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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 July 20, 2026, has been entered.
Acknowledgments
In the reply, filed on July 20, 2026, Applicant amended claims 1, 10, and 21.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In regards to claim 1, lines 2-3 recite: a longitudinally extending fluid flow passage “extending from the second end in a direction of the first end”; however, such is new matter not described in the Specification. Claims 2-9 are rejected by virtue of being dependent upon claim 1.
In regards to claim 1, lines 4-5 recite: “wherein the second end defines an uninterrupted, planar surface”; however, such is new matter not described in the Specification. Figure 2 instead shows the second end 12B having a ring-shaped surface interrupted by the longitudinally extending fluid flow passage 14. Claims 2-9 are rejected by virtue of being dependent upon claim 1.
In regards to claim 10, lines 5-6 recite: a longitudinally extending fluid flow passage “extending from the second end in a direction of the first end”; however, such is new matter not described in the Specification. Claims 11-20 are rejected by virtue of being dependent upon claim 10.
In regards to claim 10, lines 7-8 recite: “wherein the second end defines an uninterrupted, planar surface”; however, such is new matter not described in the Specification. Figure 2 instead shows the second end 12B having a ring-shaped surface interrupted by the longitudinally extending fluid flow passage 14. Claims 11-20 are rejected by virtue of being dependent upon claim 10.
In regards to claim 21, lines 6-7 recite: a longitudinally extending fluid flow passage “extending from the second end in a direction of the first end”; however, such is new matter not described in the Specification. Claim 22 is rejected by virtue of being dependent upon claim 21.
In regards to claim 21, lines 8-9 recite: “wherein the second end defines an uninterrupted, planar surface”; however, such is new matter not described in the Specification. Figure 2 instead shows the second end 12B having a ring-shaped surface interrupted by the longitudinally extending fluid flow passage 14. Claim 22 is rejected by virtue of being dependent upon claim 21.
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 1-4 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura (JP 7-236696).
In regards to claim 1, Nakamura teaches a three-way urology catheter stopcock (Figures 1-4B) comprising:
a stopcock body (15) having a first end (20) and a second end (the bottom of the stopcock main body in which bottom lid 25 is fitted) and defining a longitudinally extending fluid flow passage extending from the second end in a direction of the first end (Figure 3B), the body having three connector mounting openings in a wall of the body (Figure 3B), wherein the second end defines an uninterrupted, planar surface (Figure 3B)
an on/off selector (1) movably mounted within the fluid flow passage of the body (Figure 1), the on/off selector including a longitudinally extending, cylindrical selector body (2) having a first portion (7), a second portion (labeled in Figure 2B below), an open end (9), a closed end (Figure 2B), and three fluid flow openings (10) in a wall of the selector body (Figures 2A, 2B), the first portion having a first diameter, the entire second portion having a second diameter, the first diameter being greater than the second diameter, the second portion extending from the first portion to the three fluid flow openings (Figures 2A, 2B)
wherein the closed end includes one of a plurality of fluid flow indicator members and fluid flow indicia (4/5/6)
two first connectors (16/18)
a second connector (17)
PNG
media_image1.png
288
456
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Nakamura does not teach the two first connectors “mounted in opposing connector mounting openings of the three connector mounting openings of the stopcock body” and the second connector “mounted in a connector mounting opening of the three connector mounting openings that is between the opposing connector mounting openings in which the two first connectors are mounted”, as Nakamura instead teaches the two first connectors integral to the stopcock body adjacent opposing connector mounting openings of the three connector mounting openings of the stopcock body (Figure 3B) and the second connector integral to the stopcock body adjacent a connector mounting opening of the three connector mounting openings that is between the opposing connector mounting openings the two first connectors are adjacent to (Figure 3A). But it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the two first connectors and the second connector, of the stopcock of Nakamura, to be mounted in opposing connector mounting openings of the three connector mounting openings of the stopcock body and mounted in a connector mounting opening of the three connector mounting openings that is between the opposing connector mounting openings in which the two first connectors are mounted, respectively, as an obvious matter of design choice, as either the two first connectors and the second connector being integral to the stopcock body, or the two first connectors and the second connector being mounted in the connector mounting openings of the stopcock body, thus being separable components, will allow for the same end result of allowing fluid flow through the stopcock. And the two first connectors and the second connector being mounted in the connector mounting openings of the stopcock body, thus being separable components, additionally will allow for replacement of damaged components and continued use of undamaged components.
In regards to claim 2, in the modified stopcock of Nakamura, Nakamura teaches wherein the stopcock body is cylindrical (Figure 3A).
In regards to claim 3, in the modified stopcock of Nakamura, Nakamura teaches wherein the two first connectors define a catheter port and a drainage bag port (Figures 1, 3A, 3B).
In regards to claim 4, in the modified stopcock of Nakamura, Nakamura teaches wherein the two first connectors are barbed fittings configured for push-on connection to a flexible tube (Figures 1, 3A, 3B).
In regards to claim 7, in the modified stopcock of Nakamura, Nakamura teaches wherein the second connector defines a medication dispensing port (Figure 3A).
In regards to claim 8, in the modified stopcock of Nakamura, Nakamura teaches wherein the three connector mounting openings of the stopcock body are positioned around the wall of the stopcock body at 90 degree intervals (Figures 3A, 3B).
In regards to claim 9, in the modified stopcock of Nakamura, Nakamura teaches wherein the three fluid flow openings of the on/off selector are positioned around the wall of the selector body at 90 degree intervals (Figure 2A).
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Matsumoto et al (US 2011/0233435) and Chen (CN 201337692).
In regards to claim 5, in the modified stopcock of Nakamura, Nakamura teaches wherein the second connector is a needle-free fitting (17) (Figure 3A); however, Nakamura is silent about whether the needle-free fitting is normally closed with a male Luer thread. Matsumoto et al teaches a three-way urology catheter stopcock (Figures 1-14B) wherein a second connector is a normally closed needle-free fitting (22/38) with a male Luer thread (74). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the needle-free fitting, of the modified stopcock of Nakamura, with a male Luer thread, as taught by Matsumoto et al, as such will allow for connection of a syringe with a luer lock connector to the needle-free fitting (paragraph [0071]) to make it possible for drug solution filled inside the syringe to be coinjected through the stopcock (paragraph [0072]) for treatment of the patient. However, Matsumoto et al is silent about why the needle-free connector is normally closed. Chen teaches a three-way urology catheter assembly (Figure 1) wherein a second connector is a normally closed needle-free fitting (6/7). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the needle-free fitting, of the modified stopcock of Nakamura and Matsumoto et al, to be normally closed, as taught by Chen, as such will allow for continuously puncturing infusing without leaking, and especially can be used in the clinical treatment to the patient who needs to perform repeated rinsing and injection (Abstract).
In regards to claim 6, in the modified stopcock of Nakamura, Matsumoto et al, and Chen, Nakamura is silent about wherein the second connector is configured for connection to a corresponding female Luer fitting on a medication dispensing device. Matsumoto et al teaches wherein the second connector is configured for connection to a corresponding female Luer fitting (104/108) on a medication dispensing device (Figures 14A, 14B)(paragraph [0071]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the second connector, of the modified stopcock of Nakamura, Matsumoto et al, and Chen, to be configured for connection to a corresponding female Luer fitting on a medication dispensing device, as taught by Matsumoto et al, as such will allow for connection of a syringe with a luer lock connector to the needle-free fitting (paragraph [0071]) to make it possible for drug solution filled inside the syringe to be coinjected through the stopcock (paragraph [0072]) for treatment of the patient.
Claims 10-14 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura, and further in view of JP 59-140977.
In regards to claim 10, Nakamura teaches a three-way urology catheter stopcock assembly (Figures 1-4B) comprising:
a three-way urology catheter stopcock (Figures 1-4B)
wherein the three-way urology catheter stopcock includes:
a stopcock body (15) having a first end (20) and a second end (the bottom of the stopcock main body in which bottom lid 25 is fitted) and defining a longitudinally extending fluid flow passage extending from the second end in a direction of the first end (Figure 3B), the body having three connector mounting openings in a wall of the body (Figure 3B), wherein the second end defines an uninterrupted, planar surface (Figure 3B)
an on/off selector (1) movably mounted within the fluid flow passage of the body (Figure 1), the on/off selector including a longitudinally extending, cylindrical selector body (2) having a first portion (7), a second portion (labeled in Figure 2B above), an open end (9), a closed end (Figure 2B), and three fluid flow openings (10) in a wall of the selector body (Figures 2A, 2B), the first portion having a first diameter, the entire second portion having a second diameter, the first diameter being greater than the second diameter, the second portion extending from the first portion to the three fluid flow openings (Figures 2A, 2B)
wherein the closed end includes one of a plurality of fluid flow indicator members and fluid flow indicia (4/5/6)
two first connectors (16/18)
a second connector (17)
Nakamura is silent about a urology catheter. JP 59-140977 teaches a three-way urology catheter stopcock assembly (Figures 1-12) comprising a urology catheter (22). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the assembly, of Nakamura, with a urology catheter, as taught by JP 59-140977, as such will allow for draining urine from a patient in need (DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION) for managing urinary incontinence or retention, providing temporary drainage after surgery or during medical procedures, or monitoring urine output in certain medical conditions.
