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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 01/26/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim 20 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 01/26/2026.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-19 are objected to because of the following informalities.
Claim 1 should read --An adaptor component for a particulate material delivery assembly to deliver a mixed particulate solution to a patient, the adaptor component comprising:
at least a pair of device connector ports, each device connector port of the at least a pair of device connector ports configured to connect to a corresponding delivery line connector of a particulate delivery device to receive the mixed particulate solution;
a guidewire connector port configured to connect to a containment bag unit, the containment bag unit including a guidewire disposed therein;
a catheter connector port configured to connect to a microcatheter to deliver the mixed particulate solution to the patient; and
wherein the guidewire is configured to retract into and extend from the containment bag unit to position the microcatheter within the patient without disconnecting at least one of the at least a pair of device connector ports from the delivery line connector of the particulate delivery device.—
Claim 2 should read --The adaptor component of claim 1, further comprising: a cap configured to be disposed on a device connector port of the at least a pair of device connector ports when the device connector port is not connected to the corresponding delivery line connector of the particulate delivery device.—
Claim 3 should read --The adaptor component of claim 1, wherein each device connector port of the at least a pair of device connector ports comprises one of a female luer connection or a male luer connection configured to connect to an opposite one of a male luer connection or a female luer connection of the corresponding delivery line connector of the particulate delivery device.—
Claim 9 should read --The adaptor component of claim 8, wherein each device connector port of the at least a pair of device connector ports is angled with respect to the longitudinal axis.—
Claim 12 should read --An adaptor component for a particulate material delivery assembly to deliver a mixed particulate solution to a patient, the adaptor component comprising:
at least a pair of device connector ports, each device connector port of the at least a pair of device connector ports configured to connect to a corresponding delivery line connector of a particulate delivery device to receive the mixed particulate solution, wherein each device connector port of the at least a pair of device connector ports comprises a female luer connection configured to connect to a male luer connection of the corresponding delivery line connector of the particulate delivery device;
a guidewire connector port configured to connect to a containment bag unit, the containment bag unit including a guidewire disposed therein, wherein the guidewire connector port comprises a hemostasis valve configured to connect to the containment bag unit;
a catheter connector port configured to connect to a microcatheter to deliver the mixed particulate solution to the patient; and
wherein the guidewire is configured to retract into and extend from the containment bag unit through the hemostasis valve and through the catheter connector port to position the microcatheter within the patient without disconnecting at least one of the at least a pair of device connector ports from the delivery line connector of the particulate delivery device.—
Claim 13 should read --The adaptor component of claim 12, further comprising: a cap configured to be disposed on a device connector port of the at least a pair of device connector ports when the device connector port is not connected to the corresponding delivery line connector of the particulate delivery device.—
Claim 17 should read --The adaptor component of claim 16, wherein each device connector port of the at least a pair of device connector ports is angled with respect to the longitudinal axis.—
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 10-11 & 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As to Claims 10 & 18, the limitation “the longitudinal axis is disposed between a top portion and a bottom portion” is indefinite. The terms “top portion” and “bottom portion” are relative terms which renders the claim indefinite. The terms require a relative structure for one of ordinary skill in the art to determine how the claimed structures relate to each other and the claimed invention. The relative structure has not been provided, rendering the claim indefinite. For the purpose of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as the longitudinal axis is disposed between a top portion of the adaptor component and a bottom portion of the adaptor component.
The phrase “one device connector port of the pair of device connector ports” should read --one device connector port of the at least a pair of device connector ports.
The phrase “the other device connector port of the pair of device connector ports” lacks antecedent basis. For the purpose of examination, the phrase will be interpreted as –an at least a pair of device connector ports.
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 1-3, 5-13 & 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robinson (U.S. Patent 4,838,269), in view of Vargas (U.S. PGPub 2018/0126126).
