DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 9 should be amended to -between the proximal and distal openings receives the lubricant on its outer surface before-. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 13 should be amended to -between the proximal and distal openings receives the lubricant on its outer surface before-. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 41 is objected to because of the following informalities:
line 6 should be amended to - whereupon the lubricant from the interior is applied to an outer surface-.
line 9 should be amended to – the lubricant being applied to the outer surface of the medical device-. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-19 and 41 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.
Regarding claim 1:
The claim recites the limitation "the rectum" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The limitation “a device” in line 8 is unclear. The term is unclear because the product of the claim as a whole is directed to “A device” (see line 1 in the preamble) raising a question of if these refer to the same structure of a different structure. Further, all of the dependent claims refer to “The device” raising a question of if they are referring to the one in line 1 or line 8. For the sake of examination, the office has assumed that the limitation of line 8 refers to a different device from the one referenced in line 1. Further, the office has assumed that the dependent claims refer to the device of line 1 in claim 1. However, the applicant should amend the claims to clarify.
The claim limitation “a patient’s body” in line 10 is unclear. The limitation is unclear because of the earlier recitation of the limitation “a patient’s body” in line 1 of the which raises a question of if two of patient’s bodies are required by the claim 1 or only one. For the sake of examination, the office has assumed that only one patient body is required by the claim.
Claims 2-18 are rejected due to their dependence on claim 1.
Regarding claim 9:
The limitation “the sidewall opposite the first surf ace defining the distal surface” in lines 3-4 is unclear. The limitation is unclear because it refers to the sidewall opposite the first surface when such a structure has not been established by the claim. The claim does refer to an annular side wall (in line 2) but it indicates it extends from the first surface and not opposite the first surface.
The claim is unclear because of the limitation “the housing comprises a distal housing portion including a first surface including the distal opening therein” in lines 1-2. The limitation is unclear because lines 3-4 of claim 1 (on which this claim depends) indicates the distal opening is included in the distal surface which appears to conflict with this line of claim 9. It’s unclear how the distal opening can be in two different surfaces at the same time. For the sake of examination, the office has assumed that the distal surface and the first surface are the same structure. However, the applicant should amend the claims to clarify.
Claims 10-18 are rejected due to their dependence on claim 9.
Regarding claim 15:
The limitation “the sidewall opposite the proximal surface” in lines 3-4 is unclear. This limitation is unclear for the same reasons indicated in the claim 9 rejection above.
Claims 16-18 are rejected due to their dependence on claim 15.
Regarding claim 19:
The claim recites the limitation "the rectum" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The limitation “a device” in line 12 is unclear. The term is unclear because the product of the claim as a whole is directed to “A device” (see line 1 in the preamble) raising a question of if these refer to the same structure of a different structure. For the sake of examination, the office has assumed that the limitation of line 12 refers to a different device from the one referenced in line 1.
The claim limitation “a patient’s body” in line 14 is unclear. The limitation is unclear because of the earlier recitation of the limitation “a patient’s body” in line 1 of the which raises a question of if two of patient’s bodies are required by the claim 1 or only one. For the sake of examination, the office has assumed that only one patient body is required by the claim.
Regarding claim 41:
The limitation “a medical device” in line 5 is unclear. The term is unclear because the method of the claim as a whole is directed to “a medical device” (see line 1 in the preamble) raising a question of if these refer to the same structure of a different structure. For the sake of examination, the office has assumed that the limitation of line 5 refers to the same device referenced in line 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.
Claim(s) 41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20080051630 A1 to Levey et al. (Levey).
Levey discloses:
Regarding claim 41:
A method for introducing a medical device (22) into a body passage (cavity as described in ¶0023) of a patient's body (inherently the lubricant on the endoscope 22 would be introduced to the patient’s body), comprising:
providing a lubricant device (figures 1-4, 8 and 9) including lubricant (¶0022 describes the lubricant within 15/20/74) within an interior (15/20, 15/20 or 74/40) of a housing (10/12, 50/53/52/54/55 or 78/70/82/80/84) of the device communicating with proximal (see D , E or F in figure 1 below) and distal (see A, B or C in figure 1 below) openings;
introducing a distal end (end of 22 as shown in figure in figures 4, 8 and 9) of a medical device (22) into and through the interior (15/20, 15/20 or 74/40) between the proximal (see D , E or F in figure 1 below) and distal (see A, B or C in figure 1 below) openings, whereupon lubricant from the interior (15/20 , 15/20 or 74/40) is applied to an outer surface (¶0023) of the medical device; and
introducing the distal end (end of 22 as shown in figure in figures 4, 8 and 9) of the medical device (22) into the body passage to perform a procedure (¶0019 and 0021), lubricant being applied to the outer surface of the medical device (¶0024) as the medical device passes through the interior (15/20 , 15/20 or 74/40) and into the body passage (¶0019-0021).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5, 9-12, 15 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20080051630 A1 to Levey et al. (Levey) in view of DE 202006005101 U1 to Neubauer (see English language machine translation attached to this or a previous office action).
