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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 09/30/2025 has been entered. Claims 36 has been amended. Claims 1-13, 16, 20, 22, 26-27 and 29-35 are cancelled. Claims 14-15, 17-19, 21, 23-25, 28 and 36-45 remain pending in this application.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 14-15, 17-19, 21, 23-25 and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vera (Pub. No.: 2014/0252177 A1), in view of Carey-Hench (Pat. No.: US 9,895,486 B1), and further in view of Dunn (US Pat. No.: 5,349,710).
Regarding claim 14, Vera discloses (fig. 1, 3) a tubing management device (intravenous line organizer 10), the tubing management device comprising:
A body including a generally planar field (¶ 0017), and having plural pairs of spaced apart retention means (11, 12), each of the pairs of retention means sized to accept flexible tubing therebetween (¶ 0017), wherein the pairs of retention means are arranged in at least first and second rows such that the flexible tubing may be retained with respect to the body along the first and second rows (fig. 3);
At least one aperture (clip holes 19, 20) in the body having an aperture width greater than an aperture height (fig. 1).
Vera fails to disclose that the tubing management device is a drainage tubing management device and the retention means sized to accept flexible drainage tubing therebetween. However, the tubing management device of Vera retains and manages tubing (abstract) and is therefore capable of being used to retain drainage tubing and being a drainage tubing management device. The claimed invention being specifically for drainage tubing does not impart further structure on the tubing management device. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Vera such that it retains drainage tubing in order to organize and manage drainage tubing.
Vera fails to disclose that the retention means are protrusions extending from the generally planar field.
Carey-Hench teaches (fig. 7) fig. 1-2, 7-8) a drainage tubing management device (tube holding device 10, col. 7, ln. 3-7) and thus in the same field of endeavor, comprising:
A body (primary body portion 20) including a generally planar field (col. 4, ln. 51), and having plural pairs of spaced-apart protrusions (clip members 23) extending from the generally planar field (fig. 7), each of the pairs of protrusions sized to accept flexible drainage tubing therebetween (col. 5, ln. 30-33).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the retention means of Vera such that they are protrusions, as taught by Carey-Hench, as such structure is suitable for receiving tubing (Carey-Hench col. 5, ln. 30-37).
Vera in view of Carey-Hench fail to disclose a post having a longitudinal axis, the post having a first end portion being insertable through the at least one aperture and an opposite second end portion having a terminal flange occluding passage of the post through the at least one aperture, the post being sufficiently rigid and dimensioned to support the body and secure the body with respect to a structure when the post is inserted between supporting surfaces of the structure, said post including at least one tooth.
Dunn teaches (fig. 1-5) a tubing management device (flexible bag retaining device 10, col. 2, ln. 59-65) and thus in the same field of endeavor, comprising: a post (elongated member 12) having a longitudinal axis (fig. 1), the post being sufficiently rigid (col. 2, ln. 40-43) and dimensioned to support a body and secure the body with respect to a structure when the post is inserted between supporting surfaces of the structure (fig. 5, col. 3, ln. 48-53), said post including at least one tooth (gripping means 14, fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Vera in view of Carey-Hench such that it comprises a post having a longitudinal axis, the post being sufficiently rigid and dimensioned to support the body and secure the body with respect to a structure when the post is inserted between supporting surfaces of the structure, said post including at least one tooth, as taught by Dunn, in order to allow the tubing management device to be retained to a bed (col. 1, ln. 62-65). Further, Dunn teaches the post having a terminal flange (see flared region between the retaining ring 11 and elongated member 12, fig. 4). Thus, Dunn teaches the post having a first end portion and an opposite second end portion having a terminal flange. Accordingly, the device of Vera in view of Carey-Hench and further in view of Dunn teach the post having a first end portion being insertable through the at least one aperture and an opposite second end portion having a terminal flange occluding passage of the post through the at least one aperture.
Regarding claim 15, Vera in view of Carey-Hench and further in view of Dunn disclose wherein the first end portion of the post is sized for insertion through the at least one aperture orthogonal to the generally planar field (Vera, fig. 1 aperture).
Regarding claim 17, Vera discloses wherein the first and second rows are generally parallel to each other (fig. 3).
Regarding claim 18, Vera in view of Carey-Hench and further in view of Dunn disclose wherein the body has a top edge (Vera, fig. 1, end 15) and a bottom edge (Vera, fig. 1, end 16), and wherein the first row of the pairs of protrusions is located proximal to the top edge (Vera, fig. 3, see opening 11), and the second row of the pairs of protrusions is located in proximity to the bottom edge (Vera, fig. 3, see retention means holding line 36).
