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 IDS form(s) submitted on 7/3/2025, 6/4/2025, 5/31/2024, 5/16/2024, 4/18/2024, 9/20/2023, and 06/02/2023 is/are in compliance with the requirements of the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure(s) are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 7, and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 2 line 11-12 should read “to removably secure to the wall of the hub, and the cover is configured to at least partially enclose the insertion”; Claim 7 line 5 should read “a cover configured to be removably secure to the hub, the cover configured to at least partially enclose”; Claim 15 line 5 should read “a cover configured to be removably secured to the hub, the cover configured to at least partially enclose”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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(s) 7, 10, 12, 14-15, and 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 20140069877 to Kim Do Hyung (hereinafter referenced as Kim).
In regard to claim 7:
Kim teaches, an apparatus (Fig. 1, element 100) configured to at least partially enclose and secure to a catheter device connected to a catheter when the catheter is inserted at an insertion site on skin of a subject (Fig. 2 demonstrates capability to cover catheter element 20), the apparatus comprising: a hub (Fig. 1 element 310) configured to secure to the subject's skin around the insertion site (Fig. 2 element 310); and a cover (Fig. 1 element 400) configured to removably secure to the hub to at least partially enclose the insertion site on the subject's skin (Figs. 1 and 2 element 400, removably secured via elements 440 interacting with elements 370), the cover comprising: a top portion (see annotated Fig. 1 below), a first side extending transverse from the top portion (see annotated Fig. 1 below), and a second side extending transverse from the top portion (see annotated Fig. 1 below);
PNG
media_image1.png
354
645
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1
Kim does not explicitly teach the first and second wings extending from the first and second sides of the cover. Kim teaches, a first wing (See annotated Fig. 1 above) extending outward from the first side of the hub and curving such that a portion of the first wing is generally parallel to and spaced from the first side of the hub by a first gap (The edge of the first wing distal to the first side of the hub is parallel to and separated by said first gap) that is configured to receive a fluid tube connected to the catheter device when the fluid tube is wrapped around at least a first portion of the cover (Figs. 3, 5A, and 5B element 350 demonstrates the capability of element 350 to hold a fluid tube (element 10)); and a second wing (see annotated Fig. 1 above) extending outward from the second side of the hub and curving such that a portion of the second wing is generally parallel to and spaced from the second side of the hub by a second gap (The edge of the second wing distal to the second side of the hub is parallel to and separated by said second gap) that is configured to receive the fluid tube connected to the catheter device when the fluid tube is wrapped around at least a second portion of the cover (Elements 350 are duplicates and therefore Figs. 3, 5A, and 5B element 350 is considered to demonstrate the capability of both elements 350 to hold a fluid tube (element 10).
Kim discloses the claimed invention except for the first and second wing are positioned on the first and second sides. It would have been an obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective date of filing, to cause the device of Kim to have the first and second wing are positioned on the first and second sides, since the only difference between the prior art and the claims is the locations of the first and second wings, merely rearranging the parts is considered to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. The first and second wings taught by Kim would not operate differently in the new respective locations and would continue to perform the intended function of securing a fluid tube between themselves and their respective mounting surfaces. See MPEP 2144.04 VI. Reversal, duplication, or rearrangement of parts.
In regard to claim 10:
The apparatus of Claim 7, taught by Kim as described in parent claim rejection above.
Kim teaches, wherein the cover further comprises one or more protrusions (Fig. 3 elements 440) extending from the cover and configured to secure to one or more portions of the hub (Fig. 3. Element 440 interaction with element 330).
Kim discloses the claimed invention except for the one or more protrusions extending from an interior portion of the cover as claimed (emphasis added). It would have been an obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective date of filing, to cause the device of Kim to have the one or more protrusions extending from an interior portion of the cover as claimed, since the only difference between the prior art and the claims the one or more protrusions extending from an interior portion instead of an exterior portion of the cover, merely rearranging the parts is considered to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. The one or more protrusions taught by Kim would not operate differently in the new respective locations and would continue to perform the intended function of securing of the cover (element 400) to the hub (element 300). See MPEP 2144.04 VI. Reversal, duplication, or rearrangement of parts.
