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
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-16 in the reply filed on 11/06/2025 is acknowledged.
Claim 17 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/06/2025.
Claims 18-20 are newly added claims, and being examined with claims 1-16.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/13/2023, 09/17/2024, 12/18/2024, 04/14/2025 and 08/29/2025 are being considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 26 of copending Application No. 18/021,231 (Claim set of 09/25/2025) in view of Streit et al. (EP 3636298 A1)(Reference herein made with respect to English equivalent found at US 20210228799 A1).
Claim 1 of the instant application
Claim 26/25/1 of 18/021,231, claim set of 09/25/2025
a device containing a retaining mechanism comprising:
A device for use in the analysis of a biomolecule in a liquid sample, the device comprising:
a resiliently biased latch member adapted for motion between at least three positions
transfer means for transferring at least part of the liquid sample… a mechanically powered driver for operating the transfer means (claim 1)
wherein the device includes retaining means for temporarily interrupting the operation of the mechanically powered driver so as to delay the completion of the operation of the transfer means for a period. (claim 25)
a fusible retaining member having at least one engagement surface configured to engage with and act as a stop to the motion of the latch member between two of said positions
wherein the retaining means comprises a fusible retaining member for engaging, and acting as a stop to, the mechanically powered driver and (claim 26)
and a heating member positioned adjacent to the retaining member
a heater (claim 26)(heater is adjacent to the retaining member since the heater is for heating the retaining member)
wherein one motion of the latch member between said positions causes it to engage with the fusible retaining member and stop said motion, and activation of the heating member affects at least a portion of the fusible retaining member causing it to soften, melt, weaken or break allowing the latch member to move so as to release the latch member for a further motion between said positions.
for heating the fusible retaining member, causing the fusible retaining member to soften, melt, weaken or break, so as to release the driver... (claim 26)
Claim 26 of Claim 26/25/1 of 18/021,231 fails to explicitly claim the mechanically powered driver is a resiliently biased latch member adapted for motion between at least three positions, and consequently fails to claim wherein one motion of the latch member between said positions causes it to engage with the fusible retaining member and stop said motion.
However, Streit teaches a device for administrating liquid medication (para. 0002). Streit teaches the device comprises a retaining member (securing member 50 and retaining member 60) and a heating element (41). Streit further teaches the device comprises a mechanically powered driver (cannula unit comprises 20, 25a, 25b, 23, 22 and 24, and springs 70 and 80)(para. 0081) adapted for motion between at least three position (interpreted as a functional limitation. The cannula unit and springs are structurally capable of being in motion between at least three position, including the position secured position immediately before latch member is secured by 60. Moreover, Figs. 5-10 and paras. 0063, 0065 and 0067, secured position, piercing position and retracted position). Streit further teaches the mechanically powered driver is a resiliently biased latch member since the latch member contain compression springs 70 and 80 with which a biasing force is generated to drive motion of the cannula unit to administer/transfer liquid medication (abstract, para. 0081).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the mechanically powered driver claimed by 18/021,231 with a resiliently biased latch member containing compression springs 70 and 80 as taught by Streit in order to generate a biasing force to drive motion of the transfer liquid with a reasonable expectation of success (Streit, abstract, para. 0081) (MPEP 2143)(I)(G).
The limitation of claim 26 as modified by Streit would yield the mechanically powered driver is a resiliently biased latch member adapted for motion between at least three positions, and wherein one motion of the latch member between said positions causes it to engage with the fusible retaining member and stop said motion (interpreted as an intended use. Fig. 5 and paras. 0089, cannula unit and springs are prevented by retaining element 60 and securing element 50 from moving to a piercing direction).
In view of the foregoing, claim 1 is obvious over (and therefore not patentably distinct from) claim 26 in copending Application No. 18/021,231 in view Streit et al. (EP 3636298 A1)(Reference herein made with respect to English equivalent found at US 20210228799 A1).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
line 6, “… causes it to engage with …” should read “… causes the latch member to engage with … “
line 8, “… causing it to soften, melt … “ should read “… causing the fusible retaining member to soften, melt …”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
“biasing means” in claim 10, line 3
“retaining mechanism” in clam 11, line 2;
“drive means” in claim 11, line 2
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
In this instant case:
“drive means” is being interpreted as a driver includes a spring (p. 3, lines 11) and equivalents thereof;
“retaining mechanism” is being interpreted as a structure comprising a resiliently biased latch member, a fusible retaining member having at least one engagement surface and a heating member (p. 5, lines 15-20), and equivalents thereof;“biasing means” is being interpreted as a spring (p. 3, lines 12-13) and equivalents thereof.
