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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments/request for reconsideration filed on 01/07/2026 has been fully considered. Claims 1, 43-58, and 150-152 are pending in this application. Claims 2-42 and 59-149 are cancelled. Claims 1, 44, and 52-55 are amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended independent claim 1 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. More particularly, the claim limitation “the neck region contacts and completely surrounds an outer surface of the gases port to form a fluid seal between the gases port and the cannula connecting component” further narrows the scope of the claimed invention.
Though some of the same prior art reference is re-used herein, amended claim 1 required a change in the grounds of rejection relying on additional prior art as detailed below in the prior art rejection.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 44-58, and 150-152 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garcia (Patent No. 5,722,962 A) in view of Dola (Patent No. US 4,225,162 A).
Regarding claim 1, Garcia teaches a venting attachment (coupling 26 and filter 20 is the venting attachment; Figure 2-3; Column 3, lines 33-35) to a surgical cannula for venting one or both of gases or smoke from a surgical cavity (trocar 10 has a fitting 22 that vents gas through the valve 18 and filter 20 when coupling 26 and filter 20 are connected; Figure 2 and 3; Column 2, line 59 to Column 3, line 6), wherein the surgical cannula comprises a gases port (trocar 10 has a fitting 22; Figure 2 and 3; Column 3, lines 33-35), the venting attachment comprising:
a cannula connecting component (coupling 26; Column 3, lines 33-35; Figure 2-3) comprising:
a first end configured as a connector configured to receive and fluidly connect to a gases port of a surgical cannula (first end of coupling 26 is attached to fitting 22 of the trocar 10; Figure 2-3; Column 3, lines 1-6), the connector comprising an opening and a neck region (coupling 26 has an opening at the first end and a neck region; Figure 2-3); and
a second end configured to connect to a tube (second end of coupling 26 is connected to cylindrical fitting 28/tubing; Figure 2-3; Column 3, lines 33-44);
a venting component positioned downstream of the first end of the cannula connecting component along a venting gases pathway (filter 20 is positioned downstream of the first end of the coupling 26 and along the pathway/passage that gas is vented from the trocar; Figure 2-3; Column 3, lines 1-6 and Column 3, lines 33-44), the venting component configured to vent one or both of gases or smoke from the surgical cavity at a predetermined rate (obvious that filter 20 is configured to vent the gases from the trocar at a predetermined rate, based on the filter’s volume and passageway shape/length); and
a filter component configured to filter the one or both of gases or smoke before leaving the venting component (filter elements 44/46 filters gases and smoke travelling through the filter 20; Column 3, lines 22-32; Figure 2-3), wherein the filter component is located in the venting gases pathway (filter elements 44/46 are along the passageway of the gases that is vented from the trocar; Figure 2-3).
Garcia does not teach wherein a diameter of the neck region is smaller than a diameter of the opening such that when the gases port of the surgical cannula is inserted through the opening, the neck region contacts and completely surrounds an outer surface of the gases port to form a fluid seal between the gases port and the cannula connecting component.
However, Dola teaches wherein a diameter of the neck region is smaller than a diameter of the opening (collar 50 with surface 56 that is the neck region, wherein the diameter of surface 56 is smaller than the diameter of the opening 52, above the sloped surface 54; Figure 2-4 and annotated Figure 5; Column 2, lines 32-56).
Garcia and Dola are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of fluid tight connectors. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Garcia to incorporate the teachings of Dola to have the collar of Dola be the first end of the cannula connecting component of Garcia, adjacent to the annular passage and the second end of the cannula connecting component of Garcia, and be sized to receive the gases port of Garcia. This allows for a liquid tight seal between the connector with its receiving component (Abstract; Column 3, lines 3-5).
The combination of Garcia in view of Dola further teaches such that when the gases port of the surgical cannula is inserted through the opening, the neck region contacts and completely surrounds an outer surface of the gases port to form a fluid seal between the gases port and the cannula connecting component (neck region of Dola contacts and completely surrounds the outer surface of the the flange of the gases port of Garcia to form a fluid seal between the gases port and cannula connecting component; see combination above; Dola; annotated Figure 5 below; Column 2, lines 32-56).
PNG
media_image1.png
520
506
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 5
Regarding claim 44, Garcia in view of Dola teaches the venting attachment of claim 1. The combination of Garcia in view of Dola further teaches wherein the fluid seal between the connector of the cannula connecting component and the gases port is the only seal between the cannula connecting component and the gases port (Dola; neck region is the only seal between the first end of the cannula connecting component of Garcia in view of Dola and the gases port of Garcia; annotated Figure 5 above).
