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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 9 January 2026 has been entered.
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) 1-19 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 US Pre-Grant Publication 2013/0282047 to Hanlon et al. (Hanlon).
Regarding claim 1, 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.
Hanlon teaches another medical connector generally, and particularly teaches that a male member (36) may have a generally cylindrical shape with indentations (e.g. 58) there in to inhibit a sealing connection and thereby render the connector incompatible with incorrect female fittings (see paragraphs 3-4, and 52. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the application to provide channels as taught by Hanlon to the connector of Phillips in order to prevent sealing connections with incompatible connectors.
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, Shams teaches multiple indentations (13, 14) which are incorporated according to the combination with Phillips above.
Regarding claim 4, Phillips and Shams 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 Shams.
Regarding claim 5, Phillips and Shams 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 Shams.
Regarding claim 6, Shams teaches that each indentation (13, 14) extends between the distal end (the examiner again notes that there is no restriction on the overlap of the distal end and the nozzle, and therefore the distal terminus of the notch is considered herein to be within an axial extend of the distal end of the nozzle) and the proximal end, and therefore to all points in between, any one of which may constitute the claimed second point.
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Hanlon indicates that the dimensions of the channels are not critical and therefore subject to experimentation and design considerations (paragraph 55, “channels 58 may have widths, depths, or lengths other than illustrated herein”). In the absence of evidence of criticality of the claimed range, the examiner holds that it does not patentably distinguish over the teachings of Hanlon.
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, Hanlon teaches a sealing ring (48) configured to contact and seal with a sealing ring, with a constant and undisturbed diameter (paragraph 52).
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, Hanlon teaches extension of the channels to the end of the male element, which is the nozzle of connector in the combination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 5, filed 9 January 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-15 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 Hanlon, as set forth above.
With respect to the argument that Shams teaches a rotationally locked nozzle, the rotating nozzle is taught by Hanlon.
Conclusion
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 37839 January 2026