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. This is the first office action in response to the above identified patent application filed on 12/29/2023 . Claims 1-21 are currently pending and being examined. Claim Interpretation The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: engagement structure in claim 1 FILLIN "Indicate the claim(s) in which each respective limitation appears." \d "[ 2 ]" . According to the specification, the engagement structure can include either an O-ring or fins ( par. 5, 7, 12, 38 ). Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claim s 1-21 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. Claim 1 recites the limitation s " an open configuration " and “ a closed configuration ” in line 5 . It is unclear from the claims what is meant by open and closed configuration s for the claim does not provide a definition at all. Also, the specification does not provide a clear definition of what is meant by these configuration other than locked and unlocked, which can also be open to interpretation for it is unclear what components are locked or unlocked. Thus, the above recitation s are ambiguous and opened to a variety of interpretation s . Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns , 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Appropriate correction is required. Claim 1 recites the limitation " an open configuration " in line s 7-8 . It is unclear if this recitation should refer back to the previously recited “ an open configuration ” in line 5 or if this is a new recitation separate and different but with a same name Appropriate correction is required. Claim 1 5 recites the limitation s " the closed position " and “ the open position ” in line 3 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required. Claims 2-14 and 16-21 depend from Claim 1 and are rejected accordingly. 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. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim s 1, 4-12 , 15-17 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 a1 as being anticipated by Vendely (US 8,480,560) . In regards to Independent Claim 1 , and with particular reference to Figure s 6, 9 and 12-18 , Vendely discloses a locking mechanism for coupling a catheter ( coupling catheter 18 in a similar manner as shown in figure 6 ; col. 3 lines 49-50) to a port (226 in figures 15-18; or 126 in figures 12-14) , comprising: a stem (248 in figures 15-18; or 148 in figures 12-14) extending along a longitudinal axis (longitudinal axis L, as shown in figures 6 and 9) , a distal end of the stem (in figures 15-18 shown but not labeled, the distal end of stem 248; 150 in figure 12-14) configured to engage a lumen of the catheter (stems 248 or 148 engage the catheter 18 in a similar manner as stem 48 engages catheter 18 in figure 6) , a proximal end of the stem coupled to the port (as shown in either figures 15-18 or 12-14, the proximal ends of stems 248 or 148 are coupled to the ports 226 or 126 respectively) ; a cathlock (280 a,b and 258a,b in figures 15-18; or 180a,b in figures 12-14) having an engagement structure (fingers 254 in figures 15-18; or fingers 154 in figures 12-14) configured to engage the catheter (18; the fingers 254 or 154 engage the catheter 18 in a similar manner as shown in figures 6 and 9) and transitionable between an open configuration (when catheter 18 is connected to the stem 248 or 148, the catheter 18 is further pushing inwardly the angled fingers 254 or 154 towards the port body 232 or 132 in a similar manner as shown in figures 6 and 9) and a closed configuration (when the catheter 18 is not further pushing inwardly the angled fingers 254 or 154) and biased (the fingers are somewhat bias/angled inwardly towards the port body even when the catheter 18 is not connected to the stem 248 or 148 and the fingers 254 or 154 are not engaging/touching the catheter 18, refer particularly to figures 15-17) to the closed configuration; and a tab (tabs 292 or 288 in figure 15; or tab 182a in figures 12-14) configured to engage the cathlock (280 a,b and 258a,b in figures 15-18; or 180a,b in figures 12-14) to maintain the engagement structure (fingers 254 in figures 15-18; or fingers 154 in figures 12-14) in the open configuration (when tabs 292, 288 engage the cathlock’s surfaces 290, 294, the catheter 18 connected to the stem 248 is further pushing inwardly the angled fingers 254 towards the port body 232 as shown in figures 15-18, particularly figure 18) , the tab ( tabs 292 or 288 in figure 15 ) selectively removable (tabs 292, 288 are selectively engaging or not engaging the cathlock’s surfaces 290,294, refer particularly to figures 18 and 15) from the cathlock to transition the engagement structure (fingers 254 in figures 15-18; or fingers 154 in figures 12-14) from the open configuration ( when tabs 292, 288 engage the cathlock’s surfaces 290, 294, the catheter 18 connected to the stem 248 is further pushing inwardly the angled fingers 254 towards the port body 232 as shown in figures 15-18, particularly figure 18 ) to the closed configuration ( when tabs 292, 288 are not engaging the cathlock’s surfaces 290, 294, the catheter 18 is not further pushing inwardly the angled fingers 254, refer particularly figure 15 ). Regarding dependent Claim 4 , Vendely discloses wherein the engagement structure includes one or more fins (254 in figures 15-18; or 154 in figures 12-15) extending radially inward and elastically deformable to a radial outward open configuration , refer particularly to figures 6, 9-11, and 14-18 Regarding dependent Claim 5 , Vendely discloses wherein the one or more fins (254, 154) extend at an angle (at the angle show, refer to figures 6, 9-11, 14-18) relative to the longitudinal axis L and either extend perpendicular to the longitudinal axis, or extend proximally toward the port (26 or 126 or 226) . Regarding dependent Claim 6 , Vendely discloses wherein a rim of the one or more fins (254, 154) in the closed configuration defines a diameter that is equal to or less than an outer diameter of the stem (48 or 248 or 148; in a similar manner as the fingers 54 shown in figure 6) . Regarding dependent Claim 7 , Vendely discloses wherein a rim of the one or more fins (254, 154) in the closed configuration defines a diameter that is larger than an outer diameter of the stem (48 or 248 or 148) and less than an outer diameter of the catheter 18 (in a similar manner as the fingers 54 shown in figure 6) . Regarding dependent Claim 8 , Vendely discloses wherein the one or more fins (254 or 154) includes a first series of fins disposed at a first longitudinal position (on one side of the longitudinal axis L; left side with respect to the longitudinal axis L) within the cathlock (fins 254 on cathlock 280a, 258a in figures 15-18; or fins 154 on cathlock 180a in figures 12-14) and a second series of fins (fins 254 on cathlock 280b, 258b in figures 15-18; or fins 154 on cathlock 180b in figures 12-14) disposed at a second longitudinal position (on the other side/opposite side of the longitudinal axis L; right side with respect to the longitudinal axis L) within the cathlock , different from the first longitudinal position. Regarding dependent Claim 9 , Vendely discloses wherein a first fin of the first series of fins (the first fin on the left side) is aligned with a first fin of the second series of fins (first fin on left side) along the longitudinal axis (refer to figures 6, 9, 14, 18) . Regarding dependent Claim 10 , Vendely discloses wherein a first fin of the first series of fins (the first fin on the left side) is offset from a first fin of the second series of fins (a second fin on left side) about the longitudinal axis L of the stem (48 or 248 or 148; refer to figures 6, 9, 14, 18) . Regarding dependent Claim 11 , Vendely discloses wherein a fin of the one or more fins (54 or 254 or 154) extends through an arc distance of 360° (interpreting the left and right corresponding fins as one in the positions shown in figures 14 or 18) about the axis L of the stem (48 or 148 or 248) . Regarding dependent Claim 12 , Vendely discloses wherein a fin of the one or more fins (54 or 254 or 154 ) extends through an arc distance of less than 360° (interpreting the fins on the left as separate from the corresponding fins on the right side with respect to the longitudinal axis, as shown in the position in figures 15-17) about the axis L of the stem. Regarding dependent Claim 15 , Vendely discloses wherein the tab (292 and/or 288) is configured to reengage the cathlock (280a,b and 258a, b), after it has been removed (not engaged) therefrom, to transition the cathlock (280a,b and 258a,b) from the closed configuration (when tabs 292, 288 are not engaging the cathlock’s surfaces 290, 294, the catheter 18 is not further pushing inwardly the angled fingers 254, refer particularly figure 15) to the open configuration (when tabs 292, 288 engage the cathlock’s surfaces 290, 294, the catheter 18 connected to the stem 248 is further pushing inwardly the angled fingers 254 towards the port body 232 as shown in figures 15-18, particularly figure 18) . Regarding dependent Claim 16 , Vendely discloses wherein the tab (292 and/or 288 ) includes a frangible bridge (portion /material connecting the tab 292 to the cathlock’s surface 258a OR portion /material connecting the tab 288 to the cathlock’s surface 280a) coupling the tab to the cathlock , and configured to separate when the tab is selectively removed (not engaged) from the cathlock , as shown in figures 14-18 . Regarding dependent Claim 17 , Vendely discloses wherein the tab (292 and/or 288) includes a shaft (the physical structure of the cylindrical channel formed when the tabs connect the surfaces 294 or 290 respectively on the cathlock , refer particularly to figures 15-18) extending longitudinally and defining a tab lumen (volume within this formed cylindrical channel) , an inner diameter of the tab lumen (diameter of the formed cylindrical channel) being larger than an outer diameter of the catheter (diameter of the formed cylindrical channel must be larger to be able to receive the catheter 18) . Regarding dependent Claim 21 , Vendely discloses wherein the tab 292 further includes a handle (in figure 15, the portion of the tab 292 protruding perpendicular to the longitudinal axis L of the stem 248; refer also to figure 6 to see the longitudinal axis) extending from a distal end of the shaft (the physical structure of the cylindrical channel formed when the tab connect the surface 294 on the cathlock , refer particularly to figures 