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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 4/21/2026 has been entered.
Claim Interpretation
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The following claim limitations
“a first attachment component” in claim 1
“a second attachment component” in claim 1
“a third attachment component” in claim 1
has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder
“component” is considered a generic placeholder for “a first attachment component”
“component” is considered a generic placeholder for “a second attachment component”
“component” is considered a generic placeholder for “a third attachment component”
coupled with functional language
Functional language for “a first attachment component”: “is fixedly attached to a most proximal entry point of the first inlet of the first tube segment and is fixedly attached to a most proximal entry point of the second inlet of the second tube segment” and “configured to be removably attachable to corresponding spaced-apart locations on a housing surface of the enteral feeding system and when installed on the housing surface are adapted to cooperatively define a fixed routing geometry such that the first tube segment and the second tube segment remain parallel on said housing surface”
Functional language for “a second attachment component”: “configured to be removably attachable to corresponding spaced-apart locations on a housing surface of the enteral feeding system and when installed on the housing surface are adapted to cooperatively define a fixed routing geometry such that the first tube segment and the second tube segment remain parallel on said housing surface”
Functional language for “a third attachment component”: “configured to be removably attachable to corresponding spaced-apart locations on a housing surface of the enteral feeding system and when installed on the housing surface are adapted to cooperatively define a fixed routing geometry such that the first tube segment and the second tube segment remain parallel on said housing surface”
without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim(s) 1-20 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
“a first attachment component” is defined in instant specification [0014] as “material having a durometer value that is greater than the first durometer value or second durometer value” (this is being interpreted as the first attachment component has a greater durometer valve than the first and second tube segments), and instant specification [0015] as “two channels connected to each other by a bridge member”
“a second attachment component” is defined in instant specification [0014] as “material having a durometer value that is greater than the first durometer value or second durometer value” (this is being interpreted as the first attachment component has a greater durometer valve than the first and second tube segments). The examiner is also interpreting the description in instant specification [0095] “Protrusion 410 may be used for a snap/friction-fit attachment and/or detachment with/from the body of the enteral pump system 400. Connector 408 may be pressed against a specified location on the enteral pump system 400 to attach it with the system. Attaching the disposable tube set using the Y-shaped connector 408 with the aid of protrusion 410, provides greater structural integrity to the tube set” as structure defining “a second attachment component as it appears to match the functional language of “removably attachable to corresponding spaced-apart locations on a housing surface of the enteral feeding system”
“a third attachment component” is defined in instant specification [0014] as “material having a durometer value that is greater than the first durometer value or second durometer value” (this is being interpreted as the first attachment component has a greater durometer valve than the first and second tube segments) and instant specification [0093] “which could be snap-fit with a complimentary structure configured on the surface of the enteral device”
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5, 9, 11-12, 14-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Childs et al. (US Patent Pub. 20170120039 hereinafter “Childs”) in view of Fournie et al. (US Patent 7462170 hereinafter “Fournie”) and Osborne et al. (US Patent 5807333 hereinafter “Osborne”)
Regarding Claim 1, Childs teaches (Fig 1, 11-12) A disposable, molded tubing set configured for use in an enteral feeding system, comprising:
a first tube segment (122) having a first inlet and a first outlet (necessarily includes an inlet and outlet) and a second tube segment (124) having a second inlet and a second outlet (necessarily includes an inlet and outlet),
a first attachment component (128/502 in Fig 11, see [0049] teaching 500 can replace 128; examiner notes 128/502 are considered to meet the 112f interpretation of “two channels connected by a bridge”), wherein the first attachment component is fixedly attached to a most proximal entry point of the first inlet of the first tube segment and is fixedly attached to a most proximal entry point of the second inlet (see Fig 1, 128 is attached a most proximal entry point of the device 100, as such it is interpreted that portion of the first tube and second tube attached at 128 is the “most proximal entry point of the first inlet” and “most proximal entry point of the second inlet” relative to the overall device 100);
a Y connector (526) having a first Y connector inlet (inlet near 510), a second Y connector inlet (inlet near 512) and a Y connector outlet (outlet near 526), wherein the first outlet is connected to the first Y connector inlet and the second outlet is connected to the second Y connector inlet (see Figs 11-12, the tube portions outlets are connected to the y connector inlets); and
a third tube segment (126) having a third inlet (portion of 126 connected to y connector in Fig 1) and a third outlet (other side of 126); wherein the third inlet extends from the Y connector outlet (see Fig 1, the third tube portion is extending from y connector).
The combination does not specify a second attachment component physically integrated with the y-connector and configured to be removably attachable to the housing of the enteral feeding system.
