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 (IDS) submitted on July 10, 2026 was filed after the mailing date of the non-final office action on May 8, 2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Is it noted that the US Publication number has been changed to reflect the correct US publication number.
Response to Amendment
This action is entered in response to Applicant’s amendment and reply of September 8, 2026. Claims 1, 4, 9 and 11 are amended. Claims 1-12, 22, 35-39, 43, 65 are pending. Claims 22, 35-39, 43, 65 are withdrawn. It is noted that claims 9 and 11 have a status identifier of “currently amended”, however there does not appear to be any markups or changes to the claim language.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 8, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Bierman does not teach 1) “a connector configured to allow the support block to connect with at least one additional support block, the at least one additional support block comprising a bottom surface and a top surface substantially at an angle relative to the bottom surface” as in the amended claim language of claim 1; 2) connecting two support blocks to one another; and 3) “one or more protrusions or depressions configured to form an interference fit” because the dovetail of Bierman in longitudinal sliding movement rather than press-fit or friction-based interference engagement.
In response to applicant's first argument that Bierman does not teach a connector configured to connect with at least one additional support block, “the at least one additional support block comprising a bottom surface and a top surface substantially at an angle relative to the bottom surface”, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In this situation, the “at least one additional support block” is recited as being configured to be used with the “connector” and is not a positively recited feature of the claims. In addition, Bierman teaches that the connector is capable of connecting with at least one additional support block shown at 92, where the additional support block has a bottom surface and a top surface, and the top surface is substantially at an angle relative to the bottom surface (see Figs. 13a, 15a). The claim does not limit the angle to any certain degrees and the support block of Bierman is capable of being a block that could be slanted or at an angle. The base 92 of Bierman has a parallelepiped shape and would have some angle between the top surface and bottom surface. To summarize, Bierman is capable of engaging with an additional support block, and the structure of the additional support block is not a positively recited feature of the claims.
In response to applicants’ second and third argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., two support blocks connected to one another, and a press fit or friction fit engagement) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Claim 1 only recites a single support block having a connector configured to attach to an additional support block, where the additional support block is not positively recited as noted above. The phrase “and/or” in line 13 of claim 1 has been interpreted as “or” and therefore the clause “one or more protrusions or depressions configured to form an interference fit with one or more protrusions or depressions on the at least one additional support block,” after the “or” is optional and is not required by claim 1. Even if the “one or more protrusions or depressions configured to form an interference fit with one or more protrusions or depressions on the at least one additional support block” is considered part of the claim, the term “interference fit” does not require friction or a press fit type arrangement. The sliding engagement of a dovetail would be equivalent to an “interference fit” since both pieces are slid together and held in place by way of the protrusion and depression, which is equivalent to the interference fit as claimed.
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 1-3, 6-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bierman, US 6,786,892.
Regarding claim 1, Bierman discloses a support block (20a, see embodiment in Figs. 6-8, col. 10, lines 48-67, where like numbers are similar to embodiment in Fig. 1), comprising: a bottom surface (bottom of 20a, Fig. 7a-b); a top surface (top of 20a, Fig. 7b) substantially at an angle relative to the bottom surface, the angle being between 5 degrees and 50 degrees (col. 14, lines 37-48, angle between 5 to 30 degrees), the top surface connected to the bottom surface via a front surface (front of 20a, Fig. 7b, 8), two side surfaces (sides of 20a, Fig. 7a), and a rear surface (rear of 20a, Fig. 7b), the rear surface having a larger surface area than the front surface (Fig. 7b, 8, col. 10, line 66 to col. 11, line 20); wherein the top surface and/or bottom surface has a connector (groove 108) configured to allow the support block to connect with at least one additional support block, the at least one additional support block comprising a bottom surface and a top surface substantially at an angle relative to the bottom surface (20a connects to additional block/base 92; block/base 92 is not positively recited and can be a block that is angled as shown in Figs. 13a or 15a; connector is capable of connecting to any type of block), the connector being:
a protruding element configured to interface with a receiving slot on the at least one additional support block;
a receiving slot configured to receive a protruding element from the at least one additional support block; and/or
one or more protrusions or depressions configured to form an interference fit with one or more protrusions or depressions on the at least one additional support block (dovetail configuration of 96 with groove 108 that corresponds to 96, that permits 20a to slide over base 92 with base stops 106, col. 11, lines 1-22, Fig. 7a),
wherein the top surface includes a depression or channel (channel 44, Fig. 7b, col. 7, lines 7-20, where embodiment of Fig. 1 shares the channel feature with embodiment of Fig. 6, 7a-b) extending along its entire length configured to contact and partially surround a portion of a medical device and/or access device (catheter adapter 22, col. 7, lines 7-20).
