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 .
PROSECUTION IS HEREBY REOPENED
A Technology Center Director has approved of reopening prosecution by signing below:
/EDWARD LEFKOWITZ/Director, Art Unit 3700
Status Summary
A Final Rejection was mailed on 20 February 2024.
Claims 1-12 were pending.
Claims 1-12 were rejected under 35 USC 103 over Magalich (US 2011/0288503).
A Notice of Appeal was filed 20 May 2024 and an Appeal Brief was filed 20 June 2024.
A Patent Board Decision was mailed 17 July 2025.
Claims 1-12 were pending.
The rejection of claim 1 and its dependent claims 2-8 under 35 USC 103 over Magalich was reversed on the grounds that “[the rejection] is necessarily based on speculative assumptions as to the meaning of the claims.” Decision at 5. The Board added, “It should be understood, however, that our decision in this regard is pro forma and based solely on the indefiniteness of the claimed subject matter, and does not reflect on the adequacy of the prior art evidence applied in support of the rejections. Id.
The rejection of claim 9 and its dependent claims 10-12 under 35 USC 103 over Magalich was reversed.
The Board rejected claims 1-8 under 35 USC 112(b) as new ground of rejection.
The Board also rejected claim 9 under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Magalich in view of Evans (US 2009/0156928) as new ground of rejection. Also, the Board explicitly suggested to review any patentability of dependent claims 10-12 in view of the new ground of rejection.1
Appellant filed a Request to Reopen Prosecution on 8 August 2005.
Appellant asserted the Board erred in the rejection of claims 1-8 under 35 USC 112(b).
Appellant asserted the Board erred in the rejection of claim 9 under 35 USC 103 over Magalich in view of Evans.
A Decision on Reconsideration was mailed 24 October 2025.
Regarding claims 1-8, the request for rehearing was granted and the Board vacated their decision to enter a new ground of rejection of claims 1-8 under 35 USC 112(b).
Regarding claim 9, the request for rehearing was denied.
The final outcome of Appeal after Rehearing:
Claim(s) Rejected
35 USC
Reference(s)/Basis
Affirmed
Reversed
1-12
103
Magalich
1-12
1-8
112
Indefiniteness
1-8
9
103
Magalich, Evans
9
Overall Outcome
9
1-8, 10-12
Applicant filed claim amendments and arguments 14 November 2025.
Claims 1-8 and 10-12 are pending.
Claim 9 is amended into claim 12. Claim 9 is cancelled. Claims 10 and 11 are amended to depend from claim 12.
Applicant argues claims 1-8 and 10-12 are allowable as there is no rejection of record of claim 1 or 12.
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 1-8 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Magalich (US 2011/0288503) in view of Evans (US 2009/0156928).
PNG
media_image1.png
292
438
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
450
547
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As to claim 1, Magalich teaches a method of manufacturing an indicia bearing septum (elastomeric region 20c) adapted to be assembled to an implantable port (port 200) having a cap (indicated in the exploded view of Fig 9, above, the cap is identified as housing 201) with an opening (the cap has an opening vertically therethrough as illustrated), comprising the steps of: (a) providing an elastomeric septum (region 20c. Magalich teaches septums 100-106 as shown in Figures 4 and 5A-5G as drop-in replacements of the septum 100 in Fig 9 and each of which include a second elastomeric region 20 which is considered here to be the claimed “septum.” This rejection relies on the embodiment shown in Magalich Fig. 5C.); (b) forming at least one depression (void 25 or 26 is a depression in region 20c which is filled with elastomeric material 36c as shown in Fig 5C, above. See also [0077].) of a given configuration (the voids 25, 26 are in the shape of “CT” as shown in Fig 4) onto a viewable [capable of being seen : visible]2 portion of the top surface of the septum (the voids 25, 26 are depressed into the top surface of the region 20c as illustrated in Fig 5C, above. See also Decision at 10 (the Board maps same elements to the limitations in the new ground of rejection). Even though the region 20c sits beneath the region 30c, the region 20c is considered viewable [capable of being seen : visible]. An artisan would have been motivated to have made region 30c clear based on the teachings of Magalich. See Magalich [0095]: “Optionally, one or more regions may be clear. For example, a top region (such as for example regions 20, 20b, 20c, 20d, 20e, 20/ and/or 20g), and/or other regions could be clear. This may allow human visualization of indicia, when such indicia is below or embedded in such region. Such human visualization may be in addition to medical imaging.” While Magalich doesn’t specify that that region 30c should be clear, a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed would have found it prima facie obvious to have made region 30c clear since indicia 36c (intended to be viewed by a human as per [0095]) is below region 30c) that is exposed [open to view] through the opening [not shielded or protected]34 of the cap when the septum is assembled to the port (the manner in which the recited portion of the top surface of septum 20c will eventually be viewable after the septum is assembled into the port is through the opening of the cap. See Fig 9 which indicates the cap (housing 201) has an opening therethrough which exposes the septum 100, making the region 20c viewable through the opening in the housing 201 and through the clear portion 30c).
