Catheter Tray, Packaging System, Instruction Insert, and Associated Methods

Application No. 18/628,557

• Filed: Apr 05, 2024
• Priority: Jun 03, 2009 — provisional 61/183,629
  • Jun 30, 2009 — CIP of 8631935
  • Dec 27, 2009 — CIP of 12/647,515
  • Jun 07, 2010 — provisional 61/352,155
  • Jun 07, 2010 — provisional 61/352,140
  • Dec 31, 2010 — provisional 61/428,944
  • Jan 31, 2011 — provisional 61/437,796
  • Jun 03, 2011 — CIP of 9795761
  • Jun 03, 2011 — CIP of 13/153,300
  • Jun 07, 2011 — divisional of 8448786
  • Apr 11, 2013 — continuation of 9522753
  • Jul 07, 2015 — continuation of 9745088
  • Aug 23, 2017 — continuation of 10/640,243
  • Mar 28, 2020 — continuation of 11/661,219
  • Sep 23, 2021 — continuation of 17/483,608
• Examiner: MARCETICH, ADAM M
• Art Unit: 3781
• Tech Center: 3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
• Assignee: Medline Industries LP
• OA Round: 1 (Non-Final)

Office Action

DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Claim Objections
The claims contain minor informalities.
Claim 8 should be revised for clarity to read “… wherein the second syringe is at least partially situated in the compartment.”
Claim 9 should be revised for clarity to read “… wherein the second syringe [[containing]] contains water.”
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).

Independent claims 1, 13 and 18 are rejected over one or more of the following patents. Table 1 shows which claims of each patent correspond to the independent claims of the present invention.

Table 1: double patenting references
Patent cited in rejection
For claim 1
For claim 13
For claim 18
Tomes; Jennifer E. et al.
US 12458329 B2
1, 3
13, 15
13, 15, 16
Dickinson; Sarah et al.
US 11116937 B2
1-3, 6, 7
(none)
1, 8, 10
Tomes; Jennifer E. et al.
US 9808400 B2
1
1, 6, 8, 9
1
Tomes; Jennifer E. et al.
US 10251812 B2
1, 2
1, 2
(none)
Tomes; Jennifer E. et al.
US 11779516 B2
11, 12
11, 12
11, 12
Lockwood; Robert et al.
US 10946169 B2
1, 2
1, 19
1, 2
Tomes; Jennifer E. et al.
US 9522753 B2
1, 10, 11
1, 10-12
(none)
Tomes; Jennifer E. et al.
US 9745088 B2
1, 4, 5
1, 4, 5
45, 50, 51, 54
Tomes; Jennifer E. et al.
US 10640243 B2
1, 5, 6
1, 5-7
1, 2, 5, 6
Tomes; Jennifer E. et al. US 10946992 B2
1-3
(none)
1-3
Tomes; Jennifer E. et al.
US 11661220 B2
1, 2, 5
1, 2, 5, 7
1-3, 5
Tomes; Jennifer E. et al.
US 11661219 B2
1,
1, 4
1, 2
Tomes; Jennifer E. et al.
US 9283352 B2
1
1
1, 6
Tomes; Jennifer E. et al.
US 9808596 B2
1, 5
7, 9, 11
1, 5
Tomes; Jennifer E. et al.
US 10512752 B2
1, 10
(none)
1, 10, 11
Tomes; Jennifer E. et al.
US 10624614 B2
1, 2
1, 2
1, 2, 5
Tomes; Jennifer E. et al.
US 11684347 B2
17-20
17-20
17-20

Each of the following references claims a catheter kit, tray or assembly. However, none of the cited references claims all features of claims 1, 13 or 18. Therefore none of these references are cited in a double patenting rejection.
Tomes; Jennifer E. et al. US 8678190 B2
Tomes; Jennifer E. et al. US 9693756 B2
Lockwood; Robert et al. US 9795761 B2
Tomes; Jennifer E. et al. US 11707597 B2

Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
In parent application 17483608 to Tomes; Jennifer E. et al., claims 4, 6-12, 17, 19 and 20 were indicated as objected / allowable in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 06 October 2023.
Pending claims 1, 13 and 18 describe the same features that were indicated as allowable in Tomes, namely a lubricating jelly syringe being situated within the lubricating jelly application chamber (pending claims 1 and 18; Tomes claim 6); and
a lubricating jelly application chamber comprising one or more contours for accommodating flanges of one or more of the two syringes (pending claim 13, Tomes claim 12).

Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Disston; Hamilton S. US 3166189 A
Serany; Frank J. Jr. et al. US 3329261 A
Rauschenberger; Richard A. US 4160505 A
Beddow; David V. US 4226328 A
Cornett, III; Walter G. US 4411656 A
Wheeler; Robert P. US 4439184 A
Finegold; Aaron N. US 4460360 A
Fischer; Herbert et al. US 4554156 A
Salvadori; Lawrence A. US 5931303 A
Hobbs; Tracey Susan US 5853749 A
Vagley; Richard T. US 6158437 A
Solazzo; Anthony US 20060009742 A1
Fulbrook; Jason D. et al. US 7967137 B2
Andrich; Daniela US 20110218520 A1

Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to:
Tel [phone]
Fax [phone]
Email [e-mail]

The Examiner can be reached 8am-4pm Mon-Fri.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rebecca Eisenberg can be reached at 571-270-5879. The fax phone number for the organization where this application is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
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.

/Adam Marcetich/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781

Prosecution Timeline

• Apr 05, 2024: Application Filed
• Mar 25, 2026: Non-Final Rejection mailed — §DOUBLEPATENT (current)