In regard to claim 12:
The apparatus of Claim 7, taught by Kim as described in parent claim rejection above.
Kim teaches, wherein the first wing extends outward from a portion of the first side where the first side joins the top portion, and wherein the second wing extends outward from a portion of the second side where the second side joins the top portion.
Kim discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the first wing extends outward from a portion of the first side where the first side joins the top portion, and wherein the second wing extends outward from a portion of the second side where the second side joins the top portion. It would have been an obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective date of filing, to cause the device of Kim to have wherein the first wing extends outward from a portion of the first side where the first side joins the top portion, and wherein the second wing extends outward from a portion of the second side where the second side joins the top portion as claimed, since the only difference between the prior art and the claims the wherein the first wing extends outward from a portion of the first side where the first side joins the top portion, and wherein the second wing extends outward from a portion of the second side where the second side joins the top portion, merely rearranging the parts is considered to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. The first and second wings taught by Kim would not operate differently in the new respective locations and would continue to perform the intended function of securing a fluid tube between themselves and their respective mounting surfaces. See MPEP 2144.04 VI. Reversal, duplication, or rearrangement of parts.
In regard to claim 14:
The apparatus of Claim 7, taught by Kim as described in parent claim rejection above.
Kim teaches, wherein the cover (Fig. 1 element 400) comprises a plurality of sides extending transverse from the top portion, said plurality of sides comprising the first and second sides (see annotated Fig. 1 below) and further comprising a third side and a fourth side (see annotated Fig. 2 below), wherein the first, second, third, and fourth sides form a continuous wall (Fig. 1 element 400, continuous wall formed of the 1st-4th sides).
PNG
media_image1.png
354
645
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1
PNG
media_image2.png
252
626
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 2
In regard to claim 15:
Kim teaches, an apparatus (Fig. 1, element 100) configured to at least partially enclose and secure to a catheter device connected to a catheter when the catheter is inserted at an insertion site on skin of a subject (Fig. 2 demonstrates capability to cover catheter element 20), the apparatus comprising: a hub (Fig. 1 element 310) configured to secure to the subject's skin around the insertion site (Fig. 2 element 310); and a cover (Fig. 1 element 400) configured to removably secure to the hub to at least partially enclose the insertion site on the subject's skin (Fig. 1 element 400, removably secured via elements 440 interacting with elements 370), the cover comprising: a main body comprising a top portion and sides extending from the top portion (see annotated Fig. 1 below);
PNG
media_image1.png
354
645
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1
Kim does not explicitly teach the first and second wings extending from the first and second sides of the cover. Kim teaches, and a wing (See annotated Fig. 1 above, “First wing”) extending outward from a portion of the hub in a first direction (See annotated Fig. 1 above, First direction considered to be the wing extending orthogonal to the plane of the mounting surface) and extending in a second direction (See annotated Fig. 1 above, second direction considered to be the curl parallel to the plane of the mounting surface) along at least a portion of a height of a first one of the sides (See annotated Fig. 1 above, “First wing”, Fig. 1 element 350), wherein a portion of the wing is spaced from the hub by a gap (Figs. 3, 5A, and 5B element 10 held within the gap) that is configured to receive a fluid tube connected to the catheter device when the fluid tube is wrapped around at least a portion of the main body of the cover (Figs. 3, 5A, and 5B element 350 demonstrates the capability of element 350 to hold a fluid tube (element 10)).
Kim discloses the claimed invention except for a wing extending outward from a portion of the main body. It would have been an obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective date of filing, to cause the device of Kim to have the wing extending outward from a portion of the main body, since the only difference between the prior art and the claims is the location of the wing, merely rearranging the part is considered to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. The wing taught by Kim would not operate differently in the new respective location and would continue to perform the intended function of securing a fluid tube between itself and the respective mounting surface. See MPEP 2144.04 VI. Reversal, duplication, or rearrangement of parts.