As acknowledged by the Board in the rejection of claim 9 of 15 July 2025, Magalich teaches a radiopaque insert (insert/indicia 36c) but does not explicitly disclose (c) forming a solid radiopaque insert (insert/indicia 36c) having the given configuration in a mold and (d) mounting the solid radiopaque insert into the depression at the viewable portion of the top surface of the septum.
Nonetheless, Evans discloses port 10 having radiopaque indicator 1100 that is sized to fit cavity 1120 of port housing 20, is insertable, and is rigid/solid prior to being attached to port housing 20 via press-fitting or ultrasound welding (i.e., mounted into and embedded in the depression). See Evans paras. 56, 57, 60, 61, Figs. 11, 12A, 15. Hence, Evans discloses “forming” radiopaque insert 1120 as a “solid” having a given configuration and “mounting” radiopaque insert 1120 into depression (cavity) 1120.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious for a skilled artisan to modify Magalich by forming insert/indicia 36c with a given “CT” configuration as a solid radiopaque insert/indicia and mounting insert/indicia 36c into the depression 25, 26, as taught by Evans, in order to convey information regarding port 200 “including suitability of the port for power injectability . . . the number or reservoirs included in the port, and the orientation and position of the septa of the port.” See Evans para. 62. Modifying the molding process of insert/indicia 36c of Magalich with the forming process of Evans’ (pre-made) rigid radiopaque indicator, which is sized to fit the cavity (depression), is nothing more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions, which represents “the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for the improvement.” KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).
Moreover, Magalich would suggest to a skilled artisan such a modification by disclosing molding of a first region (e.g., region 20c in Fig. 5C), setting in place a pre-molded, cured second region (e.g., region 36c in Fig. 5C), and over molding a third region (e.g., region 30c in Fig. 5C) on the assembly of the first and second regions, wherein over-molding includes “over-molding on a pre-cured element that has been stamped, cut or otherwise formed prior to the molding act 330” (emphasis added). See Magalich paras. 94, 97 (emphasis added).
Magalich in view of Evans further teaches: wherein the radiopaque insert (insert/indicia 36c) provides an indicia (“CT” configuration) to a viewer visually and when the septum is viewed under x-ray or computer tomography imaging (see Magalich [0095] and [0093]: “For example, the indicia may comprise a medical imaging media around the shape of a letter and/or number.” Also, Evans’ indicator 1100 is radiopaque, see Evans Paragraphs [0056-0058]: “Because the indicator 1100 is radiopaque, the two portions 1111, 1112 will be visible through imaging techniques, such as radiographic (x-ray) imaging.”).
