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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to in because in Figs 7A and 7B, drawing element “210” should be --184-- to designate the washer (drawing element 210 is designated for threading).
The drawings are objected to because in Figs 3, 6, 7A and 7B – cross-hatching is missing to designate the washer 118.
The drawings are objected to because in Figs 5, 6, 7A and 7B – cross-hatching is missing to designate the washer 184.
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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph 37, line 13 – delete “210” between “gasket” and “surface”.
Paragraph 38, line 9 – delete “210” between “gasket” and “surface”.
Paragraph 43, line 11 – replace “washer 210” with --washer 184--.
Paragraph 65 - The specification is objected to because of the use of “Clause” and the claim limitations set forth. The specification is not read in light of the claims, rather, the claims are read in light of the specification.
Correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 14 – delete the extra period at the end of the claim.
Correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 4 – replace “a” before “first end” with --the--.
Correction is required.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: replace “adapter” after “female coupler” with --is adapted--.
Correction is required.
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 3 – replace “a” before “first end” with --the--.
Line 3 – replace “a” before “second end” with --the--.
Correction is required.
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 1 - replace “claim 18” with --claim 14--.
Correction is required.
Claim 22 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 1 - replace “claim 14” with --claim 18--.
Correction is required.
Claim 23 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 1 - replace “claim 18” with --claim 14--.
Line 2 - replace “claim 14” with --claim 18--.
Correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
With regard to claims 14 and 18, the “means for fastening” is being interpreted as nuts, nut-washer assemblies, a latch clamp, a flange, a strap and ratchet, a retaining ring and its equivalents in light of the specification (see paragraph 35 of the specification). However, Applicant should note that it is not clear, based on the drawings and the claims depending from claims 14 and 18, how a latch clamp, a flange, and a strap and ratchet would be used as the means for fastening.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
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, 8-15, 18, 21 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bravo U.S. Patent No. 5,676,183.
With regard to claim 1, and as shown in Figure 6, Bravo discloses a container coupling system, comprising:
a first container (at 2) including a first wall (at 14 – see Fig 9) defining an inner surface and an outer surface, and a first opening formed in the first wall (opening thru 14);
a second container (at 146) including a second wall (at 138 – see Fig 12) defining an inner surface and an outer surface, and a second opening formed in the second wall (opening thru 138);
a first coupler (at 71 – see Fig 9) extending through the first opening (opening thru 14) of the first container, wherein the first coupler is pivotable relative to the first wall of the first container (pivotable via compression of the gaskets 77 and 79); and
a second coupler (at 202 – see Fig 12) extending through the second opening (opening thru 138) of the second container, wherein the second coupler is pivotable relative to the second wall of the second container (pivotable via compression of the gaskets 206 and 208);
wherein the first coupler (at 71 – see Fig 9) is configured to be pivoted relative to the first wall during engagement between the first coupler and the second coupler to overcome misalignment between the first coupler and the second coupler (as shown in Fig 6 where the first coupler is capable of being pivoted).
With regard to claim 2, and as shown in Figures 6, 9 and 12, Bravo discloses wherein the first coupler (at 71 – see Fig 9) is connected to the first wall (at 14 – see Fig 9) of the first container with a fluid tight seal, and the second coupler (at 202 – see Fig 12) is connected to the second wall (at 138 – see Fig 12) of the second container with a fluid tight seal, and wherein (i) the fluid tight seal for the first coupler is formed by a first gasket (at 77) positioned over the first coupler and against the inner surface of the first wall, and a second gasket (at 79) positioned over the first coupler and against the outer surface of the first wall, the first and second gaskets forming the fluid tight seal between the first coupler and the first wall while permitting pivoting of the first coupler relative to the first wall (pivotable via compression of the gaskets 77 and 79), and (ii) the fluid tight seal for the second coupler is formed by a third gasket (at 206) positioned over the second coupler and against the inner surface of the second wall, and a fourth gasket (at 208) positioned over the second coupler and against the outer surface of the second wall, the third and fourth gaskets forming the fluid tight seal between the second coupler and the second wall while permitting pivoting of the second coupler relative to the second wall (pivotable via compression of the gaskets 206 and 208).
