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. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement(s) filed on the record are in compliance with the content requ irements of 37 CFR 1.97 and 37 CFR 1.98 and have been considered. Drawings The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters 704 and 711 , in Fig. 7, point to the same structure (see 7). The specification describes feature 704 as a “channel” (see para [0060]) and feature 711 as a “third trench formed in a sidewall of the protuberance 710” (see para [0066]). It is unclear how these structures are distinguished. Further, reference characters 701b and 701 appear to point to the same structure; reference characters 707 and 707a point to the same structure; and reference characters 706 and 706a appear to point to the same structure; therefore, a skilled artisan would not be able to determine what structure is described by each of these reference characters. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claim 3 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. Regarding claim 3, it is not clear whether “the first trench portion” (lines 4 and 5) refers back to the first trench portion of the first trench or the first trench portion of the second trench. For the purpose of examination, the limitation will be interpreted to refer to the first trench portion of the second trench. NOTE: Since the word “trench” or “trench portion” is used throughout the claims to refer to different structures ( i.e., claims 2 and 3 to recite that the both the first trench and second trench include first and second trench portions), Applicant is suggested to use differentiated claim terms to avoid confusion as to which specific trench(es) and which specific trench portion(s) are being described. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis ( i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 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 1, 4, 5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Czorny et al (U.S. Pat. 3,324,853 A, hereinafter “Czorny”). Regarding claim 1, Czorny discloses an infusion site retainer (combination of block 21 and cover 18; see Figs. 7 and 9) configured to maintain tubing (such as a catheter 5, or alternatively another tubing that is the same size as the catheter 5; see Fig. 9) coupled to an infusion port (the limitation “configured to maintain tubing coupled to an infusion port” covers the intended use of the device, and does not require the structure of tubing itself or an infusion port), the infusion site retainer comprising: a base 21 (see Fig. 9) configured to be secured to a patient (for instance by attachment to the skin with a strip of adhesive tape; see col. 3, lines 30-31) and comprising a patient surface (the bottom surface of the base that rests against the skin surface) opposite a first surface (the top surface shown in the top-down view of Fig. 9) and comprising a sidewall surface 26 (an arcuate or curved rearward extension indicated at 26) substantially perpendicular to the patient surface and the first surface (see Figs. 8-9); at least one trench (grooves 22 and/or 23; see Figs. 8 and 9) formed in the first surface of the base to secure the tubing to the base; and at least one trench formed in the sidewall surface of the base to secure the tubing to the base (the arcuate or curved rearward extension is shown in Figs. 8-9—specifically Fig. 9—to have an arcuate trench to contain the tubing loop 28) . Regarding claim 4, Czorny discloses the infusion site retainer of claim 1, and further comprising a trench 24 (see Fig. 8) formed in the patient surface of the base to secure the infusion port in place. Regarding claim 5, Czorny discloses the infusion site retainer of claim 4, and further comprising a stabilizer element 13a (see Fig. 7) formed at a proximal end of the base adjacent to the trench formed in the patient surface; the limitation “wherein the stabilizer element is configured to engage a tab on the infusion port to help secure the infusion port in place” covers the function of the stabilizer element and does not appear to impart a structural limitation there t o; the element 13a is capable of engaging a tab on the infusion port if such a port with such a tab were present). Regarding claim 12, Czorny discloses the infusion site retainer of claim 1, wherein a distal portion of the base includes a protuberance (extension 26 protruding from the trenches 22 and 23) that has a semi-circular shape (see Fig. 9), and wherein the at least one trench formed in the sidewall surface of the base is formed in a sidewall surface of the protuberance (as shown in Figs. 8-9, the extension contains the trench that holds the looped portion 28 of the tubing 5). Claims 1-3, 6-9, 13, 15-17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Larkin (U.S. Pat. 9,878,129 B2, hereinafter “Larkin”). Regarding claim 1, Larkin discloses an infusion site retainer configured to maintain tubing coupled to an infusion port (See Abstract; even so, the limitation “configured to maintain tubing coupled to an infusion port” covers the intended use of the device, and