As to claim 2, Magalich in view of Evans teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising the step of: covering the top surface of the septum (region 20c) wherefrom the depression is formed with a transparent elastomeric layer (region 30c is a transparent elastomeric layer. See the discussion of paragraph [0095] in the rejection of claim 1 above) after the insert has been mounted into the depression to insulate the insert from the environment (this method step is explained in the rejection of claim 1, above: “Moreover, Magalich would suggest to a skilled artisan such a modification by disclosing molding of a first region (e.g., region 20c in Fig. 5C), setting in place a pre-molded, cured second region (e.g., region 36c in Fig. 5C), and over molding a third region (e.g., region 30c in Fig. 5C) on the assembly of the first and second regions, wherein over-molding includes “over-molding on a pre-cured element that has been stamped, cut or otherwise formed prior to the molding act 330” (emphasis added). See Magalich paras. 94, 97 (emphasis added).”).
As to claim 3, Magalich in view of Evans teaches the method of claim 1, but does not teach step (c) further comprises the steps of: configuring the mold to have at least one cavity shaped to form an insert having the given configuration; injecting a liquid radiopaque material into the mold cavity; and solidifying the liquid radiopaque material to form the solid radiopaque insert.
However, Magalich teaches [0081]: “Also, optionally wherein the second region may substantially cover said first region (see e.g. FIG. 5A-G) or not, and the first and second regions may be molded together, or not, with respect to each other.” Examiner previously took official notice, and now treats as fact that any molding process will include a step of configuring the mold to have at least one cavity shaped to form the item being molded having a given configuration.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have performed this method step in the teachings of Magalich in order to adequately achieve the molded indicia 36c or the radiopaque insert 1120 of Evans.
While Magalich doesn’t specify the molding process include a step of injecting a liquid, Magalich teaches the indicia 36d includes barium sulfate-loaded silicone (See [0082]. Examiner previously took official notice and now treats as fact that it was well known in the art for materials being molded to be injected as a liquid into a mold cavity. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have injected a liquid barium sulfate-loaded silicone mixture into the mold in order to ensure the mold is fully filled as in an injection molded process.
As to claim 4, Magalich in view of Evans teaches the method of claim 3, wherein the injecting step comprises the step of injecting liquid Barium Sulfate (BaSO4) into the mold cavity (Magalich [0082]: “Optionally, the additive may be any of one or more materials. As but one example, such additive may include barium sulfate.”).
As to claim 5, Magalich in view of Evans teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising the step of covering the top surface with a silicone layer (region 30c is a transparent layer. See the discussion of Magalich paragraph [0095] in the rejection of claim 1 above. The layer is silicone as per Magalich [0040].).
As to claim 6, Magalich in view of Evans teaches the method of claim 1, wherein step (b) further comprises the step of forming the depression from the top surface of the septum to a predetermined depth into the septum (as illustrated in Fig 5C, the indicia 36c is depressed a depth of D2c - D1c into the septum 20c.).
As to claim 7, Magalich in view of Evans teaches the method of claim 1, wherein step (b) further comprising the step of: forming the given configuration of the depression as a readable indicia that is adapted to convey information to a viewer (see Magalich [0073] which teaches the indicia is formed by voids in the form of letters or symbols useful for conveying “the flow rate rating of the port” for example.).
As to claim 8, Magalich in view of Evans teaches the method of claim 3, but does not teach the liquid radiopaque material injected into the mold cavity is compacted to provide a compacted solid insert. However, Appellants’ disclosure at [0037] teaches “Mold 20 has a cover (not shown for sake of clarity) that covers mold 20 so that the liquid barium is injected into the different molding cavities and is compacted separately in each of the cavities, as is conventionally known in injection molding.”
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have performed a step of compacting to provide a compacted solid insert in the method of Magalich because such a step is admitted to be conventionally known in injection molding.
As to claim 12, Magalich teaches a method of manufacturing a septum (elastomeric region 20c) adapted to be used with a port (port 200. See the Exploded Fig 9 above), comprising the steps of: (a) providing an elastomeric septum (region 20c) having a top surface viewable visually, the top surface having formed thereon at least one depression of a given configuration (the top of region 20c includes depression 25, 26 in a given “CT” configuration); and the insert is viewable visually and under radiographic imaging (see Magalich Paragraphs [0044], [0048], [0054], [0062], [0072], [0076], [0088], [0095], [0097], Figs 1, 5C, and 9). See also Decision at 10.