Further, Nakamura does not teach the two first connectors “mounted in opposing connector mounting openings of the three connector mounting openings of the stopcock body” and the second connector “mounted in a connector mounting opening of the three connector mounting openings that is between the opposing connector mounting openings in which the two first connectors are mounted”, as Nakamura instead teaches the two first connectors integral to the stopcock body adjacent opposing connector mounting openings of the three connector mounting openings of the stopcock body (Figure 3B) and the second connector integral to the stopcock body adjacent a connector mounting opening of the three connector mounting openings that is between the opposing connector mounting openings the two first connectors are adjacent to (Figure 3A). But it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the two first connectors and the second connector, of the modified stopcock of Nakamura and JP 59-140977, to be mounted in opposing connector mounting openings of the three connector mounting openings of the stopcock body and mounted in a connector mounting opening of the three connector mounting openings that is between the opposing connector mounting openings in which the two first connectors are mounted, respectively, as an obvious matter of design choice, as either the two first connectors and the second connector being integral to the stopcock body, or the two first connectors and the second connector being mounted in the connector mounting openings of the stopcock body, thus being separable components, will allow for the same end result of allowing fluid flow through the stopcock. And the two first connectors and the second connector being mounted in the connector mounting openings of the stopcock body, thus being separable components, additionally will allow for replacement of damaged components and continued use of undamaged components.
In regards to claim 11, in the modified assembly of Nakamura and JP 59-140977, Nakamura is silent about a urology drainage bag. JP 59-140977 teaches a urology drainage bag (23). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified assembly, of Nakamura and JP 59-140977, with a urology drainage bag, as taught by JP 59-140977, as such will allow for collecting urine from a patient in need, will prevent exterior bacteria from invading the collected urine, will prevent interior bacteria from flowing out outside (DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION) and will allow monitoring urine output in certain medical conditions.
In regards to claim 12, in the modified assembly of Nakamura and JP 59-140977, Nakamura teaches wherein the stopcock body is cylindrical (Figure 3A).
In regards to claim 13, in the modified assembly of Nakamura and JP 59-140977, Nakamura teaches wherein the two first connectors define a catheter port and a drainage bag port (Figures 1, 3A, 3B).
In regards to claim 14, in the modified assembly of Nakamura and JP 59-140977, Nakamura teaches wherein the two first connectors are barbed fittings configured for push-on connection to a flexible tube (Figures 1, 3A, 3B).
In regards to claim 17, in the modified assembly of Nakamura and JP 59-140977, Nakamura teaches wherein the second connector defines a medication dispensing port (Figure 3A).
In regards to claim 18, in the modified assembly of Nakamura and JP 59-140977, Nakamura teaches wherein the three connector mounting openings of the stopcock body are positioned around the wall of the stopcock body at 90 degree intervals (Figures 3A, 3B).
In regards to claim 19, in the modified assembly of Nakamura and JP 59-140977, Nakamura teaches wherein the three fluid flow openings of the on/off selector are positioned around the wall of the selector body at 90 degree intervals (Figure 2A).
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura and JP 59-140977, as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Matsumoto et al and Chen (CN 201337692).
In regards to claim 15, in the modified assembly of Nakamura and JP 59-140977, Nakamura teaches wherein the second connector is a needle-free fitting (17) (Figure 3A); however, Nakamura is silent about whether the needle-free fitting is normally closed with a male Luer thread. Matsumoto et al teaches a three-way urology catheter stopcock assembly (Figures 1-14B) wherein a second connector is a normally closed needle-free fitting (22/38) with a male Luer thread (74). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the needle-free fitting, of the modified assembly of Nakamura and JP 59-140977, with a male Luer thread, as taught by Matsumoto et al, as such will allow for connection of a syringe with a luer lock connector to the needle-free fitting (paragraph [0071]) to make it possible for drug solution filled inside the syringe to be coinjected through the stopcock (paragraph [0072]) for treatment of the patient. However, Matsumoto et al is silent about why the needle-free connector is normally closed. Chen teaches a three-way urology catheter assembly (Figure 1) wherein a second connector is a normally closed needle-free fitting (6/7). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the needle-free fitting, of the modified assembly of Nakamura, JP 59-140977, and Matsumoto et al, to be normally closed, as taught by Chen, as such will allow for continuously puncturing infusing without leaking, and especially can be used in the clinical treatment to the patient who needs to perform repeated rinsing and injection (Abstract).
