Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 16/262,525

Connector for Surgical Handpiece

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Jan 30, 2019
Examiner
FREHE, WILLIAM R
Art Unit
3783
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Integra Lifesciences Enterprises Lllp
OA Round
8 (Non-Final)
60%
Grant Probability
Moderate
8-9
OA Rounds
3y 11m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 60% of resolved cases
60%
Career Allow Rate
229 granted / 382 resolved
-10.1% vs TC avg
Strong +41% interview lift
Without
With
+41.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 11m
Avg Prosecution
50 currently pending
Career history
432
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.4%
-39.6% vs TC avg
§103
51.2%
+11.2% vs TC avg
§102
19.6%
-20.4% vs TC avg
§112
23.4%
-16.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 382 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/06/2025 has been entered. 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. Claims 1, 5, 21-26 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hornlein et al. (USPN 4,988,334) in view of Woodward et al. (USPGPub 2014/0106296) and Wagner et al. (USPGPub 2015/0182319) above, and further in view of Manna et al. (USPN 5,769,211) and Wuchinich (USPN 4,526,571). Re Claim 1, Hornlein teaches a connection apparatus for attachment of members of a medical device (Hornlein Fig. 5), comprising: a nosecone (31) having a first end (31-1) and a second end (31-2) opposed to the first end (31-1) (Hornlein Annotated Fig. 5 below); a flue (33, 42, 47) having a first end (33-1) and a second end (47-1) opposed to the first end (33-1) (Hornlein Annotated Figs. 5 and 6 below), said flue (33, 42, 47) having a base (33) on said first end (33-1) of said flue (33, 42, 47) and an overmold portion (42, 47) on said second end (47-1) of said flue (33, 42, 47) (Hornlein Col. 10 Lines 29-62); and said second end (33-2) of said nosecone (33) releasably engaging said first end (42-1) of said flue (33, 42, 47) (Hornlein Annotated Fig. 6 below; Col. 9 Lines 25-40); and wherein said base (33) of said flue (33, 42, 47) further comprises a plurality of apertures (103, 104) extending through said base (33) and positioned about a circumference of said base (33) (as seen in Hornlein Annotated Fig. 6 below), wherein the base (33) includes a first end (33-1) and a second end (33-2) opposed to the first end (33-1) (as seen in Hornlein Annotated Fig. 6 below). However, Hornlein fails to teach wherein said base of said flue further comprises a plurality of apertures extending through said base and positioned equally distant relative to other plurality of apertures about a circumference of said base, at least a portion of said overmold portion extends through the plurality of apertures, and wherein the plurality of apertures are embedded within said base of said flue. Woodward teaches a flu (102) (Woodward Fig. 19C) comprising a base (392), wherein said base comprises a plurality of apertures (626a, 626b) extending through said base (392) and positioned equally distant relative to other plurality of apertures about a circumference of said base (as seen in Woodward Fig. 39A), wherein a portion of an overmold portion (380) extends through the plurality of apertures (626a, 626b) (Woodward ¶ 0219), and wherein the plurality of apertures (626a, 626b) are embedded within said base (392) of said flue (102), the Woodward configuration for providing a secured twist locking interface (Woodward ¶ 0219). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured the base of the flu of Hornlein to comprise a plurality of apertures extending through said base and positioned equally distant relative to other plurality of apertures about a circumference of said base, at least a portion of said overmold portion extends through the plurality of apertures, and wherein the plurality of apertures are embedded within said base of said flue, the configuration as disclosed by Woodward for providing a secured twist locking interface (Woodward ¶ 0219). Hornlein also fails to teach wherein said overmold portion of said flue has a protrusion extending radially inward from an inner surface thereof, and wherein said protrusion of said overmold portion does not engage said base of said flue and said protrusion forms a fluid-tight seal with a tip of the medical device. Wagner teaches a connection apparatus for attachment of members of a medical device (Wagner Figs. 1 and 12-13B; ¶ 0108), comprising a flue (200), said flue (200) comprising an overmold portion (202-1, 208) and a base (202-2) (Wagner Annotated Fig. 12 below), wherein said overmold portion (202-1, 208) of said flue (200) has a protrusion (216) extending radially inward from an inner surface thereof (Wagner 4 0153), and wherein said protrusion (216) of said overmold portion (202-1, 208) does not engage said base (202-2) of said flue (200) (Wagner Annotated Fig. 12 below; Figs. 13A-13B) and said protrusion (216) forms a fluid-tight seal with a tip (150) of the medical device for preventing fluid ingress into the device housing (Wagner ¶ 0153). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured the overmold portion of the flue of Hornlein to comprise a protrusion extending radially inward from an inner surface of the overmold portion, and wherein said protrusion of said overmold portion does not engage said base of said flue and said protrusion forms a fluid-tight seal with a tip of the medical device, the configuration as disclosed by Wagner for preventing fluid ingress into the device housing (Wagner ¶ 0153). Hornlein in view of Woodward and Wagner fail to teach wherein said first end of said base extends along a first axis and said second end of said base extends along a second axis different from said first axis and forming an angle between the first axis and the second axis, and wherein said plurality of apertures of the second end of the base are parallel to the second axis, and wherein the second end of the base is a straight portion and the first end of the base is a non-straight portion. Manna teaches a medical device (as seen in Manna Fig. 2A) comprising a base (26), said base (26) including a first end (proximal end) and a second end (distal end) opposed to the first end (Manna Fig. 2A), wherein said first end (proximal end) of said base (26) extends along a first axis and said second end (distal end) of said base (26) extends along a second axis different from said first axis and forming an angle between the first axis and the second axis (as seen in Manna Fig. 2A), and wherein the second end (distal end) of the base (26) is a straight portion and the first end (proximal end) of the base (26) is a non-straight portion (as seen in Manna Fig. 2A), wherein Wuchinich teaches such a configuration enables clear vision of an operating site (Wuchinich Col. 1 Lines 5-11; Fig. 6). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the base of Hornlein in view of Woodward and Wagener such that said first end of said base extends along a first axis and said second end of said base extends along a second axis different from said first axis and forming an angle between the first axis and the second axis, wherein said plurality of apertures of the second end of the base are parallel to the second axis, and wherein the second end of the base is a straight portion and the first end of the base is a non-straight portion as disclosed by Manna (Manna Fig. 2A) wherein Wuchinich teaches such a configuration enables clear vision of an operating site (Wuchinich Col. 1 Lines 5-11; Fig. 6). The modification of Hornlein in view of Woodward and Wagener by the teachings of Manna and Wuchinich would result in said plurality of apertures of the second end of the base being parallel to the second axis. PNG media_image1.png 197 586 media_image1.png Greyscale PNG media_image2.png 309 454 media_image2.png Greyscale PNG media_image3.png 484 339 media_image3.png Greyscale Re Claim 5, Hornlein in view of Woodward and Wagner above and further in view of Manna and Wuchinich teach all of the limitations of Claim 1. Hornlein further teaches wherein said overmold portion (42, 47) of said flue (33, 42, 47) includes an irrigation port (150) (Hornlein Fig. 12; Col. 10 Lines 63-66). Re Claim 21, Hornlein in view of Woodward and Wagner above and further in view of Manna and Wuchinich teach all of the limitations of Claim 1. Hornlein teaches said connection apparatus further comprising a second overmold portion (wherein element 33 of flue is overmolded to distal end of base 33) that covers an end face (103-1) on an end of said base (33) (Hornlein Annotated Figs. 5 and 6 above). Re Claim 22, Hornlein in view of Woodward and Wagner above and further in view of Manna and Wuchinich teach all of the limitations of Claim 1. Hornlein fails to teach wherein said protrusion is at least one free rib circumscribing an inner circumference of said overmold portion of said flue from said inner surface. Wagner teaches wherein said protrusion (216) is at least one free rib circumscribing an inner circumference of said overmold portion (202-1, 208) of said flue (200) from said inner surface (Wagner Annotated Fig. 12 above; as seen in Wagner Fig. 13A- 13B) for preventing fluid ingress into the device housing (Wagner ¶ 0153). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured the protrusion of Hornlein in view of Woodward and Wagner above and further in view of Manna and Wuchinich to be at least one free rib circumscribing an inner circumference of said overmold portion of said flue from said inner surface as disclosed by Wagner for preventing fluid ingress into the device housing (Wagner ¶ 0153). Re Claim 23, Hornlein in view of Woodward and Wagner above and further in view of Manna and Wuchinich teach all of the limitations of Claim 5. In the modification of Hornlein in view of Woodward and Wagner above and further in view of Manna and Wuchinich, the protrusion (216) of Wagner would be placed immediately distal the base (33) of Hornlein, and thus, longitudinally positioned between at least a portion of said base (33) and said irrigation port (150) of said overmold portion (42, 47) (wherein the protrusion of Wagner is immediately distal to the base, as seen in Wagner Fig. 13B). Re Claim 24, Hornlein in view of Woodward and Wagner above and further in view of Manna and Wuchinich teach all of the limitations of Claim 1. Hornlein fails to teach wherein said fluid tight seal against the tip of the medical device is in a direction from said first end of said flue to said second end of said flue. Wagner teaches wherein said fluid tight seal against the tip (150) of the medical device is in a direction from said first end of said flue (200) to said second end of said flue (200), the fluid tight seal for preventing fluid ingress into the device housing (Wagner ¶ 0153). