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 .
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendment filed on 7/14/2026, claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 7/14/2026, with respect to the prior art rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the prior art rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration and in light of the amendments, a new ground(s) of rejection is made under 35 U.S.C. 112.
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 5, 9-20 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.
Claims 5, 15 and 19 recite “form a releasable lock” in line 2 (as per claims 5 and 15) and the last paragraph of page 7 (as per claim 19), then further recite “forming a releasable axial lock”. It is unclear if the second recitation of “a releasable axial lock” is referring to the same releasable axial lock as introduced in line 2 (of claims 5 and 15) or the last paragraph of page 7 (as per claim 19); or if the second recitation is in regards to forming a second/different releasable axial lock.
Claims 9 and 18 recite “a first releasable rotational lock” and “a second releasable rotational lock”. However, independent claims 1 and 11 have already recited “a releasable rotational lock”. It is unclear if the later recitations of a “a first releasable rotational lock” and “a second releasable rotational lock” are in addition to the releasable lock of claim 1 and 11; or if the later recitations of “a first releasable rotational lock” and “a second releasable rotational lock” are in regards to the releasable rotational of claims 1 and 11 being made up of “a first releasable rotational lock” and “a second releasable rotational lock”. Therefore, it is unclear how many rotational locks are required by the claims.
Claim 10 is rejected as being dependent on, and failing to cure the deficiencies of, their rejected respective parent claims.
Claim 11 recites “wherein the proximal end surface of the valve nut includes a plurality of slots arranged around the aperture”. It is unclear if these slots are the same slots as the one previously defined in claim 11, where claim 11 recites “the guide catheter hub including a plurality of slots”. The guide catheter hub is made up of a guide catheter hub member and the valve nut. Therefore, it is unclear if the plurality of slots of the valve nut are the same as the previously defined plurality of slots of the guide catheter hub, or if they are additional/different slots.
Claim 11 further recites in the last paragraph “the dilator hub including a plurality of ribs that are adapted to fit into the plurality of slots”. Since there were two recitations of “a plurality of slots”, it is unclear which slots this limitation is referring to or if they are all the same slots. Claim 14 similarly recites “the plurality of slots” and is unclear for the same reason due to the multiple recitations of “a plurality of slots”.
Similar to claim 11, claim 19 recites “the proximal end surface of the valve nut including a plurality of circumferentially equally spaced slots arranged about the aperture”. It is unclear if these slots are the same slots as the one previously defined in claim 19, where claim 19 recites “the guide catheter hub including a plurality of slots that are circumferentially equally spaced”. The guide catheter hub is made up of a guide catheter proximal hub member and the valve nut. Therefore, it is unclear if the plurality of slots of the valve nut are the same as the previously defined plurality of slots of the guide catheter hub, or if they are additional/different slots.
Claim 19 further recites in page 7, “the dilator hub including a plurality of ribs that are adapted to fit into the plurality of slots”. Since there were two recitations of slots, it is unclear which slots this limitation is referring to or if they are all the same slots.
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected as being dependent on, and failing to cure the deficiencies of, their rejected respective parent claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-4, 6-8 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art of record, Sato (JP 2003265618), discloses the invention substantially as claimed above, substantially as detailed in the Office Action of 4/15/2026. The prior art of record does not disclose or fairly suggest either singly or in combination the claimed medical device assembly comprising, inter alia, a proximal hub member and a valve nut and their associated details as recited in amended claim 1. Therefore, in view of the prior art and its deficiencies, Applicant’s invention is rendered novel and non-obvious, and thus, is allowable as claimed.
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.
/KATHERINE M SHI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771
Prosecution Insights