Regarding claim 45, Garcia in view of Dola teaches the venting attachment of claim 1. The combination of Garcia in view of Dola further teaches wherein the cannula connecting component is configured to receive and guide the gases port during insertion into the cannula connecting component (gases port 22 of Garcia is connected to cannula connecting component with first end of Dola that is fully capable to receive and guide gases port during insertion; Dola; Figure 3 and annotated Figure 5 above).
Regarding claim 46, Garcia in view of Dola teaches the venting attachment of claim 1. The combination of Garcia in view of Dola further teaches wherein the cannula connecting component further comprises a confined area downstream of the neck region (confined area; annotated Figure 5 of Dola above), the confined area having a diameter that is larger than the diameter of the neck region (confined area has a larger diameter than the neck region; see annotated Figure 5 of Dola above).
Regarding claim 47, Garcia in view of Dola teaches the venting attachment of claim 46. The combination of Garcia in view of Dola further teaches wherein the neck region is between and immediately adjacent to the opening and the confined area (neck region is immediately adjacent between opening and confined area; annotated Figure 5 above).
Regarding claim 48, Garcia in view of Dola teaches the venting attachment of claim 46. The combination of Garcia in view of Dola further teaches wherein the neck region is configured to deform to allow passage of the gases port (Dola; collar 50 with neck region requires a force to expand and mount onto receiving component, the gases port of Garcia; Column 2, lines 61-68; annotated Figure 5 above; see rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 49, Garcia in view of Dola teaches the venting attachment of claim 48. The combination of Garcia in view of Dola further teaches wherein the gases port comprises a flanged end portion (Garcia; trocar 10 has a fitting 22 that has a flanged end; Figure 2 and 3) and the neck region is configured to deform to allow passage of the flanged end portion (Dola; collar 50 with neck region requires a force to expand and mount onto receiving component, where the neck region deforms to receive the flanged end of the gases port of Garcia; Column 2, lines 61-68; annotated Figure 5 above; see rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 50, Garcia in view of Dola teaches the venting attachment of claim 46. The combination of Garcia in view of Dola further teaches wherein the confined area is configured to receive and retain the gases port when the cannula connecting component and the gases port are coupled (confined area of Dola is fully capable of receiving and retaining the gases port of Garcia when the cannula connecting component and the gases port are coupled; annotated Figure 5 above).
Regarding claim 51, Garcia in view of Dola teaches the venting attachment of claim 50. The combination of Garcia in view of Dola further teaches wherein the gases port comprises a flanged end portion (Garcia; trocar 10 has a fitting 22 that has a flanged end; Figure 2 and 3) and the confined area is configured to receive and retain the flanged end portion when the cannula connecting component and the gases port are coupled (confined area of Dola is fully capable of receiving and retaining the flanged end of the gases port of Garcia when the cannula connecting component and the gases port are coupled; annotated Figure 5 above).
Regarding claim 52, Garcia in view of Dola teaches the venting attachment of claim 46. The combination of Garcia in view of Dola further teaches wherein the neck region conforms around the outer surface of the gases port to form the fluid seal when the cannula connecting component and the gases port are coupled (neck region of Dola contacts and completely surrounds the outer surface of the gases port of Garcia to form a fluid seal between the gases port and cannula connecting component; see rejection of claim 1 above; Dola; annotated Figure 5 above; Column 2, lines 32-56).
Regarding claim 53, Garcia in view of Dola teaches the venting attachment of claim 52. The combination of Garcia in view of Dola further teaches wherein the fluid seal is formed only between the neck region and the outer surface of the gases port (Dola; neck region is the only seal between the first end of the cannula connecting component of Garcia in view of Dola and the gases port of Garcia; annotated Figure 5 above).
Regarding claim 54, Garcia in view of Dola teaches the venting attachment of claim 52. The combination of Garcia in view of Dola further teaches wherein the gases port comprises a shaft portion (Garcia; trocar 10 has a fitting 22 that has a shaft portion adjacent to the flanged end; Figure 2 and 3) and the neck region conforms around an outer surface of the shaft portion to form the fluid seal when the cannula connecting component and the gases port are coupled (neck region of Dola contacts and completely surrounds the outer surface of the shaft portion of the gases port of Garcia to form a fluid seal between the gases port and cannula connecting component; see rejection of claim 1 above; Dola; annotated Figure 5 above; Column 2, lines 32-56).