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured the protrusion creating a fluid tight seal against the tip of the medical device of Hornlein in view of Woodward and Wagner above and further in view of Manna and Wuchinich to be in a direction from said first end of said flue to said second end of said flue as disclosed by Wagner for preventing fluid ingress into the device housing (Wagner ¶ 0153). Re Claim 25, Hornlein in view of Woodward and Wagner above and further in view of Manna and Wuchinich teach all of the limitations of Claim 1. Hornlein further teaches wherein the overmold portion (42, 47) includes a first end (147-1) adjacent to said base (33) (Hornlein Annotated Fig. 12 below) and an opposing second end (wherein the second end of the overmold portion would be the same second end of the flue 47-1, as seen above in Hornlein Annotated Fig. 5) distal from said base (33). Furthermore, in the modification of Hornlein in view of Wagner above and further in view of Stoddard and Wuchinich, the protrusion (216) of Wagner would be placed distal the base (33) of Hornlein, placing in the overmold portion (42, 47) (as seen in Wagner Fig. 13B). PNG media_image4.png 316 359 media_image4.png Greyscale 11. Re Claim 26, Hornlein in view of Woodward and Wagner above and further in view of Manna and Wuchinich teach all of the limitations of Claim 1. Hornlein fails to teach wherein said overmold portion of said flue includes one or more first surfaces directly contacting and molded to said base and one or more second surfaces not directly contacting said base, wherein said one or more second surfaces of said overmold portion include said protrusion not directly contacting said base. Wagner teaches wherein said overmold portion (202-1, 208) of said flue (200) (Wagner Annotated Fig. 12 above) includes one or more first surfaces (280) directly contacting and molded to said base (202-2) and one or more second surfaces (279) not directly contacting said base (202-2), wherein said one or more second surfaces (279) of said overmold portion (202-1, 208) include said protrusion (216) not directly contacting said base (202-2) (Wagner Fig. 13B; ¶ 0130). In the present case, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify Hornlein in view of Woodward and Wagner above and further in view of Manna and Wuchinich to include said overmold portion of said flue including one or more first surfaces directly contacting and molded to said base and one or more second surfaces not directly contacting said base, wherein said one or more second surfaces of said overmold portion include said protrusion not directly contacting said base, since applicant has not disclosed that having such an embodiment solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with either design. Furthermore, absent a teaching as to the criticality of the aforementioned embodiment, this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555, 188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975). Re Claim 28, Hornlein in view of Woodward and Wagner above and further in view of Manna and Wuchinich teach all of the limitations of Claim 1. Hornlein further teaches wherein a diameter of the first end (33-1) of the base (33) exceeds a diameter of the second end (33-2) of the base (33) (Hornlein Annotated Fig. 6 above). Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hornlein et al. (USPN 4,988,334) in view of Woodward et al. (USPGPub 2014/0106296) and Wagner et al. (USPGPub 2015/0182319) above, and further in view of Manna et al. (USPN 5,769,211) and Wuchinich (USPN 4,526,571) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Garrison et al. (USPGPub 2006/0052774). Re Claims 2-4: Hornlein in view of Woodward and Wagner above and further in view of Manna and Wuchinich teach all of the limitations of Claim 1. Hornlein in view of Woodward and Wagner above and further in view of Manna and Wuchinich fail to teach wherein said nosecone includes a first overmold portion at said first end and a second overmold portion at said second end; wherein said second overmold portion of said nosecone extends both radially outward from an outer surface to engage a groove of said base of said flue and radially inward from an inner surface; and wherein said second overmold portion of said nosecone at least partially covers an end face of said second end of said nosecone. Garrison teaches a flue (14, 18) (as seen in Garrison Fig. 3) comprising a nosecone (14) and an overmold portion (18, 18a), wherein said nosecone (14) includes a first overmold portion (46a) at a first end and a second overmold portion (52) at a second end (as seen in Garrison Fig. 4 and as described at Garrison ¶ 0038-0039); wherein said second overmold portion (52) of said nosecone (14) extends both radially outward from an outer surface to engage a groove of a base (18a) of said flue (14, 18) and radially inward from an inner surface (Garrison ¶ 0038; Fig. 4 showing engagement of annular recess with upturned ridge of first end 18a); and wherein said second overmold portion (52) of said nosecone (14) at least partially covers an end face of said second end of said nosecone (14) (as seen in Garrison Fig. 4, end face meeting in direct contact with first end 18a). In Garrison, the aforementioned configuration provides a releasable and fluid tight connection with the overmold portion (Garrison ¶ 0038). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective of the claimed invention to have configured the nosecone of Hornlein in view of Woodward and Wagner above and further in view of Manna and Wuchinich to include a first overmold portion at said first end and a second overmold portion at said second end; wherein said second overmold portion of said nosecone extends both radially outward from an outer surface to engage a groove of said base of said flue and radially inward from an inner surface; and wherein said second overmold portion of said nosecone at least partially covers an end face of said second end of said nosecone, the configuration as disclosed by Garrison providing for a releasable and fluid tight connection with the overmold portion (Garrison ¶ 0038). Allowable Subject Matter Claim 27 is allowed. The prior art of record neither anticipates nor makes obvious a connection apparatus for attachment of members of a medical device, comprising: a nosecone having a first end and a second end opposed to the first end; a flue having a first end and a second end opposed to the first end, said flue having a base on said first end of the flue and an overmold portion on said second end of the flue, wherein said overmold portion of said flue having a protrusion extending radially inward from an inner surface thereof, and wherein said overmold portion of said flue is more translucent than said base of said flue. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claims 1-5 and 21-26 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. Examiner concedes the prior art in the final action dated 08/06/2025 fails to teach amended portions of Claim 1. However, Examiner no longer relies upon Stoddard and has included prior art Woodward and Manna to make obvious new limitations. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM R FREHE whose telephone number is (571)272-8225. The examiner can normally be reached 10:30AM-7:30PM. 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, Kevin Sirmons can be reached at 571-272-4965. 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. /WILLIAM R FREHE/Examiner, Art Unit 3783 /KEVIN C SIRMONS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3783
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 30, 2019
Application Filed
Dec 04, 2021
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Mar 04, 2022
Response Filed
Aug 09, 2022
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Nov 29, 2022
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Dec 14, 2022
Examiner Interview Summary
Dec 30, 2022
Response Filed
Apr 01, 2023
Final Rejection — §103
Jun 06, 2023
Response after Non-Final Action
Jul 07, 2023
Request for Continued Examination
Jul 21, 2023
Response after Non-Final Action
Jul 28, 2023
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Nov 03, 2023
Response Filed
Feb 01, 2024
Final Rejection — §103
May 06, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
May 08, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Jun 04, 2024
Request for Continued Examination
Jun 05, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 25, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Apr 30, 2025
Response Filed
Aug 03, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Nov 04, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Nov 06, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Nov 06, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Nov 16, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 24, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12594378
PRESSURE RELIEF VALVE FOR DRUG DELIVERY DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12551667
CATHETER, INFLATABLE BALLOON FOR A CATHETER
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12551618
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR MITIGATING RISK IN AUTOMATED MEDICAMENT DOSING
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12551627
AUTO-INJECTOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12539123
METHODS AND DEVICES FOR BLOOD DISPLACEMENT-BASED LOCALIZED TREATMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 03, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

8-9
Expected OA Rounds
60%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+41.4%)
3y 11m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 382 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month