In regard to claim 19:
The apparatus of Claim 15, taught by Kim as described in parent claim rejection above.
Kim teaches, wherein the sides comprise a first side (see annotated Fig. 1 below), a second side opposite the first side (see annotated Fig. 1 below), a third side (see annotated Fig. 2 below), and a fourth side opposite the third side (see annotated Fig. 2 below), and wherein the first, second, third, and fourth sides form a continuous wall (Fig. 1 element 400, continuous wall formed of the 1st-4th sides).
PNG
media_image1.png
354
645
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1
PNG
media_image2.png
252
626
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 2
In regard to claim 20:
The apparatus of Claim 15, taught by Kim as described in parent claim rejection above.
Kim teaches, wherein the cover further comprises one or more protrusions (Fig. 3 elements 440) extending from of the main body of the cover and configured to secure to one or more portions of the hub (Fig. 3. Element 440 interaction with element 330).
Kim discloses the claimed invention except for the one or more protrusions extending from an interior portion of the main body as claimed (emphasis added). It would have been an obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective date of filing, to cause the device of Kim to have the one or more protrusions extending from an interior portion of the main body as claimed, since the only difference between the prior art and the claims the one or more protrusions extending from an interior portion instead of an exterior portion of the main body, merely rearranging the parts is considered to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. The one or more protrusions taught by Kim would not operate differently in the new respective locations and would continue to perform the intended function of securing of the main body (element 400) to the hub (element 300). See MPEP 2144.04 VI. Reversal, duplication, or rearrangement of parts.
In regard to claim 21:
The apparatus of Claim 15, taught by Kim as described in parent claim rejection above.
Kim does not explicitly teach the first and second wings extending from the cover. Kim teaches, wherein the wing is a first wing (See annotated Fig. 1 below) of the hub and wherein the hub further comprises a second wing (See annotated Fig. 1 below) extending outward from another portion of the main body in a third direction (See annotated Fig. 1 above, Third direction considered to be the wing extending orthogonal to the plane of the mounting surface) and extending in a fourth direction (See annotated Fig. 1 above, second direction considered to be the curl parallel to the plane of the mounting surface) along at least a portion of a height of a second one of the sides (See annotated Fig. 1 below, “second wing”, Fig. 1 element 350), wherein a portion of the second wing is spaced from the hub by a gap (Figs. 3, 5A, and 5B element 10 held within the gap) that is configured to receive the fluid tube connected to the catheter device when the fluid tube is wrapped around at least another portion of the main body of the cover (Figs. 3, 5A, and 5B element 350 demonstrates the capability of element 350 to hold a fluid tube (element 10)).
PNG
media_image1.png
354
645
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1
wherein the wing is a first wing of the cover and wherein the cover further comprises a second wing extending outward from another portion of the main body in a third direction and extending in a fourth direction along at least a portion of a height of a second one of the sides, wherein a portion of the second wing is spaced from the second one of the sides by a gap that is configured to receive the fluid tube connected to the catheter device when the fluid tube is wrapped around at least another portion of the main body of the cover.
Kim discloses the claimed invention except for a second wing extending outward from another portion of the main body. It would have been an obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective date of filing, to cause the second wing of Kim to have the second wing extending outward from another portion of the main body, since the only difference between the prior art and the claims is the location of the second wing, merely rearranging the part is considered to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. The second wing taught by Kim would not operate differently in the new respective location and would continue to perform the intended function of securing a fluid tube between itself and the respective mounting surface. See MPEP 2144.04 VI. Reversal, duplication, or rearrangement of parts.
Claim(s) 8-9, 13, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 20140069877 to Kim Do Hyung (hereinafter referenced as Kim) in view of US 2009/0326474 A1 to Bierman et al. (hereinafter referenced as Bierman2).
In regard to claim 8:
The apparatus of Claim 7, taught by Kim as described in parent claim rejection above.