Fournie teaches (Fig 3b) a y connector (14) with a second attachment component (29) physically attached to the y-connector and configured to be removably attachable to the housing (See Col 5 lines 43-45).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the y-connector of Childs such that it includes a second attachment component physically attached to the y-connector and configured to be removably attachable to the housing of the enteral feeding system as taught by Fournie. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to easily engage the y-connector to the apparatus (Fournie Col 5 lines 43-45).
The examiner notes that with this modification, the second attachment component is positioned between the first attachment component (128, 500) and a third tube segment (126) of Childs since the second attachment component is a part of the y-connector (526) of Childs.
The combination does not specify wherein the third outlet is connected to a third attachment component, and wherein the third attachment component is configured to be removably attachable to the housing of the enteral feeding system, or wherein the first attachment component is configured to be removably attachable to corresponding spaced apart location on a housing surface.
Osborne teaches (Fig 4) a third attachment component (56) that is configured to be removably attachable to the housing (Col 10 lines 24-55; it is noted that the examiner is using 112f interpretation of a complementary structure that snap-fits with the device for the third attachment component). Osborne also teaches (Fig 4) a first attachment component (47) that is configured to be removably attachable to the housing and spaced apart from the third attachment component (See Col 9 lines 60-67).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Childs such that it includes a third attachment component, and wherein the first attachment component and third attachment component is configured to be removably attachable to the housing of the enteral feeding system as taught by Osborne. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to replaceably retain the tube segment to the housing (Osborne Col 10 lines 45-55).
With the combination of Childs, Fournie and Osborne it is interpreted the modified Childs meets the functional limitation of wherein the first attachment component, the second attachment component, and the third attachment component are configured to be removably attachable to corresponding spaced-apart locations on a housing surface of the enteral feeding system and, when installed on the housing surface, are adapted to cooperatively define a fixed routing geometry such that the first tube segment and the second tube segment remain parallel on said housing surface. Fournie and Osborne teach the attachment components may be “removably attachable” to the housing, and Childs already shows in Fig 1 and Figs 11-12 that the first tube segment and second tube segment are in a fixed routing geometry and remain parallel.
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Childs, Fournie and Osborne teaches all elements of claim 1 as described above. Childs further teaches the disposable, molded tubing set wherein the first tube segment and the second tube segment comprise material having a first durometer value (necessarily true, any tube segment will comprise a material that has a durometer value).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Childs, Fournie and Osborne teaches all elements of claim 1 as described above. Childs does not specify the disposable, molding tubing set wherein the third tubing segment is made of silicone.
Osborne teaches (Col 8 lines 61-64) a tubing set portion (49) made of an elastically flexible silicone rubber.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the third tubing segment of Childs such that it is made of silicone as taught by Osborne. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so as this is a known material used for enteral tubing sets. Additionally, it has been held to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended purpose (see MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Childs, Fournie and Osborne teaches all elements of claim 1 as described above. Childs further teaches the disposable, molded tubing set wherein the first attachment component (128, 500) comprises two channels (510, 512) connected to each other by a bridge member (Portion where 510 and 512 are attached).
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Childs, Fournie and Osborne teaches all elements of claim 1 as described above. Childs further teaches the disposable, molded tubing set further comprising a pinch wall (505, 506) positioned between the first tube segment and the second tube segment (See Figs 11-13).
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Childs, Fournie and Osborne teaches all elements of claim 11 as described above. Childs further teaches the disposable, molded tubing set wherein the pinch wall is moved closer to the first tube segment for stopping fluid flow in the first tube segment, and wherein the pinch wall is moved closer to the second tube segment for stopping fluid flow in the second tube segment (See Figs 11-13; [0049-0051]).
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Childs, Fournie and Osborne teaches all elements of claim 1 as described above. Childs further teaches the disposable, molded tubing set wherein each of the first tube segment, the second tube segment, the Y connector, and the third tube segment constitute a single molded, monolithic component (this is considered a product by process claim. Since Childs teaches all structural elements of the claim Childs meets the limitations of the claim).
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of Childs, Fournie and Osborne teaches all elements of claim 1 as described above. Childs does not teach the disposable, molded tubing set further comprises a pair of protrusions extending outwards from the Y connector for attaching the first Y connector inlet with the first outlet of the first tube segment and the second Y connector inlet with the second outlet of the second tube segment.
Osborne teaches (Figs 35-38) a connector (56) with protrusions (65g-65j) extending outwards from the connector.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the y connector of Childs such that it includes a pair of protrusions extending outwards from the connector as taught by Osborne. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to help retain the connector element in the pump element and provide additional stability to the user during insertion and removable of the connector element (Osborne Col 11 lines 30-49).
Regarding Claim 16, the combination of Childs, Fournie and Osborne teaches the disposable, molded tubing set of claim 15, wherein the pair of protrusions provide structural integrity to the first and the second tube segments when connected to the Y connector (with the modification done in claim 15, the protrusions 65 would provide additional structural integrity by securing the first and second tube elements to the pump system).