However, with respect to the embodiment illustrated in Figure 5C, Magalich discloses molding insert/indicia 36c (see Magalich [0078]), but does not explicitly disclose “forming” radiopaque insert/indicia 36c as a “one piece solid…with the given configuration” and “mounting the solid insert into the depression” 25, 26.
Nonetheless, Evans discloses port 10 having radiopaque indicator 1100 that is sized to fit cavity 1120 of port housing 20, is insertable, and 1s rigid/solid prior to being attached to port housing 20 via press-fitting or ultrasound welding (i.e., mounted into and embedded in the depression). See Evans paras. 56, 57, 60, 61, Figs. 11, 12A, 15. Hence, Evans discloses “forming” radiopaque insert 1120 as a “one piece solid” having a given configuration and “mounting” radiopaque insert 1120 into depression (cavity) 1120.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious for a skilled artisan to modify Magalich by forming insert/indicia 36c with a given “CT” configuration as a one-piece solid radiopaque insert/indicia and mounting insert/indicia 36c into the depression 25, 26, as taught by Evans, in order to convey information regarding port 200 “including suitability of the port for power injectability . . . the number or reservoirs included in the port, and the orientation and position of the septa of the port.” See Evans para. 62. Modifying the molding process of insert/indicia 36c of Magalich with the forming process of Evans’ (pre-made) rigid radiopaque indicator, which is sized to fit the cavity (depression), is nothing more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions, which represents “the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for the improvement.” KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). Moreover, Magalich would suggest to a skilled artisan such a modification by disclosing molding of a first region (e.g., region 20c in Fig. 5C), setting in place a pre-molded, cured second region (e.g., region 36c in Fig. 5C), and over molding a third region (e.g., region 30c in Fig. 5C) on the assembly of the first and second regions, wherein over-molding includes “over-molding on a pre-cured element that has been stamped, cut or otherwise formed prior to the molding act 330” (emphasis added). See Magalich paras. 94, 97 (emphasis added).
Magalich in view of Evans further teaches: wherein step (a) further comprises the steps of: forming the elastomeric septum from a silicone gum stock or a liquid injection molding material (Magalich [0054] teaches the materials of the septum are liquid before being cured in a mold); and forming the depression of the given configuration as an indicia adapted to convey information to a viewer (The depressions 36c are configured to have the shape of the indicia. [0048]: “The term "indicia" means a shape that is human and/or machine readable as symbolic of something, such as for example a number, letter, bar code, RFID, trademark, symbol, target and/or combination thereof. Indicia may be three dimension and/or essentially two-dimensional, and/or essentially two-dimensional but lying in a curved plane.”)..
As to claim 10, Magalich in view of Evans teaches the method of claim 12, wherein step (b) but does not teach the steps of: providing a mold having a mold cavity with the given configuration; injecting a liquid radiopaque material into the mold cavity; solidifying the liquid radiopaque material in the mold cavity; and extracting the solidified one piece solid radiopaque insert from the mold cavity.
Rather, Magalich teaches generally at [0054]: “The term “molding” means to cure a liquid in a mold.” Examiner previously took official notice and now treats as fact that any molding process will include a step of configuring the mold to have at least one cavity shaped to form the item being molded “having a given configuration.” Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have performed this method step in the teachings of Magalich in view of Evans in order to adequately achieve the molded indicia 36c or Evans’ radiopaque insert 1120.
While Magalich doesn’t specify the molding process includes a step of injecting a liquid, Magalich teaches a radiopaque material includes silicone. Examiner previously took official notice and now treat as fact that it was well known in the art for materials being molded to be injected as a liquid into a mold cavity. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have injected a liquid radiopaque-loaded silicone mixture into the mold in order to ensure the mold is fully filled as in an injection molded process.
Magalich teaches the material is solidified by being cured in a mold.
