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 .
This is the first office action on the merits in response to Applicant’s election filed on 01/08/2026.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species I (FIG. 1) in the reply filed on January 8, 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1-15 are pending and examined.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-7, 9-10, and 12-15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, lines 1 and 4: “the platform” (two instances) is believed to be in error for --the slotted tubing security platform-- (see claim 1, line 1)
Claim 1, line 5: “the surgical position” is believed to be in error for --the fixed surgical position-- (see claim 1, line 3)
Claims 2-6, line 1: “The platform of claim _” is believed to be in error for --The slotted tubing security platform of claim _-- (see claim 1, line 1)
Claim 2, line 1: “the slot” is believed to be in error for --the at least one slot-- (see claim 1, line 2)
Claim 2, lines 1-2: “for the accommodating” is believed to be in error for --for accommodating the tubing-- (see claim 1 , line 2)
Claim 5, line 1: “the slot” is believed to be in error for --the at least one slot-- (see claim 1, line 2)
Claim 7, line 1: “the system” is believed to be in error for --the surgical system-- (see claim 7, line 1)
Claim 7, lines 7-8: “relative the eye of the patient” is believed to be in error for --relative to the eye of the patient--
Claim 9, line 2: “relative the eye of the patient” is believed to be in error for --relative to the eye of the patient--
Claim 10, line 2: “relative the eye of the patient” is believed to be in error for --relative to the eye of the patient--
Claim 12, line 4: “the instrument” is believed to be in error for --the fixed position instrument-- (see claim 12, line 3)
Claim 13, line 2: “a surface of the eye” is believed to refer to the same surface of the eye recited in claim 12, line 3, and should therefore be changed to --the surface of the eye--
Claim 14, line 2: “the platform” is believed to be in error for --the slotted tubing security platform-- (see claim 12, line 2)
Claim 15, line 3: “the platform” is believed to be in error for --the slotted tubing security platform-- (see claim 12, line 2)
Appropriate correction is required.
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Turpin (US 2019/0201665 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Turpin teaches (Figs. 1A-3A) a slotted tubing security platform (100 – Figs. 1A-2) to facilitate surgery (preamble, see *Note below), the platform (100) comprising:
a body (102 – Figs. 1A-1B) with at least one slot (118 – Figs. 1A-1D) for accommodating tubing (202 and 208 – Fig. 2) running from a surgical device (medical tubes 202 will obviously connect to a medical device; oxygen tubes 208 will connect to an oxygen supply) at a fixed surgical position (position of 904 in Fig. 3A) of a patient (¶ [0028], ll. 6-7: “for attaching the body to a patient”); and
an adhesive mechanism (904 – see ¶ [0043], ll. 23-25) coupled to the body (102 – the coupling is shown in Fig. 3B) for securing the platform (100) to a surgical sheet (medical gown 900 – Fig. 3A) adjacent the surgical position.
*Note: the recited limitation of “to facilitate surgery” is intended use, in other words the environment in which the slotted tubing security platform is used, and is given little patentable weight. (see MPEP 2111.02(II)). If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
Regarding claim 2, Turpin teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 1, and Turpin further teaches (Figs. 1A-1D) the slot (118) is a channel (112) to an orifice (114 – Fig. 1A) for the accommodating (tubes 202 and 208 shown in Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 3, Turpin teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 2, and Turpin further teaches (Fig. 1A) the orifice (114) is of a diameter smaller than an outer diameter of the tubing (¶ [0027], ll. 6-9: “This is accomplished by the medical tubes being received into the hub, such as with friction fitting, to inhibit movement of the medical tubes relative to the hub.” Note that friction fitting implies that the orifice has a smaller diameter than that of the medical tubes).
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Turpin (US 2019/0201665 A1), in view of Gandee (US 2020/0215260 A1: IDS reference).
Regarding claim 4, Turpin teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 3, except for the body is of a die cut foam for compressible retention of the tubing at the orifice.
It is noted that Turpin further teaches “The material of the body of the hub 100 can be resiliently flexible, such as an elastomer or rubber-like material, to allow the conduit slots 118 to be opened up for lateral insertion into the conduits 112” (¶ [0038], ll. 6-9), thereby showing that the body of the hub 100 is compressible for retention of the tubing.
Gandee teaches (Fig. 2) a similar slotted tubing security platform (100) comprising a body (102) with at least one slot/orifice (114) for accommodating tubing (112), and further teaches:
wherein the body (102) is of a die cut foam (¶ [0019], ll. 7-11: “the spacer body 102 can be formed from a light weight sponge rubber foam or like material. For example, the spacer body 102 can be formed from an EPDM/NeopreneSBR foam sheet”) for compressible retention of the tubing (112) at the orifice (114).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Turpin by substituting the elastomer or rubber-like material that the body is formed of for a die cut foam, because it has been held that a simple substitution of one known element (in this case, a die cut foam, as taught by Gandee) for another (in this case, Turpin’s elastomer or rubber-like material) to obtain predictable results (in this case, to form the body of a similar material that is also resiliently flexible), was an obvious extension of prior art teachings, KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007), MPEP 2143 (I) (B), therefore providing:
the body (Turpin, 102) is of a die cut foam (as taught by Gandee) for compressible retention of the tubing (Turpin, 202 and 208) at the orifice (Turpin, 114).
