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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/30/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claim(s) 1-12, 14-15, 18-20, 35-36 is/are pending of which Claim(s) 1 is/are presented in independent form. Claims 35-36 are newly added and claims 13 and 16-17 are cancelled. Claim 1 is amended. Claim 15 is withdrawn.
All references relied up on and not cited in the current Form 892 may be found in previous 892's or IDS'.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. A new reference of Froehlich (US 2880946 A) for teachings related to the newly amended subject matter argued within the Remarks therein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claims 1-12, 14, 18, 19, 35-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Navis (US 5,676,159) in view of Renehan (US 3,099,015) in view of Ohlmeyer (US 4,152,033) in further view of Froehlich (US 2880946 A).
With respect to claim 1, Navis discloses A medical drape comprising: a first section of drape material (Fig 1, first section 20); a second section of drape material (Fig 1, second section 22); and a connector system (Fig 2, connector 28, col 3 ll 35-40).
Navis is silent on the connector system comprising a receiving body defining a groove defining a circular cross-sectional shape, the groove comprising a first sidewall, a second sidewall, a bottom wall connecting the first sidewall and the second sidewall, and an opening comprising an opening width extending between a first edge and a second edge, wherein the opening width is narrower than a maximum width between the first sidewall and the second sidewall; and a locking body press fit into and retained by the groove, the locking body comprising a locking body width that is greater than the groove opening width; wherein a portion of the first section of drape material is positioned overlaying the groove, a portion of the second section of drape material is positioned overlaying the groove, and the locking body is inserted into the groove thereby locking the portion of the first section of drape material and the portion of the second section of drape material in the groove; wherein the receiving body is comparatively rigid and the locking body is comparatively deformable.
Renehan teaches an analogous connector system for protective covers having comprising a receiving body defining a groove defining a circular cross-sectional shape (Fig 1, receiving body 8, groove 9 having a circular cross-sectional shape), the groove comprising a first sidewall, a second sidewall, a bottom wall connecting the first sidewall and the second sidewall (Annotated Fig 1, first sidewall, second sidewall, bottom wall), and an opening comprising an opening width extending between a first edge and a second edge (Annotated Fig 1, opening between a fist edge and second edge), wherein the opening width is narrower than a maximum width between the first sidewall and the second sidewall; and a locking body press fit into and retained by the groove, the locking body comprising a locking body width that is greater than the groove opening width; wherein a portion of the first section of drape material is positioned overlaying the groove, a portion of the second section of drape material is positioned overlaying the groove, and the locking body is inserted into the groove thereby locking the portion of the first section of drape material and the portion of the second section of drape material in the groove (Fig 1, first and second surgical covers 1 and 2 overlay and the locking body 10 is inserted into the groove 9 to lock the system); wherein the receiving body is comparatively rigid and the locking body is comparatively deformable (col 2 ll 35-40, col 2 ll 50-60, receiving body is aluminum and locking body is elastic so the receiving body is comparatively rigid and the locking body is comparatively deformable).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the connection system of Navis with the connection system of Renehan in order to improve the seal between the covers (Renehan col 2 ll 45-50).
Navis/Renehan is silent on wherein the opening width is narrower than a maximum width between the first sidewall and the second sidewall; and a locking body press fit into and retained by the groove, the locking body comprising a locking body width that is greater than the groove opening width.
Ohlmeyer teaches an analogous inserted and sealing locking system wherein the opening width is narrower than a maximum width between the first sidewall and the second sidewall (col 2 ll 20-25, opening less than the wall width); and a locking body press fit into and retained by the groove, the locking body comprising a locking body width that is greater than the groove opening width (col 2 ll 20-25, col 2 ll 35-40, press fit, locking body with is greater than opening).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shape of the receiving body, groove, and locking body of Navis/Renehan to be the shape as taught by Ohlmeyer in order to ensure a seal but to allow for easier removal (Ohlmeyer col 3 ll 20-35).
Navis/Renehan/Ohlmeyer is silent on the receiving body defining a circular cross-sectional shape and at least partially surrounding the groove, the groove defining a circular cross-sectional shape such that wherein the receiving body circular cross-sectional shape is concentric with the groove circular cross-sectional shape.
However, Froehlick further teaches an analogous receiving body 18 (Fig. 1-7) and analogous circular locking body 32 (Fig. 1-7) for clamping an analogous first portion 22 and second portion 28 of drape/sheet material therein (Fig. 4-5, the locking body 32 is also further analogously press fit into and retained by the groove 30), wherein the locking body 32 is analogously placed into an analogous groove 30 of the receiving body 18 for such analogous securement (Fig. 4-7), wherein the receiving body 18 defines a circular cross-sectional shape (Fig. 4-6) and at least partially surrounding the groove 30 (Fig. 4-6), the groove 30 defining a circular cross-sectional shape (Fig. 4-6) such that wherein the receiving body 18 circular cross-sectional shape is concentric with the groove 30 circular cross-sectional shape (Fig. 4-6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the shape of the receiving body and groove shape of Renehan as combined to be the receiving body defining a circular cross-sectional shape and at least partially surrounding the groove, the groove defining a circular cross-sectional shape such that wherein the receiving body circular cross-sectional shape is concentric with the groove circular cross-sectional shape as taught by Froehlick as changes in shape have been held to be a matter of design choice absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed shape was significant. See MPEP 2144(IV)(B) and In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) and the change in shape would likely reduce the size of the receiving body such that manufacturing costs would be lowered.