Last, even though Magalich doesn’t specify the extraction of the solidified one piece solid radiopaque insert from the mold cavity, this is considered to be an obvious matter of common sense since the indicia is to be inserted into a septum, and thus must be removed from a first mold in order to be inserted into the region 20c as shown in Fig 5C.
As to claim 11, Magalich in view of Evans teaches the method of claim 12, further comprising the step of: covering the top surface of the septum with a clear top layer (30c is a top layer which clear.) by channeling a liquid silicone to the top of the septum to form the top layer (Magalich [0054] teaches the definition of “mold” is to cure a liquid in a mold. [0040] teaches the various layers are contemplated to be silicone including the layer 30 which is described at [0072] as “elastomeric”).
ALTERNATIVE REJECTION OF CLAIM 1
The Board made a finding regarding the lack of written support for an embodiment in which no cover overlies the claimed septum. See Page 9 of the Decision dated 17 July 2025: “the original disclosure suggests in Figures 1, 3, and 4, using hashed lines near the end of index line of reference number 16, the presence of a layer covering top surface 8b. Similar hashed lines illustrated in Figures 6A and 6B also suggest the presence of clear over 18. Also, in Figure 5, cover 18 is illustrated as part of septum 8.” The Board concluded that “an ordinary and customary meaning of the term ‘exposed’ would be ‘not shielded or protected.’ However, such a construction of the term ‘exposed’ is not supported by Appellant’s original disclosure.” Id.
However, the Board’s finding of lack of written description for this feature is within the New Grounds of Rejection of claim 1 under 112(b) which was reversed by the Board in the decision dated 24 October 2025.
Appellant has made arguments indicating that claim 1 does not require a cover. See Reply Brief filed 10 September 2024: “The problem with the examiner’s interpretation is that neither of claim 1 and 9 recites a clear cover for the top of the septum.” (Page 5).
In this alternative rejection, Examiner will presume that the Board’s finding as to the lack of written support for no cover overlying the septum was reversed as a matter of course because the 112(b) rejection of claim 1 in which it was found was reversed. Accordingly, Examiner presumes Appellant has written support under 112(a) for an embodiment in which the septum (Applicant’s septum base 8a) is not covered by a cover (applicant’s layer 18) when installed into a housing (4).
Accordingly, in this alternative rejection, the term “exposed” will be given an ordinary meaning of “not shielded or protected,” i.e., “not covered,” i.e., “has no cover.”
Claims 1-8 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Magalich (US 2011/0288503) in view of Evans (US 2009/0156928).
PNG
media_image3.png
276
452
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
450
547
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As to claim 1, Magalich teaches a method of manufacturing an indicia bearing septum (septum 105 as shown in Fig 5F) adapted to be assembled to an implantable port (port 200) having a cap (indicated in the exploded view of Fig 9, above, the cap is identified as housing 201) with an opening (the cap has an opening vertically therethrough as illustrated near reference number 100), comprising the steps of: (a) providing an elastomeric septum (septum 105 includes elastomeric regions 30f and 20f); (b) forming at least one depression (The empty space (void 25) within layer 30f before the indicia 36f is embedded therein is a depression into septum 105) of a given configuration (the voids 25, 26 are in the shape of “CT” as shown in Fig 4) onto a viewable [capable of being seen : visible]5 portion of the top surface of the septum (In the embodiment of Fig 5F, the voids 25, 26 have a depth of D2f into the top (top surface 31f) of the septum 105) that is exposed through the opening [not shielded or protected; has no cover]6 (there is no cover overlying the top surface 31f of the septum 105 in the embodiment of Fig 5F. Examiner asserts this is a different interpretation than that used the rejections beginning at Page 4 of this document. Layer 30f is not considered a “cover” and is instead part of the “septum 105”) of the cap when the septum is assembled to the port (since the septum 105 is a drop-in replacement of the septum 100 of Fig 9, one can see that aside from cap 201, there is no cover which overlies the top of the septum 105 when it is installed in the port 200).
