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
This action is responsive to the amendment dated 3/6/2026. Claims 1-20 and 32-35 remain pending. Claims 1-15 remain withdrawn. Claims 16-20 and 32-35 are being examined. Any new ground(s) of rejection below have been made due to applicant’s amendment. This action is Final.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/6/2026 was filed after the mailing date of the Non-Final Rejection on 12/12/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 17 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.
Claim 17 recites the plug including a first non-word symbol indicating a no-flow position and a second non-word symbol indicating a flow position. However, claim 16, of which claim 17 depends from, has been amended to recite the plug including a symbol indicating a no-flow position or a flow position. It is unclear in claim 17 if the first and second non-word symbols are the same feature(s) as the symbol recited in claim 17 or not.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code 103 not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 16-18, 20, and 32-35, claim 17 as far as it is definite, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hisao (JP-H07236696)(reference and machine translation supplied in the Non-Final Rejection dated 12/12/2025) in view of Evans (U.S. 5,466,228).
Hisao discloses a stopcock, comprising: a base (1); a first barbed adapter (16 or 18, see the barbs in figs. 1 and 3A-3B) extending from the base; a second barbed adapter (the other of 16 or 18, see the barbs in figs. 1 and 3A-3B) extending from the base, wherein the first barbed adapter and the second barbed adapter are substantially 180 degrees apart (fig. 1, fig. 3A-B); a connection port (the port on the base for 17, see Fig. 3A) extending from the base, wherein the connection port is substantially 90 degrees apart from the first barbed adapter and the second barbed adapter (best shown in fig. 3A), a plug (2) disposed in the base, the plug including having an upper portion (the upper portion in fig. 2 at 3, 4, 5, 6) and a symbol indicating a no-flow position or a flow position disposed on an upper surface of the upper portion of the plug (see the symbols at 4-6 in fig. 2, described in para. 5 (approximately line 6 on page 4 of the machine translation), as being angle display portions which, depending on the rotational angle, will indicate flow or no-flow).
Hisao does not appear to disclose the plug having a substantially cylindrical upper portion with at least a portion of the symbol extending between a center of the upper surface and an edge of the upper surface.
Evans teaches it was known in the art to have a similar rotary valve with a substantially cylindrical upper portion (91) with an indicator symbol extending between a center of the upper surface and an edge of the upper surface (indicator symbol 92).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hisao by having the upper portion be substantially cylindrical with the symbols for indicating flow or no flow extending between a center of the upper surface and an edge of the upper surface as taught by Evans as the substantially cylindrical upper portion provides for a more compact user interface area to rotate the valve and can be easier to manufacture as protruding handles are not required while still allowing for an indication of the valve position and whether or not there is flow through the valve.
Regarding claim 17, Hisao as modified further discloses wherein the plug includes a first non-word symbol indicating a no-flow position and a second no-word symbol indicating a flow position (see the symbols at 4-6 in fig. 2, described in para. 5 (approximately line 6 on page 4 of the machine translation), as being angle display portions which, depending on the rotational angle, will indicate flow or no-flow).
Regarding claim 18, Hisao as modified further discloses wherein the plug includes rounded edges (as it is cylindrical, see fig. 2).
Regarding claim 20, Hisao as modified further discloses wherein the plug and the base are mated with a semi-circular ridge (see the top surface in fig. 3A at element 20 and similar portions circumferentially around the top surface divided into numerous “ridges” by 21-24, this surface mating with a surface of the plug at 7 as shown in fig. 1).
Regarding claim 32, Hisao as modified discloses the claimed invention but does not appear to disclose the stopcock having an inner diameter that is between about 0.2” and about 0.30”.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hisao by having the stopcock have an inner diameter that is between about 0.2” and about 0.30”, since it has been held that a change in size of a component generally involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP2144.04. The motivation for doing so would be to have an appropriately sized valve for a particular application desired by a user to handle the desired amount of fluid flow through the valve.
Regarding claim 33, Hisao as modified discloses the claimed invention but does not appear to disclose wherein the stopcock is configured such that when a drainage catheter having an outer diameter equal to or larger than 16 Fr is connected to the stopcock, a flow through the drainage catheter is not reduced to an inner diameter of the stopcock.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hisao by having the stopcock configured such that when a drainage catheter having an outer diameter equal to or larger than 16 Fr is connected to the stopcock, a flow through the drainage catheter is not reduced to an inner diameter of the stopcock, since it has been held that a change in size of a component generally involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP2144.04. The motivation for doing so would be to have an appropriately sized valve for a particular application desired by a user to handle the desired amount of fluid flow through the valve and also be able to connect to already in place conduits such as a catheter having an outer diameter equal to or larger than 16 Fr.
Regarding claim 34, Hisao as modified further discloses wherein the stopcock has a substantially same inner diameter from the first barbed adapter to the second barbed adapter (best shown in fig. 3B).
Regarding claim 35, Hisao as modified further discloses wherein the stopcock has a substantially same inner diameter from the first barbed adapter to the second barbed adapter (best shown in fig. 3B), with the substantially same inner diameter in the plug when a flow is open to the first and the second barbed adapters (best shown in fig. 1, as the diameter of the fluid channel(s) in the plug are substantially similar to the diameters of the barbed adapters).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hisao in view of Evans as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Duncan (U.S. 9,995,405).
Hisao as modified discloses the claimed invention but does not appear the plug and base including corresponding detents for locking together.
Duncan teaches it was known in the art to have a similar stopcock that has a plug and base with corresponding detents for locking together (detent slots 60 on the plug and detent ribs 100 on the base, see figs. 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Hisao by having corresponding detents on the plug and base as taught by Duncan in order to resist any rotational orientation other than the desired operational states for the stopcock (see col. 6, ll. 17-23 and 33-36).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 16-17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL R REID whose telephone number is (313)446-4859. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9am-5pm 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 supervisors can be reached by phone. Craig Schneider can be reached at 571-272-3607, or Ken Rinehart can be reached at 571-272-4881. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/MICHAEL R REID/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753