In regards to claim 16, in the modified assembly of Nakamura, JP 59-140977, Matsumoto et al, and Chen, Nakamura is silent about wherein the second connector is configured for connection to a corresponding female Luer fitting on a medication dispensing device. Matsumoto et al teaches wherein the second connector is configured for connection to a corresponding female Luer fitting (104/108) on a medication dispensing device (Figures 14A, 14B)(paragraph [0071]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the second connector, of the modified assembly of Nakamura, JP 59-140977, Matsumoto et al, and Chen, to be configured for connection to a corresponding female Luer fitting on a medication dispensing device, as taught by Matsumoto et al, as such will allow for connection of a syringe with a luer lock connector to the needle-free fitting (paragraph [0071]) to make it possible for drug solution filled inside the syringe to be coinjected through the stopcock (paragraph [0072]) for treatment of the patient.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura and JP 59-140977, as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Muffly (US 2009/0182309).
In regards to claim 20, in the modified assembly of Nakamura and JP 59-140977, Nakamura is silent about a sterile cap configured to be attached to the second connector via a threaded connection. Muffly teaches a three-way urology catheter stopcock assembly (Figures 1-3) comprising a sterile cap (330) configured to be attached to a second connector (112) via a threaded connection (136/332). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified assembly, of Nakamura and JP 59-140977, with a sterile cap, as taught by Muffly, as such will prevent inadvertent leakage of fluid or subsequent contamination of the second connector (paragraph [0009]).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura, and further in view of JP 59-140977, Matsumoto et al, and Chen.
In regards to claim 21, Nakamura teaches a three-way urology catheter stopcock assembly (Figures 1-4B) comprising:
a three-way urology catheter stopcock (Figures 1-4B)
wherein the three-way urology catheter stopcock includes:
a stopcock body (15) having a first end (20) and a second end (the bottom of the stopcock main body in which bottom lid 25 is fitted) and defining a longitudinally extending fluid flow passage extending from the second end in a direction of the first end (Figure 3B), the body having three connector mounting openings in a wall of the body (Figure 3B), wherein the second end defines an uninterrupted, planar surface (Figure 3B)
an on/off selector (1) movably mounted within the fluid flow passage of the body (Figure 1), the on/off selector including a longitudinally extending, cylindrical selector body (2) having a first portion (7), a second portion (labeled in Figure 2B above), an open end (9), a closed end (Figure 2B), and three fluid flow openings (10) in a wall of the selector body (Figures 2A, 2B), the first portion having a first diameter, the entire second portion having a second diameter, the first diameter being greater than the second diameter, the second portion extending from the first portion to the three fluid flow openings (Figures 2A, 2B)
wherein the closed end includes one of a plurality of fluid flow indicator members and fluid flow indicia (4/5/6)
two first connectors (16/18), wherein the two first connectors are barbed fittings configured for push-on connection to a flexible tube (Figures 1, 3A, 3B)
a second connector (17), wherein the second connector is a needle-free fitting (17) (Figure 3A)
Nakamura is silent about a urology drainage bag. JP 59-140977 teaches a three-way urology catheter stopcock assembly (Figures 1-12) comprising a urology drainage bag (23). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the assembly, of Nakamura, with a urology drainage bag, as taught by JP 59-140977, as such will allow for collecting urine from a patient in need, will prevent exterior bacteria from invading the collected urine, will prevent interior bacteria from flowing out outside (DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION) and will allow monitoring urine output in certain medical conditions.
Further, Nakamura is silent about a urology catheter. JP 59-140977 teaches a urology catheter (22). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified assembly, of Nakamura and JP 59-140977, with a urology catheter, as taught by JP 59-140977, as such will allow for draining urine from a patient in need (DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION) for managing urinary incontinence or retention, providing temporary drainage after surgery or during medical procedures, or monitoring urine output in certain medical conditions.
