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 Species III drawn to Figures 10-14 and claims 1-20 in the reply filed on 2/18/26 is acknowledged.
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) 1-8 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yu et al Chinese Patent No. CN 109999333A.
With regard to claim 1, and as shown in Figure 21, Yu et al disclose a fluid coupling device comprising:
a main body (at 2) comprising:
a front face (at 2.1);
a first projection (at 5.2 as shown in Fig 20); and
a first projection receptacle (at 5.1 as shown in Fig 20);
a seal (at 2.3 as shown in Fig 4) coupled to the main body, a portion of the seal protruding from the front face of the main body (paragraph 115, lines 2-5 – see the attached English translation;
a removable membrane (at 3 as shown in Fig 21) releasably attached to the front face of the main body and covering the portion of the seal protruding from the front face of the main body ; and
a protective cover (at 4 as shown in Fig 21) engaged with the first projection and the first projection receptacle of the main body (as shown in Fig 6), wherein the protective cover is structured without a fluid flow path.
With regard to claim 2, Yu et al disclose wherein the protective cover (at 4) is removable from the main body (as shown in Fig 3-2 and paragraph 11, lines 1-2).
With regard to claim 3, Yu et al disclose wherein the protective cover (at 4) is required to be disengaged from the main body to allow the fluid coupling device to be operatively mated with another fluid handling device (paragraph 104, lines 13-16).
With regard to claim 4, Yu et al disclose wherein the main body defines a fluid flow path (at 2.2) extending along a longitudinal axis (axis thru 2).
With regard to claim 5, Yu et al disclose wherein the first projection extends parallel to the longitudinal axis (as shown in Fig 21).
With regard to claim 6, Yu et al disclose wherein the seal is positioned between the first projection and the first projection receptacle (as shown in Fig 17).
With regard to claim 7, Yu et al disclose wherein two layers of the removable membrane (at 3) are captured between the protective cover (at 4) and the front face (at 2.1) of the main body (as shown in Fig 16).
With regard to claim 8, Yu et al disclose wherein an outer surface of the seal (at 2.3) defines an annular concavity (as shown in Fig 3-2).
With regard to claim 11, Yu et al disclose wherein the protective cover (at 4) includes a membrane receiver portion that holds and protects a portion of the removable membrane (as shown in Fig 4 where a portion of the removable membrane is received in a portion of the protective cover).
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) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu et al.
With regard to claim 10, Yu et al disclose the claimed invention but do not disclose that the protective cover includes a pull ring that defines an opening configured to receive a finger. Arthun et al teach that a pull ring (at 21) can be attached to a protective cover (at 20) to remove the protective cover (paragraph 45, lines 12-13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the protective cover include a pull ring that defines an opening with a reasonable expectation of success to remove the protective cover and therefore the membrane in order to couple the device as taught by Arthun et al.
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 1-6 and 9-11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 5-7 and 9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,366,314. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the broader recitation of a fluid coupling device with a main body, a seal, a removable membrane and a protective cover as presently claimed in the current application along with the independently and dependently claimed limitations of claims 1-6 and 9-11 are merely a broadened form of the limitations as disclosed in claims 1, 3, 5-7 and 9 of patent ‘314.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-20 are allowed.
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