Regarding claim 19, Vera in view of Carey-Hench and further in view of Dunn disclose wherein the body further includes at least at least one additional pair of protrusions disposed between the first and second rows (Vera, fig. 3, see retention means holding line 34).
Regarding claim 21, Vera discloses wherein the body includes at least two apertures (clip holes 19, 20).
Thus, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Vera in view of Carey-Hench and further in view of Dunn such that it includes at least two posts, each having a longitudinal axis, each of the posts being insertable through one of the apertures and having a terminal flange post occluding passage of the post through the at least one aperture, in order to provide a post for each aperture to provide additional support for retaining the device.
Further, a mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (In re Harza, 124 USPQ 70, see MPEP § 2144.04 VI. B.).
Regarding claim 23, Vera in view of Carey-Hench and further in view of Dunn disclose the post having a width greater than a height (Dunn, fig. 1).
Regarding claim 24, Vera in view of Carey-Hench and further in view of Dunn disclose the post having a non-circular cross-section (Dunn, fig. 1).
Regarding claim 25, Vera in view of Carey-Hench and further in view of Dunn disclose wherein the plural pairs of spaced-apart protrusions are axially aligned along an axis (Vera fig. 1).
Regarding claim 28, Vera in view of Carey-Hench and further in view of Dunn disclose the post including a plurality of teeth (Dunn, fig. 1).
Claim(s) 36-45 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vera, in view of Carey-Hench, and further in view of Mossanen-Shams et al. (Pub. No.: US 2005/0131353 A1).
Regarding claim 36, Vera discloses (fig. 1, 3) a tubing management device (intravenous line organizer 10), the tubing management device comprising:
A body including a generally planar field (¶ 0017), and having plural pairs of spaced apart retention means (11, 12), each of the pairs of retention means sized to accept flexible tubing therebetween (¶ 0017), wherein the pairs of retention means are arranged in at least first and second rows such that the flexible tubing may be retained with respect to the body along the first and second rows (fig. 3);
At least one aperture (clip holes 19, 20) in the body having an aperture width greater than an aperture height (fig. 1); and
A flexible strap (fastener) secured in a loop around a frame member of a support structure (¶ 0018).
Vera fails to disclose that the tubing management device is a drainage tubing management device and the retention means sized to accept flexible drainage tubing therebetween. However, the tubing management device of Vera retains and manages tubing (abstract) and is therefore capable of being used to retain drainage tubing and being a drainage tubing management device. The claimed invention being specifically for drainage tubing does not impart further structure on the tubing management device. Further, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Vera such that it retains drainage tubing in order to organize and manage drainage tubing.
Vera fails to disclose that the retention means are protrusions.
Carey-Hench teaches (fig. 7) fig. 1-2, 7-8) a drainage tubing management device (tube holding device 10, col. 7, ln. 3-7) and thus in the same field of endeavor, comprising:
A body (primary body portion 20) including a generally planar field (col. 4, ln. 51), and having plural pairs of spaced-apart protrusions (clip members 23) extending from the generally planar field (fig. 7), each of the pairs of protrusions sized to accept flexible drainage tubing therebetween (col. 5, ln. 30-33).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the retention means of Vera such that they are protrusions, as taught by Carey-Hench, as such structure is suitable for receiving tubing (Carey-Hench col. 5, ln. 30-37).
Vera in view of Carey-Hench fail to disclose the flexible strap having a first end portion sized for insertion through the at least one aperture and an opposite second end portion having a terminal flange occluding passage of the strap through the at least one aperture, wherein the terminal flange includes a retaining post, and wherein the first end portion of the at least one opening engageable with the retaining post to secure the flexible strap in a loop around a frame member of the support structure.
