contains 8, where such is opposite 6, see Figs. 7A-7B and 1) defining internal space (see the recess(es)) configured to slidably receive an alignment post of another aseptic fluid coupling when two of the aseptic fluid couplings are mated together (see Figs. 7A-7B and 1), wherein the alignment guide includes a latch member (the inner wall(s) of space 17 and 8) that at least partially defines the internal space (see Figs. 7A-7B and 1),
wherein the alignment post and the alignment guide are offset from the longitudinal axis of the bore opposite to one another (see Figs. 7A-7B and 1; being on opposite sides of the centerline of the structure);
a seal member (13) including a portion disposed within the bore (see Fig. 2) and a portion extending from the front face around the longitudinal axis (see Fig. 2 and [0105] and [0063]); and
a flexible membrane (73) attached to a portion of the front face around the seal member to block contaminants from entering the fluid flow path (see Fig. 7A).
Blake fails to disclose that the disclosed membrane is flexible.
In this instance having a flexible membrane would allow the membrane to bend rather than break and to aid in the membrane staying in place, for the purpose of preventing the membrane from becoming dislodged and/or failing to aid in preventing contamination from occurring.
The examiner is taking Official Notice that it is old and well known to have a membrane be flexible in order to allow the membrane to bend rather than break and to aid in the membrane staying in place, for the purpose of preventing the membrane from becoming dislodged and/or failing to aid in preventing contamination from occurring.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to have modified the device of Blake, to have had the disclosed membrane be flexible, with a reasonable expectation of success because it is old and well know that membranes can be flexible, in order to allow the membrane to bend rather than break and to aid in the membrane staying in place, for the purpose of preventing the membrane from becoming dislodged and/or failing to aid in preventing contamination from occurring.
Re Clm 22: Blake discloses wherein the membrane comprises a tail end portion that is at an opposite end of the membrane in comparison to the portion attached to the front face (the portion of 73 that extends off the face).
Re Clm 23: Blake discloses wherein the membrane comprises a portion at the portion of the membrane attached to the front face.
Blake fails to disclose that the disclosed portion is a fold.
In this instance having a folded portion would allow the membrane to flex rather than break and to aid in the membrane staying in place, for the purpose of preventing the membrane from becoming dislodged and/or failing to aid in preventing contamination from occurring.
The examiner is taking Official Notice that it is old and well known to have a folded membrane in order to allow the membrane to flex rather than break and to aid in the membrane staying in place, for the purpose of preventing the membrane from becoming dislodged and/or failing to aid in preventing contamination from occurring.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to have modified the device of Blake, to have had the disclosed membrane include a fold, with a reasonable expectation of success because it is old and well know that membranes can contain a fold, in order to allow the membrane to flex rather than break and to aid in the membrane staying in place, for the purpose of preventing the membrane from becoming dislodged and/or failing to aid in preventing contamination from occurring.
As for claim 24: the device of Blake is made to or is capable of having a responsive to a pulling force at the tail end portion, where the membrane is configured to roll off of the portion of the front face around the seal member.
Re Clm 25: Blake discloses the membrane.
Blake fails to disclose that the disclosed membrane is porous such that air can pass through the disclosed membrane.
In this instance having the disclosed membrane being porous such that air can pass through the disclosed membrane would allow for a selective gas to pass through the membrane to keep the structure dry while preventing unwanted debris into the structure keeping the structure clean, for the purpose of keeping the joint member clean and dry to prevent unwanted damage and corrosion or mold growth.
The examiner is taking Official Notice that it is old and well known to have the disclosed membrane being porous such that air can pass through the disclosed membrane would allow for a selective gas to pass through the membrane to keep the structure dry while preventing unwanted debris into the structure keeping the structure clean, for the purpose of keeping the joint member clean and dry to prevent unwanted damage and corrosion or mold growth.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to have modified the device of Blake, to have had the disclosed membrane is porous such that air can pass through the disclosed membrane, with a reasonable expectation of success because it is old and well know that a membrane can be porous such that air can pass through the disclosed membrane, for the purpose of keeping the joint member clean and dry to prevent unwanted damage and corrosion or mold growth.
Re Clm 26: Blake discloses wherein the flow path is between the alignment post and the alignment guide (see Figs. 7A-7B and 1).