Regarding claim 55, Garcia in view of Dola teaches the venting attachment of claim 54. The combination of Garcia in view of Dola further teaches wherein the fluid seal is provided along a length of the shaft portion (neck region of Dola contacts and completely surrounds the outer surface of the length of the shaft portion of the gases port of Garcia to form a fluid seal between the gases port and cannula connecting component; see rejection of claim 1 above; Dola; annotated Figure 5 above; Column 2, lines 32-56).
Regarding claim 56, Garcia in view of Dola teaches the venting attachment of claim 1. The combination of Garcia in view of Dola does not expressly teach wherein the venting component is configured to vent the gases and/or smoke at a rate between 1 L/min and 10 L/min.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the venting rate at between 1 L/min and 10 L/min since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984)(MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)). In the instant case, venting component would not operate differently with the claimed venting rate since the venting component is constructed with similar components and structure (see disclosed above) and is intended to vent gas/smoke out of the body during operation. Further, it appears that the applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the venting rate is “about” the given ranges (specification; paragraph 0256). Regarding claim 57, Garcia in view of Dola teaches the venting attachment of claim 1. The combination of Garcia in view of Dola does not expressly teach wherein the venting component is configured to vent the gases and/or smoke at a rate between 5 L/min and 7 L/min.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the venting rate at between 5 L/min and 7 L/min since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984)(MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)). In the instant case, venting component would not operate differently with the claimed venting rate since the venting component is constructed with similar components and structure (see disclosed above) and is intended to vent gas/smoke out of the body during operation. Further, it appears that the applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the venting rate is “about” the given ranges (specification; paragraph 0256).
Regarding claim 58, Garcia in view of Dola teaches the venting attachment of claim 1. The combination of Garcia in view of Dola does not expressly teach wherein the venting component is configured to vent the gases and/or smoke at a rate of 4 L/min.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the venting rate at a rate of 4 L/min since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984)(MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)). In the instant case, venting component would not operate differently with the claimed venting rate since the venting component is constructed with similar components and structure (see disclosed above) and is intended to vent gas/smoke out of the body during operation. Further, it appears that the applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the venting rate is “about” the given ranges (specification; paragraph 0256).
Regarding claim 150, Garcia in view of Dola teaches the venting attachment of claim 1. The combination of Garcia in view of Dola further teaches further comprising: a flow restriction within the venting gases pathway (Garcia; annular passage 30 is in the cannula connecting component that is a part of the venting gases pathway; Figure 3), wherein the flow restriction is shaped and dimensioned to control the predetermined rate (Garcia; obvious that the annular passage 30 is shaped to provide a given predetermined rate; Figure 3).
Regarding claim 151, Garcia in view of Dola teaches the venting attachment of claim 150. The combination of Garcia in view of Dola further teaches wherein the flow restriction is positioned in the cannula connecting component downstream of the neck region between the first end and the second end (annular passage 30 of Garcia is downstream from first end neck region of Dola and is between first end of Dola and second end of Garcia; see rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 152, Garcia in view of Dola teaches the venting attachment of claim 150. The combination of Garcia in view of Dola further teaches wherein the flow restriction is shaped and dimensioned to control the predetermined rate such that the predetermined rate is equal to or less than a flow rate of gases delivered into the surgical cavity (Garcia; obvious that the annular passage 30 is shaped to provide a given predetermined rate which is equal to the flow rate of gas flowing through between the gases port and the venting gases pathway; Figure 3).
Claim(s) 43 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garcia (Patent No. 5,722,962 A) in view of Dola (Patent No. US 4,225,162 A), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Patania (Publication No. US 2006/0217683 A1).
Regarding claim 43, Garcia in view of Dola teaches the venting attachment of claim 1. The combination of Garcia in view of Dola does not teach wherein the connector is a Luer lock connector.
However, Patania further teaches wherein the connector is a Luer lock connector (collar 43 is shaped to fit a barbed luer lock connector; Paragraph 0022; Figure 1).
Garcia in view of Dola and Patania are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of fluid tight connectors. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Garcia in view of Dola to incorporate the teachings of Patania to have the first end of the cannula connecting component of Garcia in view of Dola be shaped with the opening, neck region, and confined area shaped and sized to receive a barbed luer lock connector, as taught by Patania. This allows for a leak-free fluid connection between conventional luer connectors (Patania; Paragraph 0006 and 0012).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHERINE-PH M PHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-0468. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 8AM to 5PM ET.
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, Rebecca Eisenberg can be reached at (571) 270-5879. 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.
/KATHERINE-PH MINH PHAM/Examiner, Art Unit 3781
/KAI H WENG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781
Prosecution Insights