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 .
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 17-20 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: Applicant’s claim 7 was drawn to a disinfecting cap (species shown in fig 2). Applicant’s new claims are drawn to a different species (that in fig 8).
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 17-20 withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
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 10 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.
It is unclear how “a plurality of ribs” in claim 10 are related to those in claim 1. They are treated as the same.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 13, 14 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Marici et al (US 2019/0234540)
Regarding claim 13, Marici discloses a medical device (fig 14) comprising: a body having a first end 23 and a second end 22 positioned opposite the first end, the body defining an opening (fig 5) extending from the first end and including a sealing surface 29 extending radially outward from the opening (fig 5), a packaging film 60 thermally adhered (¶100) to the sealing surface (¶98), wherein at least a portion of the sealing surface includes a plurality of recessed areas (figs 3A and 5) formed around a perimeter of the sealing surface and positioned at the outer edge of the first end (figs 3A and 5), the plurality of recessed areas configured to prevent formation of plastic strings or debris during separation of the packaging film from the sealing surface (due to rectangular shape as one travels radially outward, shape is similar to Applicant’s in fig 7 and thus is expected to act similarly).
Regarding claim 14, wherein each recessed area of the plurality of recessed areas is rectangular (fig 3A).
Regarding claim 16, wherein the plurality of recessed areas is a plurality of evenly spaced recessed areas (fig 3A).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 13, 15 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Anderson et al (US 2008/0086091).
Regarding claim 13, Anderson discloses a medical device (fig 14) comprising: a body having a first end (end with 70) and a second end (fig 14) positioned opposite the first end, the body defining an opening (fig 14) extending from the first end and including a sealing surface 70 extending radially outward from the opening (fig 14), a packaging film 68 thermally adhered (¶49) to the sealing surface (fig 8, ¶47), wherein at least a portion of the sealing surface includes a plurality of recessed areas 130 formed around a perimeter of the sealing surface and positioned at the outer edge of the first end (fig 14), the plurality of recessed areas configured to prevent formation of plastic strings or debris during separation of the packaging film from the sealing surface (due to triangular shape as one travels radially outward, shape is similar to Applicant’s and thus is expected to act similarly).
Regarding claim 15, wherein each of the plurality of recessed areas are sloped (fig 14).
Regarding claim 16, wherein the plurality of recessed areas is a plurality of evenly spaced recessed areas (fig 14).
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) 1-8, 10 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson et al (US 2008/0086091).
Regarding claim 1, Anderson discloses a medical device (fig 14) comprising: a body having a first end (fig 14) including a flange 70 radially outwardly from the body and a second end positioned opposite the first end, the body defining an opening (fig 14) extending from the first end and including a sealing surface extending radially outward from the opening (fig 14), a portion of the sealing surface on the flange (fig 14); a packaging film 68 thermally adhered (¶49) to the sealing surface (fig 8, ¶47) wherein at least a portion of the sealing surface includes a non-circular perimeter pattern 130 (fig 14) configured to provide a plurality of stress concentration points to prevent formation of plastic strings or debris during separation of the packaging film from the sealing surface (due to triangular shape as one travels radially outward, shape is similar to Applicant’s and thus is expected to act similarly).
While Anderson substantially discloses the invention as claimed, it does not disclose the body including a plurality of ribs extending radially outwardly from the body in a direction from the flange to the second end.
Anderson discloses other embodiments (such as fig 12) where a plurality of ribs extends radially outward from the body in a direction from the flange to the second end. This is part of a variety of different arrangements for the ribs (figs 12-14) and providing the ribs 130 of fig 12 to that of fig 14 is seen as obvious to allow a user to decide which ribs/non-circular perimeter pattern they want to use.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify fig 14 of Anderson such that it includes a plurality of ribs extending radially outwardly from the body in a direction from the flange to the second end as taught by Anderson in fig 12 to allow a user to decide which type of grip they prefer to use to operate the device.
Regarding claim 2, wherein an entirety of the sealing surface includes the non-circular perimeter pattern (fig 14).
Regarding claim 3, wherein the non-circular perimeter pattern is co- planar with the sealing surface (fig 14).
Regarding claim 4, wherein the non-circular perimeter pattern comprises a sawtooth shape (fig 14).
Regarding claim 5, wherein the non-circular perimeter pattern comprises a plurality of triangles, with a plurality of triangle-shaped recessed areas defined between the non-circular pattern and an outer edge of the first end of the body (fig 14).
Regarding claim 6, wherein at least a portion of the plurality of stress concentration points are positioned at an outer edge of the first end of the body (fig 14).
Regarding claim 7, wherein the medical device comprises a disinfecting cap 120 (fig 11), and wherein the second end of the body is closed (fig 11).
Regarding claim 8, wherein an inner surface of the opening of the body is threaded 1716 (figs 11 and 14).
Regarding claim 10, wherein the body comprising a plurality of ribs extending in a direction from the first end of the body toward the second end of the body (see combination in claim 1).
Regarding claim 12, wherein the packaging film forms a fluid tight seal with the body (fig 7, ¶49).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to all claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
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 BRADLEY JAMES OSINSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-3640. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 9AM to 5PM.
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, Michael Tsai can be reached at (571)270-5246. 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.
/BRADLEY J OSINSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3783