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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Vailancourt (US 4512766).
Regarding claim 1, Vailancourt discloses an apparatus (fig. 1) comprising:
a hub (catheter hub 10 in fig. 1) that defines a cavity (chamber 11);
a catheter (catheter tube 19 in fig. 1) that comprises a lumen (fig. 1 shows the catheter tube 19 as having a lumen which can receive needle 23);
a core attached to the catheter (insert member 20 in fig. 1 is attached to the proximal end of catheter 19), the core comprising a valve actuation tip (annular edge 35 in fig. 2), wherein at least a portion of the core is configured to be positioned within the cavity of the hub (fig. 1); and
a valving member (valve member 30 in fig. 1) comprising an attachment portion that is fixedly attached to the core (see below, the portion below surrounds and contacts insert member 20 and is fixed against distal movement due to flange 21; 5:12-16) and a valve positioned distal to a proximal end of the cavity and proximal to the valve actuation tip of the core (see below, the valve below is distal to a proximal-most end of cavity 11 and is proximal to edge 35), the valve being movable relative to the core such that as at least a portion of the valve moves distally, interaction between the valve and the valve actuation tip opens the valve to establish fluid communication between the cavity of the hub and the lumen of the catheter (fig. 2 shows that when the valve below is moved distally, edge 35 opens slit 37 of the valve which would establish fluid communication between the cavity and the lumen of catheter 19 via the lumen of insert member 20).
PNG
media_image1.png
379
337
media_image1.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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 2 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vailancourt, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Burkholz (US 9750928).
Regarding claim 2, Vailancourt discloses all of the claimed limitations set forth in claim 1, as discussed above. While it appears necessary that the core (insert member 20 in fig. 1) would be movable at some point in order assemble the core within the hub, Vailancourt does not explicitly teach or disclose that the core is movable relative to the hub from a retracted position to an advanced position.
Burkholz is directed towards a similar apparatus (fig. 4) comprising a hub (catheter adaptor 120 in fig. 4), a core (septum activator 130 in fig. 4) attached to a catheter (catheter 50 in fig. 4) and a valving member (septum 40 in fig. 4). Burkholz further teaches that the core is movable relative to the hub from a retracted position to an advanced position (9:31-45 discloses that the septum activator 130 is movable during assembly from a retracted, or “non-inserted”, position shown in fig. 5 to an advanced, or “inserted”, position shown in fig. 4 by inserting the septum activator 130 into the adapter 120 to secure catheter 50).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Vailancourt so that the core is movable relative to the hub from a retracted position to an advanced position during assembly, as taught by Burkholz, as Burkholz teaches that this movement is necessary to secure the catheter to the hub (9:35-37).
Regarding claim 3, in the modified apparatus of Vailancourt, Vailancourt discloses the hub is configured to securely couple with the core when the core is moved to the advanced position (3:67-4:7 discloses that when the insert member 20 is moved to the advanced, or “inserted”, position shown in fig. 1, the insert member 20 secures the catheter 19 in bore 17 of the hub 10 in a “tight interference fit”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COURTNEY FREDRICKSON whose telephone number is (571)270-7481. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (9 AM - 5 PM 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, BHISMA MEHTA can be reached at 571-272-3383. 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.
/COURTNEY B FREDRICKSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3783