Examiner follows the logic set forth by the Board in the rejection of claim 9 of 15 July 2025: Magalich teaches a radiopaque insert (insert/indicia 36f) but does not explicitly disclose (c) forming a solid radiopaque insert (insert/indicia 36f) having the given configuration in a mold and (d) mounting the solid radiopaque insert into the depression at the viewable portion of the top surface of the septum.
Nonetheless, Evans discloses port 10 having radiopaque indicator 1100 that is sized to fit cavity 1120 of port housing 20, is insertable, and is rigid/solid prior to being attached to port housing 20 via press-fitting or ultrasound welding (i.e., mounted into and embedded in the depression). See Evans paras. 56, 57, 60, 61, Figs. 11, 12A, 15. Hence, Evans discloses “forming” radiopaque insert 1120 as a “solid” having a given configuration and “mounting” radiopaque insert 1120 into depression (cavity) 1120.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious for a skilled artisan to modify Magalich by forming insert/indicia 36f with a given “CT” configuration as a solid radiopaque insert/indicia and mounting insert/indicia 36f into the depression 25, 26, as taught by Evans, in order to convey information regarding port 200 “including suitability of the port for power injectability . . . the number or reservoirs included in the port, and the orientation and position of the septa of the port.” See Evans para. 62. Modifying the molding process of insert/indicia 36f of Magalich with the forming process of Evans’ (pre-made) rigid radiopaque indicator, which is sized to fit the cavity (depression), is nothing more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions, which represents “the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for the improvement.” KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).
Magalich teaches region 36f in Fig 5F “protrud[es] above top surface 31f” (Paragraph [0091]) which implies that it cannot have been formed by injecting a liquid into a void in layer 30f, but rather must have been embedded into layer 30f as a solid.
Magalich in view of Evans further teaches: wherein the radiopaque insert (insert/indicia 36f) provides an indicia (“CT” configuration) to a viewer visually and when the septum is viewed under x-ray or computer tomography imaging (see Magalich [0095] and [0093]: “For example, the indicia may comprise a medical imaging media around the shape of a letter and/or number.” Also, Evans’ indicator 1100 is radiopaque, see Evans Paragraphs [0056-0058]: “Because the indicator 1100 is radiopaque, the two portions 1111, 1112 will be visible through imaging techniques, such as radiographic (x-ray) imaging.”).
Regarding claims 2-8 and 10-12, please see supra rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB JAMES CIGNA whose telephone number is (571)270-5262. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm Monday-Friday.
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, Thomas Hong can be reached at (571) 272-0993. 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.
/JACOB J CIGNA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726 29 January 2026
1 Decision at 12 (“Although we reject only independent claim 9 under our discretionary authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b), we emphasize that our decision does not mean the remaining claims are patentable. Rather, we merely leave the patentability determination of these claims to the Examiner in view of the entered New Grounds of Rejection.”)
2 The Board interpreted “viewable” as a property of the top surface of the septum: “capable of being seen : visible” (See page 3 Decision on Reconsideration mailed 24 October 2025)
3 The Board understands the term “exposed,” defined as “open to view,” describes the manner in which the recited “portion of the top surface” is “viewable.” In other words, the recited “viewable portion of the top surface of the septum” is “viewable” because it is “exposed,” that is, “open to view,” “through the opening of the cap.” (See pages 3-4 Decision on Reconsideration mailed 24 October 2025)
4 The top surface of layer 20c is considered “exposed [open to view]” even if there is a transparent layer 30c above it. Applicant admits that a surface can be “viewed” even if there is a clear layer overlying it. See the Request for Rehearing on August 8, 2025 Page 10: “Being ‘transparent’, the elastomeric layer that covers the depression does not prevent the depression from being viewed through the opening of the cap.”
5 The Board interpreted “viewable” as a property of the top surface of the septum: “capable of being seen : visible” (See page 3 Decision on Reconsideration mailed 24 October 2025)
6 In this alternative interpretation, Examiner takes the meaning of “exposed” to mean “has no cover.”