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 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following limitations must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
---Claims 33 and 38 recite the following:
33. The fluid coupling device of claim 21, wherein the first position of the valve member allows fluid flow through the fluid coupling device, and wherein the second position of the valve member blocks fluid flow through the coupling device.
38. The fluid coupling of claim 35, wherein the first position of the valve member allows fluid flow through the fluid coupling device, and wherein the second position of the valve member blocks fluid flow through the coupling device.
PNG
media_image1.png
345
864
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As best understood by the Office (see Fig. A above showing Figs. 4 and 8 of the application), applicant’s invention is directed to a fluid coupling wherein a removable member 130 that includes projections 132 engages with a spring biased valve 120 to retain the valve in a first position where fluid flow is blocked (Fig. 4 or left side of FIG. A above). When the removable member 130 is removed and the projections 132 disengage from the valve 120, the biasing spring 140 moves the valve 120 to the second position where fluid flow is allowed (Fig. 8 or the right side of FIG. A above). Notice that the intervening claims require that the first position is the “engagement position” and the second position is the “disengagement position”. As illustrated in at least Figs. 4, 8 and FIG. A above, the drawings only show the embodiment where the valve is biased open by the spring 140 as claimed in claims 32 and 37. It is further noted that the illustrated embodiments cannot achieve the claimed function as it is currently being illustrated. As such, the drawings fail to show the embodiment as claimed in claims 33 and 38 wherein the valve 120 is somehow biased closed in the first/engaged position such in the first position, fluid is allowed to flow and when the projections are disengaged in the second position the valve moves to the second position where fluid is blocked. The Office suggests that such a critical feature should be shown or the claims are cancelled.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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) 21-23, 33, 35-36 and 38-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Luehrs DE-3918437.
Regarding claims 21-23, 33, 35-36 and 38-40, Luehrs DE-3918437 teaches in Figs. 1-2 (see at least Fig. 2) the limitations of:
---Claims 21. A fluid coupling device comprising: a housing (8 and 9) defining an internal space (see the interior of the housing) and a longitudinal central axis (see the longitudinal/horizontal axis of the coupling); a valve member (12) disposed within the internal space; and one or more projections (see the projection in bracket 18 engaging valve 12) engaging the valve member to thereby retain the valve member in a first position (see Fig. 2) within the internal space, wherein the valve member is configured to, in response to disengagement of the one or more projections from the valve member, move to a second position (see Fig. 1) within the internal space (similar to applicant’s invention, the valve is biased via a spring such that when the projection is disengaged, the valve automatically moves to a second position).
---Claim 22. The fluid coupling device of claim 21, wherein the one or more projections extend from a tamper-evident member (bracket 18, disconnection of the bracket 18 indicates that the coupling has been tampered with) that is configured to be uncoupled from the housing to disengage the one or more projections from the valve member (see Figs. 1-2).
---Claim 23. The fluid coupling device of claim 21, further comprising a spring (11) disposed within the internal space, and wherein the valve member is configured to move from the first position to the second position in response to: (i) the disengagement of the one or more projections from the valve member and (ii) force from the spring exerted on the valve member (see Figs. 1-2).
---Claim 33. The fluid coupling device of claim 21, wherein the first position of the valve member allows fluid flow through the fluid coupling device, and wherein the second position of the valve member blocks fluid flow through the coupling device (see Figs. 1-2).
---Claim 35. A fluid coupling comprising: a housing (8 and 9) defining an internal space (see the interior of the housing) and a longitudinal central axis (see the longitudinal/horizontal axis of the coupling); a valve member (12) disposed within the internal space; and one or more projections (see the projection in bracket 18 engaging valve 12) engaging the valve member, wherein the valve member is configured to, in response to disengagement of the one or more projections from the valve member, move from a first position (Fig. 2) to a second position (Fig. 1, similar to applicant’s invention, the valve is biased via a spring such that when the projection is disengaged, the valve automatically moves to a second position).
---Claim 36. The fluid coupling of claim 35, wherein the one or more projections pass through one or more openings (see openings 19 where the bracket 18 can be inserted into the housing) in the housing (see Fig. 2).
---Claim 38. The fluid coupling of claim 35, wherein the first position of the valve member allows fluid flow through the fluid coupling device, and wherein the second position of the valve member blocks fluid flow through the coupling device (see Figs. 1-2).
---Claim 39. The fluid coupling of claim 35, wherein the one or more projections extend from a member that comprises a sleeve (bracket 18).
---Claim 40. The fluid coupling of claim 35, wherein the one or more projections extend from a member (bracket 18) that is configured to be uncoupled from the housing to disengage the one or more projections from the valve member, and wherein the member is configured to flex to allow removal of the member from engagement with the housing (see Figs. 1-2).