With regard to claim 3, Bravo discloses wherein the first coupler includes a first nut (at 73- see Fig 9) in threaded engagement with the first coupler, and the second coupler includes a second nut (at 204 – see Fig 12) in threaded engagement with the second coupler.
With regard to claim 4, Bravo discloses wherein the first nut (at 73- see Fig 9) compresses the first (at 77) and second gaskets (at 79) against the first coupler and the first wall, and the second nut (at 204 – see Fig 12) compresses the third (at 206) and fourth gaskets (at 208) against the second coupler and the second wall.
With regard to claim 5, and as shown in Figure 9, Bravo discloses wherein the first coupler (at 71) includes an opening (opening thru 71) extending therethrough, the opening including a tapered section (the end of 71 has an outer tapered section at the end) at a first end of the first coupler, and wherein the first coupler includes a first section (section from tapered end of 71 to flange at 71a) extending from a first end towards a second end of the first coupler, a second section (section from 73a to other end of 71) extending from the second end towards the first end of the first coupler, and an intermediate section (section between flange 71a and 73a) disposed between the first and second sections.
With regard to claim 6, Bravo discloses wherein the second section includes threads (threads on second section from 73a to end of 71) on an outer surface complementary to threads of a nutrient solution distribution manifold (note that the outer threads are capable of being complementary to the threads of a nutrient distribution manifold which is not a part of the claimed invention).
With regard to claim 8, and as shown in Figure 12, Bravo discloses wherein the second coupler (at 202) includes an opening (opening thru 202) extending therethrough, and wherein the second coupler includes a first section (section end 202e to threads before 204) extending from a first end towards a second end, a second section (section from end 202d to 202c) extending from the second end towards the first end, an intermediate section (section from threads before 204 to 206) disposed adjacent to the first section, and a radial flange (at 202c) disposed between the second section and the intermediate section.
With regard to claim 9, and as shown in Figure 12, Bravo discloses wherein (i) a diameter of the radial flange (at 202c) is dimensioned greater than a diameter of the intermediate section, the first section, and the second section, and the diameter of the intermediate section (section from 204 to 206) is dimensioned greater than the diameter of the first and second sections (as shown in Fig 12).
With regard to claim 10, Bravo discloses wherein if (ii), the at least one sealing element creates a fluid tight seal between the first coupler and the second coupler (note that as claim 9 recited conditions (i) and (ii) in the alternative and claim 9 was rejected with the condition (i), claim 10 is therefore rejected as depending from claim 9 and condition (ii) of claim 10 is not required).
With regard to claim 11, and as shown in Figure 6, Bravo discloses a method of coupling containers, comprising:
providing a first container (at 2) including a first wall (at 14 – see Fig 9) defining an inner surface and an outer surface, and a first opening formed in the first wall (opening thru 14);
providing a second container (at 146) including a second wall (at 138 – see Fig 12) defining an inner surface and an outer surface, and a second opening formed in the second wall (opening thru 138);
mounting a first coupler (at 71 – see Fig 9) relative to the first container (at 2), the first coupler including a first coupler body (body of 71 – see Fig 9) extending through the first opening (opening thru 14) of the first container, wherein the first coupler is pivotable relative to the first wall of the first container (pivotable via compression of the gaskets 77 and 79);
mounting a second coupler (at 202 – see Fig 12) relative to the second container (at 146), the second coupler including a second coupler body (body of 202 – see Fig 12) extending through the second opening (opening thru 138) of the second container, wherein the second coupler is pivotable relative to the second wall of the second container (pivotable via compression of the gaskets 206 and 208);
positioning the first container adjacent to the second container (adjacent via 44a) with the first and second couplers in a facing relationship (where the couplers at 71 and 202 are in a facing relationship along 122, 125, 127); and
pivoting the first coupler relative to the first wall (pivoting via compression of the gaskets 77 and 79) during engagement between the first coupler and the second coupler (engagement via 122, 125, 127) to overcome misalignment between the first coupler and the second coupler.