PNG
media_image1.png
260
510
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig 2, Renehan
With respect to claim 2, Navis/Renehan/Ohlmeyer/Froehlick discloses The drape of claim 1, wherein the first section of drape material has a different chemical composition than the second section of drape material (Navis col 2 ll 50-55, closed portion 20 is polyurethane; col 3 ll 20-25, open drape 22 is polyethylene).
With respect to claim 3, Navis/Renehan/Ohlmeyer/Froehlick discloses The drape of claim 1, wherein the first section of drape material exhibits a higher tear resistance than the second section of drape material according to ASTM D 1004-21 (Navis col 2 ll 50-55, closed portion 20 is polyurethane; col 3 ll 20-25, open drape 22 is polyethylene; polyurethane with the same or similar thickness to polyethylene would have a higher tear resistance as it is a more flexible material and known to have a high tear resistance).
With respect to claim 4, Navis/Renehan/Ohlmeyer/Froehlick discloses The drape of claim 1, wherein the first section of drape material and the second section of drape material each comprise a tunnel (Navis col 2 ll 60-65, col 3 ll 20-25, both portions are tubular and thus create a tunnel), the receiving body defines a frame extending about a perimeter of the tunnel with the frame providing an open lumen, and the locking body extends about an exterior perimeter of the tunnel (Renehan Fig 1, col 2 ll 35-40, receiving body is a ring so it defines a perimeter).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the connection system of Navis with the connection system of Renehan in order to improve the seal between the covers (Renehan col 2 ll 45-50).
With respect to claim 5, Navis/Renehan/Ohlmeyer/Froehlick discloses The drape of claim 4, wherein the tunnel is circular, the receiving body defines an annulus, and the locking member comprises a circular locking member (Renehan Fig 1, col 2 ll 35-40, receiving body is a ring so it defines a circular perimeter and a circular tunnel between members).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the connection system of Navis with the connection system of Renehan in order to improve the seal between the covers (Renehan col 2 ll 45-50).
With respect to claim 6, Navis/Renehan/Ohlmeyer/Froehlick discloses The drape of claim 4, wherein the frame defines an outer face facing an external environment (Renehan Annotated Fig 1, outer face with groove 9), an inner face facing the open lumen (Renehan Annotated Fig 1, opposing inner face relative to the groove 9), a first sidewall joining the outer face to the inner face on one side of the frame, and a second sidewall joining the outer face to the inner face on another side of the fame (Renehan Annotated Fig 1, sidewalls between inner and outer faces).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the connection system of Navis with the connection system of Renehan in order to improve the seal between the covers (Renehan col 2 ll 45-50).
With respect to claim 7, Navis/Renehan/Ohlmeyer/Froehlick discloses The drape of claim 6, wherein the groove is formed in the outer face (Renehan Annotated Fig 1, groove 9 on outer surface).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the connection system of Navis with the connection system of Renehan in order to improve the seal between the covers (Renehan col 2 ll 45-50).
With respect to claim 8, Navis/Renehan/Ohlmeyer/Froehlick discloses The drape of claim 6, wherein the groove is formed in the first sidewall (Renehan Annotated Fig 1, groove 9 on outer surface formed in and by the sidewalls).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the connection system of Navis with the connection system of Renehan in order to improve the seal between the covers (Renehan col 2 ll 45-50).
With respect to claim 9, Navis/Renehan/Ohlmeyer/Froehlick discloses The drape of claim 1, wherein the first section of drape material defines a bag configured to be positioned over an end of a robotic arm of a surgical robotic system (Navis col 2 ll 10-15, capable of use with a probe so capable of use with a robot).
With respect to claim 10, Navis/Renehan/Ohlmeyer/Froehlick discloses The drape of claim 1, wherein: the portion of the first section of drape material is positioned overlaying an entirety of the groove between the first edge and the second edge; and the portion of the second section of drape material is positioned overlaying the entirety of the groove between the first edge and the second edge (Renehan Fig 1, first and second drape overlay the groove between the edges).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the connection system of Navis with the connection system of Renehan in order to improve the seal between the covers (Renehan col 2 ll 45-50).
With respect to claim 11, Navis/Renehan/Ohlmeyer/Froehlick discloses The drape of claim 1, wherein: the portion of the first section of drape material overlaying the groove contacts an inner surface of the groove (Renehan Fig 1, section 6 of first drape 2 contacts the groove); the portion of the second section of drape material overlaying the groove contacts the portion of the first section of drape material contacting the inner surface of the groove (Renehan Fig 1, section 7 of second drape 1 overlays the first section); and the locking body inserted into the groove contacts the portion of the second section of drape material overlaying the groove (Renehan Fig 1, locking body 10 overlays the second section 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the connection system of Navis with the connection system of Renehan in order to improve the seal between the covers (Renehan col 2 ll 45-50).