Regarding claim 2, Bierman discloses the support block according to claim 1, wherein support blocks comprise a silicone, a thermoplastic polyurethane, and/or a foam (col. 12, lines 24-40).
Regarding claim 3, Bierman discloses the support block according to claim 1, wherein the one or more support blocks comprise a rigid material (col. 12, lines 24-40; plastics in the list include rigid materials).
Regarding claim 6, Bierman discloses the support block according to claim 1, further comprising an angle-matching device (16a, col. 11, lines 5-20) permanently coupled to the bottom surface (embedding or otherwise weaving, col. 11, lines 5-20), the angle-matching device configured to be sutured to the patient (col. 11, lines 5-20; pad 16a is capable of having sutures inserted through because the pad is formed of tape, col. 9, lines 40-55).
Regarding claim 7, Bierman discloses the support block according to claim 1, wherein the support block is configured to be sutured to the patient (pad 16a is capable of having sutures inserted through because the pad is formed of tape, col. 9, lines 40-55).
Regarding claim 8, Bierman discloses the support block according to claim 1, further comprising an adhesive layer on a bottom surface and/or a tacky surface on the bottom surface of the support block (adhesive surface 18, col. 9, lines 1-10).
Regarding claim 9, Bierman discloses the support block according to claim 1, wherein the top surface is contoured to receive at least a portion of an access device and/es a medical device (channel 44, Fig. 7b, col. 7, lines 7-20, where embodiment of Fig. 1 shares the channel feature with embodiment of Fig. 6, 7a-b).
Regarding claim 10, Bierman discloses the support block according to claim 9, wherein the top surface comprises a depression configured to receive at least a portion of the access device and/or the medical device (channel 44, Fig. 7b, col. 7, lines 7-20, where embodiment of Fig. 1 shares the channel feature with embodiment of Fig. 6, 7a-b).
Regarding claim 11, Bierman discloses the support block according to claim 1 wherein the bottom surface of one support block is contoured to fit a location on the patient and/or a body type of the patient (col. 10, lines 50-65; adjustment mechanism allows for positioning on the patient).
Regarding claim 12, Bierman discloses the support block according to claim 1, wherein a rear surface comprises a groove configured to provide access to a fingertip (groove at 62a, Fig. 8, col. 8, lines 28-35, where embodiment in Figs. 3-5 share features with embodiment in Fig. 6-8).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bierman in view of Howell et al, US 2015/0224285 A1.
Regarding claims 4-5, Bierman discloses the support block according to claim 1, but is silent as to wherein the support block comprises an antiseptic filler that is either silver or chlorohexidine gluconate (CHG).
However, Howell, in the same field of art, teaches a medical securement device for placing a catheter (Fig. 10), where the device has a support with a dressing layer (400, 418), and the layer of the support has a antiseptic filler material that is silver (para [0108]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the block of Bierman with an antiseptic filler such as silver in order to provide the stated advantages of providing an antimicrobial agent to prevent infection (Howell, para [0108]).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATRINA M STRANSKY whose telephone number is (571)270-3843. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 am-5:00 pm EST.
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, Thomas Barrett can be reached at (571)272-4647. 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.
/KATRINA M STRANSKY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3700
Prosecution Insights