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 .
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 1-2, 5-6, 21, 24-26 and 29-31 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 1 recites the limitation “the position” in Line 19. There is insufficient antecedent basis in the claim for this limitation. Furthermore, it is unclear what position applicant is referencing. For purposes of examination, “the position” is being treated as the position when the nub (23) is moved into the rest position segment (24) of the groove (22). Claims 2, 5-6, 21, 24-26 and 29-31 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on Claim 1. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 5-6, 21, 24-26 and 29-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Page et al. (USPN 5,466,020).
Re Claim 1, Page teaches a method for attaching members of a medical device (Page Figs. 1-3), comprising: providing a first member (11) having a first body (15) and a first connecting section (16) (Page Annotated Figs. 1-3 below), the first connecting section (16) having a first end face (13-1), an inner surface (17), a nub (23) on the inner surface (17) extending radially inward (Page Fig. 2), and an end overmold portion (13) that is overmolded onto and at least partially covering the first end face (13-1) (Page Annotated Figs. 1-3 and Page Annotated Fig. 2 below); providing a second member (12) having a second body (18), a second connecting section (19) and a shoulder (21) at a junction between the second body (18) and the second connecting section (19), the shoulder (21) having a longitudinal surface (21-1) (Page Annotated Figs. 1-3 - wherein by definition, the shoulder 21 of Page has both a longitudinal and lateral surface), the second connecting section (19) having a second end face (19-1) and an outer surface (20), the outer surface (20) having a groove (22) extending from the second end face (19-1) towards the shoulder (21) (Page Annotated Figs. 1-3 below).
Page further teaches telescoping the second connecting section (19) into the first connecting section (16) (as seen in Page Fig. 3); locating the groove (22) in the outer surface (20) of the second connecting section (19); and positioning the nub (23) to engage the groove (22) and moving the nub (23) in the groove (22) towards the shoulder (21) until the end overmold portion (13) contacts the shoulder (21) whereby the end overmold portion (13) is positioned to bear against the longitudinal surface (21-1) of the shoulder (21) of the second member (12) and is compressed between the first body (15) and the second body (18) (Page Col. 5 Lines 23-64), wherein the nub (23) engages the groove (22) to lock at a rest position segment (24) of the groove (22) wherein the end overmold portion (13) compresses (Page Col. 5 Lines 49-55) and enabling the first member (11) to remain fixed in the rest position segment (24) of the groove (22) without being rotatably forced beyond the position (Page Col. 5 Lines 22-55 teaching “An engaging trough 24 in the groove 22 is positioned along the groove 22 to properly hold the first connecting end 16 against the shoulder 21. The engaging trough 24 is shaped to stably hold the nub 23 against the groove 22 due to the force supplied by the compressed gasket 13.”).
PNG
media_image1.png
382
486
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Re Claim 2, Page teaches providing more than one nub (23) on the inner surface (17) radially about the first connecting section (16) (Page Fig. 2); providing more than one groove (22) on the outer surface (20) arranged radially about the second connecting section (19) (Page Figs. 1 and 2), wherein each nub (23) is positioned to engage with each groove (22) (Page Figs. 2 and 3); positioning each nub (23) to engage each groove (22); and moving each nub (23) in each groove (22) towards the shoulder (21) until the end overmold portion (13) contacts the shoulder (21) (Page Col. 5 Lines 23-64).
Re Claim 5, Page teaches wherein the groove (22) is J-shaped (as seen in Page Fig. 1).
Re Claim 6, Page teaches wherein the nub (23) is sphere-shaped (as seen in Page Fig. 2).
Re Claim 21, Page teaches wherein the end overmold portion (13) is present on an outer diameter of the first connecting section (16) (as seen in Page Fig. 2).
Re Claims 24 and 25, Page teaches providing a lip (13-2) (Page Annotated Fig. 2 below), of the first member (11), extending from the first connecting section (16); and positioning the end overmold portion (13) at least partially on a diameter of the lip (13-2).
PNG
media_image2.png
367
550
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Re Claim 26, Page teaches wherein the more than one nub (23) is spaced symmetrically apart (as seen in Page Fig. 2), and the more than one groove (22) is spaced symmetrically apart (as seen in Page Fig. 2).
Re Claim 29, Page teaches wherein the J-shaped groove (22) comprises a plurality of segments (Page Figs. 1-3).
Re Claim 30, Page teaches wherein a first segment (22-1) of the plurality of segments extends from the second end face (19-1) towards the shoulder (21) (Page Annotated Figs. 1-3), and a second segment (22-2) of the plurality of segments is at an angle relative to the first segment (22-1) (Page Annotated Fig. 1 below).