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.
Claim(s) 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luehrs DE-3918437 in view of Costa US-20070016161.
Regarding claim 31, the device of Luehrs DE-3918437 teaches of a valve seat 15, but fails to explicitly disclose that the valve seat is an elastomer. However, valve seat/seals made of elastomers are well-known in the art.
Costa US-20070016161 teaches in Figs. 1-3 (see at least Fig. 3) of a valved coupling comprising a spring biased valve 30 that engages valve seat 34 when the valve is in the closed position. Para. [0017] teaches that the valve seat 34 can be made of elastomeric materials but can also be made of any suitable material known. As it is known in the art, elastomers are among the most well-known suitable materials for providing a seal due to their elasticity and resiliency which compensates for manufacturing imperfections as compared to other harder/rigid materials which requires precise tolerances to produce the same sealing effect.
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 material of the valve seat 15 of the device of Luehrs to be any suitable material such as being made of an elastomeric material in a similar manner as taught by Costa since elastomeric materials are a well-known suitable material for valve seat/seals that provides and effective fluid tight seal with the added advantage that due to their elasticity and resiliency, it allows the seal to compensate for manufacturing imperfections as compared to other harder/rigid materials which requires precise tolerances to produce the same sealing effect.
As such, the device of the combination of Luehrs DE-3918437 in view of Costa US-20070016161 teaches the limitations of:
---Claim 31. The fluid coupling device of claim 21, further comprising a valve seat (15 of Luehrs) within the internal space and in contact with the valve member, wherein the valve seat is an elastomer (as taught by the elastomeric valve seat 34 of Costa, see Para. [0017] of Costa).
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 21-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent Benson US-11614192; alternatively or additionally, Claims 21-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent Benson US-12372183.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because notice that claims 21-40 of the application mirrors the claims of the patents with the difference being that the claims of the current application are of broader scope as compared to the claims of the patents which are more specific. Following the rationale in In re Goodman cited in the preceding paragraph, where the applicant has once been granted a patent containing a claim for the specific or narrower invention, the applicant may not then obtain a second patent with a claim for the generic or broader invention without first submitting an appropriate terminal disclaimer. Note that since the claims of the application are anticipated by the claims of the patent and since anticipation is the epitome of obviousness, then the claims of the application are obvious over the claims of the patent. Additionally, any missing structures or details would have been obvious over the claims of the patent themselves and/or the cited prior art with at least Luehrs DE-3918437 teaches of a biased closed valved coupling arrangement that when the one or more projections of the bracket member that retain the valve in a first position are removed the valve is biased to the closed position via a spring which allows the valve to achieve a dry-disconnect; Costa US-20070016161 teaches of a valve seat for a valved coupling made of elastomeric materials which is a known suitable material for valve seat/seals that allow the seal to compensate for manufacturing imperfections as compared to other suitable harder/rigid seal materials and Werth US-20200146934 comprising a single-use valved coupling comprising a single-use retention for locking the valve that once used it prevents the further movement of valve in a particular configuration which is a helpful feature when it is desired for the valve assembly to be a one-time use to prevent repeated usage and/or tampering of the valve.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure are as follows:
---References A (Relevant but not “prior” art under US Patent Laws):
Benson US-12372183, Benson US-12049975, Benson US-11614192 and Benson US-11480281.
---References B (Aseptic/Sterile couplings):
Gerst US-9770581, Williams US-9726308, Williams US-9364653 and
Dodd US-20180056310.
---References C (Valved couplings):
Von Keitz US-9416902, Haunhorst US-8967177, Wong US-8814137, Chang US-8807525, Cooley US-8720487, Hillier US-8544497, Jordan US-3856262, Butler US-3731705, Stern US-3367626, Michaels US-2758611,
Werth US-20200146934 and
Whall EP-1616938.
---References D (Elastomeric seats):
Bogdonoff US-6298876, Wu US-10801655, Chang US-8807525, Braun US-6161578, Palau US-4483510, Jordan US-3856262,
Costa US-20070016161 and Trinchera US-20060211996.
---References E (Valved couplings with “couple first, actuate valve after”):
Vigna US-9901729, Mack US-10864364 and Haunhorst US-8662108.
---References F (Valved couplings with one or more projections):
Ma US-11326728, Tandberg US-11168824, Zhang US-9279529, Adams US-7762278, Savage US-5884648, Torres US-3613726, Torres US-3380476, Courtot US-2678834, Strandberg US-RE23365, Hansen US-2548528,
Diodati US-20080185056 and
Luehrs DE-3918437.
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