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.
Claims 11-13 and 16are 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 11 recites the limitation "wherein the retaining mechanism temporarily interrupts the operation of a drive means" in line 2. It is unclear if the Applicant intends to positively recite the “drive means.” Clarification is requested, for example, “the device further comprises a drive means…” For the purpose of examination, it being interpreted “drive means” is positively recited. In addition, “the retaining mechanism” is only found in the preamble, and it is unclear what structure the retaining mechanism comprises. Consequently, it is unclear what structure “temporarily interrupts the drive means.” Clarification is requested. For the purpose of examination, the retaining mechanism is being interpreted the structure recites in claim 1.
Claims 12 and 13 are indefinite because of their dependency on claim 11.
Regarding claim 16, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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.
Claims 1-6 and 8-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Streit et al. (EP 3636298 A1)(Reference herein made with respect to English equivalent found at US 20210228799 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Streit teaches a device containing a retaining mechanism (para. 0097) comprising:
a resiliently biased latch member (cannula unit comprises 20, 25a, 25b, 23, 22 and 24)(para. 0081, cannula unit contains a guide cylinder 20 with two lateral arms 25a, 25b, the hard cannula 21, the soft cannula 23 and a hard cannula holder 22 and a soft cannula holder 24, which hold the hard or soft cannula 21, 23; the cannula unit is resiliently biased by springs 80 and 70) adapted for motion between at least three positions (interpreted as a functional limitation. The cannula unit biased by springs are structurally capable of being in motion between at least three position, including the position secured position immediately before latch member is secured by 60. Moreover, Figs. 5-10 and paras. 0063, 0065 and 0067, secured position, piercing position and retracted position);
a fusible retaining member (securing member 50 and retaining member 60) having at least one engagement surface (the surface of 60) configured to engage with and act as a stop to the motion of the latch member (para. 0089, cannula unit prevented from moving by 60) between two of said positions (between secured and piercing position); and
a heating member (41) positioned adjacent to the retaining member (para. 0094); wherein one motion of the latch member between said positions causes it (interprets “it” as the latch member) to engage with the fusible retaining member and stop said motion (interpreted as an intended use. Moreover, Fig. 5 and paras. 0089, cannula unit are prevented from moving by retaining element 60 and securing element 50 from moving to a piercing direction), and activation of the heating member affects at least a portion of the fusible retaining member (securing member 50 of 50 and 60) causing it (interprets “it” as the “at least a portion of the fusible retaining member”) to soften, melt, weaken or break (para. 0097, heating element 41 heats securing element 50, which deforms) allowing the latch member to move so as to release the latch member for a further motion between said positions (para. 0097).
Regarding claim 2, Streit teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above with respect to claim 1. Streit further teaches wherein the engagement surface (the surface of 60) is sloped (Figs. 4, part of the surface of 60 is sloped, in particular 62) such that the engagement between the engagement surface and the latch member (cannula unit comprises 20, 25a, 25b, 23, 22 and 24) presses the retaining member towards the heating member (41) (Figs. 3, 4, 7 and paras. 0081 and 0088-89, the cannula holders 22 and 24 sit on top of retaining element 60, in particular, contact surface 29 of holder 24 strike surface 62 of retaining element 60, and thus the cannula holders exerting a downward force to 60 toward PCB board 40 where the heating element 41 locates).
Regarding claim 3, Streit teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above with respect to claim 1. Streit further teaches wherein the latch member (cannula unit) comprises a sloped engagement surface (the surface of the cannula holder 24 has slope, and portion of the surface is sloped, Figs. 3 and 5) such that the engagement between the engagement surface of the retaining member (the surface of 60) and the latch member presses the retaining member towards the heating member (Figs. 3, 7 and paras. 0081 and 0088-89, the cannula holders 22 and 24 sit on top of retaining element 60, in particular, contact surface 29 of holder 24 strike surface 62 of retaining element 60, and thus the cannula holders exerting a downward force to 60 toward PCB board 40 where the heating element 41 locates).
Regarding claim 4, Streit teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above with respect to claim 1. Streit further wherein the retaining member (retaining element 60 and securing element 50) has a softening or melting temperature of between 40°C and 150°C (para. 0097, securing element 50 starts to deform at 100oC).
Regarding claim 5, Streit teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above with respect to claim 1. Streit further teaches wherein the retaining member comprises polycaprolactone or a cyclic/cyclo olefin polymer or copolymer (para. 0039, copolymer ABS).
Regarding claim 6, Streit teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above with respect to claim 1. Streit further teaches wherein the heating member (41) is an element of a printed circuit board (PCB)(40)(para. 0093).
