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 7/24/23 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97(b). Accordingly, the IDS is being considered by the Examiner.
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.
Claims 1, 3-5, 10, 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kasic, II et al. (US 6,491,622) (“Kasic”). Kasic discloses:
(claims 1,10) A locking mechanism for a surgical access port 20 (C8L1-13), the locking mechanism comprising (Figs. 2a-d, 4): a lock base 44b having an aperture 45b configured to receive the surgical access port; a locking member 68 having an opening 45a configured to receive the surgical access port; and a ball 46 received between the lock base and the locking member, the ball having at least one lateral slit 52, wherein the locking member is configured to rotate relative to the lock base into a locked position to secure the surgical access port with the ball when the surgical access port is inserted into fascia, and the locking member is configured to compress the at least one lateral slit in the locked position, C6L11-40
(claim 20) the method comprising:receiving the surgical access port in an aperture of the lock base and an opening of the locking member; inserting the surgical access port into the fascia; rotating the locking member relative to the lock base into a locked position to secure the surgical access port with a ball between the lock base and the locking member; and compressing at least one lateral slit of the ball with the locking member in the locked position.
Claims 3, 12: the ball is configured to fix a rotational orientation of the surgical access port in the locked position. C6L11-40
Claims 4, 13: the ball has an opening 47 configured to receive the surgical access port.
Claims 5, 17: the lock base has a frustoconical inner surface at least partially supporting the ball. Fig. 2A
Claim 14: the ball is received between the lock base and the locking member. Fig. 5
Claims 15, 16: the locking member 68 is configured to compress the ball in the locked position. C5L62-C6L40, Figs. 2c,d; the ball includes at least one slit that is compressed in the locked position, Fig. 2d
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.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kasic in view of Magnusson et al. (US 2004/0260312) (“Magnusson”).
(claim 20) As above, Kasic discloses a locking mechanism for a surgical access port 20 (C8L1-13), the method comprising: receiving the surgical access port 20 in an aperture of the lock base 44b and an opening 45a of the locking member; rotating the locking member relative to the lock base into a locked position to secure the surgical access port with a ball 46 between the lock base and the locking member (C6L11-40); and compressing at least one lateral slit of the ball with the locking member in the locked position (C6L11-40). Kasic does not directly disclose as a method step, inserting the surgical access port into the fascia. Magnusson, in the analogous art, teaches a similar guide for a medical device. The surgical access port of Magnusson is inserted into the fascia, see Fig. 9. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the device of Kasic in the location of the body as taught by Magnusson since it is well known that securement of a port device, regardless of the location of the use of the medical device, increases safety to a patient.
Claims 2, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kasic in view of Magnusson. Kasic discloses the invention as substantially claimed but does not directly disclose an adhesive on the lock base to secure the lock base to the fascia. Magnusson, in the analogous art, teaches a bottom adhesive [0030]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add an adhesive on the bottom of the lock base of Kasic as taught by Magnusson to secure the device to a patient.
Claims 6-7, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kasic in view of Gowda et al. (US 2015/0202011) (“Gowda”). Kasic discloses the invention as substantially claimed but does not directly disclose at least one longitudinal slit that is compressed in the locked position; the at least one lateral slit intersects the at last one longitudinal slit. Gowda, in the analogous art, teaches a similar stereotactic device. The ball having both a lateral and longitudinal slit that intersects, Fig. 9. The ball is locked in place by securing screws as opposed to the locking member as in Kasic. However, Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the ball of Gowda in the device of Kasic to further increase the degree of freedom of the inserted surgical access port [0050].
Claims 8, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kasic in view of Nobles (US 5,263,956). Kasic discloses the invention as substantially claimed, including the lock base comprises a central ring defining at least one screw thread or ramp but does not directly disclose the locking member comprises at least one snap or finger received in the at least one screw thread or ramp to enable relative rotation. Nobles, in the analogous art, teaches a ball joint similar to the one in Kasic; the ball joint in Nobles is secured via clips in place of fasteners. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fasteners 48 as in Kasic with the clips as taught by Nobles as this is the same modification suggested by Nobles, C4L30-41.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kasic in view of Biesecker et al. (US 2012/0325768) (“Biesecker”). Kasic discloses the invention as substantially claimed, including the locking member 68 is configured to rotate relative to the lock base into an unlocked position. However, Kasic does not directly disclose the lock base comprises a tab, the locking member comprises a lock tab, and the locking member is configured to rotate relative to the lock base into an unlocked position when the tab and the lock tab are squeezed together. This locking structure is taught by Biesecker (244 engaged with 127) [0042-0044]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the engagement of the locking member and lock base as taught by Kasic with the safety features as taught by Biesecker to add a safety feature to the device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEANNA K HALL whose telephone number is (571)272-2819. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am- 4:30pm 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, Kevin Sirmons can be reached at 571-272-4965. 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.
/DEANNA K HALL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3783
Prosecution Insights