Kim does not appear to explicitly teach the slot through the first or second wing as claimed. Bierman2 teaches, wherein: the first wing (See annotated Fig. 3 below, “wing”) comprises a slot extending through a thickness of the first wing (See annotated Fig. 3 below, “slot”); and the second wing (See annotated Fig. 3 below, “wing”) comprises a slot extending through a thickness of the second wing (See annotated Fig. 3 below, “slot”)
PNG
media_image3.png
423
758
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 3
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective date of filing, to modify both of the first and second wings taught by Kim to have a slot extending through a thickness of the first and second wings respectively and as taught by Bierman2. This would have been motivated by improving the securement of the fluid tube within the first and second wings respectively by adding the slot and strap securement of by Bierman2. Considered an improved securement as the tube element 10 can become dislodge from Fig. 1 elements 350, such as in the case the tubing element 10 were caught on the bed rail as identified by Bierman2 para. 6 “This securement is intended to inhibit disconnection between the medical article and the patient or between two medical articles, such as between a catheter and a drainage tube, as well as to prevent the medical article from catching on other objects, such as on a bed rail.”.
Kim in view of Bierman2 teaches, the first slot configured to allow inspection of the fluid tube when the fluid tube is positioned between the first wing and the first side of the cover (The combination of the slot taught by Bierman2 in the first wing taught by Kim is considered fully capable of allowing visual inspection of the tube held through the slot via the gaps between the strap and the 4 side walls of the slot. The visual inspection is considered to be that the tube is present in the wing. Examiner notes the claim as currently written does not require any specific type of inspection or information obtained from said inspection therefore the slot is considered capable of the simple visual inspection of being present. Said simple visual inspection can be performed by looking in the slot to see if the gaps between the strap and side wall are blocked by the tube.), the second slot configured to allow inspection of the fluid tube when the fluid tube is positioned between the second wing and the second side of the cover (The combination of the slot taught by Bierman2 in the second wing taught by Kim is considered fully capable of allowing visual inspection of the tube held through the slot via the gaps between the strap and the 4 side walls of the slot. The visual inspection is considered to be that the tube is present in the wing. Examiner notes the claim as currently written does not require any specific type of inspection or information obtained from said inspection therefore the slot is considered capable of the simple visual inspection of being present. Said simple visual inspection can be performed by looking in the slot to see if the gaps between the strap and side wall are blocked by the tube).
In regard to claim 9:
The apparatus of Claim 8, taught by Kim in view of Bierman2 as described in parent claim rejection above.
Bierman2 teaches, wherein the slot of the first wing is located proximate to an end of the first wing (see annotated Fig. 3 below “slot” proximate end of “wing” at analogous mounting surface) that connects to the first side of the cover (see annotated Fig. 3 below slot, “analogous mounting surface”. Considered an analogous surface to the first side of the cover taught by Kim as they are both smooth flat surfaces), and wherein the slot of the second wing is located proximate to an end of the second wing (see annotated Fig. 3 below “slot” proximate end of “wing” at analogous mounting surface) that connects to the second side of the cover (see annotated Fig. 3 below slot, “analogous mounting surface”. Considered an analogous surface to the first side of the cover taught by Kim as they are both smooth flat surfaces)
PNG
media_image4.png
423
870
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 3
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective date of filing, to modify both of the first and second wings taught by Kim to have a slot extending through a thickness of the first and second wings respectively as taught by Bierman2. This would have been motivated by improving the securement of the fluid tube within the first and second wings respectively by adding the slot and strap securement method of Bierman2. Considered an improved securement as the tube element 10 can become dislodge from Fig. 1 elements 350, such as in the case the tubing element 10 were caught on the bed rail as identified by Bierman2 para. 6 “This securement is intended to inhibit disconnection between the medical article and the patient or between two medical articles, such as between a catheter and a drainage tube, as well as to prevent the medical article from catching on other objects, such as on a bed rail.”.
In regard to claim 13:
The apparatus of Claim 7, taught by Kim as described in parent claim rejection above.