Regarding Claim 17, the combination of Childs, Fournie and Osborne teaches the disposable, molded tubing set of claim 15, wherein the pair of protrusions are positioned at a center of a length of the Y connector (See annotated Fig 11, where the protrusions will be added).
PNG
media_image1.png
279
456
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig 11 (Childs)
Regarding Claim 18, the combination of Childs, Fournie and Osborne teaches the disposable, molded tubing set of claim 15, wherein the pair of protrusions are positioned on an outer surface of the Y connector (See Osborne Figs 35-38, protrusions 65 are on an outer surface).
Regarding Claim 19, the combination of Childs, Fournie and Osborne teaches the disposable, molded tubing set of claim 15, wherein the pair of protrusions are positioned within an outer surface of the Y connector (See Osborne Figs 35-38, protrusions 65 are on an outer surface).
Regarding Claim 20, the combination of Childs, Fournie and Osborne teaches all elements of claim 1 as described above. Childs further teaches the disposable, molded tubing set being configured for use in a dual-use enteral feeding or flushing system (this is considered an intended use limitation, the device of Childs could be used for enteral feeding or for flushing as it comprises all the structural limitations required of the claim).
Claim(s) 3-4, 8 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Childs (US Patent Pub. 2017012003) in view of Fournie (US Patent 7462170) and Osborne (US Patent 5807333) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dimalanta et al. (US Patent Pub. 20100056991 hereinafter “Dimalanta”).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Childs, Fournie and Osborne teaches all elements of claim 2 as described above. Childs does not specify the disposable, molded tubing set wherein the third tube segment comprises material having a second durometer value, wherein the first durometer value is less than the second durometer value.
Dimalanta teaches tubing with sections comprising different materials [0033] and different durometers [0028].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the materials of the tubing segments of Childs such that the third tube segment comprise material having a second durometer value, wherein the first durometer value is less than the second durometer value as taught by Dimalanta. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to have differing levels of compliance for the various sections of tubing (see Dimalanta [0033]). Additionally, it has been held to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended purpose (see MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Childs, Fournie and Osborne teaches all elements of claim 2 as described above. Childs does not specify the disposable, molded tubing set wherein the third tube segment comprises material having a second durometer value, and wherein the first durometer value is substantially equal to the second durometer value.
Dimalanta teaches tubing with sections comprising different materials [0033] and different durometers [0028].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the materials of the tubing segments of Childs such that the third tube segment comprise material having a second durometer value, and wherein the first durometer value is substantially equal to the second durometer value as taught by Dimalanta. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to have substantially similar levels of compliance for the various sections of tubing (see Dimalanta [0033]). Additionally, it has been held to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended purpose (see MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Childs, Fournie, Osborne and Dimalanta teaches all elements of claim 4 as described above. The combination does not specify the disposable, molded tubing set wherein the first attachment component, the second attachment component, and the third attachment component comprise material having a durometer value that is greater than the first durometer value or second durometer value.
Dimalanta further teaches [0027] that transition sections may include connectors.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first, second and third attachment components of Childs such that the first attachment component, the second attachment component, and the third attachment component comprise material having a durometer value that is greater than the first durometer value or second durometer value. It has been held to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended purpose (see MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Childs, Fournie and Osborne teaches all elements of claim 1 as described above. Childs does not specify the disposable, molded tubing set of claim 1, wherein each of the first tube segment and the second tube segment have a greater degree of compliance compared to silicone and a lower degree of compliance compared to PVC tubing.
Dimalanta teaches [0033] known materials and possible durometer and compliance characteristics for medical tubing.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first tube segment and second tube segment of Childs such that each of the first tube segment and the second tube segment have a greater degree of compliance compared to silicone and a lower degree of compliance compared to PVC tubing as taught by Dimalanta. It has been held to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended purpose (see MPEP 2144.07).
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Childs (US Patent Pub. 2017012003) in view of Fournie (US Patent 7462170) and Osborne (US Patent 5807333) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Brader (US Patent 4869718).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Childs, Fournie and Osborne teaches all elements of claim 1 as described above. Childs does not specify the disposable, molded tubing set wherein the third tube segment is made of polyorganosiloxane and amorphous silica having a specific gravity in a range of 1.05 g/cm3 to 1.3 g/cm3.
Brader teaches (Col 4 lines 42-50) medical grade silicon rubber (polyorganosiloxane) is a known material in the medical art.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the third tube segment of Childs such that it is made of polyorganosiloxane and amorphous silica. It has been held to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended purpose (see MPEP 2144.07).
