DETAILED ACTION
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 1-14 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.
In claim 1, it is misdescriptive to claim that the internal cavity retains the plurality of slots. As disclosed in the figures, the housing has a wall formed with the plurality of slots (104). The cavity is located on the inside of the housing. The slots give access to the interior of the cavity. Therefore, the plurality of slots are not retained by the internal cavity.
PNG
media_image1.png
306
578
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 2-14 depend from claim 1 and are therefore rejected for the identical reason claim 1 has been rejected.
Regarding claim 2, it is misdescriptive to state that the housing (102) is trapezoidal in shape. The trapezoid is defined by the following shape:
PNG
media_image2.png
388
404
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As can be seen from applicant’s figure 1 on the previous page, there is a narrow tail section extending from the back portion of the housings. The housing is not trapezoidal in shape.
Claims 3-5 depend from claim 2 and are therefore rejected for the identical reason claim 2 has been rejected.
Regarding claim 12, it is misdescriptive to claim that the plurality of slots form a semi-circle shape. The application drawings disclose that the slots (104) are formed by two halves of the housing with one half of the circle in cross-section shaped slot is located on one half of the housing and the mating one half of the circle in cross-section shaped slot is located on the other half of the housing. Therefore, it is misdescriptive to claim that each of the slots form a semi-circle shape.
Claim 13 depends from claim12 and is therefore rejected for the identical reason claim 12 has been rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 7-8, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a(1) as being anticipated by Simons, US 5224674.
Regarding claim 1, Simons discloses a medical wire device (20) that secures a plurality of tubes (38) and is capable of securing a plurality of wires and cords and prevents tangling and bundling of the plurality of tubes and capable of preventing tangling and bundling of a plurality of wires and cords in a medical setting (Abstract). The medical wire device (20) comprising a housing formed by two halves (22, 24); a plurality of slots (36) that are sized and configured to retain the plurality of wires and cords; and, an internal cavity (figure 12 shows a cross-section with a cavity). Wherein, Simons discloses a device that receives a single tube (38) in each of the slots (36). Simons’ slots are each capable of receiving a single wire or cord. Further, the housing (22, 24) is then placed in a desired location without worry of the tubes or plurality of wires and cords becoming tangled or causing an accident or injury.
PNG
media_image3.png
664
522
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
148
286
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Simons discloses the housing with a securing means (hook and loop fastener, 132) on a first side for securing the medical wire device to a surface.
Regarding claim 11, Simons discloses the plurality of wires and cords are a plurality of intravenous lines (38).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a(1) as being anticipated by Osbourne, II, US 7457506. Osbourne discloses the method of securing a plurality of medical wires and cords (please see the Field of the Invention section) to prevent tangling (see Summary of the Invention, paragraph 1). The method comprising the steps of providing a medical wire device (100) comprising a housing (120, 130) having a plurality of slots (125,135, figure 1) for retaining the plurality of medical wires and cords (see Summary of the Invention, paragraph 3) and a snap closure (145) for securely closing the medical wire device, positioning the plurality of medical wires and cords within the plurality of slots (see Summary of the Invention, paragraph 3), such that each of the plurality of medical wires and cords is placed in its own slot of the plurality of slots, securing the plurality of medical wired and cords within the medical wire device via the snap closure by snapping the housing together (figure 2), and positioning, via the base (110) and a hook and loop fastener (last paragraph of column 3), the medical device in a desired location without worry of tangling the plurality of medical wires and cords.
PNG
media_image5.png
392
532
media_image5.png
Greyscale
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 2-6, 9-10, and 12-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simons, US 5224674 in view of Osbourne, II US 7457506.
Regarding claim 2, Simons discloses a rectangular shaped housing. The claim requires the shape of the housing to be trapezoidal in shape. The applicant’s specification fails to disclose any criticality associated with the trapezoidal shape. It is well-known to change the shape of an article to improve its aesthetics. Therefore, it would have been obvious, prior to the earliest effective filing date, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to change the shape of Simons’ housing to be trapezoidal in shape.
Regarding claim 3, Simons discloses a housing comprises a first half (22) and a second half (24). But, fails to disclose that the halves are identical. The specification fails to disclose any criticality as to the halves of the housing being identical. Osbourne discloses virtually identical halves of a line retention medical device (figure 1). It would have been obvious, prior to the earliest effective filing date, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Simons’ device as an obvious design choice to improve the look of the device.
Regarding claim 4, Simons discloses the first half and the second half are secured on a first side via a hinge (140).
Regarding claim 5, Simons discloses the first half and the second half are secured on a second side via a securing mechanism (145).
Regarding claim 6, Simons disclose the securing mechanism as a snap mechanism (145).