As to Claim 1, Robinson teaches an adaptor component (Figure 2) for a particulate material delivery assembly to deliver a mixed particulate solution to a patient (intended use; see end of paragraph for clarification), the adaptor component (Figure 2) comprising:
at least a pair of device connector ports (160/210), each device connector port (160/210) configured to connect to (via 164/216) a corresponding delivery line connector (the respective means for connecting the devices to 164/216, described in Column 4, Lines 54-63) of a particulate delivery device (the respective devices connected to 164/216, described in Column 4, Lines 54-63) to receive the mixed particulate solution (Column 4, Lines 54-63);
a guidewire connector port (200) configured to connect to a containment bag unit (the elastic diaphragm described in Column 6, Lines 19-30), the containment bag unit (the elastic diaphragm described in Column 6, Lines 19-30) including a guidewire (the guide wire described in Column 6, Lines 19-30)…
a catheter connector port (the port created by the right side of bore 144, as viewed in Figure 4) configured to connect to (as shown in Figure 2) a microcatheter (104) to deliver the mixed particulate solution to the patient (Column 7, Lines 48-63); and
wherein the guidewire (the guide wire described in Column 6, Lines 19-30) is configured to position (via 138; Column 3, Lines 33-42) the microcatheter (104) within the patient (intended use; one of ordinary skill in the art would conclude an angioplasty catheter –as described in the abstract—is intended for used in a patient) without disconnecting (as shown in Figure 2, one of ordinary skill in the art would conclude the guide wire may be moved along axis 114 without disconnecting connectors 164/216) at least one of the pair of device connector ports (160/210) from the delivery line connector (the respective means for connecting the devices to 164/216, described in Column 4, Lines 54-63) of the particulate delivery device (the respective devices connected to 164/216, described in Column 4, Lines 54-63).
The intention to use the adaptor component in a particular assembly with a particular solution is not a patentable limitation, as a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.” Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647; MPEP 2114(II). Also see MPEP 2115. Additionally, the Robinson adaptor is capable of being used in a larger system with a mixed particulate solution.
Robinson is silent on where the guidewire is disposed with respect to the containment bag unit, or how the guidewire moves with respect to the containment bag unit. As such, Robinson does not explicitly teach the guidewire is disposed within the containment bag unit and wherein the guidewire is configured to retract into and extend from the containment bag unit.
Vargas describes a similar adaptor component, and teaches the guidewire (60) is disposed within (Paragraph 0054) the containment bag unit (62) and wherein the guidewire (60) is configured to retract into and extend from (Paragraph 0054) the containment bag unit (62).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use the guidewire and containment bag unit, as taught by Robinson, in the manner taught by Vargas, to isolate the guidewire from the surrounding environment (Paragraph 0054).
As to Claim 2, Robinson, as modified, teaches all the limitations of Claim 1, but does not teach a cap configured to be disposed on a device connector port (370) of the pair of device connector ports when the device connector port is not connected to the delivery line connector of the particulate delivery device.
Vargas continues to teach a cap (372) configured to be disposed on (as shown in Figure 24) a device connector port (370) of the pair of device connector ports when the device connector port (370) is not connected to (as shown in Figure 24) the delivery line connector (373) of the particulate delivery device (373).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use a cap, as taught by Vargas, on the at least a pair of connector ports, as taught by Robinson, as modified, to seal the connector ports to the outside environment (Paragraph 0122).
Modifying Vargas into Robinson, as modified, results in a cap (Vargas 372) configured to be disposed on (as shown in Vargas Figure 24) a device connector port (either of Robinson 160/210) of the pair of device connector ports (Robinson 160/210) when the device connector port (either of Robinson 160/210) is not connected to (as shown in Vargas Figure 24) the delivery line connector (the respective means for connecting the devices to Robinson 164/216, described in Robinson Column 4, Lines 54-63) of the particulate delivery device (the respective Robinson devices connected to Robinson 164/216, described in Robinson Column 4, Lines 54-63).
