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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/19/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 2/19/2026 has been entered. Claims 27-34 are pending in the application. Claims 1-26 are cancelled. The amendments to the claims overcome the 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Final Office Action mailed on 11/25/2025.
Claim Objections
Claims 27-34 are objected to because of the following informalities:
-Claim 27, line 2: please correct “a patient’s abdominal cavity” to “an abdominal cavity of a patient”
-Claim 27, line 7: please correct “thereof” to “of the tube set”
-Claim 27, line 8: please correct “the patient’s abdominal cavity” to “the abdominal cavity of the patient”
-Claim 28, line 1: please correct “A surgical gas delivery system” to “The surgical gas delivery system”
-Claim 28, line 1: please correct “recited in Claim” to “recited in claim”
-Claim 29, line 1: please correct “A surgical gas delivery system” to “The surgical gas delivery system”
-Claim 29, line 1: please correct “recited in Claim” to “recited in claim”
-Claim 30, line 1: please correct “A surgical gas delivery system” to “The surgical gas delivery system”
-Claim 30, line 1: please correct “recited in Claim” to “recited in claim”
-Claim 31, line 1: please correct “A surgical gas delivery system” to “The surgical gas delivery system”
-Claim 31, line 1: please correct “recited in Claim” to “recited in claim”
-Claim 32, line 1: please correct “A surgical gas delivery system” to “The surgical gas delivery system”
-Claim 32, line 1: please correct “recited in Claim” to “recited in claim”
-Claim 33, line 1: please correct “A surgical gas delivery system” to “The surgical gas delivery system”
-Claim 33, line 1: please correct “recited in Claim” to “recited in claim”
-Claim 34, line 1: please correct “A surgical gas delivery system” to “The surgical gas delivery system”
-Claim 34, line 1: please correct “recited in Claim” to “recited in claim”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 28-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 28 recites the limitation "the housing" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the Examiner interprets “the housing of the gas delivery device” as “the gas delivery device”.
Claim 29 recites the limitation "the housing" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the Examiner interprets “the housing of the gas delivery device” as “the gas delivery device”.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 29 recites “wherein the nozzle assembly is located outside of the open reception cavity of the housing of the gas delivery device” (see also 112(b) rejection/interpretation of claim 29 above), which is already introduced in claim 27. Therefore, claim 29 fails to further limit the subject matter of claim 27. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 27-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stearns et al. (US 2012/0245511 A1) in view of Mastri et al. (US 2016/0287817 A1, hereinafter referred to as “Mastri ‘817”).
Regarding claim 27, Stearns discloses a surgical gas delivery system for performing a laparoscopic surgical procedure in a patient's abdominal cavity (see Figs. 1-5, par. [0004]-[0006] and [0008]) comprising:
an access port (trocar 100) configured for introduction into the patient's abdominal cavity and having a proximal housing (proximal vaned section 200) that includes a coupling (fluid manifold 210) configured to connect a connector at a distal end of a tube set (see Figs. 1-5, par. [0033]-[0034], fluid manifold 210 includes ports 212 to communicate gas between a source and the trocar 100); and
a nozzle assembly (tube center component 180 and ring jet assembly 190), wherein the nozzle assembly (tube center component 180 and ring jet assembly 190) is configured to accelerate pressurized gas delivered from a pump in a gas delivery device to generate a gaseous seal within the surgical gas delivery system at a location that is between an outlet of the pump in the gas delivery device and the proximal housing (proximal vaned section 200) of the access port (trocar 100) to maintain a stable pressure level within the abdominal cavity of the patient (see par. [0033], [0035]-[0038], tube center component 180 and ring jet assembly 190 generate a gaseous seal between the source of the gas and the trocar 100 to maintain a stable abdominal pressure).
However, Stearns fails to state a gas delivery device housing a pump and having an open reception cavity; a filter cartridge having an outer housing configured to communicate with the open reception cavity of the gas delivery device; a tube set extending from the outer housing of the filter cartridge and including a connector at a distal end thereof; wherein the nozzle assembly is located outside of the outer housing of the filter cartridge and outside of the open reception cavity of the gas delivery device.
Mastri ‘817 teaches a surgical gas delivery system (see Figs. 1-11, par. [0040]) comprising: a gas delivery device (gas delivery device 12) housing a pump (pump assembly 20) and having an open reception cavity (cartridge engagement port 60) (see Figs. 1-2, par. [0040], [0051]-[0053]); a filter cartridge (gas conditioning unit 30) having an outer housing (housing 50) configured to communicate with the open reception cavity (cartridge engagement port 60) of the gas delivery device (gas delivery device 12) (see Figs. 1-2, par. [0042], [0051]-[0053], [0055]-[0056]); a tube set (conduits 32 and 40) extending from the outer housing (housing 50) of the filter cartridge (gas conditioning unit 30) and including a connector (complementary luer fittings of conduits 32 and 40 to engage luer fittings 34a and 42a) at a distal end thereof (see Figs. 1-2 and 11, par. [0045]-[0046], [0052], [0060]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Stearns to include a gas delivery device housing a pump and having an open reception cavity; a filter cartridge having an outer housing configured to communicate with the open reception cavity of the gas delivery device; a tube set extending from the outer housing of the filter cartridge and including a connector at a distal end thereof, as taught by Mastri ‘817, in order to incorporate structures which convey the necessary gases to and from the access port for insufflation during the laparoscopic surgery and further filter the gas before and after reaching the abdominal cavity (see Mastri ‘817 par. [0040], [0055]-[0056]; see Stearns par. [0004]-[0006], [0008]). Since the nozzle assembly (Stearns, tube center component 180 and ring jet assembly 190) is connected to the proximal housing (Stearns, proximal vaned section 200) of the access port (Stearns, trocar 100), this modification would further teach wherein the nozzle assembly (Stearns, tube center component 180 and ring jet assembly 190) is located outside of the outer housing (Mastri ‘817, housing 50) of the filter cartridge (Mastri ‘817, gas conditioning unit 30) and outside of the open reception cavity (Mastri ‘817, cartridge engagement port 60) of the gas delivery device (Mastri ‘817, gas delivery device 12) (see Stearns Fig. 1; see Mastri ‘817 Figs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 28, modified Stearns teaches the surgical gas delivery system as recited in claim 27 substantially as claimed. However, modified Stearns fails to state wherein the nozzle assembly is located within the housing of the gas delivery device.
