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 .
Status of Claims
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed 6 November 2025.
Claim 2 is canceled.
Claims 1, 3, and 4 are amended.
Claims 1 and 3-20 are presently pending in this application.
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 1 and 3-20 are 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the fluid passage (…) can be shifted into the open state by means of an inlet-side fluid positive pressure and/or inlet-side fluid negative pressure, wherein an inlet-side fluid negative pressure which is require for opening (…) an inlet-side fluid positive pressure which is required for the opening.” The term “and/or” implies that the fluid passage can be opened by either positive or negative pressure or positive and negative pressure. Yet the same claim requires both a positive and negative pressure to open the passage. For this reason, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably apprised of the scope of the claim (i.e., whether both a positive and negative pressure are required to open the passage, or whether a positive or negative pressure is required to open the passage).
Claims 3-20 are rejected as they depend from independent claim 1.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 5, 6, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Martin (US Patent Publication No. 20180043149 A1).
PNG
media_image1.png
720
646
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Martin teaches a catheter arrangement (Martin: Fig. 1), comprising: a catheter (Fig. 1, catheter device 5), comprising a hollow housing body (Fig. 1, second housing section 22), a tube element (Fig. 1, catheter shaft 16) fitted onto a distal end of the housing body (Fig. 1, catheter shaft 16 is fitted onto the distal end of second housing section 22), a valve element (Fig. 1, diaphragm 30) which is arranged in the housing body (Fig. 2 and 3, diaphragm 30 is arranged within second housing section 22) and is provided with a fluid passage (Fig. 2 and 3, comprising slit 42 and channels 46; para. 0031), and a fluid-conducting path (Fig. 2 and 3, lumen 24 and 26) which is made to extend longitudinally through the housing body (Fig. 2 and 3, housing section 22), the fluid passage (Fig. 2 and 3, comprising slit 42 and channels 46) and the tube element (Fig. 3 above, tube element A) between a proximal inlet side (Fig. 3 above, proximal inlet side B) and a distal outlet side (Fig. 3 above, distal outlet side C); and a hollow needle (medical accessory; para. 0037) which, in a state of readiness of the catheter arrangement (Fig. 1), is made to extend longitudinally through the fluid-conducting path (a guidewire or other medical accessory can be introduced through comprising slit 42 and channels 46, which requires the medical accessory extend through the fluid-conducting path; para. 0037), and which, in a state of use of the catheter arrangement, is drawn out of the fluid-conducting path in the proximal direction (a guidewire or other medical accessory can be introduced through comprising slit 42 and channels 46, which requires the medical accessory extend through the fluid-conducting path; para. 0037), the valve element (Fig. 1, diaphragm 30) comprising an elastic wall portion (Fig. 2 and 3, dome 40 is elastic; para. 0032) through which the fluid passage is made to extend (Fig. 2 and 3, comprising slit 42 and channels 46), and wherein the wall portion (Fig. 2 and 3, dome 40) is elastically deformable under the action of a fluid pressure (comprising slit 42 and channels 46 opens to allow fluid flow under a certain fluid pressure threshold; para. 0032), wherein the fluid passage (Fig. 2 and 3, comprising slit 42 and channels 46) in the state of use of the catheter arrangement is configured to be shifted by a fluid-pressure-induced elastic deformation of the wall portion (Fig. 2 and 3, diaphragm) between an open state (comprising slit 42 and channels 46 opens under certain fluid pressure threshold; para. 0032), in which the fluid passage is open (fluid is able to pass while slit 42 is open; para. 0032), and a closed state (Fig. 2 and 3), in which the fluid passage is closed (Fig. 2 and 3, comprising slit 42 and channels 46 is closed), wherein the elastic wall portion (Fig. 2 and 3, diaphragm) is configured in such a manner that the fluid passage (Fig. 2 and 3, comprising slit 42 and channels 46) - in the state of use of the catheter arrangement (Fig. 1) and starting from its closed state (Fig. 2 and 3) - remains in the closed state in the event of a neutral fluid pressure (fluid pressure