Further, Nakamura does not teach the two first connectors “mounted in opposing connector mounting openings of the three connector mounting openings of the stopcock body” and the second connector “mounted in a connector mounting opening of the three connector mounting openings that is between the opposing connector mounting openings in which the two first connectors are mounted”, as Nakamura instead teaches the two first connectors integral to the stopcock body adjacent opposing connector mounting openings of the three connector mounting openings of the stopcock body (Figure 3B) and the second connector integral to the stopcock body adjacent a connector mounting opening of the three connector mounting openings that is between the opposing connector mounting openings the two first connectors are adjacent to (Figure 3A). But it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the two first connectors and the second connector, of the modified stopcock of Nakamura and JP 59-140977, to be mounted in opposing connector mounting openings of the three connector mounting openings of the stopcock body and mounted in a connector mounting opening of the three connector mounting openings that is between the opposing connector mounting openings in which the two first connectors are mounted, respectively, as an obvious matter of design choice, as either the two first connectors and the second connector being integral to the stopcock body, or the two first connectors and the second connector being mounted in the connector mounting openings of the stopcock body, thus being separable components, will allow for the same end result of allowing fluid flow through the stopcock. And the two first connectors and the second connector being mounted in the connector mounting openings of the stopcock body, thus being separable components, additionally will allow for replacement of damaged components and continued use of undamaged components.
Further, Nakamura is silent about whether the needle-free fitting is normally closed with a male Luer thread. Matsumoto et al teaches a three-way urology catheter stopcock assembly (Figures 1-14B) wherein a second connector is a normally closed needle-free fitting (22/38) with a male Luer thread (74). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the needle-free fitting, of the modified assembly of Nakamura and JP 59-140977, with a male Luer thread, as taught by Matsumoto et al, as such will allow for connection of a syringe with a luer lock connector to the needle-free fitting (paragraph [0071]) to make it possible for drug solution filled inside the syringe to be coinjected through the stopcock (paragraph [0072]) for treatment of the patient. However, Matsumoto et al is silent about why the needle-free connector is normally closed. Chen teaches a three-way urology catheter assembly (Figure 1) wherein a second connector is a normally closed needle-free fitting (6/7). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the needle-free fitting, of the modified assembly of Nakamura, JP 59-140977, and Matsumoto et al, to be normally closed, as taught by Chen, as such will allow for continuously puncturing infusing without leaking, and especially can be used in the clinical treatment to the patient who needs to perform repeated rinsing and injection (Abstract).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura, JP 59-140977, Matsumoto et al, and Chen, as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Muffly.
In regards to claim 22, in the modified assembly of Nakamura, JP 59-140977, Matsumoto et al, and Chen, Nakamura is silent about a sterile cap configured to be attached to the second connector via a threaded connection. Muffly teaches a three-way urology catheter stopcock assembly (Figures 1-3) comprising a sterile cap (330) configured to be attached to a second connector (112) via a threaded connection (136/332). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified assembly, of Nakamura, JP 59-140977, Matsumoto et al, and Chen, with a sterile cap, as taught by Muffly, as such will prevent inadvertent leakage of fluid or subsequent contamination of the second connector (paragraph [0009]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 20, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive:
In regards to claim 1, Applicant argued: Nakamura fails to teach or suggest a second end in which a longitudinally extending fluid flow passage extends, where the second end defines an uninterrupted, planar surface. Instead, Nakamura describes a top of a cylindrical part surface having recesses 21, 22, 23 formed therein. (See Nakamura, paragraph [0007]; Fig. 3A.) (Remarks, page 6). Examiner disagrees. Nakamura teaches a second end (the bottom of the stopcock main body in which bottom lid 25 is fitted) and defining a longitudinally extending fluid flow passage extending from the second end in a direction of the first end (20) (Figure 3B), wherein the second end defines an uninterrupted, planar surface (Figure 3B).
In regards to claim 10, Applicant argued: As discussed above, Nakamura fails to teach or suggest a second end in which a longitudinally extending fluid flow passage extends, where the second end defines an uninterrupted, planar surface. Instead, Nakamura describes a top of a cylindrical part surface having recesses 21, 22, 23 formed therein. (See Nakamura, paragraph [0007]; Fig. 3A.) (Remarks, page 7). Examiner disagrees. Nakamura teaches a second end (the bottom of the stopcock main body in which bottom lid 25 is fitted) and defining a longitudinally extending fluid flow passage extending from the second end in a direction of the first end (20) (Figure 3B), wherein the second end defines an uninterrupted, planar surface (Figure 3B).
In regards to claim 21, Applicant argued: As discussed above, Nakamura fails to teach or suggest a second end in which a longitudinally extending fluid flow passage extends, where the second end defines an uninterrupted, planar surface (Remarks, pages 8-9). Examiner disagrees. Nakamura teaches a second end (the bottom of the stopcock main body in which bottom lid 25 is fitted) and defining a longitudinally extending fluid flow passage extending from the second end in a direction of the first end (20) (Figure 3B), wherein the second end defines an uninterrupted, planar surface (Figure 3B).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHEFALI D PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-3645. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-4:30pm EST.
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 C 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.
/SHEFALI D PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3783
Prosecution Insights