With regard to claim 12, and as shown in Figures 6, 9 and 12, Bravo discloses wherein the first coupler (at 71 – see Fig 9) is connected to the first wall (at 14 – see Fig 9) of the first container with a fluid tight seal, and the second coupler (at 202 – see Fig 12) is connected to the second wall (at 138 – see Fig 12) of the second container with a fluid tight seal, and wherein (i) the fluid tight seal for the first coupler is formed by a first gasket (at 77) positioned over the first coupler and against the inner surface of the first wall, and a second gasket (at 79) positioned over the first coupler and against the outer surface of the first wall, the first and second gaskets forming the fluid tight seal between the first coupler and the first wall while permitting pivoting of the first coupler relative to the first wall (pivotable via compression of the gaskets 77 and 79), and (ii) the fluid tight seal for the second coupler is formed by a third gasket (at 206) positioned over the second coupler and against the inner surface of the second wall, and a fourth gasket (at 208) positioned over the second coupler and against the outer surface of the second wall, the third and fourth gaskets forming the fluid tight seal between the second coupler and the second wall while permitting pivoting of the second coupler relative to the second wall (pivotable via compression of the gaskets 206 and 208).
With regard to claim 13, Bravo discloses comprising tightening a first nut (at 73- see Fig 9) against the first gasket (at 77) and tightening a second nut (at 204 – see Fig 12) against the third gasket (at 206), wherein tightening the first nut (at 73) at against the first gasket compresses the first and second gaskets (at 77, 79) against the first coupler and the first wall, and tightening the second nut (at 204) against the third gasket compresses the third and fourth gaskets (at 206, 208) against the second coupler and the second wall.
With regard to claim 14, and as shown in Figure 9, Bravo discloses a female fluid coupler assembly for a support with an opening, the female fluid coupler assembly comprising:
a female coupler (at 71) having a first end, a second end, and a passage or opening (opening thru 71) extending from the first end to the second end, wherein the first end is adapted to receive a male fluid coupler; and
means for fastening the female coupler to the support (at 77, 79, 73);
wherein the means for fastening enables the female coupler to reversibly pivot from an initial position with respect to an opening axis of the support to accommodate alignment and engagement with the male fluid coupler (where the gaskets 77 and 79 allow the female coupler to pivot via compression of the gaskets to accommodate a male fluid coupler); and
wherein the female coupler is configured to be pivoted relative to the support during engagement between the first end of the female coupler and the male fluid coupler to overcome misalignment between the first end of the female coupler and the male fluid coupler (where the gaskets 77 and 79 allow the female coupler to pivot via compression of the gaskets to overcome misalignment).
Note: the support and the male coupler are not a part of the claimed invention.
With regard to claim 15, and as shown in Figure 9, Bravo discloses wherein:
the means for fastening the female coupler to the support include a radial flange (at 71a) on an outer surface of the female coupler extending from the first end toward the second end, wherein the radial flange has a radial step (step of 71a below 77) to an intermediate section (section between 71a and 73a), a second section (section from 73a to end of 71 next to 73) extending from the second end of the female coupler towards the first end of the female coupler, the intermediate section disposed between the radial flange and the second section, a fastener (at 73), and a first compressible and resilient gasket (at 77) and a second compressible and resilient gasket (at 79);
the radial flange (at 71a) positioned at the first end of the female coupler (end between 71a and end of 71) has an outside diameter larger than the intermediate section (section between 71a and 73a) of the female coupler, wherein the intermediate section disposed between the radial flange and the second end of the female coupler adapter to pass through openings in the first and second gaskets and through the opening in the support (as shown in Fig 9);
the fastener (at 73) is adapted to form a pivoting fluid seal by pre-compressing the first compressible and resilient gasket on a first side of the support against the support and further compress the second compressible and resilient gasket between a second side of the support and the radial step of the radial flange (as shown in Fig 9);
the first compressible and resilient gasket and the second compressible and resilient gasket are composed of compressible and resilient materials (column 12, lines 58-59) and have dimensions that enable the female coupler to reversibly pivot from an initial position with respect to an opening axis of the support to accommodate alignment and engagement with the male fluid coupler (wherein the first and second gaskets are capable of being dimensioned to allow the female coupler to reversibly pivot and to accommodate alignment and engagement with a male fluid coupler); and
after pre-compression of the first compressible and resilient gasket and compression of the second compressible and resilient gasket, the female coupler is configured to be pivoted relative to the support during engagement between the first end of the female coupler and the male fluid coupler to overcome misalignment between the first end of the female coupler and the male fluid coupler (where the gaskets 77 and 79 allow the female coupler to be pivotable via compression of the gaskets to overcome misalignment).