As to Claim 3, Robinson, as modified, teaches all the limitations of Claim 1, and continues to teach each of the device connector ports (Robinson 164/216) of the at least a pair of device connector ports (Robinson 164/216) has a threading (1 Robinson 65/217) for connection to the corresponding delivery line connector (the respective means for connecting the Robinson devices to Robinson 164/216, described in Robinson Column 4, Lines 54-63). However, Robinson, as modified, does not teach the threadings are a luer connection, so does not explicitly teach the use of luer connections for connections to device connector ports.
Vargas continues to teach the use of luer connections (Paragraph 0063) for connections to (via 150) device connector ports (as shown in Figure 7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use a luer connection, as taught by Vargas, on the at least a pair of connector ports, as taught by Robinson, as modified, since luer connections are well-known and yield predictable results, i.e., are easy to use and provide reliable seals between connected structures.
Additionally, as described by Vargas (Paragraph 0063), there is a need to connect other structures to the connector ports, and a connection means is the logical means to do so. Since there are only a finite number of removable connection means, – i.e., luer, threading, friction fit, bayonet, or quick-lock– and each option will lead to a reasonable expectation of success, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to try one of them to make a connection means. MPEP 2143(I)(E)
Modifying Vargas into Robinson, as modified, results in each device connector port (Robinson 160/210) comprises one of a female luer connection (Vargas Paragraph 0063) or a male luer connection configured to connect to (Vargas Paragraph 0063) an opposite one of a male luer connection (Vargas Paragraph 0063) or a female luer connection of the corresponding delivery line connector (the respective means for connecting the devices to Robinson 164/216, described in Robinson Column 4, Lines 54-63) of the particulate delivery device (the respective Robinson devices connected to Robinson 164/216, described in Robinson Column 4, Lines 54-63).
As to Claim 5, Robinson, as modified, teaches all the limitations of Claim 1, and continues to teach the guidewire connector port (Robinson 200) comprises a hemostasis valve (the hemostatic valve described in Robinson Column 6, Lines 19-30) configured to connect to (Robinson Column 6, Lines 19-30) the containment bag unit (Vargas 62).
As to Claim 6, Robinson, as modified, teaches all the limitations of Claims 1 & 5, and continues to teach the guidewire (Vargas 60) is configured to retract into and extend from (Vargas Paragraph 0054) the containment bag unit (Vargas 62) through (Robinson Column 6, Lines 19-30 describes the hemostasis valve connecting to connector 330 –see Robinson Figure 5; as such, one of ordinary skill in the art would conclude the guidewire must move through the hemostasis valve) the hemostasis valve (the hemostatic valve described in Robinson Column 6, Lines 19-30) and through (as shown in Robinson Figure 2) the catheter connector port (the Robinson port created by the right side of Robinson bore 144, as viewed in Robinson Figure 4) to position (via Robinson 138; Robinson Column 3, Lines 33-42) the microcatheter (Robinson 104).
As to Claim 7, Robinson, as modified, teaches all the limitations of Claim 1, and continues to teach the containment bag unit (Vargas 62) comprises a curled configuration in a naturally biased form (as shown in Vargas Figure 3).
As to Claim 8, Robinson, as modified, teaches all the limitations of Claim 1, and continues to teach the guidewire connector port (Robinson 200) is aligned with (as shown in Robinson Figure 2) the catheter connector port (the Robinson port created by the right side of Robinson bore 144, as viewed in Robinson Figure 4) along a longitudinal axis (Robinson 114).
As to Claim 9, Robinson, as modified, teaches all the limitations of Claims 1 & 8, and continues to teach each device connector port (Robinson 164/216) is angled with respect to (as shown in Robinson Figure 2) the longitudinal axis (Robinson 114).