Re Clm 27: Blake discloses wherein the alignment post and the alignment guide each include attachment features whereby the alignment post latches with an engaged alignment guide and the alignment guide latches with an engaged alignment post (see Figs. 7A-7B and 1), and wherein the attachment features of the alignment post include at least one groove (see Figs. 7A-7B and 1).
Re Clm 28: Blake discloses wherein the alignment post and the alignment guide each include attachment features whereby the alignment post latches with an engaged alignment guide and the alignment guide latches with an engaged alignment post (see Figs. 7A-7B and 1), and wherein the attachment features of the alignment post include at least one notch (see Figs. 7A-7B and 1).
Re Clm 29: Blake discloses wherein the seal member has a width along the longitudinal axis between a first end and a second end of the seal member (see Fig. 1), wherein a portion of the fluid flow path through the bore is defined along an entirety of the width of the seal member between the first end and the second end (see Fig. 1). wherein the attachment features of the alignment guide include at least one flexible latch member (8 and see Fig. 1 and [0059]).
Re Clm 30: Blake discloses wherein the alignment post extends parallel to the longitudinal axis see Figs. 7A-7B and 1).
Re Clm 31: Blake discloses a protective cover (5) that is releasably engageable with the main body (see Figs. 7A-7B and 1).
Re Clm 32: Blake discloses wherein the protective cover presses two layers of the membrane against the seal member while the protective cover is engaged with the main body (the protective cover is made to or is capable of pressing two layers of the membrane against the seal member while the protective cover is engaged with the main body).
Re Clm 33: Blake discloses wherein the protective cover defines an opening aligned with the longitudinal axis while the protective cover is engaged with the main body (see Figs. 7A-7B and 1).
Re Clm 34: Blake discloses wherein the protective cover comprises at least one grip portion (56).
Re Clm 35: Blake discloses wherein the protective cover comprises a first grip portion (58) and a second grip portion (59), the first grip portion and the second grip portion are configured to pinch toward each other ([0084]).
Re Clm 36: Blake discloses wherein the seal member comprises a waist portion (the central neck downed portion) between cylindrical end portions of the seal member.
Re Clm 37: Blake discloses wherein the bore is between the alignment post and the alignment guide (see Figs. 7A-7B and 1).
Re Clm 38: Blake discloses wherein: (i) a centerline of the alignment post, (ii) a centerline of the alignment guide, and (iii) the longitudinal axis of the main body are coplanar, and wherein a distance between the longitudinal axis and the centerline of the alignment post is equal to a distance between the longitudinal axis and the centerline of the alignment guide (see Figs. 7A-7B and 1).
Re Clm 39: Blake discloses wherein the main body further comprises: a termination (9) that is at an opposite end of the main body in comparison to the front face; and a termination member that includes the termination, and wherein the termination member extends into the bore (see Fig. 2).
Re Clm 40: Blake discloses the termination member in engagement with other portions of the main body (see above).
Blake fails to disclose that the disclosed termination member snaps into engagement with disclosed other portions of the disclosed main body.
Having a two part connection that snaps together allows for replacement of smaller components in the event of damage or failure saving time and money, can be easier to transport and assemble on cite, allows for a higher control of the quality of each individual part, and so on. Accordingly, the examiner is taking Office notice that it is old and well-known to have a plurality of components that can snap together, for the purpose of allows for replacement of smaller components in the event of damage or failure saving time and money, can be easier to transport and assemble on cite, allows for a higher control of the quality of each individual part, alternatively, such a structural arrangement would yield the same predictable result of forming a leak free structure to pass a fluid through.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to have modified the device of Blake, to have the disclosed termination member snaps into engagement with disclosed other portions of the disclosed main body, with a reasonable expectation of success because the separation of one part into two parts is old and well-known, for the purpose of allows for replacement of smaller components in the event of damage or failure saving time and money, can be easier to transport and assemble on cite, allows for a higher control of the quality of each individual part, alternatively, such a structural arrangement would yield the same predictable result of forming a leak free structure to pass a fluid through.
Note that it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177,179.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 JAMES A LINFORD whose telephone number is (571)270-3066. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday: 8:00 am to 5:00 pm Eastern 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, Matthew Troutman can be reached at (571) 270-3654. 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.
JAMES ALBERT LINFORD
Examiner
Art Unit 3679
08/12/2026
/Matthew Troutman/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3679
Prosecution Insights