Note: the support and the male coupler are not a part of the claimed invention.
With regard to claim 18, and as shown in Figure 12, Bravo discloses a male fluid coupler assembly for a support with an opening, the male fluid coupler assembly comprising:
a male coupler (at 202) having a first end, a second end, and a passage or opening (opening thru 202) extending from the first end to the second end, wherein the second end is adapted to engage with a female fluid coupler; and
means for fastening the male coupler to the support (at 206, 208, 204);
wherein the means for fastening enables the male coupler to reversibly pivot from an initial position with respect to an opening axis of the support to accommodate alignment and engagement with the female fluid coupler (where the gaskets 206 and 208 allow the male coupler to pivot via compression of the gaskets to accommodate a female fluid coupler); and
wherein the male coupler is configured to be pivoted relative to the support during engagement between the second end of the male coupler and the female fluid coupler to overcome misalignment between the second end of the male coupler and the female fluid coupler (where the gaskets 206 and 208 allow the male coupler to pivot via compression of the gaskets to overcome misalignment).
Note: the support and the female coupler are not a part of the claimed invention.
With regard to claim 21, Bravo discloses a kit comprising the female fluid coupler assembly of claim 14 (wherein the female fluid coupler assembly can be a part of a kit).
With regard to claim 22, Bravo discloses a kit comprising the male fluid coupler assembly of claim 18 (wherein the male fluid coupler assembly can be a part of a kit).
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) 7, 16, 17, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bravo.
With regard to claim 7, Bravo discloses the claimed invention but does not disclose that the first coupler includes a first washer disposed between the first nut and the first gasket, and the second coupler includes a second washer disposed between the second nut and the third gasket.
The Examiner takes Official Notice wherein it is old and well known in the art to provide washers between a nut and a gasket to provide support to the gasket and prevent the nut from compressing the gasket too much.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include washers between the nuts and gaskets with a reasonable expectation of success to provide support to the gasket and prevent the nut from compressing the gasket too much.
With regard to claim 16, Bravo discloses the support (at 14) and the opening (opening thru 14), and the first and second compressible and resilient gaskets (at 77, 79) on opposite sides of the support pre-compressed and sealed against a support wall (wall of 14) but does not disclose that an axial dimension of a cross section of the first compressible and resilient gasket, the second compressible and resilient gasket, or both, is larger than a radial dimension of a cross section of the first and second compressible and resilient gaskets.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an axial dimension of a cross section of the first compressible and resilient gasket, the second compressible and resilient gasket, or both, be larger than a radial dimension of a cross section of the first and second compressible and resilient gaskets with a reasonable expectation of success to provide for a more secure connection and because a change in the size of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
With regard to claim 17, Bravo discloses the claimed invention but does not disclose that the first and second compressible and resilient gaskets are comprised of an elastomer with a Shore A hardness of between 30 and 50, inclusive.
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 first and second compressible and resilient gaskets be comprised of an elastomer with a Shore A hardness of between 30 and 50, inclusive with a reasonable expectation of success to adapt to the required environment and because it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known element for use on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice.