As to Claim 10, Robinson, as modified, teaches all the limitations of Claims 1 & 8, and continues to teach the longitudinal axis (Robinson 114) is disposed between (as shown in Robinson Figure 2) a top portion (the top of the adaptor component shown in Robinson Figure 2) and a bottom portion (the bottom of the adaptor component shown in Robinson Figure 2), one device connector port (Robinson 216) of the pair of device connector ports (Robinson 164/216) is angled toward (as shown in Robinson Figure 2) a first direction (up and to the right, as viewed in Robinson Figure 2) facing away from (as shown in Robinson Figure 2) the longitudinal axis (Robinson 114) along the top portion (the top of the adaptor component shown in Robinson Figure 2), and the other device connector port (Robinson 164) of the pair of device connector ports (Robinson 164/216) is angled toward (as shown in Robinson Figure 2) a second direction (down and to the right, as viewed in Robinson Figure 2) facing away from (as shown in Robinson Figure 2) the longitudinal axis (Robinson 114) along the bottom portion (the bottom of the adaptor component shown in Robinson Figure 2).
As to Claim 11, Robinson, as modified, teaches all the limitations of Claims 1, 8 & 10, and continues to teach the second direction (down and to the right, as viewed in Robinson Figure 2) is a mirror angle (Column 3, Lines 63-65; Column 4, Lines 50-51; where both are 55 degrees) of the first direction (up and to the right, as viewed in Robinson Figure 2) with respect to (as shown in Robinson Figure 2) the longitudinal axis (Robinson 114).
As to Claim 12, Robinson teaches an adaptor component (Figure 2) for a particulate material delivery assembly to deliver a mixed particulate solution to a patient (intended use; see end of paragraph for clarification), the adaptor component (Figure 2) comprising:
at least a pair of device connector ports (160/210), each device connector port (160/210) configured to connect to (via 164/216) a corresponding delivery line connector (the respective means for connecting the devices to 164/216, described in Column 4, Lines 54-63) of a particulate delivery device (the respective devices connected to 164/216, described in Column 4, Lines 54-63) to receive the mixed particulate solution (Column 4, Lines 54-63)…
a guidewire connector port (200) configured to connect to a containment bag unit (the elastic diaphragm described in Column 6, Lines 19-30), the containment bag unit (the elastic diaphragm described in Column 6, Lines 19-30) including a guidewire (the guide wire described in Column 6, Lines 19-30)…wherein the guidewire connector port (200) comprises a hemostasis valve (the hemostatic valve described in Robinson Column 6, Lines 19-30) configured to connect to (Robinson Column 6, Lines 19-30) the containment bag unit (the elastic diaphragm described in Column 6, Lines 19-30);
a catheter connector port (the port created by the right side of bore 144, as viewed in Figure 4) configured to connect to (as shown in Figure 2) a microcatheter (104) to deliver the mixed particulate solution to the patient (Column 7, Lines 48-63); and
wherein the guidewire (the guide wire described in Column 6, Lines 19-30) is configured to move through (Robinson Column 6, Lines 19-30 describes the hemostasis valve connecting to connector 330 –see Robinson Figure 5; as such, one of ordinary skill in the art would conclude the guidewire must move through the hemostasis valve) the hemostasis valve (the hemostatic valve described in Robinson Column 6, Lines 19-30) and through (as shown in Robinson Figure 2) the catheter connector port (the Robinson port created by the right side of Robinson bore 144, as viewed in Robinson Figure 4) to position (via 138; Column 3, Lines 33-42) the microcatheter (104) within the patient (intended use; one of ordinary skill in the art would conclude an angioplasty catheter –as described in the abstract—is intended for used in a patient) without disconnecting (as shown in Figure 2, one of ordinary skill in the art would conclude the guide wire may be moved along axis 114 without disconnecting connectors 164/216) at least one of the pair of device connector ports (160/210) from the delivery line connector (the respective means for connecting the devices to 164/216, described in Column 4, Lines 54-63) of the particulate delivery device (the respective devices connected to 164/216, described in Column 4, Lines 54-63).