Regarding claim 8, Streit teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above with respect to claim 1. Streit further teaches in which the device is adapted to affect the fusible retaining member , thereby to release the latch member (para. 0097), after a controlled period interpreted as a functional limitation. Para. 0097, the device comprises heating element 41 is capable of affecting/deforming the securing element 50, thereby releasing the cannula unit; “controlled period” is the period that take to heat and deform 50 to release the cannula unit).
Regarding claim 9, Streit teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above with respect to claim 8. Streit further teaches wherein the controlled period begins after the engagement of the latch member and the fusible retaining member and/or a predetermined time after activation of the heating member (The device meets the structural limitation of the intended use. The “controlled period” is the period that take to heat and deform 50 to release the latch member).
Regarding claim 10, Streit teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above with respect to claim 1. Streit further teaches wherein release of the latch member releases stored mechanical energy in a preloaded biasing means (energy stored in spring 80)(para. 0097).
Regarding claim 11, Streit teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above with respect to claim 1. Streit further teaches wherein the retaining mechanism (the structure of claim 1)(see 35 U.S.C. 112 (b)) temporarily interrupts the operation of a drive means (springs 70 and 80)(para. 0097).
Regarding claim 12, Streit teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above with respect to claim 11. Streit further teaches wherein release of the latch member causes the drive means (springs 70 and 80) to transfer a liquid (interpreted as an intended use, a liquid is not positively recited. Moreover, paras. 002, 0084, 0097, the release of the cannula unit with springs 80 and 70 in the cannula unit causes the cannula unit with springs 80 and 70 to transfer medicinal liquid from the cannula unit into a body).
Regarding claim 13, Streit teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above with respect to claim 12. Streit further teaches wherein the drive means (springs 80 and 70) transfers the liquid between different zones in the device (interpreted as an intended use. The liquid is not positively recited. Moreover, para. 0078, abstract and Fig. 2 teaches driven by springs 80 and 70, the cannula unit transfer medicinal liquid from reservoir 4 to cannula 23 of the cannula unit).
Regarding claim 14, Streit teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above with respect to claim 12. Streit further teaches wherein the drive means (springs 80 and 70) transfer the liquid out of the device (interpreted as an intended use. The liquid is not positively recited. Moreover, the abstract and para. 0097 teaches driven by springs 70 and 80, liquid is transferred out of the cannula unit into a body).
Regarding claim 15, Streit teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above with respect to claim 1. Streit further teaches wherein the retaining member (50 and 60) is configured to engage with a casing or chassis element of the device (Figs. 1-3).
Regarding claim 16, Streit teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above with respect to claim 1. Streit further teaches which is a medical device (para. 0002, the device a medical device useful for diagnostic testing) such as a diagnostic test device (see 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above).
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 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Streit et al. (EP 3636298 A1)(Reference herein made with respect to English equivalent found at US 20210228799 A1) in view of DeJohn et al. (US 20140045191 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Streit teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above with respect to claim 6.
Streit teaches a medical device comprises a retaining member (50 and 60) and a heating element (41) on a PCB (40)(see above). Streit teaches the heating element supply heat to melt and deform a portion the retaining member to actuate the device (abstract, paras. 0093, 0097).
Streit fails to teach the device further comprising a temperature sensor wherein the temperature sensor is in thermal contact with the PCB.
However, DeJohn teaches a diagnostic device comprises a resistive heater and a temperature sensor on a PCB (para. 0017). DeJohn further teaches heater is for melting sealing materials to actuate flow control (paras. 0041 and 0056), the temperature sensor is for temperature control (para. 0063).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device taught by Streit to include a temperature sensor on the PCB with the heating element taught by DeJohn in order to achieve temperature control with a reasonable expectation of success (DeJohn, para. 0063) (MPEP 2143)(I)(G).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Streit et al. (EP 3636298 A1)(Reference herein made with respect to English equivalent found at US 20210228799 A1) in view of Vaaland et al. (US 10681253 B1).
Regarding claim 18, Streit teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above with respect to claim 1.
Streit teaches the invention comprises a retaining member which comprises securing element 50 and retaining element 60 (see claim 1). Streit teaches the securing member and retaining element of different shape may be used in the invention (para. 0103). Streit further teaches retaining member 260 and securing member 250 can be use in the invention instead of retaining member 60 and securing member of 50 (paras. 102-110).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted retaining member 60 and securing member 50 with retaining member 260 and securing member 250, respectively, because one of ordinary skill in the art would accordingly have recognized retaining member 260 and securing member 250 would result in the predictable result of providing a retention mechanism as retaining member 60 and securing member 50 (paras. 102-110).