With regard to claim 19, and as shown in Figure 12, Bravo discloses wherein:
the means for fastening the male coupler to the support include a first section (section between end 202e to threads before 204) of an outer surface of the male coupler extending from a first end towards a second end, a second section (section from end 202d to 202c) extending from the second end towards the first end, an intermediate section disposed adjacent to the first section, and a radial flange section (at 202c) disposed between the second section and the intermediate section, wherein a diameter of the radial flange is dimensioned greater than a diameter of the intermediate section, the first section, and the second section (as shown in Fig 12);
the intermediate section (section from threads before 204 to 206) is adapted to pass through a center opening of a first compressible and resilient gasket (at 206), pass through a center opening of a second compressible and resilient gasket (at 208), and pass through the opening in the support (at 138);
the means for fastening the male coupler to the support include a fastener (at 204) adapted to form a pivoting fluid seal by pre-compressing the first compressible and resilient gasket on a first side of the support against the support and compressing the second compressible and resilient gasket between a second side of the support (as shown in Fig 12) and a radial step surface (step surface of 202c below 206) of the radial flange portion;
the first compressible and resilient gasket (at 206) and the second compressible and resilient gasket (at 206) are composed of compressible and resilient materials (column 12, lines 58-59) and have dimensions that enable the coupler body to reversibly pivot between about 1 degree to about 7 degrees, inclusive, from an initial position with respect to an opening axis of the support to accommodate alignment and engagement with the female fluid coupler (wherein the first and second gaskets are capable of being dimensioned to allow the male coupler to reversibly pivot and to accommodate alignment and engagement with a female fluid coupler);
after pre-compression of the first compressible and resilient gasket and compression of the second compressible and resilient gasket, the male coupler is configured to be pivoted relative to the support during engagement between the second end of the male coupler and the female fluid coupler to overcome misalignment between the second end of the male coupler and the female fluid coupler (where the gaskets 206 and 208 allow the male coupler to be configured to pivot via compression of the gaskets to overcome misalignment); and
further comprising the support (at 138) and the opening (opening of 138), and the first and second compressible resilient gaskets (at 206, 208) on opposite sides of the support pre-compressed and sealed against a support wall (wall of 138) to form the pivoting fluid seal with the support that is maintained when the male coupler reversibly pivots about the support opening between about 1 degree to about 7 degrees, inclusive (wherein the first and second gaskets maintain the fluid seal).
However, Bravo does not disclose that an axial dimension of a cross section of the first compressible and resilient gasket, the second compressible and resilient gasket, or both, is larger than a radial dimension of a cross section of the first and second compressible and resilient gaskets.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an axial dimension of a cross section of the first compressible and resilient gasket, the second compressible and resilient gasket, or both, be larger than a radial dimension of a cross section of the first and second compressible and resilient gaskets with a reasonable expectation of success to provide for a more secure connection and because a change in the size of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
With regard to claim 20, Bravo discloses the claimed invention but does not disclose that the first and second compressible and resilient gaskets are comprised of an elastomer with a Shore A hardness of between 35 and 50, inclusive.
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 first and second compressible and resilient gaskets be comprised of an elastomer with a Shore A hardness of between 305and 50, inclusive with a reasonable expectation of success to adapt to the required environment and because it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known element for use on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice.
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 1-4, 7-12, 14, 15, 18, 19 and 21-23 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5, 11-14, 16, 20, 25-27 and 30-32 of U.S. Patent No. 12,460,725. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the broader recitation of a container coupling system and a method thereof comprising a first container, a second container and first and second couplers, a female fluid coupler assembly comprising a female coupler and means for fastening, and a male fluid coupler assembly comprising a male coupler and a means for fastening as presently claimed in the current application along with the independently and dependently claimed limitations of claims 1-4, 7-12, 14, 15, 18, 19 and 21-23 are merely a broadened form of the limitations as disclosed in claims 1-5, 11-14, 16, 20, 25-27 and 30-32 of patent ‘725.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon are examples of the general mechanical state of the art.
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