PNG
media_image3.png
392
405
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Re Claim 31, Page teaches wherein a third segment (25) of the plurality of segments is shorter than the first segment (22-1) and the second segment (22-2) (Page Annotated Fig. 1 above).
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 3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Page et al. (USPN 5,466,020) in view of Campbell et al. (USPN 4,580,816).
Re Claim 3, Page teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1. Page fails to explicitly teach wherein the end overmold portion is made of a thermoplastic elastomer. Campbell teaches a connector (Campbell Fig. 1) comprising an overmold portion (62) made of a thermoplastic elastomer (Campbell Col. 2 Lines 61-65 and Col. 4 Lines 34-35). Examiner notes that the selection of a known material based upon its suitability for the intended use is a design consideration well within the ordinary skill of the art. In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Re Claim 7, Page teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1. However, Page fails to teach an internal overmold portion positioned radially about the inner surface of the first member. Campbell teaches a connector (Campbell Fig. 3) comprising an internal overmold portion (362) positioned radially about the inner surface of a first member (310) thus providing further secure connection and sealing engagement between the first member (310) and a second member (312) (Campbell Col. 5 Line 48 to Col. 6 Line 30). 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 inner surface of the first member to comprise an internal overmold portion positioned radially about said inner surface as disclosed by Campbell thus providing further secure connection and sealing engagement between the first member and a second member (Campbell Col. 5 Line 48 to Col. 6 Line 30).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Page et al. (USPN 5,466,020) in view of Cotter et al. (USPN 8,092,475).
Re Claim 4, Page teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1. Page fails to teach wherein the first member is a nosecone and the second member is a surgical handpiece housing. Cotter teaches a first member comprising a nosecone (100, 130) (Cotter Fig. 1A) and a second member comprising a surgical handpiece housing (150) and a connecting portion (140) for providing secure and sealing engagement between a nosecone (100, 130) and handpiece housing (Cotter Fig. 1A). 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 first member and second member such that the first member is a nosecone and the second member is a surgical handpiece housing as disclosed by Cotter for providing secure and sealing engagement between a nosecone and handpiece housing (Cotter Fig. 1A).
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Page et al. (USPN 5,466,020) in view of Rasooly et al. (USPGPub 2014/0334974).
Re Claim 32, Page teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1. Page fails to teach wherein the second member comprises a housing identification marker on the second body, and a connection identification marker on the second connecting section. Rasooly teaches a connecting member (40, 50) with a member body, wherein the connecting member (40, 50) comprises a housing identification marker (54) on the member body, and a connection identification marker (58) on a second connecting section, the markers for aligning the connecting member with an outer housing (60) (Rasooly ¶ 0048). 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 second member of Page to comprise a housing identification marker on the second body, and a connection identification marker on the second connecting section as disclosed by Rasooly wherein the markers can align the second member with an outer housing (Rasooly ¶ 0048).
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Page et al. (USPN 5,466,020) in view of Garrison et al. (USPGPub 2006/0052774).
Re Claim 33, Page teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1. Page fails to teach wherein the first member comprises a nosecone identification marker. Garrison teaches a first member (14, 18) and a second member (12) (Garrison Fig. 3), wherein the first member (14, 18) comprises a nosecone identification marker for identifying the proper starting and finishing orientations for connecting the nosecone to the second member (Garrison ¶ 0043). 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 second member of Page to comprise a nosecone identification marker as disclosed by Garrison for identifying the proper starting and finishing orientations for connecting the nosecone to the second member (Garrison ¶ 0043).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/11/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments begin largely at the top of Page 9 of the response. There, applicant argues disclosures of prior art Page “does not reasonably correspond to enabling the first member to remain fixed in the rest position segment of the groove without being rotatably forced beyond the position.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. Page explicitly teaches “An engaging trough 24 in the groove 22 is positioned along the groove 22 to properly hold the first connecting end 16 against the shoulder 21” in Col. 5 Lines 50-55. Page goes on to state “The engaging trough 24 is shaped to stably hold the nub 23 against the groove 22 due to the force supplied by the compressed gasket 13.” The very purpose of engaging trough 24 is to prevent nub 23 from needlessly continuing movement along groove 22. A user of the Page device would need to compress gasket 13 to move nub 23 from engaging trough 24. It would appear this is no different from how applicant’s device functions.
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 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 /REBECCA E EISENBERG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3781