15-18) , perpendicular to the longitudinal axis L , and configured to facilitate grasping the tab (a protrusion is easier to grasp than a component having no protrusion) . Claim s 4, 5, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Thomas et al. ( WO 2022/036095) . The applied reference has a common assignee and or inventor with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. In regards to Independent Claim 1 , and with particular reference to Figures 1, 2a, 2b, Thomas discloses a locking mechanism for coupling a catheter 128 to a port 130 , comprising: a stem 132/116/ 118 extending along a longitudinal axis (longitudinal axis shown in figure 1 ) , a distal end of the stem (in figures 2a and 2b shown but not labeled, the distal end of stem) configured to engage a lumen of the catheter ( 128 ) , a proximal end of the stem coupled to the port (as shown in figure 2a ) ; a cathlock having an engagement structure ( fins 124 and O-ring 122 ) configured to engage the catheter 128 and transitionable between an open configuration (when catheter 128 is connected to the stem, the cathete r is further pushing inwardly the angled fins 124 towards the port body 130 ) and a closed configuration (when the catheter 128 is not further pushing inwardly the angled fin s 124 ) and biased (the fins are somewhat bias/angled inwardly towards the port body even when the catheter 128 is not connected to the stem and the fin s are not engaging/touching the catheter 128 ) to the closed configuration; and a tab 200 configured to engage the cathlock ( as shown in figure 2B ) to maintain the engagement structure ( fin s 124 and/or O-ring 122 ) in the open configuration ( as explained above ) , the tab ( 200 ) selectively removable ( par. 56, 57, the component can be removed/separated from ) from the cathlock to transition the engagement structure from the open configuration ( as explained above ) to the closed configuration ( as explained above ). Regarding dependent Claim 4 , Thomas discloses wherein the engagement structure includes one or more fins 224 extending radially inward and elastically deformable to a radial outward open configuration , refer particularly to figures 2 A,B , Regarding dependent Claim 5 , Thomas discloses wherein the one or more fins 224 extend at an angle (at the angle show s in figures 2 a,b ) relative to the longitudinal axis (axis shown in figure 1) and either extend perpendicular to the longitudinal axis, or extend proximally toward the port ( as shown in figures 2a,b ) . Regarding dependent Claim 13 , Thomas discloses wherein the engagement structure includes an O-ring 122 extending annularly about the axis of the stem, and elastically deformable to a radial outward open configuration. Regarding dependent Claim 1 4 , Thomas discloses wherein the O-ring 122 in the closed configuration defines an inner diameter that is less than an outer diameter of the catheter , refer to figures 2 a,b . 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 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vendely . Regarding dependent Claim 2 , Vendely teaches the invention as claimed and as disclosed above for claim 1 including the cathlock (280 a,b and 258a,b in figures 15-18; or 180a,b in figures 12-14) and the port (226 in figures 15-18; or 126 in figures 12-14) except the cathlock ( of figures 12-1 8 ) is integrally formed with the port ( of figures 12-18 ) . However, Vendely teaches the cathlock ( 58 in figure 5; col. 2 lines 41-43) is integrally formed with the port 32. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the cathlock (in figures 12-18) integrally formed with the port (in figures 12-18), as taught by Vendely (in figure 5; col. 2 lines 41-43), since it has been held that use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in the prior art would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice ( In re Larson , 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965)). MPEP 2144.04 V B. Regarding dependent Claim 3 , Vendely as modified above in claim 2 teaches the invention as claimed and as disclosed above and Vendely as modified further teaches wherein the cathlock (280a,b and 258a,b in figures 15-18; or 180a,b in figures 12-14) includes a cowl (the physical structure of the cowl) extending from a body of the port (226, 126) and defining a recess (recess receiving the stem 248 or 148 is shown but not labeled, refer to figures 13-18), the recess extending longitudinally from a distal tip of the cowl and including the stem (248, 148) disposed therein. Allowable Subject Matter Claim s 18-20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Pertinent Prior Art The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2025/0114588 ; particularly figures 1-2; engagement structures O-ring 142 and/or fins 144 Con ta c t Informat ion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT WILLIAM H RODRIGUEZ whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-4831 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Mon-Fri 8:30-6:30 . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Phutthiwat Wongwian can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-270-5426 . 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. /William H Rodriguez/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741