Regarding claim 1:
Levey discloses:
A device (figures 1-4, 8 and 9) for lubricating a medical device (22) being introduced into a patient's body (allows for movement into the body cavity; ¶0019), comprising:
a housing (10/12 (figure 1 or 4), 50/53/52/54/55 (figure 5 or 8) or 78/70/82/80/84 (figure 9)) comprising a proximal surface (17 (figure 1 or 4), 54 (figure 5 or 8) or 80 (figure 9)) including a proximal opening (see D in figure 1 below (figure 1 or 4), E in figure 1 below (figure 5 or 8) or F in figure 1 below (figure 9)), a distal surface (14 (figure 1 or 4), 52 (figure 5 or 8) or 78 (figure 9)) including a distal opening (see A in figure 1 below (figure 1 or 4), B in figure 1 below (figure 5 or 8) or C in figure 1 below (figure 9)), and an interior (15/20 (figure 1 or 4), 15/20(figure 5 or 8) or 74/40 (figure 9)) within the housing communicating with the proximal (see D , E or F in figure 1 below) and distal (see A, B or C in figure 1 below) openings;
a lubricant (¶0022 describes the lubricant within 15/20/74) within the interior (15/20 , 15/20 or 74/40) of the housing such that a device (22) inserted through the housing (10/12 , 50/53/52/54/55 or 78/70/82/80/84) between the proximal (see D , E or F in figure 1 below) and distal (see A, B or C in figure 1 below) openings receives lubricant on its outer surface (¶0023) before introduction into a patient's body (inherently the lubricant on the endoscope 22 would be introduced to the patient’s body).
Levey fails to disclose:
Adhesive or tacky material on the distal surface at least partially surrounding the distal opening to secure the distal surface to the patient around the rectum.
Neubauer teaches:
A device (figure 1) for stabilizing a medical device (device inserted through 6) that is introduced into a patient’s body (8). The device includes an opening (6) that is surrounded by an adhesive (2) to hold the device in place on the skin (see page 3, ¶6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Levey to further include an adhesive layer on the distal surface (17, 54, 80) in Levey as taught by Neubauer to secure the device in Levy in place during the procedure (Neubauer, see page 3, ¶6).
PNG
media_image1.png
557
668
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
525
544
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 1 – figures 4, 8. 9 of Levey, annotated by the examiner
Regarding claim 2:
All limitations of the claim are taught by the 35 USC 103 rejection of claim 1 by Levey and Neubauer:
The device of claim 1, wherein the adhesive or tacky material (see the adhesive material 2 of Neubauer that surrounds opening 6 which would be incorporated into Levey accordingly) surrounds the distal opening (see A , B or C in figure 1 above) on the distal surface (14 , 52 or 78).
Regarding claim 5:
Levey fails to disclose:
The device of claim 1, further comprising a removable cover overlying the adhesive or tacky material.
Neubauer teaches:
A removable cover (3) on the adhesive (2) prior to attachment of the device (figure 1) to the skin (8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Levey to further include a removable cover over the adhesive as taught by Neubauer to protect and maintain the adhesiveness of the adhesive (Neubauer, page 3, ¶6).
Regarding claim 9 (as best understood by the examiner, see the 35 USC 112(b) rejection above for the claim interpretation):
Levey discloses:
The device of claim 1, wherein the housing (10/12 , 50/53/52/54/55 or 78/70/82/80/84) comprises a distal housing portion (10/12 , 50/53/52/54/55 or 78/70/82/80/84) including a first surface (14 (figure 1 or 4), 52 (figure 5 or 8) or 78 (figure 9) in accordance with the 35 USC 112(b) rejection above) including the distal opening (see A , B or C in figure 1 above) therein, an annular sidewall (see the annular sidewall H or G in figure 1 above) extending from the first surface (14, 52 and 78), and a flange (see flange J and I in figure 1 above) extending from the sidewall (H or G in figure 1 above) opposite the first surface (14, 52 and 78) defining the distal surface (14, 52 or 78).
Regarding claim 10:
Levey discloses:
The device of claim 9, wherein the first surface (14, 52, 78) is spaced apart (as shown in figures 4, 8 and 9) from the proximal surface (17, 54 or 80) such that the interior (15/20 , 15/20 or 74/40) is located between (as shown in figures 4, 8 and 9) the first surface (14, 52, 78) and the proximal surface (17, 54 or 80).
Regarding claim 11:
Levey discloses:
The device of claim 9, wherein the first surface (14, 52 and 78) is substantially flat (as shown in figures 4, 8 and 9).