Kim does not appear to explicitly teach the first and second wing having a thickness that is less at a second end as claimed. Bierman2 teaches, wherein: the first wing comprises a first end that is connected to the first side of the cover and a second end that is opposite the first end of the first wing, the second end of the first wing having a thickness that is less than a remaining portion of the first wing; and the second wing comprises a first end that is connected to the second side of the cover and a second end that is opposite the first end of the second wing, the second end of the second wing having a thickness that is less than a remaining portion of the second wing.
PNG
media_image5.png
297
695
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 5
In regard to claim 17:
The apparatus of Claim 15, taught by Kim as described in parent claim rejection above.
Kim does not appear to explicitly teach the slot through the wing as claimed. Bierman2 teaches, wherein: the wing (See annotated Fig. 3 below, “wing”) comprises a slot extending through a thickness of the first wing (See annotated Fig. 3 below, “slot”)
PNG
media_image3.png
423
758
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 3
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective date of filing, to modify the wing taught by Kim to have a slot extending through a thickness of the wing as taught by Bierman2. This would have been motivated by improving the securement of the fluid tube within the wing by adding the slot and strap securement system taught by Bierman2. Considered an improved securement as the tube element 10 can become dislodge from Fig. 1 elements 350, such as in the case the tubing element 10 were caught on the bed rail as identified by Bierman2 para. 6 “This securement is intended to inhibit disconnection between the medical article and the patient or between two medical articles, such as between a catheter and a drainage tube, as well as to prevent the medical article from catching on other objects, such as on a bed rail.”.
Kim in view of Bierman2 teaches, the slot configured to allow inspection of the fluid tube when the fluid tube is positioned between the wing and the first one of the sides (The combination of the slot taught by Bierman2 in the wing taught by Kim is considered fully capable of allowing visual inspection of the tube held through the slot via the gaps between the strap and the 4 side walls of the slot. The visual inspection is considered to be that the tube is present in the wing. Examiner notes the claim as currently written does not require any specific type of inspection or information obtained from said inspection therefore the slot is considered capable of the simple visual inspection of being present. Said simple visual inspection can be performed by looking in the slot to see if the gaps between the strap and side wall are blocked by the tube
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 20140069877 to Kim Do Hyung (hereinafter referenced as Kim) in view of US 2006/0065772 A1 to Grant et al.
In regard to claim 16:
The apparatus of Claim 15, taught by Kim as described in parent claim rejection above.
Kim does not appear to explicitly disclose the straight and curved portions and their respective positions as claimed. Grant teaches, wherein the wing (Fig. 1A element 522) comprises a curved portion (see annotated Fig. 1A below) and a straight portion (see annotated Fig. 1A below) connected to curved portion and wherein the curved portion is positioned closer to the first one of the sides of the cover (see annotated Fig. 1A below. Examiner notes Grant teaches a clip side mounted to a surface that is considered analogous to “the first one of the sides of the cover” as it is also a flat mounting surface the wing is mounted upon) than the straight portion (see annotated Fig. 1A below), and wherein the straight portion is generally parallel to and spaced from the first one of the sides of the cover by the gap (see annotated Fig .1A below).
PNG
media_image6.png
291
510
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1A
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective date of filing, to modify the wing taught by Kim, to include a curved portion and a straight portion as taught by Grant. This would have been motivated by design choice. This modification is considered design choice as the difference between Kim and Grant involves merely changing the shape of the wing taught by Kim to another shape taught by Grant. Such a modification is generally considered to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art since it has been held “The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant”, see MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B).
Claim(s) 2, 5-6, 11, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 20140069877 to Kim Do Hyung (hereinafter referenced as Kim) in view of US 2002/0188255 A1 to Bierman et al.
