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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, the claim should be amended to recite “wherein [[a]] the distal end portion” in line 11 since the distal end portion of the tubing was previously introduced.
Regarding claim 18, the claim should be amended to recite “[[a]] the distal end of the tubing” in line 7 since the distal end of the tubing was previously introduced.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
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:
Locking feature in claims 1 and 9. This limitation is interpreted to mean a thread, a tab, a groove, an interference fit, snap connection, or a cross-sectional width which is approximately equal to the cross-sectional width of the tubing coupler, as set forth in paragraphs 45 and 46 of the Specification, and functional equivalents thereof.
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 § 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) 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nichols (US 20220079696).
Regarding claim 18, Nichols discloses a method for providing a telescopic tubing extension set, the method comprising:
providing a sleeve (body portion 530 in fig. 5A) with an inner surface (see below) forming a tubing lumen (lumen formed in fig. 5A which receives seal 560) between a first end and a second end of the sleeve (see below);
PNG
media_image1.png
546
445
media_image1.png
Greyscale
positioning a tubing (tubular member 540 in fig. 5A) within the tubing lumen of the sleeve (fig. 5A) such that tubing is longitudinally movable within the tubing lumen in a first direction, such that a distal end of the tubing moves toward the second end of the sleeve (fig. 5A), and a second direction, such that a distal end of the tubing moves away the second end of the sleeve (fig. 5B); and
positioning a seal between the sleeve and the tubing to form resist movement of a fluid between an outer surface of the tubing and the inner surface of the sleeve (seal 560 in fig. 5A).
Regarding claim 19, Nichols discloses positioning the seal between the sleeve and the tubing comprises inserting the seal into the tubing lumen of the sleeve (fig. 4A shows the seal 560 positioned in the lumen defined above) such that an opening through the seal is coaxial with the tubing lumen (fig. 5A), and inserting the tubing through the opening of the seal such the seal is engaged against the inner surface of the sleeve and the outer surface of the tubing (fig. 5A).
Regarding claim 20, Nichols discloses positioning the tubing within the tubing lumen of the sleeve comprises orienting the tubing so that a collar (ring 550 in fig. 5A), extending radially outward from the outer surface of the tubing (fig. 5A/B shows the ring 550 extending outwardly from the outer surface at the bottom of the tubular member 540), is positioned between the seal and the second end of the sleeve (fig. 5A/B).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-17 are allowed over the prior art of record.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The claims in this application are allowed because the prior art of record fails to disclose either singly or in combination the claimed telescoping tubing extension set.
The closest prior art of record is Nichols.
Regarding independent claim 1, Nichols fails to teach among all the limitations or render obvious a distal end portion formed by the outer surface of the tubing defining a cross-sectional width of the tubing that decreases in a direction from the collar toward the distal end of the tubing, in combination with the total structure and function as claimed. As discussed above with respect to claim 18, Nichols teaches the claimed telescoping tubing extension set substantially. However, the collar of Nichols (ring 550 in fig. 5A) is positioned at the distal-most end of the tubing so that the distal end portion does not decrease in cross-sectional width in a direction from the collar to the distal end of the tubing.
Regarding independent claim 9, Nichols fails to teach among all the limitations or render obvious, in a first orientation of the telescopic tubing extension set, the distal end of the tubing is positioned within the fluid channel of the tubing coupler to form a fluid pathway between the fluid channel of the tubing coupler and the fluid passage of the tubing, in combination with the total structure and function as claimed. As discussed previously, Nichols discloses the telescopic tubing extension set substantially. However, in the first orientation (orientation shown in fig. 5A), the distal end of the tubing (ring 550 in fig. 5A) is positioned proximally to the tubing coupler (catheter connector 520 in fig. 5A) so that the distal end of the tubing is not within a fluid channel of the tubing coupler.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wuebbeling (US 20120289937) discloses a telescopic tubing extension set (fig. 1b) which comprises a collar (sleeve 14 in fig. 1a) and a seal (plug 18 in fig. 1A).
Boenig (US 8585681) discloses a telescopic tubing extension set (fig. 2A-C) comprising a sleeve (connector 40 in fig. 2A) which comprises a locking feature (first end 240 frictionally engages tubular body 14) and a seal (seal 250 in fig. 2A) positioned between the sleeve and a tubing (catheter 16 in fig. 2A).
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 FREDRICKSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3783
Prosecution Insights