does not require the structure of tubing itself or an infusion port), the infusion site retainer comprising: a base 102 (see Fig. 9) configured to be secured to a patient and comprising a patient surface (the bottom surface of the base that rests against the skin surface) opposite a first surface (the top surface shown in Figs. 1-2 ) and comprising a sidewall surface combination of 150 and 148; see Figs. 1-2) substantially perpendicular to the patient surface and the first surface (see Figs. 1-2 ); at least one trench , e.g., 128, 130 (see Figs. 1-2) formed in the first surface of the base to secure the tubing to the base (see Abstract and col. 2, lines 55-59 and col. 3, lines 4-9) ; and at least one trench formed in the sidewall surface of the base to secure the tubing to the base ( channel 158 between the sidewall portions 148 and 150, which permits the securement of the infusion port coupled to the tubing; see Figs. 1-2; col. 2, lines 29-38 and col. 4, lines 9-11 and 33-38). Regarding claim 2, Larkin discloses t he infusion site retainer of claim 1, wherein the at least one trench formed in the first surface of the base includes a first trench, wherein the first trench includes a first trench portion , e.g., 132, that extends linearly from a proximal end of the base toward a distal end of the base, and a second trench portion , e.g., 136 that extends from the first trench portion and curves laterally away from the first trench portion, wherein the second trench portion terminates at a first lateral side 118 of the base (see Figs. 1-2; co l. 2 , line 55 to col. 3, line 3). Regarding claim 3, Larkin discloses t he infusion site retainer of claim 2, wherein the at least one trench formed in the first surface of the base includes a second trench, wherein the second trench includes a first trench portion that extends linearly from the proximal end of the base toward the distal end of the base, and a second trench portion that extends from the first trench portion and curves laterally away from the first trench portion, wherein the second trench portion of the second trench terminates at a second lateral side of the base. Regarding claim 6, Larkin discloses t he infusion site retainer of claim 1, and further comprising a cover 104 (see Fig. 1) attached to the base via a hinge 116 (see Fig. 1) , wherein the cover is configured to be pivoted via the hinge between an open position (see Fig. 1) in which the first surface of the base is exposed and a closed position to cover the first surface of the base (see Fig. 2) . Regarding claim 7 , Larkin discloses the infusion site retainer of claim 6, wherein the cover includes a locking mechanism (clip 156; see Fig. 2) to lock the cover to the base in the closed position, and a push button (angled surface of the clip which is pressed laterally outwardly to open the cover; see Fig. 2) to unlock the locking mechanism. Regarding claim 8, Larkin discloses t he infusion site retainer of claim 6, wherein the base includes a viewing window (tunnel 210 formed in the base; see Fig. 2) , wherein the cover includes a viewing window (semi-cylindrical protrusion 120 formed in the cover; see Fig. 2) , and wherein the viewing window of the base is aligned with the viewing window of the cover when the cover is in the closed position to allow viewing through the infusion site retainer (see Fig. 2, showing the cover in the closed position and the two windows permitting complete viewing from one side of the infusion site retainer to the other side) . Regarding claim 9, Larkin discloses that the base includes a cross bar 124 (see Fig. 2) formed on a bottom surface of the base, and wherein the cross bar extends across the viewing window of the bas e (see Fig. 2). Regarding claim 13, Larkin discloses t he infusion site retainer of claim 1, and further comprising a flexible base pad attached to the patient surface of the base (see film dressing disclosed in col. 2, lines 15-20 and col. 4, lines 53-58) , wherein the flexible base pad includes an adhesive layer covered by a cover layer, and wherein the cover layer is removable to allow the flexible base pad to be adhesively attached to a patient (see col. 2, lines 15-20, col. 4, lines 53-58 and col. 8, lines 50-55 disclosing an adhesive surface on the underside of the film dressing and a removable cover layer covering the adhesive) . Regarding claim 15, Larkin discloses t he infusion site retainer of claim 1, and further including at least one vertical strain relief feature to help immobilize the tubing (see Fig. 4, showing locking features 424 help to lock the tubing 414 in place in the trenches 127 and 130; these locking features extend over the trenches; see also col. 3, lines 39-43 and col. 5, lines 1-11). Regarding claim 16, Larkin discloses th e infusion site retainer of claim 15, wherein the at least one vertical strain relief feature is formed in the at least one trench (see Fig. 4, showing the locking features 424 positioned on alternating dies of the trenches; see also col. 4, lines 39-43 and col. 5, lines 1-11) . Regarding claim 17, Larkin discloses t he infusion site retainer of