Regarding claim 5, Turpin teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 1, and Turpin further teaches (Figs. 1A-2) the slot (118) is a guide to a slit (Fig. 1D: bottom portion of 118, where “118” points to) for compressible retention of the tubing (202 and 208 – Fig. 2) at the orifice (114 – Fig. 1A).
However, Turpin does not teach the body is of a die cut foam.
It is noted that Turpin further teaches “The material of the body of the hub 100 can be resiliently flexible, such as an elastomer or rubber-like material, to allow the conduit slots 118 to be opened up for lateral insertion into the conduits 112” (¶ [0038], ll. 6-9), thereby showing that the body of the hub 100 is compressible for retention of the tubing.
Gandee teaches (Fig. 2) a similar slotted tubing security platform (100) comprising a body (102) with at least one slot/orifice (114) for accommodating tubing (112), and further teaches:
wherein the body (102) is of a die cut foam (¶ [0019], ll. 7-11: “the spacer body 102 can be formed from a light weight sponge rubber foam or like material. For example, the spacer body 102 can be formed from an EPDM/NeopreneSBR foam sheet”) for compressible retention of the tubing (112) at the orifice (114).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Turpin by substituting the elastomer or rubber-like material that the body is formed of for a die cut foam, because it has been held that a simple substitution of one known element (in this case, a die cut foam, as taught by Gandee) for another (in this case, Turpin’s elastomer or rubber-like material) to obtain predictable results (in this case, to form the body of a similar material that is also resiliently flexible), was an obvious extension of prior art teachings, KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007), MPEP 2143 (I) (B).
Regarding claim 6, Turpin teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 1, except for the body is of a rigid molded configuration for snap fit retention of the tubing.
It is noted that Turpin further teaches “The material of the body of the hub 100 can be resiliently flexible, such as an elastomer or rubber-like material, to allow the conduit slots 118 to be opened up for lateral insertion into the conduits 112” (¶ [0038], ll. 6-9).
Gandee teaches (Fig. 2) a similar slotted tubing security platform (100) comprising a body (102) with at least one slot/orifice (114) for accommodating tubing (112), and further teaches:
wherein the body is of a rigid molded configuration (¶ [0019], ll. 4-7: “the spacer body 102 is formed from a material that is sufficiently rigid to maintain the IV lines in the holes 114, and yet sufficiently resilient to allow for the IV lines to move through the slits or channels 116”) for snap fit retention of the tubing (112).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Turpin by substituting the elastomer or rubber-like material that the body is formed of for a rigid molded configuration, because it has been held that a simple substitution of one known element (in this case, a rigid molded configuration, as taught by Gandee) for another (in this case, Turpin’s elastomer or rubber-like material) to obtain predictable results (in this case, to form the body of a rigid material in order to maintain the tubing in the holes, as taught by Gandee ¶ [0019], l. 5), was an obvious extension of prior art teachings, KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007), MPEP 2143 (I) (B), therefore providing:
the body (Turpin, 102) is of a rigid molded configuration (as taught by Gandee) for snap fit retention of the tubing (Turpin, 202 and 208).
Claims 7-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gutman (US 11,819,455 B1), in view of Turpin (US 2019/0201665 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Gutman teaches (Fig. 6) a surgical system for eye surgery, the system comprising:
a handheld instrument (comprising 114 and 180) for performing a surgical procedure (first incision 304) in an eye (300) of a patient (col. 6, l. 13) through a first preplaced cannula (180) at an eye location (304);
a stabilized instrument (comprising 124, 126, 136, 130, and 132 – note that 126 is a “stabilizing base”) for reaching into the eye (300) of the patient from a fixed position at a second preplaced cannula (124) at another location (312) of the eye (300); and
tubing (130, 132, and 154) coupled to the stabilized instrument.
However, Gutman does not teach a slotted tubing security platform to inhibit tubing movement of tubing coupled to the stabilized instrument to facilitate a fixed orientation of the stabilized instrument relative the eye of the patient.
Turpin teaches (Figs. 1A-3A) a slotted tubing security platform (100 – Figs. 1A-2, which comprises slots 118) to inhibit tubing movement of tubing (202 and 208 – Fig. 2) – (¶ [0039], ll. 4-5: “to inhibit slipping or movement of the oxygen tube 208 relative to the hub 100”). Note that Turpin’s hub 100 is intended to be used as a medical device (100 is referred to as “a medical tubing hub”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gutman by including a slotted tubing security platform, in order to inhibit movement or sliding of the tubing relative to the patient, thereby allowing for significantly more patient movement with a lower risk of catching or snagging the tubing, and to retain the tubing so that the patient does not trip over the tubing, as taught by Turpin (¶ [0046], ll. 7-12), therefore providing:
a slotted tubing security platform (Turpin, 100) to inhibit tubing movement of tubing (Gutman, any of 130, 132, or 154) coupled to the stabilized instrument (Gutman, comprising 124, 126, 136, 130, and 132) to facilitate a fixed orientation (as shown in Gutman’s Fig. 6) of the stabilized instrument relative the eye (Gutman, 300) of the patient.