In regard to claim 2:
Kim teaches, an apparatus (Fig. 1, element 100) configured to at least partially enclose and secure to a catheter device connected to a catheter when the catheter is inserted at an insertion site on skin of a subject (Fig. 2 demonstrates capability to cover catheter element 20), the apparatus comprising: a hub (Fig. 1 element 310) configured for placement on the subject's skin proximate the insertion site (Fig. 2 element 310), the hub comprising: a membrane (Fig. 1 element 200) including a membrane opening (Fig. 1 element 210), the membrane configured to contact and secure to the subject's skin such that the insertion site is positioned within the membrane opening (Fig. 2 element 200); and a wall connected to the membrane (Fig. 1 element 330), the wall extending around an entirety of the membrane opening and spaced inward from an exterior perimeter of the membrane (Fig. 1 element 330); and a cover separate from the hub (Fig. 1 element 400) and configured to removably secure to the wall of the hub to at least partially enclose the insertion site on the subject's skin (Fig. 1 element 400, removably secured via elements 440 interacting with elements 370), the cover comprising: a main body comprising a top portion (see annotated Fig. 1 below), a first side extending transverse relative to the top portion (see annotated Fig. 1 below), and a second side extending transverse relative to the top portion and positioned opposite the first side (see annotated Fig. 1 below);
PNG
media_image1.png
354
645
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1
Kim does not explicitly teach the first and second wings extending from the first and second sides of the cover. Kim teaches, a first wing extending outward from the first side of the hub (See annotated Fig. 1 above) and curving such that a portion of the first wing is generally parallel to and spaced from the first side of the hub by a first gap (The edge of the first wing distal to the first side of the hub is parallel to and separated by said first gap), said first gap configured to receive a fluid tube connected to the catheter device when the fluid tube is wrapped around at least a first portion of the main body (Figs. 3, 5A, and 5B element 350 demonstrates the capability of element 350 to hold a fluid tube (element 10)), and a second wing extending outward from the second side of the hub (see annotated Fig. 1 above) and curving such that a portion of the second wing is generally parallel to and spaced from the second side of the hub by a second gap (The edge of the second wing distal to the second side of the hub is parallel to and separated by said second gap), said second gap configured to receive the fluid tube connected to the catheter device when the fluid tube is wrapped around at least a second portion of the main body (Elements 350 are duplicates and therefore Figs. 3, 5A, and 5B element 350 is considered to demonstrate the capability of both elements 350 to hold a fluid tube (element 10) on either side of the main body (element 400)),
Kim discloses the claimed invention except for the first and second wing are positioned on the first and second sides of the main body. It would have been an obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective date of filing, to cause the device of Kim to have the first and second wing are positioned on the first and second sides of the main body, since the only difference between the prior art and the claims is the locations of the first and second wings, merely rearranging the parts is considered to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. The first and second wings taught by Kim would not operate differently in the new respective locations and would continue to perform the intended function of securing a fluid tube between themselves and their respective mounting surfaces. See MPEP 2144.04 VI. Reversal, duplication, or rearrangement of parts.
Kim does not appear to disclose the one or more ribs upon the first and second wings as claimed. Bierman teaches, wherein the first wing (Fig. 3 right side element 112) comprises one or more ribs protruding from an outer surface of the first wing and configured to aid gripping of the cover (Para. 101 “Each finger platform 112 also has a ribbed upper surface to improve frictional contact between a healthcare provider's fingers and the platform 112.”); wherein the second wing (Fig. 3 left side element 112) comprises one or more ribs protruding from an outer surface of the second wing and configured to aid gripping of the cover (Para. 101 “Each finger platform 112 also has a ribbed upper surface to improve frictional contact between a healthcare provider's fingers and the platform 112.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective date of filing, to modify the first and second wings taught by Kim to include the one or more ribs as taught by Bierman. This would have been motivated by improving the user’s ability to grip and/or manually work the first and second wings taught by Kim. Further motivated by Bierman para. 101 “Each finger platform 112 also has a ribbed upper surface to improve frictional contact between a healthcare provider's fingers and the platform 112” (emphasis added).
In regard to claim 5:
The apparatus of Claim 2, taught by Kim in view of Bierman as described in parent claim rejection above.