Modified Streit teaches wherein the retaining member (250 and 260) comprises:
a cylindrical body portion (the top portion of 254)(Fig. 14); and
a cylindrical base portion (base portion of 254) disposed beneath the cylindrical body portion,
wherein a diameter of the cylindrical body portion is larger than a diameter of the cylindrical base portion (Fig. 14).
Modified Streit teaches the cannula unit is retained by 260 which is connected to 250 which is mounted to base 230. Streit further teaches the connection between 260 and 250 is achieved by pin 254 of 250 being fitted into the opening of 256 of 260. Streit teaches the securing element 250 may be held with one end on the bearing pin 235, e.g., via the opening of the securing element 250, and with the other end, which may be freely movable with respect to the base 230, with the pin 254 arranged in the opening 264 of the retaining element 260 (para. 0110). Streit further teaches securing element and retaining element of different shape may be used in the invention (para. 0103).
Modified Streit fails to teach the cylindrical body portion comprising a pair of axial fingers, wherein each finger of the pair of axial fingers comprises a ramp surface inclined relative to a radial plane of the retaining member.
However, Vaaland further teaches the use of a discontinuous annular snap joint to connect two parts together (Figs. 2-3). Vaaland teaches a part with a discontinuous annular snap joint comprises a plurality of cantilever hooks (fingers), where in each cantilever comprises a ramp surface inclined relative to a radial plane (Fig. 2, the hooks have inclined ramp surface) is connected to another part with an aperture with an inner wall that includes the corresponding fitting for the discontinuous annular snap joint, wherein the fitting includes grooves (Vaaland, Fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the top portion of 254 and the inner wall of 264 with a discontinuous annular snap joint and the corresponding fitting for the discontinuous annular snap joint, wherein the fitting includes groove as taught by Vaaland (Vaaland, Fig. 2), because one of ordinary skill in the art would accordingly have recognized a part with a discontinuous annular snap joint and another part comprises an aperture with the inner wall of corresponding for the discontinuous annular snap joint wherein the fitting include grooves would result in the predictable result of providing a mechanism in connecting retaining member 260 and securing member 250 (paras. 102-110).
The teachings of modified Streit would yield the cylindrical body portion comprising a pair of axial fingers (cantilevers), wherein each finger of the pair of axial fingers comprises a ramp surface (hooks of the cantilevers) inclined relative to a radial plane of the retaining member (Vaaland, Fig. 2).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 19 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 19, modified Streit teaches a device containing a retaining mechanism as stated above. In addition, modified Streit further teaches the device further comprising a boss (Figs. 13-15, the bottom portion of the wall of 264 is a boss) comprising: an open underside (part of 264 where 254 occupies in Fig. 15) configured to accommodate the retaining member (Fig. 15); a central circular aperture (the part of 264 that is above 254, Fig. 15). Modified Streit further teaches the inner wall of the boss comprises a pair of edge grooves diametrically opposite each other (Vaaland, Fig. 2).
However, Streit does not teach the boss comprising a pair of edge apertures disposed diametrically opposite of each other. It would not have been obvious to modify the boss with a pair of edge apertures disposed diametrically opposite of each other.
Therefore, the prior art whether taken individually or in combination would not disclose all of the cumulative limitations of claim 19. Claim 20 is considered to allowable because of its dependency on claim 19.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Houzego (US 20040215171 A1) teaches a diagnostic device comprises a latch (16 and 18), a retaining member (19) configured to engage with and act as a stop to the motion of the latch member, and a heating member (20) on a PCB (25); wherein activation of the heating member affects at least a portion of the retaining member causing it to melt allowing the latch to move so as to release the latch (paras. 0047 and 0055). Golden et al. (US 7013536 B2) teaches a fastener system comprises a latch member (14), a retaining member (12) having at least one engagement surface configured to engage with and act as a stop to the motion of the latch member (Fig. 1), and a heating member (24); wherein activation of the heating member affects at least a portion of the fusible retaining member causing it to soften, melt, weaken or break allowing the latch member to move so as to release the latch member (abstract and Fig. 2). Toth (US 20140058344 A1) teaches a wound exudating system comprises a spring loaded latch in a secured state and release state, wherein the latch comprise a reed (81), a retaining member (83) and a heating element (80), which heat and melt 83 and consequently release 81 (para. 0123 and Fig. 15 and 16).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAY CHIU whose telephone number is (571)272-1054. The examiner can normally be reached 9 am - 5 pm.
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, Maris Kessel can be reached at 571-270-7698. 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.
/M.L.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1758
/MARIS R KESSEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1758