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 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 14 and 18 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.
With respect to claim 14, the limitation “the internal radial housing being formed in part in the peripheral wall of the seating” is unclear as to how it is further defining the limitations of the independent claim. In the independent claim, the applicant has claimed that the internal radial housing is formed “in the peripheral wall of the seating and in the lateral wall of the downstream cylindrical portion” and further claims that the internal radial housing “is asymmetric…from the bearing surface of the seating”. Therefore, the applicant has claimed that the internal radial housing is formed in the peripheral wall of the seating and the lateral wall of the downstream cylindrical portion which would read on the limitation of claim 14 that the internal radial housing is formed in part in the peripheral wall. Such that it is formed in both the peripheral wall and lateral wall. Therefore, the limitation of claim 14 is unclear as to how it is further defining the limitations of the independent claim.
With respect to claim 18, the limitation including the bearing surface of the seating “represents at lest 50% of an axisymmetric bearing surface that the seating would have had in the absence of the internal radial housing” is unclear. It is unclear if the applicant is trying to claim an additional bearing surface or further limit the claimed bearing surface as being symmetric. Further it is unclear how the bearing surface can be symmetric (i.e. axisymmetric) if it includes a portion removed due to the internal radial housing that is formed in the seating/bearing surface. Further the limitation “would have had in the absence of the internal radial housing” is unclear. It is unclear if the applicant is trying to claim the removed portion of the seating surface, which is the claimed radial housing or trying to claim the amount of seating/bearing surface remaining. It is noted that for examination purposes, the limitation is being interpreted as the portion of the seating/bearing surface remaining extends more than 180 degrees along the circumference of the bore, however, the applicant should amend the claims to clarify what is being claimed.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13, 15-17 and 19-24 are allowed.
Claims 14 and 18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art fails to teach the claimed transmucosal base comprising an internal radial housing formed in the peripheral wall of the seating and in the lateral wall of the downstream cylindrical portion, wherein the internal radial housing is asymmetric relative to the longitudinal direction, from the bearing surface of the seating to the lateral wall of the downstream cylindrical portion in combination with the other claimed limitations.
The prior art of Joerneus (WO 2013/004387) teaches an asymmetric internal radial housing formed in the lateral wall of a downstream cylindrical portion (see figs. 9a-9b, element 910), however, does not teach the radial housing being formed in the peripheral wall of the seating as claimed.
The prior art of Gim (KR 20190010974) teaches an asymmetric internal radial housing formed in an upstream cylindrical portion (see fig. 3, element 60), however, does not teach the radial housing being formed in the peripheral wall of the seating and lateral wall of the downstream cylinder as claimed.
It is noted that a phone call to the attorney of record William Eilberg on 2/27/2026 was made, however, the phone number that office had was not working.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HEIDI MARIE EIDE whose telephone number is (571)270-3081. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-4:00.
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, Edelmira Bosques can be reached at 571-270-5614. 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.
/HEIDI M EIDE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772 2/27/2026