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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I drawn to claims 1-9 and 16-26 in the reply filed on 12/16/25 is acknowledged.
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.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) 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.
Claim 24 recites “The fluid coupling device of claim 1, wherein the handle portion has a rectangular geometry with at least one rounded edge”. However, claim 1, from which claim 24 depends, does not recite a handle portion. However, claim 5 recites a handle portion. Does Applicant mean for claim 24 to depend from claim 5 rather than from claim 1 or does Applicant mean to recite “a handle portion” and define where the handle portion is? As it is not clear and as best understood, Examiner is interpreting that claim 24 depends from claim 5 and not claim 1. If this understanding is correct, Applicant needs to amend claim 24 to reflect this understanding.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8, 9 and 16-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shevitz U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0167971A1.
With regard to claim 1, and as shown in Figure 3D, Shevitz discloses a fluid coupling device (at 3), comprising:
a main body (main body of 3) defining an interior passage (passage thru 17) and having a front face surface (as shown below);
a seal member (at 5) coupled to the main body (as shown in Fig 3D) and extending beyond the front face surface (as shown below); and
a membrane (at 9 as shown in Fig 4) removably bonded to the front face surface by a peripheral bond that surrounds the seal member (paragraph 111, lines 1-4), the membrane including an area of the membrane within the peripheral bond (as shown in Fig 4),
wherein the membrane is pre-formed such that the area of the membrane within the peripheral bond has a larger surface area than a planar area that is defined by the peripheral bond (wherein the membrane is capable of being pre-formed before being removably bonded to the front face surface; also note: the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, this limitation is given little patentable weight. The invention as assembled in its final state is given patentable weight. Intermediate steps are given little patentable weight.).
PNG
media_image1.png
206
234
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 2, Shevitz discloses wherein the membrane (at 9) includes a fold (as shown in Fig 4 and paragraph 113, lines 3-4).
With regard to claim 3, Shevitz discloses wherein the membrane (at 9) closes an opening to the interior passage defined by the front face surface (as shown in Fig 3E).
With regard to claim 4, Shevitz discloses wherein the membrane (at 9) is bonded to the front face surface by a heat bond (paragraph 111, lines 1-4).
With regard to claim 5, Shevitz discloses wherein a free end of the membrane (at 9) includes a handle portion (at 73 as shown in Fig 1A and 5).
With regard to claim 6, Shevitz discloses wherein the membrane is removably bonded (paragraph 111, lines 1-4) to the front face surface by an annular bond (dashed lines denoting the annular bond – paragraph 111, lines 21-25) that encircles the annular seal member (at 5 – see Fig 3E).
With regard to claim 8, Shevitz discloses wherein the membrane (at 9) covers the seal member (at 5 – see Fig 3E).
With regard to claim 9, Shevitz discloses wherein the fluid coupling device is an aseptic fluid coupling device (paragraph 2).
With regard to claim 16, Shevitz discloses wherein the fluid coupling device is a single-use, genderless device (paragraph 106, lines 1-2 and paragraph 122, lines 1-3).
With regard to claim 17, Shevitz discloses wherein the seal member (at 5) comprises an elastomeric annular ring with an open center that surrounds the interior passage of the main body (as shown in Fig 3D).
With regard to claim 18, Shevitz discloses wherein the seal member (at 5) is positioned within a recess (as shown above) defined by the main body.
With regard to claim 19, Shevitz discloses wherein the seal member defines a width that is greater than a depth of the recess (as shown in Fig 3D).
With regard to claim 20, Shevitz discloses wherein the membrane (at 9) is gas permeable (paragraph 111, lines 6-8).
With regard to claim 21, Shevitz discloses wherein an outer diameter of the seal member (at 5) has a concave cross-section (as shown in Fig 3D).
With regard to claim 22, Shevitz discloses wherein the seal member (at 5) defines an hourglass-shaped cross-section (as shown in Fig 3D).
With regard to claim 23, Shevitz discloses wherein the seal member (at 5) defines a middle portion positioned between a first end portion and a second end portion, the middle portion being narrower than the first end portion and the second end portion (as shown in Fig 3D).
With regard to claim 24, Shevitz discloses wherein the handle portion has a rectangular geometry with at least one rounded edge (as shown below).
PNG
media_image2.png
250
184
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 25, Shevitz discloses wherein the handle portion (at 73) includes at least one attachment member (see above) configured to engage with an attachment feature included with another fluid coupling device (where the attachment member is capable of being configured to engage with an attachment feature).
With regard to claim 26, Shevitz discloses wherein the membrane (at 9) is removable from the fluid coupling device using the handle portion (at 73, paragraph 118, lines 1-3 and 13-16).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-5 and 7 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,338,931. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the broader recitation of “fluid coupling device comprising a main body, a seal member and a membrane removably bonded to the front face surface” as presently claimed in the current application along with the independently and dependently claimed limitations of claims 1-5 and 7 are merely a broadened form of the limitations as disclosed in claims 1-6 of patent ‘931.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FANNIE KEE whose telephone number is (571)272-1820. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-5pm.
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.
/F.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3679
/Matthew Troutman/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3679