must pass a certain threshold in either the distal or proximal direction to open slit 42 or channels 46, thus, neutral pressure results in the slit 42 and channels 46 being closed; para. 0032), and can be shifted into the open state (Fig. 6) by means of an inlet-side fluid positive pressure (Fig. 6, when fluid flow in the distal direction reaches a predetermined pressure threshold, slit 42 is opened; para. 0032) and/or an inlet- side fluid negative pressure (Fig. 7, when fluid flow in the proximal direction reaches a predetermined pressure threshold, channels 46 are opened; para. 0041), wherein an inlet-side fluid negative pressure (Fig. 7, when fluid flow in the proximal direction reaches a predetermined pressure threshold, channels 46 are opened; para. 0041) which is required for opening the fluid passage (Fig. 2 and 3, comprising slit 42 and channels 46) is greater in terms of value than an inlet-side fluid positive pressure (Fig. 6, when fluid flow in the distal direction reaches a predetermined pressure threshold, slit 42 is opened; para. 0032) which is required for the opening (directional flow pressure threshold characteristics can be separately adjusted for each flow direction. The cracking pressure in the proximal direction can be 40-60 mmHg, which is greater than the cracking pressure in the distal direction of 25-32 mmHg; para. 0039 and 0042-0043).
Regarding claim 5, Martin teaches the device above, wherein the elastic wall portion (Fig. 2 and 3, dome 40) has a cupola-shaped curvature (Fig. 2 and 3, dome 40 is dome-shaped), wherein the fluid passage (Fig. 2 and 3, comprising slit 42 and channels 46) is arranged in the region of an apex point of the curvature (Fig. 2 and 3, slit 32 is at the apex of the dome 40).
Regarding claim 6, Martin teaches the device above, wherein the cupola-shaped curvature (Fig. 3, dome 40) of the elastic wall portion (Fig. 2 and 3, dome 40) is concave in the direction of the proximal inlet side (Fig. 3 above, proximal inlet side B) and convex in the direction of the distal outlet side (Fig. 3 above, dome 40 is concave towards the proximal inlet side B and convex towards distal outlet side C).
Regarding claim 17, Martin teaches the device above, wherein the valve element (Fig. 4A, diaphragm 30) has an encircling radial collar (Fig. 4A and 5, outer portion 52) which is fixed in an encircling radial groove (Fig. 3, first and second mating surfaces 25 and 27) of the housing body (Fig. 3, second housing section 22), wherein the housing body (Fig. 3, second housing section 22) is configured as a single piece (Fig. 3, second housing section 22 is one piece).
Regarding claim 18, Martin teaches the device above, wherein the valve element (Fig. 4A, diaphragm 30) has a radial collar (Fig. 4A and 5, outer portion 52) which is fixed between two joined-together housing parts (Fig. 3, first and second mating surfaces 25 and 27 are part of housing section 22, which is one piece) of the housing body (Fig. 3, second housing section 22).
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 3, 4, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin in view of Muse et al (US Patent Publication No. 20200197683 A1), hereinafter Muse.
Regarding claim 3, Martin discloses the arrangement above, wherein directional flow pressure threshold characteristics of the fluid passage can be separately adjusted for each flow direction (para. 0043).
Martin does not expressly disclose the inlet-side fluid negative pressure which is required for opening the fluid passage exceeds the inlet-side fluid positive pressure which is required for opening the fluid passage by 15 times to 25 times.
Muse teaches a fluid passage (Muse: Fig. 10, slit 175 of septum 122), wherein an inlet-side fluid negative pressure (cracking pressure in the proximal direction; para. 0107) which is required for opening the fluid passage exceeds an inlet-side fluid positive pressure (cracking pressure in the distal direction; para. 0107) which is required for opening the fluid passage by 15 times to 25 times (cracking pressure in the proximal direction can be 15 times greater than the cracking pressure in the distal direction; para. 0107).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the fluid passage of Martin such that the inlet-side fluid negative pressure which is required for opening the fluid passage exceeds the inlet-side fluid positive pressure which is required for opening the fluid passage by 15 times to 25 times as taught by Muse in order to make it easier to introduce fluids into a patient than it is to remove fluid from a patient (Muse: para. 0056).