The combination of Childs and Brader does not specify a specific gravity in a range of 1.05 g/cm3 to 1.3 g/cm3. The instant disclosure [0088] describes the parameter of a specific gravity in a range of 1.05 g/cm3 to 1.3 g/cm3 as being merely preferable, and does not describe the parameter as contributing any unexpected results to the system. As such, parameters such as a specific gravity in a range of 1.05 g/cm3 to 1.3 g/cm3 are considered to be matters of design choice, well within the skill of the ordinary artisan, obtained through routine experimentation in determining optimum results. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that the limitation of a specific gravity in a range of 1.05 g/cm3 to 1.3 g/cm3 would be dependent on the actual application of the system and, thus would be a design choice based on the actual application.
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Childs, Fournie and Osborne teaches all elements of claim 1 as described above. Childs does not specify the disposable, molded tubing set wherein the third tube segment is made of polyorganosiloxane and amorphous silica having a specific gravity in a range of 1.11 g/cm3 to 1.18 g/cm3.
Brader teaches (Col 4 lines 42-50) medical grade silicon rubber (polyorganosiloxane) is a known material in the medical art.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the third tube segment of Childs such that it is made of polyorganosiloxane and amorphous silica. It has been held to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended purpose (see MPEP 2144.07).
The combination of Childs and Brader does not specify a specific gravity in a range of 1.11 g/cm3 to 1.18 g/cm3. The instant disclosure [0088] describes the parameter of a specific gravity in a range of 1.11 g/cm3 to 1.18 g/cm3 as being merely preferable, and does not describe the parameter as contributing any unexpected results to the system. As such, parameters such as a specific gravity in a range of 1.11 g/cm3 to 1.18 g/cm3 are considered to be matters of design choice, well within the skill of the ordinary artisan, obtained through routine experimentation in determining optimum results. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that the limitation of a specific gravity in a range of 1.11 g/cm3 to 1.18 g/cm3 would be dependent on the actual application of the system and, thus would be a design choice based on the actual application.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Childs (US Patent Pub. 2017012003) in view of Fournie (US Patent 7462170) and Osborne (US Patent 5807333) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Heyns et al. (US Patent Pub. 20140163528 hereinafter “Heyns”).
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Childs, Fournie and Osborne teaches all elements of claim 1 as described above. Childs does not specify the disposable, molding tubing set wherein each of the first tube segment, the second tube segment , the y connector, and the third tube segment comprise one or more plastic portions.
Heyns teaches [0044] that plastic is a common material for disposable medical equipment.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first tube segment, the second tube segment, the y connector, and the third tube segment of Childs such that it includes one or more plastic portions as taught by Heyns. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so as this is a known material for disposable medical equipment (Heyns [0040]). Additionally, it has been held to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended purpose (see MPEP 2144.07).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 in view of Kopperschmidt have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection takes into consideration the amendments filed 4/21/2026. The examiner notes 112f interpretations are clarified with the present rejection.
Applicant's arguments filed 4/21/2026 have been fully considered but some are not persuasive..
As to the remarks on Pg. 10-11, the applicant argues that Fournie and Osborne do not teach the amended limitations of “the first attachment component, the second attachment component, and the third attachment component are configured to be removably attachable to corresponding spaced-apart locations on a housing surface of the enteral feeding system and, when installed on the housing surface, are adapted to cooperatively define a fixed routing geometry such that the first tube segment and the second tube segment remain parallel on said housing surface”. The examiner does not find this persuasive. First, Childs Fig 1 and Figs 11-12 already show the tubing in a “fixed geometry”. Further, Fournie and Osborne teach how these attachment components are removably fixed to a housing. As such, this result of the modifications would allow the attachment components to be snap-fitting into the housing as described by Fournie (Col 5 lines 43-45) and Osborne (Col 10 lines 24-55), therefore the modified Childs would have a “a fixed routing geometry such that the first tube segment and the second tube segment remain parallel on said housing surface”.
As to the remarks on Pg. 11 last paragraph, the applicant argues that the limitation of claim 14, “each of the fist tube segment, the second tube segment, the y-connector and the third tube segment constitute a single molded, monolithic component” is not just a product by process limitation. The applicant argues that the significance of the monolithic component is that the structure will support a fixed relative positioning of the tube segments, connector and attachment structures. The examiner does not find this persuasive, Childs already shows in Figs 1 and 11-12 that the tube and connectors are in fixed arrangements. Further with the modification done in view of Fournie and Osborne, the attachment components are also “fixed” in certain locations, therefore the resulting position would be a “fixed relative positioning”. Therefore the limitation is still considered a product-by-process limitation and the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NEERAJA GOLLAMUDI whose telephone number is (571)272-6449. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8-5.
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, Michael Tsai can be reached on (571) 270-5246. 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.
/NEERAJA GOLLAMUDI/Examiner, Art Unit 3783
/WESLEY G HARRIS/Examiner, Art Unit 3783
Prosecution Insights