Mossanen-Shams teaches (fig. 1) a tubing management device (intravenous device 10) and thus in the same field of endeavor, comprising: a flexible strap (band 12) having a first end portion sized for insertion through at least one aperture (see end comprising adjustment holes 14, claim 18) and an opposite second end portion having a terminal flange (fastening device 16) occluding passage of the strap through the at least one aperture (fig. 1), wherein the terminal flange includes a retaining post (fig. 1), and wherein the first end portion includes at least one opening (adjustment holes 14) engageable with the retaining post to secure the flexible strap in a loop (¶ 0017).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the flexible strap of Vera in view of Carey-Hench such that it has a first end portion sized for insertion through the at least one aperture and an opposite second end portion having a terminal flange occluding passage of the strap through the at least one aperture, wherein the terminal flange includes a retaining post, and wherein the first end portion of the at least one opening engageable with the retaining post to secure the flexible strap in a loop, as taught by Mossanen-Shams, in order to provide a strap that is adjustable (Mossanen-Shams ¶ 0008).
Regarding claim 37, Vera in view of Carey-Hench, and Mossanen-Shams disclose wherein the first end portion of the flexible strap is sized for insertion through the at least one aperture orthogonal to the generally planar field (Vera fig. 3).
Regarding claim 38, Vera discloses wherein the first and second rows are generally parallel to each other (fig. 3).
Regarding claim 39, Vera in view of Carey-Hench, and Mossanen-Shams disclose wherein the body has a top edge (Vera, fig. 1, end 15) and a bottom edge (Vera, fig. 1, end 16), and wherein the first row of the pairs of protrusions is located proximal to the top edge (Vera, fig. 3, see opening 11), and the second row of the pairs of protrusions is located in proximity to the bottom edge (Vera, fig. 3, see retention means holding line 36).
Regarding claim 40, Vera in view of Carey-Hench, and Mossanen-Shams disclose wherein the body further includes at least at least one additional pair of protrusions disposed between the first and second rows (Vera, fig. 3, see retention means holding line 34).
Regarding claim 41, Vera discloses wherein the body includes at least two apertures (clip holes 19, 20), the device including at least two flexible hanging straps (fig. 3). Accordingly, Vera in view of Carey-Hench, and Mossanen-Shams disclose the two flexible straps each insertable through one of the apertures and having a terminal strap flange occluding passage of the strap through the aperture.
Regarding claim 42, Vera discloses the flexible strap having a width greater than a height (fig. 3).
Regarding claim 43, Vera discloses the flexible strap having a non-circular cross-section (fig. 3).
Regarding claim 44, Vera in view of Carey-Hench, and Mossanen-Shams disclose wherein the plural pairs of spaced-apart protrusions are axially aligned along an axis (Vera fig. 1).
Regarding claim 45, Vera in view of Carey-Hench, and Mossanen-Shams disclose wherein the at least one opening includes a plurality of openings engageable with the retaining post (Mossanen-Shams ¶ 0017).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to claim 36 overcome the 112(a) rejection and the 112(a) rejection is therefore withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 09/30/2025 with respect to the claim rejections under 35 USC §103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the combination of Vera with Carey-Hench is improper. Applicant argues that it would not be useful to include clips to the device of Vera as clips would crush the IV lines to an extent and that Vera teaches away from clips. However, Carey-Hench discloses the clips being appropriately sized to receive tubing (abstract). Thus, the clips of Carey-Hench would not crush the IV lines. Accordingly, the modification of Vera with Carey-Hench provides the predictable result of retaining IV lines.
Applicant argues that the introduction of Dunn further adds impropriety and that the Dunn reference is cited solely for its disclosure of structure 14 to read on the claimed tooth. However, as discussed in the rejection above and reiterated herein, Dunn teaches the claimed post being dimensioned to support a body and secure the body with respect to a structure when the post is inserted between supporting surfaces of the structure.
Regarding claim 36, applicant argues that Mossanen-Shams describes a band that is securable to a wrist or hand and has no connection with a drainage bag. However, claim 36 does not recite a drainage bag. Applicant argues that the challenges involved with securing an intravenous catheter to the skin of the patient are different from those involved in managing drainage tubing. However, Mossanen-Shams teaches that the invention can be used for drain tubes (¶ 0021). Thus, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to modify Vera in view of Carey-Hench with Mossanen-Shams.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Garrett (Pub. No.: US 2006/0224130 A1) discloses a device comprising a post being sufficiently rigid and dimensioned to support the body and secure the body with respect to a structure when the post is inserted between supporting surfaces of the structure.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MEAGAN NGO whose telephone number is (571)270-1586. The examiner can normally be reached M - TH 8:00 - 4:00 PT.
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, Sarah Al-Hashimi can be reached on (571) 272-7159. 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.
/MEAGAN NGO/Examiner, Art Unit 3781
/SARAH AL HASHIMI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3781
Prosecution Insights