Regarding claim 4, Martin discloses the arrangement above.
Martin does not expressly disclose the inlet-side fluid positive pressure which is required for opening the fluid passage is between 0.2 PSI and 0.4 PSI, and wherein the inlet-side fluid negative pressure which is required for opening the fluid passage is between 5.0 PSI and 7.0 PSI.
Muse teaches a fluid passage, wherein an inlet-side fluid positive pressure (Muse: cracking pressure in the distal direction; para. 0107) which is required for opening the fluid passage is between 0.2 PSI and 0.4 PSI (cracking pressure in the distal direction is 0.1-2.0 PSIG), and wherein an inlet-side fluid negative pressure (cracking pressure in the proximal direction; para. 0107) which is required for opening the fluid passage is between 5.0 PSI and 7.0 PSI (cracking pressure in the proximal direction is 3-15 times greater than the cracking pressure in the distal direction and is, therefore, 0.3-30 PSIG).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the fluid passage of Martin such that the inlet-side fluid positive pressure which is required for opening the fluid passage is between 0.2 PSI and 0.4 PSI, and wherein the inlet-side fluid negative pressure which is required for opening the fluid passage is between 5.0 PSI and 7.0 PSI as taught by Muse in order to make it easier to introduce fluids into a patient than it is to remove fluid from a patient (Muse: para. 0056).
Regarding claim 9, Martin teaches the device above, wherein an axial height of the cupola-shaped curvature (Martin: curvature of the dome 40 has a radius of 0.1 inches; para. 0037) is smaller than a radial diameter of the elastic wall portion (dome 40 diameter is 0.105 inches; para. 0037).
Claims 7, 8, 10, 12, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin in view of Mitchell et al (US Patent No. 11305099 B1), hereinafter Mitchell.
Regarding claim 7, Martin discloses the device above.
Martin does not expressly disclose the cupola-shaped curvature of the elastic wall portion is convex in the direction of the proximal inlet side and concave in the direction of the distal outlet side.
Mitchell teaches the cupola-shaped curvature (Mitchell: Fig. 5A, popper 202 is dome-shaped) of the elastic wall portion (Fig. 5A, popper 202) is convex in the direction of the proximal inlet side (Fig. 5A, popper 202 is convex towards proximal chamber 514) and concave in the direction of the distal outlet side (Fig. 5A, popper 202 is concave towards distal chamber 524).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the elastic wall portion of Martin such that the cupola-shaped curvature of the elastic wall portion is convex in the direction of the proximal inlet side and concave in the direction of the distal outlet side as taught by Mitchell in order to prevent unwanted fluid flow into the proximal chamber; col 13, ln 55 – col 14, ln 11).
Regarding claim 8, Martin discloses the device above.
Martin does not expressly disclose the valve element has a radially outer elastic articulated wall portion which is adjacent to the cupola-shaped curvature and, under the action of an infusion- induced fluid pressure and/or an aspiration-induced fluid pressure, permits an alternate sudden eversion of the cupola-shaped curvature between a stable first state, in which the cupola-shaped curvature is arched distally, and a stable second state, in which the cupola-shaped curvature is arched proximally.