Kim teaches, wherein the cover further comprises one or more protrusions (Fig. 3 elements 440) and configured to secure to one or more portions of the wall of the hub (Fig. 3. Element 440 interaction with element 330)
Kim discloses the claimed invention except for the one or more protrusions extending from an interior portion of the main body as claimed (emphasis added). It would have been an obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective date of filing, to cause the device of Kim to have the one or more protrusions extending from an interior portion of the main body as claimed, since the only difference between the prior art and the claims the one or more protrusions extending from an interior portion instead of an exterior portion, merely rearranging the parts is considered to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. The one or more protrusions taught by Kim would not operate differently in the new respective locations and would continue to perform the intended function of securing of the main body (element 400) to the hub (element 300). See MPEP 2144.04 VI. Reversal, duplication, or rearrangement of parts.
In regard to claim 6:
The apparatus of Claim 2, taught by Kim in view of Bierman as described in parent claim rejection above.
Kim does not appear to disclose the one or more ribs upon the first and second wings as claimed. Bierman teach, wherein: the one or more ribs of the first wing (Fig. 3 right side element 112) comprises a plurality of ribs protruding from the outer surface of the first wing and spaced from one another (Para. 101 “Each finger platform 112 also has a ribbed upper surface to improve frictional contact between a healthcare provider's fingers and the platform 112.”); and the one or more ribs of the second wing (Fig. 3 left side element 112) comprises a plurality of ribs protruding from the outer surface of the second wing and spaced from one another (Para. 101 “Each finger platform 112 also has a ribbed upper surface to improve frictional contact between a healthcare provider's fingers and the platform 112.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective date of filing, to modify the first and second wings taught by Kim to include the one or more ribs as taught by Bierman. This would have been motivated by improving the user’s ability to grip and/or manually work the first and second wings taught by Kim. Further motivated by Bierman para. 101 “Each finger platform 112 also has a ribbed upper surface to improve frictional contact between a healthcare provider's fingers and the platform 112” (emphasis added).
In regard to claim 11:
The apparatus of Claim 7, taught by Kim as described in parent claim rejection above.
Kim does not appear to disclose the one or more ribs upon the first and second wings as claimed. Bierman teaches, wherein the first wing (Fig. 3 right side element 112) comprises one or more ribs protruding from an outer surface of the first wing (Para. 101 “Each finger platform 112 also has a ribbed upper surface to improve frictional contact between a healthcare provider's fingers and the platform 112.”), and wherein the second wing (Fig. 3 left side element 112) comprises one or more ribs protruding from an outer surface of the second wing, said one or more ribs of the first and second wing configured to aid gripping of the cover (Para. 101 “Each finger platform 112 also has a ribbed upper surface to improve frictional contact between a healthcare provider's fingers and the platform 112.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective date of filing, to modify the first and second wings taught by Kim to include the one or more ribs as taught by Bierman. This would have been motivated by improving the user’s ability to grip and/or manually work the first and second wings taught by Kim. Further motivated by Bierman para. 101 “Each finger platform 112 also has a ribbed upper surface to improve frictional contact between a healthcare provider's fingers and the platform 112” (emphasis added).
In regard to claim 18:
The apparatus of Claim 15, taught by Kim as described in parent claim rejection above.
Kim does not appear to disclose the one or more ribs upon the first and second wings as claimed. Bierman teaches, wherein the wing (Fig. 3 right side element 112) comprises one or more ribs protruding from an outer surface of the wing and configured to aid gripping of the cover (Para. 101 “Each finger platform 112 also has a ribbed upper surface to improve frictional contact between a healthcare provider's fingers and the platform 112.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective date of filing, to modify the wing taught by Kim to include the one or more ribs as taught by Bierman. This would have been motivated by improving the user’s ability to grip and/or manually work the wing taught by Kim. Further motivated by Bierman para. 101 “Each finger platform 112 also has a ribbed upper surface to improve frictional contact between a healthcare provider's fingers and the platform 112” (emphasis added).
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 20140069877 to Kim Do Hyung (hereinafter referenced as Kim) in view of US 2002/0188255 A1 to Bierman et al. further in view of US 2009/0326474 A1 to Bierman et al. (hereinafter referenced as Bierman2).
