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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 23 September 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 27 March 2026 has been entered. Claim(s) 1 pending in the application; claims 2-3, 11, 19, and 21-22 are canceled. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as well as each and every double patenting rejection applied in the Office Action mailed 25 June 2026.
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.
Claim 24 is 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.
The term “approximately” in claim 24 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “approximately” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is not clear what range of diameters is encompassed by the limitation "approximately 0.014 inch".
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of the record fails to teach and/or fairly suggest, in combination with all other recited limitations, “wherein the core is a solid core that does not conduct fluid and comprises a helically wound groove that forms a trough and ridges, the flexible tubing being received within the trough with the ridges extending between adjacent coils of the flexible tubing”.
The most pertinent prior art of the record, Burkholz (US 20210228127 A1—previously cited), provides some disclosure of a core being a solid core including a helically wound groove that forms a trough and ridges, however, Burkholz fails to teach and/or fairly suggest flexible tubing received within the trough and ridges extending between adjacent coils of the flexible tubing.
Chopra (US 20230211144 A1) in related art of a blood circulation device discloses a device which has a core including a helically wound groove and ridges but fails to teach and/or suggest flexible tubing received within this groove and additionally teaches away from the core not conducting fluid as the core of Chopra ultimately serves as the fluid conduit.
Magers (US 20060095104 A1) similarly has a solid core including helically wound groove and ridges for modifying fluid flow, but lacks tubing through the groove and instead uses the solid core to conduct fluid such that it teaches away from the claimed limitations.
Claims 1, 4-10, 12-18, 20, 23, and 25-26 are thus indicated as allowable.
Claim 24 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-10 of applicant's response, filed 24 August 2026, with respect to the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 10 of applicant's response, filed 24 August 2026, with respect to the double patenting rejection of the claims have been fully considered and are persuasive. The double patenting rejection of the claims has been withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims and the persuasive arguments against the teachings of Burkholz.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNA ROBERTS whose telephone number is (571)272-7912. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-4:30 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, Alexander Valvis can be reached at (571) 272-4233. 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.
/ANNA ROBERTS/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights