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. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The Applicant has not shown possession of Claim 5 because this sets forth that the central plug “is fixed relative to the second port and the third port”. This is shown in the embodiment of Figs. 6A & 6B which show the second port (connected to tubing 608) and a third port 610, the two ports being fixed relat i ve to the cylindrical plug 618. The embodiment of Figs. 6A & 6B disclos ing separate through-channels 620a, 620b. Claim 5, however, is dependent upon claim 1 and in claim 1 there is only one channel which is moved between the communication conditions set forth as the first position and the second position. The Applicant has not shown possession of a central cylindrical plug having a through-channel communicating as set forth in claim 1 and being fixed relative to the second port and the third port. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 1-13 are 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. Claim 1 is vague and indefinite because in line 13 there is no antecedent basis for “the rotary valve”. It is noted that claim13 sets forth a piston valve, i.e., a reciprocating valve. Claims 8 and 9 are vague and indefinite because in claim 1 line 12 sets forth “such that a dilator” thus describing what the through-channel is capable of. There3fore, in claim 1 the dilator is not positively claimed. In claims 8 and 9 further definition of the dilator is set forth in a wherein statement. Thus it is unclear if the applicant is now positively setting forth that the system includes the dilator or if the structure and capabilities of the through-channel are being further defined as being merely capable of accommodating a dilator having the structure mentioned. Claims not specifically mentioned are indefinite since they depend from one of the above claims . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis ( i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. 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. Claim (s) 1-4, 6-9, 11, 12 and 14-17 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yapp et al (USPN 4,734,614) in view of Schwartz (USPN 4,126,133) . Yapp et al discloses a system (see Figs. 4-6) comprising: a cannula 18 ; and a valve (14,20) comprising: a first port 44 coupled to the cannula; a second port 32 adapted and configured for coupling to tubing 36 ; a third port (the larger diameter portion of passage 30), a resilient pierceable seal 16 ; and a central cylindrical plug (labeled in annotated Figs. 5 & 6 below) received between the first port, the second port, and the third port, the central plug comprising a through-channel (labeled in the annotated figures below) adapted and configured to selectively couple two of the ports; wherein: in a first position (Fig. 5) , the first port, the third port, and the through-channel are coupled such that a dilator (such as element 22) can pass: from outside the rotary valve; through the pierceable seal; through the first port; and out a distal end (the left end in Fig. 5) of the cannula; and in a second position (Fig. 6) , the first port and the second are port are fluidically coupled. Yapp et al do not disclose the third port 30 comprising a resilient pierceable seal . Schwartz however discloses a similar system having a cannula 14 and a rotary valcve24, 122 communicating between three ports. As shown in Fig. 8 one of the ports 31 may include a resilient pierceable seal 133. At the time of the effective filing date it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a seal as taught by Schwartz in the third port of the system of Yapp et al in order to provide additional sealing to prevent leakage and also to prevent debris from entering the system and reaching the patient. With regards to claim 2, Yapp et al discloses the s ystem of claim 1, wherein the valve is a rotary valve (the valve of Figs. 4-6 is a rotary valve) . With regards to claim 3 , Yapp et al discloses the system of claim 2, wherein the second port and the third port can be rotated relative to the first port (The second and third ports are formed in the same body and will rotate together) . With regards to claim 4 , Yapp et al discloses the system of claim 3, wherein the central cylindrical plug is fixed relative to the first port (as shown in Figs 4-6 the cylindrical plug and the first port are formed in the same element) . With regards to claim 6 , Yapp et al discloses the system of claim 3, wherein the first port and the third port are axially aligned (see Fig. 5) and/or diametrically opposed when in the first position. With regards to claim 7 , Yapp et al discloses the system of claim 2, wherein the first port and the third port are axially aligned (see Fig. 5) or diametrically opposed. With regards to claim 8, as understood , Yapp et al discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the dilator comprises a tapered distal end 24 and a length relative to the cannula and the valve such that when the dilator is distally advanced through the rotary valve, the tapered distal end extends beyond a distal end of the cannula (see Fig. 1) . With regards to claim 9 , Yapp et al discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the dilator is adapted and configured to facilitate puncturing of a blood vessel (see col. 4 lines 55-62 and col. 6 lines 51-56) . With regards to claim 11 , Yapp et al discloses the system of claim 1 substantially as claimed but does not specifically disclose that the cannula has an outer diameter between about 7 French and about 16 French. At the time of the effective filing date of the application, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to size the dilator to be sizes between about 7 French and about 16 French because Applicant has not disclosed tha t this diameter provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Applicant’s invention to perf or m equally well wit h diameters of this size in dependance upon the particular vein that was being pierced or communicated with . Therefore it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify Yapp et al to obtain the invention as specified in the claim(s) . With regards to claim 1 2 , Yapp et al discloses the system of claim 1, wherein in a third position, the through-channel is in fluidic communication with one or fewer of the ports , in a position when rotated between the positions of Fig. 5 and 6, such as in Fig. 4, the through channel would only be in communication with the first port . With regards to claim 1 4, 15 and 17 , Yapp et al in view of Schwartz discloses the system of claim 1 , u nder the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process . In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986). MPEP 2112.02. Claim(s) 10 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yapp et al in view of Schwartz as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Flake et al (USPAP 2021/0338270) . As set forth above Yapp et al in view of Schwartz discloses the invention substantially as claimed but does not disclose one or more centrally biased clamps adapted and configured to: spread radially during puncture of a blood vessel; and clamp the blood vessel against the cannula after puncture or that the blood vessel is an umbilical blood vessel (claim 16) . Flake et al discloses a similar system including a cannula 178 and one or more centrally biased clamps (180, 182 in Fig. 16 and 17) adapted and configured to: spread radially during puncture of a blood vessel (see Fig. 16) ; and clamp the blood vessel against the cannula after puncture (as in claim 17) . At the time of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a clamping device as taught by Flake et al in the Yapp et al in view of Schwartz system in order to allow for the secure attachment of the cannula to a punctured blood vessel, such as the fragile physiological tissue of an umbilical cord of a neonate (see paragraphs [0015] and [0016]). Claim (s) 1 , 7 -9 and 1 3 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yapp et al (USPN 4,734,614) in view of Schwartz (USPN 4,126,133) and Christensen et al (USPN 7,802,824) . Yapp et al discloses a system (see Figs. 10-12 ) comprising: a cannula 118 ; and a valve comprising: a first port 44 coupled to the cannula; a second port 133 adapted and configured for coupling to tubing 1 36 ; a third port (the port below 133 having the needle extending therethrough in Fig. 11 ) ; and a central plug ( 114 ) received between the first port, the second port, and the third port (clearly shown in Figs. 11 and 12) , the central plug comprising a through-channel (130, 132 ) adapted and configured to selectively couple two of the ports; wherein: in a first position (Fig. 2 ) , the first port, the third port, and the through-channel are coupled such that a dilator (such as element 1 22) can pass: from outside the valve; through the pierceable seal; through the first port; and out a distal end (the left end in Fig. 10 ) of the cannula; and in a second position (Fig. 11 ) , the first port and the second are port are fluidically coupled. Yapp et al do not disclose the third port 30 comprising a resilient pierceable seal or the central plug being cylindrical . Schwart z however discloses a similar system having a cannula 14 and a rotary valve 24, 122 communicating between three ports. As shown in Fig. 8 one of the ports 31 may include a resilient pierceable seal 133. Further Christensen et al disclose a valve in a similar system that is cylindrical (see Figs. 1, 2 & 7). At the time of the effective filing date it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a seal as taught by Schwartz in the third port of the system of Yapp et al in order to provide sealing to prevent leakage and also to prevent debris from entering the system and reaching the patient. Further it would have been obvious to create the reciprocating plug valve 114 of Yapp et al to be cylindrical, such as taught by Christensen et al as a well known alternative construction which would be expected to perform equally well and in a similar manner to Yapp et al’s valve. Further, it is n ote d that in , In re Dailey , 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of design 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.). Please note that applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation. With regards to claim 7, Yapp et al discloses the system of claim 2, wherein the first port and the third port are axially aligned (see Fig. 5) or diametrically opposed. With regards to claim 8, as understood, Yapp et al discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the dilator comprises a tapered distal end 24 and a length relative to the cannula and the valve such that when the dilator is distally advanced through the rotary valve, the tapered distal end extends beyond a distal end of the cannula (see Fig. 1) . With regards to claim 9, Yapp et al discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the dilator is adapted and configured to facilitate puncturing of a blood vessel (see col. 4 lines 55-62 and col. 6 lines 51-56) . With regards to claim 13, the plug 114 of Yapp et al is a piston valve. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Weikl et al discloses a cannula system. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT CHARLES G FREAY whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-4827 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Mon - Fri: 8:00 - 5:00 . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Essama Omgba can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (469)295-9278 . 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. /CHARLES G FREAY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746 CGF December 18, 2025