In regard to claim 3:
The apparatus of Claim 2, taught by Kim in view of Bierman as described in parent claim rejection above.
wherein: the first wing (See annotated Fig. 3 below, “wing”) comprises a slot extending through a thickness of the first wing (See annotated Fig. 3 below, “slot”) and the second wing (See annotated Fig. 3 below, “wing”) comprises a slot extending through a thickness of the second wing (See annotated Fig. 3 below, “slot”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective date of filing, to modify both of the first and second wings taught by Kim to have a slot extending through a thickness of the first and second wings respectively as taught by Bierman2. This would have been motivated by improving the securement of the fluid tube within the first and second wings respectively by adding the slot and strap securement method of Bierman2. Considered an improved securement as the tube element 10 can become dislodge from Fig. 1 elements 350, such as in the case the tubing element 10 were caught on the bed rail as identified by Bierman2 para. 6 “This securement is intended to inhibit disconnection between the medical article and the patient or between two medical articles, such as between a catheter and a drainage tube, as well as to prevent the medical article from catching on other objects, such as on a bed rail.”.
Kim in view of Bierman2 teaches, first slot configured to allow inspection of the fluid tube when the fluid tube is positioned between the first wing and the first side of the main body (The combination of the slot taught by Bierman2 in the first wing taught by Kim is considered fully capable of allowing visual inspection of the tube held through the slot via the gaps between the strap and the 4 side walls of the slot. The visual inspection is considered to be that the tube is present in the wing. Examiner notes the claim as currently written does not require any specific type of inspection or information obtained from said inspection therefore the slot is considered capable of the simple visual inspection of being present. Said simple visual inspection can be performed by looking in the slot to see if the gaps between the strap and side wall are blocked by the tube.); second slot configured to allow inspection of the fluid tube when the fluid tube is positioned between the second wing and the second side of the main body (The combination of the slot taught by Bierman2 in the second wing taught by Kim is considered fully capable of allowing visual inspection of the tube held through the slot via the gaps between the strap and the 4 side walls of the slot. The visual inspection is considered to be that the tube is present in the wing. Examiner notes the claim as currently written does not require any specific type of inspection or information obtained from said inspection therefore the slot is considered capable of the simple visual inspection of being present. Said simple visual inspection can be performed by looking in the slot to see if the gaps between the strap and side wall are blocked by the tube).
In regard to claim 4:
The apparatus of Claim 3, taught by Kim in view of Bierman further in view of Bierman2 as described in parent claim rejection above.
Kim does not appear to explicitly teach the slot through the wing as claimed. Bierman2 teaches, wherein the slot of the first wing is located proximate to an end of the first wing (see annotated Fig. 3 below “slot” proximate end of “wing” at analogous mounting surface) that connects to the first side of the main body (see annotated Fig. 3 below slot, “analogous mounting surface”. Considered an analogous surface to the first side of the cover taught by Kim as they are both smooth flat surfaces), and wherein the slot of the second wing is located proximate to an end of the second wing (see annotated Fig. 3 below “slot” proximate end of “wing” at analogous mounting surface) that connects to the second side of the main body (see annotated Fig. 3 below slot, “analogous mounting surface”. Considered an analogous surface to the first side of the cover taught by Kim as they are both smooth flat surfaces)
PNG
media_image4.png
423
870
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 3
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective date of filing, to modify both of the first and second wings taught by Kim to have a slot extending through a thickness of the first and second wings respectively as taught by Bierman2. This would have been motivated by improving the securement of the fluid tube within the first and second wings respectively by adding the slot and strap securement method of Bierman2. Considered an improved securement as the tube element 10 can become dislodge from Fig. 1 elements 350, such as in the case the tubing element 10 were caught on the bed rail as identified by Bierman2 para. 6 “This securement is intended to inhibit disconnection between the medical article and the patient or between two medical articles, such as between a catheter and a drainage tube, as well as to prevent the medical article from catching on other objects, such as on a bed rail.”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mark A Igel whose telephone number is (571)272-7015. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday 11 am to 5 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, Bhisma Mehta can be reached at (571) 272-3383. 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.
/M.A.I./Examiner, Art Unit 3783
/BHISMA MEHTA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3783