The intention to use the adaptor component in a particular assembly with a particular solution is not a patentable limitation, as a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.” Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647; MPEP 2114(II). Also see MPEP 2115. Additionally, the Robinson adaptor is capable of being used in a larger system with a mixed particulate solution.
Robinson continues to teach each of the device connector ports (Robinson 164/216) of the at least a pair of device connector ports (Robinson 164/216) has a threading (1 Robinson 65/217) for connection to the corresponding delivery line connector (the respective means for connecting the Robinson devices to Robinson 164/216, described in Robinson Column 4, Lines 54-63). However, Robinson, as modified, does not teach the threadings are a luer connection, so does not explicitly teach each device connector port comprises a female luer connection configured to connect to a male luer connection of the corresponding delivery line connector of the particulate delivery device.
Additionally, Robinson is silent on where the guidewire is disposed with respect to the containment bag unit, or how the guidewire moves with respect to the containment bag unit. As such, Robinson does not explicitly teach the guidewire is disposed within the containment bag unit and wherein the guidewire is configured to retract into and extend from the containment bag unit.
Vargas describes a similar adaptor component, and teaches the use of luer connections (Paragraph 0063) for connections to (via 150) device connector ports (as shown in Figure 7), where the device connector port has a female luer connection (as shown in Figure 7) and the corresponding delivery line connector (151) has a male luer connection (as shown in Figure 7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use a luer connection, as taught by Vargas, on the at least a pair of connector ports, as taught by Robinson, since luer connections are well-known and yield predictable results, i.e., are easy to use and provide reliable seals between connected structures.
Additionally, as described by Vargas (Paragraph 0063), there is a need to connect other structures to the connector ports, and a connection means is the logical means to do so. Since there are only a finite number of removable connection means, – i.e., luer, threading, friction fit, bayonet, or quick-lock– and each option will lead to a reasonable expectation of success, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to try one of them to make a connection means. MPEP 2143(I)(E)
Vargas continues to teach the guidewire (60) is disposed within (Paragraph 0054) the containment bag unit (62) and wherein the guidewire (60) is configured to retract into and extend from (Paragraph 0054) the containment bag unit (62).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use the guidewire and containment bag unit, as taught by Robinson, as modified, in the manner taught by Vargas, to isolate the guidewire from the surrounding environment (Paragraph 0054).
As to Claim 13, Robinson, as modified, teaches all the limitations of Claim 12, but does not teach a cap configured to be disposed on a device connector port (370) of the pair of device connector ports when the device connector port is not connected to the delivery line connector of the particulate delivery device.
Vargas continues to teach a cap (372) configured to be disposed on (as shown in Figure 24) a device connector port (370) of the pair of device connector ports when the device connector port (370) is not connected to (as shown in Figure 24) the delivery line connector (373) of the particulate delivery device (373).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use a cap, as taught by Vargas, on the at least a pair of connector ports, as taught by Robinson, as modified, to seal the connector ports to the outside environment (Paragraph 0122).
Modifying Vargas into Robinson, as modified, results in a cap (Vargas 372) configured to be disposed on (as shown in Vargas Figure 24) a device connector port (either of Robinson 160/210) of the pair of device connector ports (Robinson 160/210) when the device connector port (either of Robinson 160/210) is not connected to (as shown in Vargas Figure 24) the delivery line connector (the respective means for connecting the devices to Robinson 164/216, described in Robinson Column 4, Lines 54-63) of the particulate delivery device (the respective Robinson devices connected to Robinson 164/216, described in Robinson Column 4, Lines 54-63).
As to Claim 15, Robinson, as modified, teaches all the limitations of Claim 12, and continues to teach the containment bag unit (Vargas 62) comprises a curled configuration in a naturally biased form (as shown in Vargas Figure 3).
