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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pre-Grant Publication 2015/0335874 to Phillips et al. (Phillips hereinafter) in view of U.S. Patent 5,292,308 to Ryan (Ryan).
Regarding claims 1 and 20, Phillips teaches a connector (e.g. 500) for coupling to an enteral feeding solution supply tube (118) and a port (110) of a gastronomy device, a fluid conduit (610, see e.g. Figs. 6 and 6A) having a first portion extending vertically from a downstream end (614) and a second portion extending horizontally to an upstream end (612), and a nozzle (610) housing the first portion extending from the distal end to a proximal end (see below) and defines a longitudinal axis. Phillips teaches that the nozzle is connectable (as shown in Fig. 6A) to an orifice (300) of the port and defining a longitudinal axis (vertically along center of 610). Phillips does not teach the use of indentations in the nozzle.
Ryan teaches another medical connector generally, and particularly teaches indentations (28) on an external surface (46) of a connector (12) that are adapted to decrease friction by reducing the contact area. Ryan teaches that this connector is quick connecting (col. 3, ln. 28-44), simple and inexpensive, as well as incorporating a bayonet element (32). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the application to use indentations as taught by Ryan to provide a bayonet connection in the connector of Phillips. With respect to the 15% and 90% limitations, in the absence of evidence of criticality of the claimed range, the examiner holds that it does not patentably distinguish over the teachings of Ryan. See MPEP 2144.04 IV.
PNG
media_image1.png
285
371
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Phillips teaches a substantially circular cross section including multiple circular arc sections (see e.g. Figs. 10, 10A).
Regarding claim 3, Ryan teaches multiple indentations (28) which are incorporated according to the combination with Phillips above.
Regarding claim 4, Phillips and Ryan are silent as to a circumferential extent of the indentations. However, the examiner notes that the mere duplication of the indentations of Shams on the nozzle of Phillips will increase the collective circumferential extent of the indentations into the claimed range. It has been held that in the absence of a new and unexpected result that duplication of parts has no patentable significance (MPEP 2144.04 VI. B). Accordingly, the examiner holds that the range recited in claim 4 is obvious over the combination of Phillips and Ryan.
Regarding claim 5, Phillips and Ryan are silent as to the circumferential extent of each indentation. However, the examiner notes that the difference between the indentations of Shams and those of the claimed invention is only in their relative circumferential lengths. The courts have held that changes in size or proportion are not a patentable distinction in the absence of a difference in performance. Accordingly, the examiner holds that the range recited in claim 5 is obvious over the combination of Phillips and Ryan.
Regarding claim 6, Ryan teaches a first point (34) and a closed indentation end (32) at a second point within a first region.
Regarding claims 7 and 8, in the absence of evidence of criticality of the claimed range, the examiner holds that it does not patentably distinguish over the teachings of Ryan. See MPEP 2144.04 IV. A.
Regarding claim 9, Phillips teaches a body (600) housing a second portion (from 612) at an upstream end (612) which is configured to be connectable to the solution supply tube (118).
Regarding claim 10, Phillips teaches that the second portion of the conduit is perpendicular to the first portion.
Regarding claim 11, Phillips teaches an alternative embodiment in which the second portion is coaxial with the first (Fig. 8). It would have been equally obvious to modify this embodiment as it would that of Fig. 6 as discussed above with respect to claim 1, and such a modification would again result in the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 12, Phillips teaches an attachment mechanism (602, 604, 608) provided at least adjacent the proximal end of the nozzle to releasably engage with a corresponding element (126) on the gastronomy device to secure the connector in place.
Regarding claim 13, Phillips teaches a pair of arms (602) with free ends (604) circumferentially arranged around the proximal end. Phillips teaches that each free end has a corresponding clockwise first end and a corresponding counterclockwise second end and that the ends are connected to a flexible bridge (608), and that the ends are configured to releasably engage the circumferential rim (126) on the port.
Regarding claim 14, Phillips teaches a connector and extension set with a supply tube (118) and a port (126) of the gastronomy device (10) configured for coupling.
Regarding claim 15, Phillips teaches the connector according to claim 1, as discussed above, and therefore describes the step of taking such a connector. Phillips further teaches inserting the connector into the gastronomy device (110, see e.g. Fig. 6), as well as coupling the upstream end to supply tubing (as shown in Fig. 1). Finally, Phillips teaches providing enteral feeding solution (112) through such a connector as discussed in the background of the reference.
Regarding claim 16, Ryan teaches a sealing ring (22b) configured to contact and seal with a constant diameter section with no indents (right of 28/32), with a constant and undisturbed diameter (paragraph 52). Ryan further teaches areas which are free of the indentations both proximally of and circumferentially interspersed with the notches and a common diameter between the first region and the un-indented surface.
Regarding claim 17, Phillips teaches rotation (paragraph 42).
Regarding claim 18, Phillips teaches that the proximal end of the nozzle (610) terminates at an underside face of the body (see above) and the distal end at an opening (614).
Regarding claim 19, Ryan teaches extension of the channels to the end of the male element (12), which is the nozzle of connector in the combination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 6, filed 17 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Ryan, as set forth above.
With respect to the argument that the combined references do not teach the claimed friction reduction, the examiner notes that any indentation will inherently reduce friction forces by the reduction of contact surface area. The examiner therefore holds that, for the purpose of obviousness, the intent of the indentations does not hold patentable weight.
The examiner further cites to US Pre-Grant Publication 2010/0089475 to Tracey as teaching that ratio of indented to non-indented surfaces controls engagement force in couplings (paragraph 6) to support that holding.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Pre-Grant Publication 2010/0089475 (discussed above).
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 PHILIP E STIMPERT whose telephone number is (571)270-1890. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8a-4p.
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, Chelsea Stinson can be reached on 571-270-1744. 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.
/PHILIP E STIMPERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 378322 June 2026
Prosecution Insights