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 on 6/4/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-2 and 4-17 remain pending in the application. Claim 17 has been withdrawn from further consideration as detailed in the Non-final Office Action mailed 3/6/2026.
Applicants amendments to the specification have overcome the drawing objections previously set forth in the Non-final Office Action mailed 3/6/2026.
Applicants amendments to the abstract have overcome the abstract objections previously set forth in the Non-final Office Action mailed 3/6/2026.
Applicants amendments to the claims have overcome the claim objections previously set forth in the Non-final Office Action mailed 3/6/2026.
Applicants amendments to the claims have overcome the rejections under 35 USC 112 previously set forth in the Non-final Office Action mailed 3/6/2026.
Election/Restrictions
Claim 1 is directed to an allowable product. Pursuant to the procedures set forth in MPEP § 821.04(B), claim 17, directed to the process of making or using an allowable product, previously withdrawn from consideration as a result of a restriction requirement, is hereby rejoined and fully examined for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104.
Because all claims previously withdrawn from consideration under 37 CFR 1.142 have been rejoined, the restriction requirement as set forth in the Office action mailed on 9/18/2025 is hereby withdrawn. In view of the withdrawal of the restriction requirement as to the rejoined inventions, applicant(s) are advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application. Once the restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. See In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 7-8 recites “and a wire”. As the wire is not the last component claimed in claim 1, Examiner suggest removing the term “and” to put the claim in clearer grammatical form.
Line 16-17 recites “of the connector housing; a gas connection piece”. As the gas connection piece is the last component claimed in claim 1, Examiner suggests replacing “of the connector housing; a gas connection piece” with “of the connector housing; and a gas connection piece” to put the claim in clearer grammatical form.
Claim 17 objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 8 recites “the bent site.” Line 5 recites “elastically bending the hollow cylindrical body at a site”. Examiner suggests replacing “the bent site” with “the site that has been elastically bent” to put the claim in clearer form as to which site “the bent site” refers to.
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.
Claim 17 is 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.
In regard to claim 17,
Line 3 recites “its proximal end”. It is unclear what structure “its” refers to. For examination purposes Examiner construes “its proximal end” to be “a proximal end of the hose”. Examiner suggests replacing “its proximal end” in line 3 of claim 17 with “a proximal end of the hose”.
Line 3-4 recites “first providing the hose with the wire projection from its proximal end and the hollow cylindrical body”. It is unclear if the hollow cylindrical body is provided or if the wire is required to project from the hollow cylindrical body. For examination purposes Examiner construes “first providing the hose with the wire projection from its proximal end and the hollow cylindrical body” to be “first providing the hose with the wire projection from a proximal end of the hose and providing the hollow cylindrical body”. Examiner suggests replacing “first providing the hose with the wire projection from its proximal end and the hollow cylindrical body” in line 3-4 of claim 17 with “first providing the hose with the wire projection from a proximal end of the hose and providing the hollow cylindrical body”
Line 7 recites “the proximal end of the wire”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in this claim. Examiner suggests replacing “the proximal end of the wire” in line 7 of claim 17 with “a proximal end of the wire”.
Line 7 recites “the straight section”. Line 5-6 introduces “at least one straight section”. It is unclear if the straight section refers to the at least one straight section or to a specific straight section of the at least one straight section. For examination purposes Examiner construes “the straight section” to be “the at least one straight section”. Examiner suggests replacing “the straight section” in line 7 of claim 17 with “the at least one straight section”.
Line 8 recites “the wire penetrates body”. It is unclear if “body” refers to a body of a user or to the hollow cylindrical body or to a different body. For examination purposes Examiner construes “the wire penetrates body” to be “the wire penetrates the hollow cylindrical body”. Examiner suggests replacing “the wire penetrates body” in line 8 of claim 17 with “the wire penetrates the hollow cylindrical body”.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1-2 and 4-16 would be allowable. It is noted that claim 1 currently has an outstanding claim objection.
Claim 17 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
In regard to claim 1,
The prior art of record does not teach or otherwise render obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in combination with all claim limitations an instrument connection device as claimed in claim 1 comprising, wherein the flexible wall abuts and is elastically pretensioned against the wire at the punctured hole in combination with wherein the wire is electrically and mechanically connected with the at least one electrical contact, and wherein the gas junction is arranged in an interior of the connector housing and a gas connection piece in or on the connector housing, wherein the gas connection piece is fluidically connected with the gas junction.
Graham (U.S. PG publication 20160279374) discloses an instrument connection device (see all of figure 5) comprising a gas junction (figure 5, item 7, or item 3 and 8), a punctured hole (figure 5, item 21), and a wire (figure 5, item 9). Graham fails to disclose wherein the flexible wall is elastically pretensioned against the wire at the punctured hole and wherein the gas junction is arranged in an interior of the connector housing having at least one electrical contact.
Kranys (U.S. Patent no 5207656) discloses an instrument connection device (see figure 1 and 2, item 10 not including item 22) comprising a gas junction (figure 1 and 2, item 26, 28, and 24), a flexible wall (item 24) having a punctured hole (column 1, line 66-column 2, line 2), and a wire (guide wire, column 1, line 51-54), wherein the flexible wall abuts and is elastically pretensioned against the wire at the punctured hole (column 1, line 66-column 2, line 2). Kranys fails to disclose wherein the wire is electrically and mechanically connected with the at least one electrical contact, and wherein the gas junction is arranged in an interior of the connector housing. Accordingly, claim 1 would be allowable.
Dependent claims 2 and 4-15 would be allowable by virtue of being dependent upon allowable independent claim 1.
In regard to claim 16,
The prior art of record does not teach or otherwise render obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in combination with all claim limitations an instrument as claimed in claim 16 having the instrument connection device according to claim 1. Claim 16 requires all limitations of claim 1 and therefore would be allowable for similar reasons as claim 1.
In regard to claim 17,
The prior art of record does not teach or otherwise render obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in combination with all claim limitations a method as claimed in claim 17 for manufacturing the instrument connection device according to claim 1. Claim 17 requires all limitations of claim 1 and therefore would be allowable for similar reasons as claim 1 if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
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 ALEXANDRA ELIZABETH LALONDE whose telephone number is (313)446-6594. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 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 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.
/ALEXANDRA LALONDE/Examiner, Art Unit 3783 /KEVIN C SIRMONS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3783
Prosecution Insights