As to Claim 16, Robinson, as modified, teaches all the limitations of Claim 12, and continues to teach the guidewire connector port (Robinson 200) is aligned with (as shown in Robinson Figure 2) the catheter connector port (the Robinson port created by the right side of Robinson bore 144, as viewed in Robinson Figure 4) along a longitudinal axis (Robinson 114).
As to Claim 17, Robinson, as modified, teaches all the limitations of Claims 12 & 16, and continues to teach each device connector port (Robinson 164/216) is angled with respect to (as shown in Robinson Figure 2) the longitudinal axis (Robinson 114).
As to Claim 18, Robinson, as modified, teaches all the limitations of Claims 12, 16 & 17, and continues to teach the longitudinal axis (Robinson 114) is disposed between (as shown in Robinson Figure 2) a top portion (the top of the adaptor component shown in Robinson Figure 2) and a bottom portion (the bottom of the adaptor component shown in Robinson Figure 2), one device connector port (Robinson 216) of the pair of device connector ports (Robinson 164/216) is angled toward (as shown in Robinson Figure 2) a first direction (up and to the right, as viewed in Robinson Figure 2) facing away from (as shown in Robinson Figure 2) the longitudinal axis (Robinson 114) along the top portion (the top of the adaptor component shown in Robinson Figure 2), and the other device connector port (Robinson 164) of the pair of device connector ports (Robinson 164/216) is angled toward (as shown in Robinson Figure 2) a second direction (down and to the right, as viewed in Robinson Figure 2) facing away from (as shown in Robinson Figure 2) the longitudinal axis (Robinson 114) along the bottom portion (the bottom of the adaptor component shown in Robinson Figure 2).
As to Claim 19, Robinson, as modified, teaches all the limitations of Claims 12, 16, 17 & 18, and continues to teach the second direction (down and to the right, as viewed in Robinson Figure 2) is a mirror angle (Column 3, Lines 63-65; Column 4, Lines 50-51; where both are 55 degrees) of the first direction (up and to the right, as viewed in Robinson Figure 2) with respect to (as shown in Robinson Figure 2) the longitudinal axis (Robinson 114).
Claims 4 & 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robinson, in view of Vargas, further in view of Frisbie (U.S. Patent 4,730,616).
As to Claim 4, Robinson, as modified, teaches all the limitations of Claim 1, but does not teach the catheter connector port comprises one of a male luer connection or a female luer connection configured to connect to an opposite one of a female luer connection or a male luer connection of the microcatheter.
Frisbie describes a means of connecting a catheter to an adaptor component, and teaches the catheter connector port (26) comprises one of a male luer connection (28) or a female luer connection configured to connect to an opposite one of a female luer connection (Column 2, Line 62, to Column 3, Line 7) or a male luer connection of the microcatheter (Column 2, Line 62, to Column 3, Line 7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use a luer connection, as taught by Frisbie, on the catheter connector port, as taught by Robinson, as modified, since luer connections are well-known and yield predictable results, i.e., are easy to use and provide reliable seals between connected structures.
As to Claim 14, Robinson, as modified, teaches all the limitations of Claim 12, but does not teach the catheter connector port comprises one of a male luer connection or a female luer connection configured to connect to an opposite one of a female luer connection or a male luer connection of the microcatheter.
Frisbie describes a means of connecting a catheter to an adaptor component, and teaches the catheter connector port (26) comprises one of a male luer connection (28) or a female luer connection configured to connect to an opposite one of a female luer connection (Column 2, Line 62, to Column 3, Line 7) or a male luer connection of the microcatheter (Column 2, Line 62, to Column 3, Line 7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use a luer connection, as taught by Frisbie, on the catheter connector port, as taught by Robinson, as modified, since luer connections are well-known and yield predictable results, i.e., are easy to use and provide reliable seals between connected structures.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Gallacher (2014/0100552) and Agrawal (2018/0126143) describe similar adaptor components.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID BRANDT whose telephone number is (303)297-4776. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 10-6, MT.
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.
/DAVID N BRANDT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3783
Prosecution Insights