claim 1, and further including at least one arc strain relief feature 114 (see Fig. 2); the limitation “ to help immobilize the tubing and help prevent kinking of the tubing at an arc in an apex area of the body ” recites the function of the arc strain relief feature, and it appears that the feature 114 is capable of performing this function in its unmodified state. Regarding claim 19, Larkin discloses a method of securing tubing coupled to an infusion port, the method comprising: attaching a base 102 (see Fig. 2) to the patient (see col. 9, lines 65-66) ; retaining the tubing in at least one trench formed in a first surface of the base (see col. 9, lines 66-67) ; and covering the first surface of the base with a cover 104 (see Fig. 2 showing the first surface of the base covered with the cover) , wherein the base and the cover each include a viewing window to allow viewing through the base and the cover (see Fig. 2 showing the tunnel 210 and the cylindrical protrusion 114 forming a window through which a user can view from one side of the base and cover to the other) . 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 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Larkin view of Burkholz (U.S. Pub. 2018/0289922 A1, hereinafter “Burkholz”). Regarding claim 4, Larkin discloses the infusion site retainer of claim 1, but does not appear to disclose a trench 24 (see Fig. 8) formed in the patient surface of the base to secure the infusion port in place. Burkholz discloses an infusion site retainer, comprising a base, and a trench (recess 34) formed in a patient surface (i.e., the side of the base facing the skin of the patient) of a base to secure a catheter of an infusion port in place (see Abstract and paras [0023] and [0045]). A skilled artisan would have found it obvious, at the time of the invention, to have modified the device of Larkin to incorporate a trench formed in a patient surface of a base to secure an infusion port in place, as taught in Burkholz, in order to better secure the catheter, with a reasonable expectation of success (see Larkin at col. 3, lines 53-67 and Burkholz at Abstract, paras [0003], [0023] and [0045]). Regarding claim 5, it is noted that Larkin discloses the infusion site retainer of claim 4, but does not disclose a stabilizer element formed at a proximal end of the base adjacent to the trench formed in the patient surface ( the limitation “wherein the stabilizer element is configured to engage a tab on the infusion port to help secure the infusion port in place” covers the function of the stabilizer element and does not appear to impart a structural limitation there to) . Burkholz discloses a stabilizer element formed at a proximal end of the base of its infusion site retainer, adjacent to the trench formed in the patient surface (the recess 34 on the side facing the skin of the patient , as discussed above) and a stabilizer element in the form of an adhesive layer 38 within the recess 34 (see Abstract, Fig. 3B and paras [0023] and [0045]-[0046]; the recess 34 comprising the adhesive layer 38 would be capable of securing the one or more stabilization elements of a catheter, such as a tab on an infusion port). A skilled artisan would have found it obvious, at the time of the invention, to have modified the device of Larkin to incorporate a stabilizer element formed at a proximal end of the base of its infusion site retainer, adjacent to the trench formed in the patient surface, capable of securing the one or more stabilization elements of a catheter, such as a tab on an infusion port, in order to better secure the catheter, with a reasonable expectation of success (see Larkin at col. 3, lines 53-67 and Burkholz at Abstract, paras [0003], [0023] and [0045]). Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Larkin view of Lee et al (U.S. Pub. 2010/0217201 A1, hereinafter “Lee”). Regarding claim 10, Larkin discloses the infusion site retainer of claim 6, but does not appear to disclose that the retainer further compris es at least one bracket extending outward from a bottom surface of the cover and extending longitudinally beyond a proximal end of the cover to hold the tubing flush against skin of a patient when the cover is in the closed position. Lee discloses a cover 20 (see Fig. 2) for an infusion site retainer, comprising at least one bracket 80 (see Fig. 2) extending outward from a bottom surface of a cover and extending longitudinally beyond a proximal end of the cover to hold the tubing flush against skin of a patient when the cover is in the closed position (i.e., the bracket provides stabilization when the cover is in the closed position; see Fig. 2 and para [0031]). A skilled artisan would have found it obvious, at the time of the invention, to have modified the device of Larkin to incorporate at least one bracket extending outward from a bottom surface of the cover and extending longitudinally beyond a proximal end of the cover to hold the tubing flush against skin of a patient when the cover is in the closed position, as taught in Lee, in order to provide improved stabilization to the cover (see Lee at para [0031]) , and thus the retainer, with a reasonable expectation of success. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Larkin in view of Cindrich et al (U.S. 9,597,450 B2, hereinafter “Cindrich”). Regarding claim 11, Larkin discloses the infusion site retainer of claim 6, but does not appear to disclose that the hinge includes a cylindrical shaft and a semicircular-shaped clip configured to be snapped into place over the cylindrical shaft to pivotally connect the base and the cover. Cindrich discloses a hinge, comprising a cylindrical shaft and a semicircular-shaped clip configured to be snapped into place over the cylindrical shaft (a pivot mechanism 327 includes a cylindrical shaft and an opening 329 which has a semi-circular shape into which the pin is snapped; see Fig. 13 and col. 13, lines 35-45). A skilled artisan would have found it obvious, at the time of the invention, to have modified the device of Larkin to modify the hinge to include a cylindrical shaft and a semicircular-shaped clip configured to be snapped into place over the cylindrical shaft to pivotally connect the base and the cover, as a well-known and easy way to assemble the elements of the hinge together, with a reasonable expectation of success (see Cindrich at col. 13, lines 35-45). Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Larkin in view of Appy et al (U.S. Pub. 2021/0196900 A1, hereinafter “Appy”). Regarding claim 12, it is noted that Larkin discloses that the at least one trench formed in the sidewall surface of the base (see Figs. 1-2 ; see also col. 3, lines 29-38; see also col. 4, lines 9-11 and 33-38), but does not disclose the infusion site retainer of claim 1, wherein a distal portion of the base includes a protuberance that has a semi-circular shape, and wherein the trench is formed in a sidewall surface of the protuberance. Appy discloses a syringe holder with a base, having has at its distal end a semi-circular protrusion (in the form of a U-shape element) with a peripheral wall surface that has a trench formed therein (ribs with cutouts; see para [0193]). A skilled artisan would have found it obvious, at the time of the invention, to have modified the device of Larkin so that a distal portion of the base includes a protuberance that has a semi-circular shape, and wherein the trench is formed in a sidewall surface of the protuberance, in order to better position a component attached to the retainer, and to reduce the possibility of strain-related stress to the patient interface (see Appy at para [0193] and [0497]). Claim 1 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Larkin in view of Hartmann et a l (U.S. Pub. 2019/0091446 A1, hereinafter “ Hartmann ”). Regarding claim 14, Larkin discloses the infusion site retainer of claim 1, but does not appear to disclose that the infusion site retainer is substantially disc-shaped. Hartmann discloses a substantially disc-shaped infusion site retainer 38 (see Fig 3). A skilled artisan would have found it obvious, at the time of the invention, to have modified the device of Larkin so that the infusion site retainer is substantially disc-shaped, because a disc was a well-known shape for forming infusion site retainers at the time the invention was made (as taught in Hartmann), and a skilled artisan could have chosen this shape as a matter of design choice, with a reasonable expectation of success. Claim 1 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Larkin in view of Maguire et a l (U.S. Pub. 2014 / 0190487 A1, hereinafter “ Maguire ”). Regarding claim 18, it is noted that Larkin discloses the infusion site retainer of claim 6, but does not disclose that the cover further includes a luer guard extending from a base end portion of the cover, wherein the luer guard is configured to cover and secure a luer/IV hub connection when the cover is in the closed position (instead, Larkin discloses a guard 114, but does not disclose the luer guard is configured to cover and secure a luer/IV hub connection when the cover is in the closed position) . Maguire discloses an infusion site retainer comprising a luer guard (see paras [0033]-[0034]). A skilled artisan would have found it obvious, at the time of the invention, to have modified the device of Larkin so that the infusion site retainer has a luer guard, as taught in Maguire, in order to retain a well-known medical device (i.e., a luer connector) that is compatible with various securement mechanisms, with a reasonable expectation of success (see also Maguire at para [0034] and Larkin a col. 3, lines 60-62). Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See Notice of References Cited. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT SCOTT J MEDWAY whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-3656 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday through Friday, 8:30 AM to 5:00 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Chelsea Stinson can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (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. /SCOTT J MEDWAY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3783 11/24/2025