PNG
media_image2.png
756
652
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Mitchell teaches a valve element (Mitchell: Fig. 5A, valve 502) has a radially outer elastic articulated wall portion (ROEAW-portion) (Fig. 5A above, ROEAW-portion A) which is adjacent to a cupola-shaped curvature (Fig. 5A above, ROEAW-portion A is adjacent to the dome of popper 202) and, under an action of an infusion-induced fluid pressure (when upstream fluid pressure exceeds opening pressure of popper 202; col 14, ln 12-30), permits an alternate sudden eversion of the cupola-shaped curvature (Fig. 5A, popper 202 is dome-shaped) between a stable first state (Fig. 5B), in which the cupola-shaped curvature is arched distally (Fig. 5B, popper 202 is arched distally), and a stable second state (Fig. 5A), in which the cupola-shaped curvature is arched proximally (Fig. 5A, popper 202 is arched proximally).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the valve element of Martin such that the valve element has a radially outer elastic articulated wall portion which is adjacent to the cupola-shaped curvature and, under the action of an infusion- induced fluid pressure, permits an alternate sudden eversion of the cupola-shaped curvature between a stable first state, in which the cupola-shaped curvature is arched distally, and a stable second state, in which the cupola-shaped curvature is arched proximally as taught by Mitchell in order to prevent unwanted fluid flow into the proximal chamber; col 13, ln 55 – col 14, ln 11).
Regarding claim 10, Martin discloses the device above,
Martin does not expressly disclose that the fluid passage is formed by a slot arrangement which has at least one first slot and a second slot that form at least one common intersecting point.
Mitchell teaches a fluid passage (Fig. 2A, slits 210) that is formed by a slot arrangement which has at least one first slot and a second slot that form at least one common intersecting point (Fig. 2A, slits 210 is formed by two perpendicular slits that intersect at the center).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the fluid passage of Martin such that the fluid passage is formed by a slot arrangement which has at least one first slot and a second slot that form at least one common intersecting point as taught by Mitchell in order to allow for a change in pressure through the fluid passage (Mitchell: col 14, ln 12-30).
Regarding claim 12, Martin in view of Mitchell discloses the device above.
Martin in view of Mitchell does not expressly disclose that the slot arrangement further comprises a third slot, and wherein the at least one first slot, the second slot and the third slot are arranged in particular in a star-shaped manner, forming precisely one common intersecting point.
Mitchell teaches an alternative embodiment of the slot arrangement, further comprising a third slot (Fig. 4C, there are at least three spokes 410), and wherein an at least one first slot, second slot and the third slot (Fig. 4C, there are at least three spokes 410) are arranged in particular in a star-shaped manner (Fig. 4C, spokes 410 are arranged in a star formation), forming precisely one common intersecting point (Fig. 4C, apex 440).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the slot arrangement of Martin in view of Mitchell such that it further comprises a third slot, and wherein the at least one first slot, the second slot and the third slot are arranged in particular in a star-shaped manner, forming precisely one common intersecting point as taught by the alternative embodiment of Mitchell in order to allow for custom dynamic permeability of the membrane (Mitchell: col 12, ln 45 – col 13, ln 25).
Regarding claim 19, Martin in view of Mitchell discloses the device above.
Martin does not expressly disclose the at least one first slot and the second slot are arranged in a cross-shaped manner, forming the at least one common intersecting point.
Mitchell teaches an at least one first slot and second slot (Fig. 2A, slits 210) are arranged in a cross-shaped manner (Fig. 2A, slits 210 are arranged in a cross-shape), forming the at least one common intersecting point (Fig. 2A, slits 210 are arranged perpendicular to each other and intersect at a common point).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the slot arrangement of Martin such that the at least one first slot and the second slot are arranged in a cross-shaped manner, forming the at least one common intersecting point as taught by Mitchell in order to allow for custom dynamic permeability of the membrane (Mitchell: col 12, ln 45 – col 13, ln 25).
Claims 11 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin in view of Mitchell, in further view of Woehr et al (US Patent Publication No. 20180214682 A1), hereinafter Woehr.
Regarding claim 11, Martin in view of Mitchell discloses the device above.
Martin in view of Mitchell does not expressly disclose the slot arrangement further comprises a third slot, and wherein the at least one first slot, the second slot and the third slot form two common intersecting points.
Woehr teaches a valve element (Woehr: Fig. 8C, valve 136), wherein a slot arrangement (Fig. 8C, comprising slit 324 and reliefs 340) comprises a third slot (Fig. 8C, left relief 340), and wherein an at least one first slot (Fig. 8C, slit 324), second slot (Fig. 8C, right relief 340) and the third slot (Fig. 8C, left relief 340) form two common intersecting points (Fig. 8C, slit 324 intersects with the left and right reliefs 340 to form two intersections).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the slot arrangement of Martin in view of Mitchell such that it further comprises a third slot, and wherein the at least one first slot, the second slot and the third slot form two common intersecting points as taught by Woehr in order to allow for greater clearance of the two flaps formed by the h-shaped valve (Woehr: para. 0394).