With respect to claim 12, Navis/Renehan/Ohlmeyer/Froehlick discloses The drape of claim 1, wherein: the first section of drape material defines a first terminal edge (Renehan Fig 1, drapes 1, 2 with edges); the second section of drape material defines a second terminal edge (Renehan Fig 1, drapes 1, 2 with edges); the first terminal edge is positioned extending past the second edge of the opening (Renehan Fig 1, drapes 1, 2 overlap over opening of groove 9, drape 1 edge extends past both groove edges); and the second terminal edge is positioned extending past the first edge of the opening (Renehan Fig 1, drapes 1, 2 overlap over opening of groove 9, drape 2 edge extends past both groove edges).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the connection system of Navis with the connection system of Renehan in order to improve the seal between the covers (Renehan col 2 ll 45-50).
With respect to claim 14, Navis/Renehan/Ohlmeyer/Froehlick discloses The drape of claim 1, wherein the groove is defined by a radius of curvature (Ohlmeyer Fig 2a, col 2 ll 15-25, omega shaped groove has a radius of curvature).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shape of the receiving body, groove, and locking body of Navis/Renehan to be the shape as taught by Ohlmeyer in order to ensure a seal but to allow for easier removal (Ohlmeyer col 3 ll 20-35).
Froehlick also further teaches the groove 30 is defined by a radius of curvature (Fig. 4-6).
With respect to claim 18, Navis/Renehan/Ohlmeyer/Froehlick discloses The drape of claim 1, wherein locking body has a complementary shape to a shape of the groove (Ohlmeyer col 2 ll 20-40, complementary ring shape).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shape of the receiving body, groove, and locking body of Navis/Renehan to be the shape as taught by Ohlmeyer in order to ensure a seal but to allow for easier removal (Ohlmeyer col 3 ll 20-35).
Froehlick also further teaches wherein the locking body 32 has a complementary shape to a shape of the groove 30 (Fig. 4-6).
With respect to claim 19, Navis/Renehan/Ohlmeyer/Froehlick discloses The drape of claim 1, wherein the receiving body is attached to one of the first section of drape material and the second section of drape material, and the locking body is attached to an other of the first section of drape material and the second section of drape material (Renehan col 2 ll 35-45, in use the receiving body and locking body compress and attach to the first and second drape portions to retain the system in place).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the connection system of Navis with the connection system of Renehan in order to improve the seal between the covers (Renehan col 2 ll 45-50).
With respect to claim 35, Navis/Renehan/Ohlmeyer/Froehlick discloses The drape of claim 1, wherein the receiving body circular cross-sectional shape has a constant diameter (Froehlick Fig. 4-6, receiving body 18 having the circular cross-sectional shape has constant diameter therein for its main circular shape) and the groove circular cross-sectional shape has a constant diameter such that the receiving body has a uniform thickness at least partially surrounding the groove (Froehlick Fig. 4-6, the groove 30 has a circular cross sectional shape with a constant diameter such that the receiving body 18 is uniform in its thickness at least partially surrounding the groove 30 therein).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the shape of the receiving body and groove shape of Renehan as combined to be the shape as taught by Froehlick as changes in shape have been held to be a matter of design choice absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed shape was significant. See MPEP 2144(IV)(B) and In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) and the change in shape would likely reduce the size of the receiving body such that manufacturing costs would be lowered.
With respect to claim 36, Navis/Renehan/Ohlmeyer/Froehlick discloses The drape of claim 1, wherein the receiving body comprises a C-shape at least partially surrounding the groove (Froehlick Fig. 4-6, receiving body 18 has a C-shape surrounding the groove 30 therein).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the shape of the receiving body and groove shape of Renehan as combined to be the shape as taught by Froehlick as changes in shape have been held to be a matter of design choice absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed shape was significant. See MPEP 2144(IV)(B) and In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) and the change in shape would likely reduce the size of the receiving body such that manufacturing costs would be lowered.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Navis/Renehan/Ohlmeyer/Froehlick as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ortmaier (US 2010/0292707).
With respect to claim 20, Navis/Renehan/Ohlmeyer/Froehlick discloses The drape of claim 1.
Navis/Renehan/Ohlmeyer/Froehlick is silent on wherein the first section of drape material, the second section of drape material, and the connector system are all sterilized.
Ortmaier teaches an analogous drape connection system having the first section of drape material, the second section of drape material, and the connector system are all sterilized ([0009], [0013], [0020]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the elements of Navis/Renehan/Ohlmeyer to be sterilized as taught by Ortmaier in order to allow for use of the system in medical settings (Ortmaier [0003]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2842773 A
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN S ALBERS whose telephone number is (571)272-0139. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 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, Rachael Bredefeld can be reached at (571) 270-5237. 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.
/KEVIN S ALBERS/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3786
/RACHAEL E BREDEFELD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3786
Prosecution Insights