Mastri ‘817 teaches a surgical gas delivery system (see Figs. 1-11, par. [0040]) wherein the nozzle assembly (nozzle assembly 150) is located within the housing (housing 14) of the gas delivery device (gas delivery device 12) (see Figs. 1-5, par. [0046]-[0047], nozzle assembly 150 is located within end cap 70).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of modified Stearns to include wherein the nozzle assembly is located within the housing of the gas delivery device, as taught by Mastri ‘817, as an additional or alternative mechanism to pressurize the gas flowing through the system to generate the stable pressure (see Mastri ‘817 par. [0046]-[0047]).
Regarding claim 29, modified Stearns teaches the surgical gas delivery system as recited in claim 27 substantially as claimed. Modified Stearns further teaches wherein the nozzle assembly (Stearns, tube center component 180 and ring jet assembly 190) is located outside of the open reception cavity (Mastri ‘817, cartridge engagement port 60) of the housing of the gas delivery device (Mastri ‘817, gas delivery device 12) (see previous modifications in rejection of claim 27 above; see Stearns Fig. 1; see Mastri ‘817 Figs. 1-2; tube center component 180 and ring jet assembly 190 of Stearns are connected to the proximal vaned section 200 of the trocar 100).
Regarding claim 30, modified Stearns teaches the surgical gas delivery system as recited in claim 27 substantially as claimed. Stearns further teaches wherein the nozzle assembly (tube center component 180 and ring jet assembly 190) is located outside of the proximal housing (proximal vaned section 200) of the access port (trocar 100) (see Figs. 1-3).
Regarding claim 31, modified Stearns teaches the surgical gas delivery system as recited in claim 27 substantially as claimed. Stearns further teaches wherein the nozzle assembly (tube center component 180 and ring jet assembly 190) comprises upper (tube center component 180) and lower (ring jet assembly 190) annular jet rings forming a plurality of circumferentially spaced-apart air accelerating nozzles (jets 183a) (see Figs. 1-3 and 16, par. [0033], [0035]).
Regarding claim 32, modified Stearns teaches the surgical gas delivery system as recited in claim 27 substantially as claimed. Stearns further teaches wherein the nozzle assembly (tube center component 180 and ring jet assembly 190) comprises a nozzle disc (tube center component 180 and ring jet assembly 190 form a disc) that includes at least one radially inwardly angled gas accelerating nozzle (jets 183a) (see Figs. 1-3, 10A-B, and 16, par. [0033], [0035]-[0036]).
Regarding claim 33, modified Stearns teaches the surgical gas delivery system as recited in claim 27 substantially as claimed. Modified Stearns further teaches wherein the filter cartridge (Mastri ‘817, gas conditioning unit 30) includes a first filtered flow path (Mastri ‘817, see Fig. 6), a second filtered flow path (Mastri ‘817, see Fig. 7), and a third filtered flow path (Mastri ‘817, see Fig. 8) (Mastri ‘817, see Figs. 6-10, par. [0055]-[0056]; see previous modifications in rejection of claim 27 above).
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stearns et al. (US 2012/0245511 A1) in view of Mastri et al. (US 2016/0287817 A1, hereinafter referred to as “Mastri ‘817”), as applied to claim 33 above, further in view of Mastri et al. (US 2016/0106952 A1, hereinafter referred to as “Mastri ‘952”).
Regarding claim 34, modified Stearns teaches the surgical gas delivery system as recited in claim 33. Modified Stearns further teaches wherein the tube set (Mastri ‘817, conduits 32 and 40) includes a first lumen (Mastri ‘817, conduit 40) communicating with the first filtered flow path (Mastri ‘817, see Fig. 6) of the filter cartridge (Mastri ‘817, gas conditioning unit 30) and a second lumen (Mastri ‘817, conduit 32) communicating with the second filtered flow path (Mastri, see Fig. 7) of the filter cartridge (Mastri ‘817, gas conditioning unit 30) (Mastri ‘817, see Figs. 6-10, par. [0055]-[0056]; see previous modifications in rejection of claim 27 above).
However, modified Stearns fails to state a third lumen communicating with the third filtered flow path of the filter cartridge.
Mastri ‘952 teaches a surgical gas delivery system (see Figs. 1-3, par. [0032]) comprising three separate lumens (lumens 32, 34, and 36) communicating with three separate filtered flow paths (see par. [0038]-[0040]), respectively, of the filter cartridge (filter unit 22) (see Figs. 1-3, par. [0035], [0038]-[0040]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of modified Stearns to include a third lumen communicating with the third filtered flow path of the filter cartridge, as taught by Mastri ‘952, in order to allow each filtered flow path of the filter cartridge to have its own distinct lumen for communicating with the access port, see Mastri ‘952 par. [0036]-[0038]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 16-19 and 23-26 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AVERY SMALE whose telephone number is (571)270-7172. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 8-4 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, 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.
/AVERY SMALE/Examiner, Art Unit 3783
/KAMI A BOSWORTH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3783
Prosecution Insights