Regarding claim 20, Martin in view of Mitchell discloses the device above.
Martin in view of Mitchell does not expressly disclose the at least one first slot, the second slot and the third slot are arranged in a H-shaped manner, forming the two common intersecting points.
Woehr teaches a valve element (Woehr: Fig. 8C, valve 136), wherein an at least one first slot (Fig. 8C, slit 324), second slot (Fig. 8C, right relief 340) and third slot (Fig. 8C, left relief 340) are arranged in a H-shaped manner (Fig. 8C, slit 324 and reliefs 340 are arranged in an H-shaped manner), forming two common intersecting points (Fig. 8C, slit 324 intersects with the left and right reliefs 340 to form two intersections).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the slot arrangement of Martin in view of Mitchell such that the at least one first slot, the second slot and the third slot are arranged in a H-shaped manner, forming the two common intersecting points as taught by Woehr in order to allow for greater clearance of the two flaps formed by the h-shaped valve (Woehr: para. 0394).
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin in view of Mitchell, in further view of Stout et al. (US Patent Publication No. 20130090610 A1), hereinafter Stout.
Regarding claim 13, Martin in view of Mitchell discloses the device above.
Martin in view of Mitchell does not expressly disclose the elastic wall portion has at least one first pair of rib elements and one second pair of rib elements that are in each case arranged opposite one another in pairs with respect to the at least one common intersecting point, wherein the first pair of rib elements is arranged offset radially further outwards with respect to the intersecting point than the second pair of rib elements.
PNG
media_image3.png
502
742
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Stout teaches a valve element (Stout: Fig. 3E, septum 50), wherein an elastic wall portion (Fig. 3E, septum 52) has at least one first pair of rib elements (Fig. 3E above, first pair rib elements A) and one second pair of rib elements (Fig. 3E above, second pair rib elements C) that are in each case arranged opposite one another in pairs (Fig. 3E above, rib elements A and C are arranged opposite of their respective pairs) with respect to an at least one common intersecting point (Fig. 3E above, rib elements A and C are arranged about the center slit 56), wherein the first pair of rib elements (Fig. 3E above, first pair rib elements A) is arranged offset radially further outwards with respect to the intersecting point (Fig. 3E above, rib elements A and C are arranged about the center slit 56) than the second pair of rib elements (Fig. 3E above, rib elements A are offset further outwards radially from the center slit 56 than the rib elements C).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the elastic wall portion of Martin in view of Mitchell such that the elastic wall portion has at least one first pair of rib elements and one second pair of rib elements that are in each case arranged opposite one another in pairs with respect to the at least one common intersecting point, wherein the first pair of rib elements is arranged offset radially further outwards with respect to the intersecting point than the second pair of rib elements as taught by Stout in order to provide selective access or flow of fluid through the valve (Stout: para. 0031).
Regarding claim 14, Martin in view of Mitchell teach the device above.
Martin in view of Mitchell does not expressly disclose at least one further fluid passage is made to extend through the elastic wall portion, wherein the at least one further fluid passage is formed by at least two circumferential slots made to extend longitudinally in the circumferential direction of the elastic wall portion, and wherein the at least two circumferential slots are arranged offset radially outwards relative to the fluid passage.