Regarding claim 8, Gutman, in view of Turpin, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 7, and Gutman further teaches (Fig. 6) the tubing (132) is one of a fluid line and a power line (in this case, it is a fluid line due to the source of fluid 112).
Regarding claim 9, Gutman, in view of Turpin, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 7, and Gutman further teaches (Fig. 6) the fixed orientation is between about 45° and 135° relative the eye (300) of the patient (as shown in Fig. 6, the stabilized instrument comprising 124, 126, 136, and 130 is oriented perpendicular to the surface of eye 300).
Regarding claim 10, Gutman, in view of Turpin, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 9, and Gutman further teaches (Fig. 6) the fixed orientation is substantially perpendicular relative the eye (300) of the patient (as shown in Fig. 6, the stabilized instrument comprising 124, 126, 136, and 130 is oriented perpendicular to the surface of eye 300).
Regarding claim 11, Gutman, in view of Turpin, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 7, and Gutman further teaches (Fig. 6) the stabilized instrument (comprising 124, 126, 136, and 130) is one of an infusion port and a light instrument (in this case, it is an infusion port due to the presence of infusion tubes 130 and 132).
Regarding claim 12, Gutman teaches (Fig. 6) a method of performing eye surgery, the method comprising:
an eye (300);
installing a fixed position instrument (comprising 124, 126, 136, 130, 132 – note that 126 is a “stabilizing base”) through a cannula (124) at a surface (302) of the eye (300); and
a service loop of tubing (130, 132, and 154) from the instrument (124, 126, 136, 130, 132).
However, Gutman does not teach securing a slotted tubing security platform to a surgical sheet adjacent the eye; and
securing the service loop of tubing from the instrument at the platform.
Turpin teaches (Figs. 1A-3A) securing (via attachment member 904 – Fig. 3) a slotted tubing security platform (100 – Figs. 1A-2, which comprises slots 118) to a surgical sheet (medical gown 900 – Fig. 3A); and
securing a service loop of tubing (202 and 208 – Fig. 2) at the platform (100). Note that Turpin’s hub 100 is intended to be used as a medical device (100 is referred to as “a medical tubing hub”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gutman by including a slotted tubing security platform, in order to inhibit movement or sliding of the tubing relative to the patient, thereby allowing for significantly more patient movement with a lower risk of catching or snagging the tubing, and to retain the tubing so that the patient does not trip over the tubing, as taught by Turpin (¶ [0046], ll. 7-12), therefore providing:
securing (via Turpin, 904) a slotted tubing security platform (Turpin, 100) to a surgical sheet (Turpin, 900) adjacent the eye (Gutman, 300); and
securing the service loop of tubing (Gutman, any of 130, 132, or 154) from the instrument (Gutman, comprising 124, 126, 136, 130, and 132) at the platform (100).
Regarding claim 13, Gutman, in view of Turpin, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 12, and Gutman further teaches (Fig. 6) positioning another instrument (comprising 114 and 180) through another cannula (180) at a surface (302) of the eye (300) at another location (304).
Regarding claim 14, Gutman, in view of Turpin, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 13, and the combination further teaches securing another service loop of tubing (Gutman, any of 114 and 186) from the other instrument (Gutman, comprising 114 and 180) at the platform (Turpin, 100. Note that Turpin’s Fig. 2 shows hub 100 being used to secure multiple tubing); and
performing a manual surgical procedure (Gutman, Fig. 6: shown by first incision 304) with the other instrument (114 and 180).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gutman (US 11,819,455 B1), in view of Turpin (US 2019/0201665 A1), and in further view of Koch (US 5,632,740).
Regarding claim 15, Gutman, in view of Turpin, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 13, except for exchanging instrument locations between the cannulas; and
resecuring service loops of the tubings at the platform.
Koch teaches (Fig. 2) a similar method of performing eye surgery, comprising:
installing a fixed position instrument (25) through a cannula (27) at a surface (21) of an eye (23);
securing a service loop of tubing (37) from the instrument (25) at a platform (41); and
positioning another instrument (31) through another cannula (29) at a surface (21) of the eye (23) at another location (the location of cannula 29 is on the other side of cannula 27), and further teaches:
exchanging instrument locations between the cannulas (col. 4, ll. 42-43: “Free exchange between surgical instruments and infusion”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gutman, in view of Turpin, by exchanging instrument locations between the cannulas, in order to enable the surgeon to choose the openings with the most favorable angle with regard to the ocular structures to be operated on, as taught by Koch (¶ [0026], ll. 43-45), therefore providing:
resecuring service loops of the tubings (Gutman, 154 and 186) at the platform (Turpin, 100) – (since the instruments comprise the service loops 154 and 186, they will need to be resecured to platform 100 when they are exchanged for one another).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure: see attached form PTO-892 “Notice of References Cited”.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HENRY NG whose telephone number is (571)272-2318. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 AM - 6:30 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Devon Kramer can be reached at 571-272-7118. 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.
/HENRY NG/Examiner, Art Unit 3741 /DEVON C KRAMER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3741