Regarding claim 9, Simons discloses the securing means is a hook and loop fastener (132) or a strap or snap. The claim requires that the securing means be a pressure-sensitive adhesive layer with a backing paper. The examiner takes official notice of the fact that a pressure-sensitive adhesive layer with a backing paper is a well-known fastening means. Furthermore, Osbourne discloses the securing means of the base member (100) is a hook and loop fastener or other attachment means or releasable fasteners such as “a male/female snap-release buckle, a ziplock fastening device, a zipper, pin, button, snap, clamp, or any other known or later developed attachment or coupling means.” (column 3, last paragraph). The fastening means disclosed by Simons and Osbourne are disclosed as design equivalents. Furthermore, the claimed pressure-sensitive adhesive layer with a backing paper fastening means performs the function of positioning the device on a surface equally as well as the means disclosed in Simons and Osbourne. Therefore, it would have been obvious design choice, prior to the earliest effective filing date, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Simons’ fastening means to be a pressure-sensitive adhesive layer with a backing paper for securing the device to a surface.
Regarding claim 10, Osbourne discloses the securing means of the base member (100) being a clamp (column 4, first paragraph).
Regarding claim 12, Simons disclose the plurality of slots forming a semi-circular shape (36, figure 2).
PNG
media_image6.png
778
1006
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13, Simons fails to disclose the first half of the housing comprises a plurality of semi-circle shapes that mate with a second plurality of semi-circle shapes on the second half of the housing to form a complete circle for retaining the plurality of wires and cords. Simmons discloses a semi-circular bottom with a wedge shape top connected to the semi-circular bottom of the slot for receiving the lines.
Osbourne discloses an alternate design for the shape of the slots (125, 135) receiving the lines, i.e., the claimed semi-circular shapes in the first and second halves of the housing forming a complete circle about the line when the housing is closed. Both design work equally as well as the other in receiving and organizing the lines with the device. Therefore, it would have been obvious design choice, prior to the earliest effective filing date, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Simons’ slot shape to be a circular shape when the two halves of the housing are closed about the lines.
Regarding claim 14, Simons discloses that it is old and well known to make the tubing administration system comprised of a material that is reusable and capable of being sanitized (column 2, lines 15-23).
Regarding claim 15, Simons discloses a medical wire device (20) that secures a plurality of tubes (38) and is capable of securing a plurality of wires and cords and prevents tangling and bundling of the plurality of tubes and capable of preventing tangling and bundling of a plurality of wires and cords in a medical setting (Abstract). The medical wire device (20) comprising a housing formed by two halves (22, 24); a plurality of slots (36) that are sized and configured to retain the plurality of wires and cords. Wherein, Simons discloses a device that receives a single tube (38) in each of the slots (36). Simons’ slots are each capable of receiving a single wire or cord. Simons also discloses a hinge (44) on one side and a snap mechanism (46, 48) on the other side of the housing.
PNG
media_image3.png
664
522
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
148
286
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Simons fails to disclose the first half of the housing comprises a plurality of semi-circle shapes that mate with a second plurality of semi-circle shapes on the second half of the housing to form a complete circle for retaining the plurality of wires and cords. Simmons discloses a semi-circular bottom with a wedge shape top connected to the semi-circular bottom of the slot for receiving the lines.
Osbourne discloses an alternate design for the shape of the slots (125, 135) receiving the lines, i.e., the claimed semi-circular shapes in the first and second halves of the housing forming a complete circle about the line when the housing is closed. Both design work equally as well as the other in receiving and organizing the lines with the device. Therefore, it would have been obvious design choice, prior to the earliest effective filing date, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Simons’ slot shape to be a circular shape when the two halves of the housing are closed about the lines.
Regarding claim 16, Simons disclose a medical wire device comprising a plurality of indicia (figure 1).
Simons fails to disclose the first half of the housing comprises a plurality of semi-circle shapes that mate with a second plurality of semi-circle shapes on the second half of the housing to form a complete circle for retaining the plurality of wires and cords. Simmons discloses a semi-circular bottom with a wedge shape top connected to the semi-circular bottom of the slot for receiving the lines.
Osbourne discloses an alternate design for the shape of the slots (125, 135) receiving the lines, i.e., the claimed semi-circular shapes in the first and second halves of the housing forming a complete circle about the line when the housing is closed. Both design work equally as well as the other in receiving and organizing the lines with the device. Therefore, it would have been obvious design choice, prior to the earliest effective filing date, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Simons’s slot shape to be a circular shape when the two halves of the housing are closed about the lines.
Regarding claim 17, Simons discloses that it is old and well known to make the tubing administration system comprised of a material that is reusable and capable of being sanitized (column 2, lines 15-23).
Regarding claim 18, Simons discloses the housing with a securing means (132) on a first side for securing the medical wire device to a surface.
Regarding claim 19, Simons discloses the securing means (132) is a hook and loop fastener.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACK W LAVINDER whose telephone number is (571)272-7119. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Friday 9-4pm (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, Jason San can be reached at 571-272-6531. 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.
JACK W. LAVINDER
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3677
/JACK W LAVINDER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3677