Stout teaches at least one further fluid passage (Stout: Fig. 3E above, fluid passages B) is made to extend through an elastic wall portion (fluid passages B of the slits 66 allow fluid passage, which would require the passages to extend through the elastic wall portion; para. 0038), wherein the at least one further fluid passage (Stout: Fig. 3E above, fluid passages B) is formed by at least two circumferential slots (Stout: Fig. 3E above, fluid passages B are circumferential slots; para. 0038) made to extend longitudinally in the circumferential direction of the elastic wall portion (Stout: Fig. 3E above, fluid passages B are circumferential slots, extending longitudinally across surface 52), and wherein the at least two circumferential slots (Stout: Fig. 3E above, fluid passages B are circumferential slots; para. 0038) are arranged offset radially outwards relative to a fluid passage (Stout: Fig. 3E above, fluid passages B are circumferential slots, offset radially outwards relative to center slit 56; para. 0038).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the elastic wall portion of Martin in view of Mitchell such that at least one further fluid passage is made to extend through the elastic wall portion, wherein the at least one further fluid passage is formed by at least two circumferential slots made to extend longitudinally in the circumferential direction of the elastic wall portion, and wherein the at least two circumferential slots are arranged offset radially outwards relative to the fluid passage as taught by Stout in order to provide selective access or flow of fluid through the valve (Stout: para. 0031).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin in view of Mitchell and Stout, in further view of Blanchard (US Patent Publication No. 20220032006 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Martin in view of Mitchell and Stout discloses the device above.
Martin in view of Mitchell and Stout does not expressly disclose the circumferential slots are in each case longer on a distal side of the elastic wall portion than on a proximal side of the elastic wall portion, and/or in that the fluid passage has at least one slot which is longer on the proximal side of the elastic wall portion than on the distal side of the elastic wall portion.
PNG
media_image4.png
460
624
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Blanchard teaches an elastic wall portion (Blanchard: Fig. 3B, valve 100), wherein slots (Fig. 4B, side slits 104A and B) are in each case longer on a distal side (Fig. 4B, distal face 142) of the elastic wall portion (Fig. 3B, valve 100) than on a proximal side (Fig. 4B, proximal face 142) of the elastic wall portion (Fig. 4B above, side slits 104A and B have a distal length A that is greater than a proximal length B, resulting in the slots 104A and B being longer on the distal face 142 to the proximal face 142).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the elastic wall portion of Martin in view of Mitchell and Stout such that the circumferential slots are in each case longer on a distal side of the elastic wall portion than on a proximal side of the elastic wall portion, and/or in that the fluid passage has at least one slot which is longer on the proximal side of the elastic wall portion than on the distal side of the elastic wall portion as taught by Blanchard in order to allow the valve to actuate at a higher cracking pressure in one fluid direction compared to another (Blanchard: para. 0048).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin in view of Mitchell and Stout, in further view of Teoh (US Patent Publication No. 20160331937 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Martin in view of Mitchell and Stout disclose the device above.
Martin in view of Mitchell and Stout does not expressly disclose the elastic wall portion comprises a first elastic wall portion and a second elastic wall portion, wherein the first elastic wall portion has at least one recessed or raised profiling in a region of the fluid passage, and/or the second elastic wall portion has at least one recessed or raised further profiling in the region of the at least one further fluid passage.
Teoh teaches an elastic wall portion (Teoh: Fig. 5A, valve 110) comprising a first elastic wall portion (Fig. 5A, middle section 146) and a second elastic wall portion (Fig. 5A, second and third sections 148 and 150), wherein the first elastic wall portion (Fig. 5A, middle section 146) has a raised profiling in a region of the fluid passage (Fig. 5A, middle section 146, where a fluid passage is in, is raised compared to sections 148 and 150).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the elastic wall portion of Martin in view of Mitchell and Stout such that the elastic wall portion comprises a first elastic wall portion and a second elastic wall portion, wherein the first elastic wall portion has at least one recessed or raised profiling in a region of the fluid passage as taught by Teoh in order to permit greater fluid flow through the further fluid passages compared to the fluid passage (Teoh: para. 0056).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-8, filed 6 November 2025, with respect to the rejections of claims 1 and 3-20 under 35 USC 102 and 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of an alternative interpretation of Martin discussed above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEI GONZALEZ whose telephone number is (703)756-5908. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am - 4:00pm (CT).
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 at (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.
/LEI GONZALEZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3783
/SCOTT J MEDWAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3783