Regarding claim 12:
Levey discloses:
The device of claim 9, wherein the first surface (14 and 52) and sidewall (see the annular sidewall H or G in figure 1 above) define a recess (15) , the flange (see flange J and I in figure 1 above) surrounding an opening (see the opening K in figure 1 above) of the recess (15).
Regarding claim 15:
Levey discloses:
The device of claim 9, wherein the housing (50/53/52/54/55) further comprises a proximal housing portion (50/53/52/54/55) comprising the proximal surface (17, 54 or 80), a sidewall (see the sidewall M in figure 1 above) extending from the proximal surface (17, 54 or 80) to define a cavity (see the cavity L in figure 1 above), and a flange (see the flange N in figure 1 above) extending from the sidewall opposite the proximal surface (17, 54 or 80).
Regarding claim 19:
Levey discloses:
A device (figures 1-4, 8 and 9) for lubricating a medical device (22) being introduced into a patient's body (allows for movement into the body cavity; ¶0019), comprising:
a housing (50/53/52/54/55) comprising:
a proximal housing portion (54) including a proximal surface (54) including a proximal opening (see E in figure 1 above) and a sidewall (M in figure 1 above) extending from the proximal surface (54) to define a cavity (see cavity L in figure 1 above);
a distal housing portion (52) comprising a distal surface (52) including a distal opening (see B in figure 1 above), the distal housing portion (52) attached to (both are attached to each other via 50) the proximal housing portion (54) to define an interior (15/20) within the housing (50/53/52/54/55) communicating with the proximal and distal openings (see E and B in figure 1 above); and
a flange (see flange I in figure 1 above) defining a distal-most surface of the housing (see flange I in figure 1 above);
a lubricant within the interior (15/20) of the housing (50/53/52/54/55) such that a device (22) inserted through the housing between the proximal and distal openings (see E and B in figure 1 above) receives lubricant on its outer surface (¶0023) before introduction into a patient's body (inherently the lubricant on the endoscope 22 would be introduced to the patient’s body).
Levey fails to disclose:
Adhesive or tacky material on the distal surface to secure the distal surface to the patient around the rectum.
Neubauer teaches:
A device (figure 1) for stabilizing a medical device (device inserted through 6) that is introduced into a patient’s body (8). The device includes an opening (6) that is surrounded by an adhesive (2) to hold the device in place on the skin (see page 3, ¶6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Levey to further include an adhesive layer on the distal surface (17, 54, 80) in Levey as taught by Neubauer to secure the device in Levy in place during the procedure (Neubauer, see page 3, ¶6). In regards to securing the device to the patient around the rectum this has been interpreted as intended use and further, the reference indicates 22 is an endoscope which is typically used in the mouth, rectum or other body cavities as indicated in ¶0024 of Levey.
Claim(s) 3 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20080051630 A1 to Levey et al. (Levey) and DE 202006005101 U1 to Neubauer (see English language machine translation attached to this or a previous office action) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 5368574 A to Antonacci et al. (Antonacci).
Regarding claim 3:
Levey and Neubauer fail to disclose:
The device of claim 1, further comprising a valve member adjacent one of the proximal and distal openings, wherein the valve member is biased closed but may open to accommodate inserting the medical device through the interior.
Antonacci teaches:
A valve member (35 in figures 14-21) in a device (figure 19-21) for receiving a needle (32). The valve (35) prevents the gas or liquid from escaping the device (column 5, lines 25-40) and is located near the opening (34).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Levey and Neubauer to include a valve member near one or both of the proximal and distal openings as taught by Antonacci in order to prevent liquid/lubricant from escaping the device (Antonacci, column 5, lines 25-40).
Regarding claim 4:
All limitations of the claim are taught by the 35 USC 103 rejection of claim 3 by Levey, Neubauer and Antonacci:
The device of claim 3, wherein the valve member comprises a slit valve (see the slits 33 of valve 35 of Antonacci incorporated into Levey) mounted within the housing (10/12 (figure 1 or 4), 50/53/52/54/55 (figure 5 or 8) or 78/70/82/80/84 (figure 9)) adjacent the distal opening (see near the distal or proximal opening as indicated in the claim 3 rejection above).
Claim(s) 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20080051630 A1 to Levey et al. (Levey) and DE 202006005101 U1 to Neubauer (see English language machine translation attached to this or a previous office action) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20060149128 A1 to Baror.
Regarding claim 6:
Levey and Neubauer fail to disclose:
The device of claim 1, further comprising a removable seal covering one of the proximal and distal openings.
Baror teaches:
A device (18) including a seal/cap (70) for the opening (44). The device lubricates and endoscope (22). Further, the cap (70) prevents contamination or damage to the device (¶0044).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Levey and Neubauer to include a seal/cap in the proximal or distal opening as taught by Baror in order to prevent contamination (¶0044).
Regarding claim 7:
All limitations of the claim are taught by the 35 USC 103 rejection of claim 6 by Levey, Neubauer and Baror:
The device of claim 6, wherein the removable seal comprises a plug member (see the plug 70 of Baror incorporated into Levey) configured to close the proximal opening (see proximal opening D in figure 1 above (figure 1 or 4), E in figure 1 above (figure 5 or 8) or F in figure 1 above (figure 9) of Levey).
Regarding claim 8:
Levey and Neubauer fail to disclose:
The device of claim 6, wherein the removable seal comprises a cap (see the plug 70 of Baror incorporated into Levey)configured to close the distal opening (see distal opening A in figure 1 below (figure 1 or 4), B in figure 1 below (figure 5 or 8) or C in figure 1 below (figure 9)).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20080051630 A1 to Levey et al. (Levey) and DE 202006005101 U1 to Neubauer (see English language machine translation attached to this or a previous office action) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of US 5368574 A to Antonacci et al. (Antonacci).
Regarding claim 13:
Levey and Neubauer fail to disclose:
The device of claim 12, further comprising a valve member received within the recess adjacent the distal opening.
Antonacci teaches:
A valve member (35 in figures 14-21) in a device (figure 19-21) for receiving a needle (32). The valve (35) prevents the gas or liquid from escaping the device (column 5, lines 25-40) and is located near the opening (34).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Levey and Neubauer to include a valve member within the recess adjacent to the distal opening within 20/60 of Levey as taught by Antonacci in order to prevent liquid/lubricant from escaping the device (Antonacci, column 5, lines 25-40).
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-6 and 41 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 8, 9, 10 and 16 of U.S. Patent No. US 11,571,117 to Lewis. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they include the structure or steps of the claims.
Regarding claim 1:
A device for lubricating a medical device being introduced into a patient's body, comprising:
a housing (see “housing” in claim 1) comprising a proximal surface (see “proximal surface” in claim 1) including a proximal opening (see “proximal opening” in claim 1), a distal surface (see “distal surface” in claim 1) including a distal opening (see “distal opening” in claim 1), and an interior (see “channel” in claim 1) within the housing communicating with the proximal and distal openings;
adhesive or tacky material (see “adhesive or tacky material” in claim 1) on the distal surface at least partially surrounding the distal opening to secure the distal surface to the patient around the rectum; and
a lubricant (see “lubricant” in claim 1) within the interior of the housing such that a device (see “medical device” in claim 1) inserted through the housing between the proximal and distal openings receives lubricant on its outer surface before introduction into a patient's body.
Regarding claim 2:
The device of claim 1, wherein the adhesive or tacky material surrounds the distal opening on the distal surface (see “adhesive or tacky material on the distal surface surrounding the distal opening…” in claim 1).
Regarding claim 3:
The device of claim 1, further comprising a valve member (see “valve member” in claim 8) adjacent one of the proximal and distal openings, wherein the valve member is biased closed but may open to accommodate inserting the medical device through the interior.
Regarding claim 5:
The device of claim 1, further comprising a removable cover (see “removable cover” in claim 9) overlying the adhesive or tacky material.
Regarding claim 6:
The device of claim 1, further comprising a removable seal (see “removable seal” in claim 10) covering one of the proximal and distal openings.
Regarding claim 41:
A method for introducing a medical device into a body passage of a patient's body, comprising:
providing a lubricant device including lubricant within an interior of a housing of the device communicating with proximal and distal openings (see “providing a lubricant apparatus including a proximal surface including a proximal opening, a distal surface including a distal opening” in claim 16);
introducing a distal end of a medical device into and through the interior between the proximal and distal openings, whereupon lubricant from the interior is applied to an outer surface of the medical device (see “introducing a distal end of a medical device into and through the channel, whereupon lubricant from the interior of the lubricant apparatus is applied to an outer surface of the medical device” in claim 16); and
introducing the distal end of the medical device into the body passage to perform a procedure, lubricant being applied to the outer surface of the medical device as the medical device passes through the interior and into the body passage (see “introducing the distal end of the medical device into the body passage to perform a procedure, such that at least some of the lubricant is applied to the outer surface of the medical device as the medical device passes through the channel and into the body passage” in claim 16).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14 and 16-18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following is pertinent prior art:
US-20180153387-A1
Abitbol
See the lubricating device 150 as shown in figure 5
US-20150328437-A1
Rageh
See the securement device 2
US-20170056639-A1
Ma
See the valve 24
US-3683911-A
McCormick
See the securement device 11 as shown in figure 2
EP-1894512-A1
BOB
See the lubricator as shown in figure 1
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WESLEY HARRIS whose telephone number is (571)272-3665. The examiner can normally be reached M to F, 9am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Tsai can be reached on (571) 270-5246. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WESLEY G HARRIS/Examiner, Art Unit 3783