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 on 04/11/2024, has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “valve sealed housing portion includes diametrically opposed spring biased latches for detachably engaging an upper reception portion of the single lumen tubular body portion” (as recited in claims 37 and 44) (the examiner notes that the specification and drawings only recite/show this feature for the “gas sealed housing portion”) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 39 is objected to because of the following informalities: The word “a” should be inserted between the words “houses” and “mechanical.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 40 is objected to because of the following informalities: The words “of the” should be inserted between the words “portion” and “single” in the 7th line of the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 36, 37, 43, and 44, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
[Claims 36, 37, 43, and 44] The claims recite the limitation of “spring biased latches.” The originally filed specification does not support this recitation (the examiner notes only “spring-loaded locking tabs” are supported). As such, the limitations of claims 36, 37, 43, and 44, are considered new matter.
[Claims 37 and 44] The claims recite the limitation of “the valve sealed housing portion includes diametrically opposed spring biased latches for detachably engaging an upper reception portion of the single lumen tubular body portion.” As also noted in the drawing objections above, the originally filed specification only support this feature relative to the “gas sealed housing portion.” As such, the limitations of claims 37 and 44 are considered new matter.
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.
Claims 35 and 42 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.
[Claims 35 and 42] The claims recite the limitation of “the form of a luer type fitting” in the 2nd line of the claims. There is a lack of antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. Further, the examiner is unable to determine the metes and bounds of the claims, since it is unclear if the limitation requires a luer type fitting or simply any structure similar to a luer type fitting. For purposes of examination, it is interpreted that the claims require a luer type fitting.
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.
Claims 33, 35, 39, 40, 42, and 45, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by McGinley et al. (PGPub 2015/0173792).
[Claims 33, 40, and 45] McGinley teaches a surgical access port system (figures 7 and 8; paragraph [0062]) comprising:
a reusable single lumen tubular body portion (figure 8, item 5) having an upper reception portion (figure 8, proximal portion of the tubular body, near item 18a);
a valve sealed housing portion (figure 40, item 3 OR figure 40, items 101/103/110) adapted and configured for detachable engagement with the upper reception portion (figure 8, proximal portion of the tubular body, near item 18a) of the single lumen tubular body portion (figure 8, item 5) to form a valve sealed access port (paragraph [0063]), wherein the valve sealed housing portion accommodates a duckbill valve (the examiner notes the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “accommodates” is defined as “capable of providing a space for”; as such, the “duckbill valve” of claim 40 is only functionally recited); and
a gas sealed housing portion (figure 40, item 3 OR figure 40, items 101/103/110) adapted and configured for detachable engagement with the upper reception portion (figure 8, proximal portion of the tubular body, near item 18a) of the single lumen tubular body portion (figure 8, item 5) to form a gas sealed access port (paragraph [0063]), wherein the gas sealed housing portion accommodates an annular jet assembly configured to generate a gaseous sealing zone within a central bore of the single lumen tubular body portion (the examiner notes the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “accommodates” is defined as “capable of providing a space for”; as such, the “annular jet assembly” and associated limitations of claim 40, as well as the limitations of claim 45, are only functionally recited).
The examiner notes that the currently recited claim limitations do not explicitly define the terms “valve sealed” and/or “gas sealed.” As such, the claim limitations only require “housing portions” which meet the recited associated functional limitations of each portion. Given this and as noted in the rejection above, the examiner notes the structures for the “valve sealed housing portion” and the “gas sealed housing portion” can be defined interchangeably.
[Claim 39] McGinley teaches the limitations of claim 33, upon which claim 39 depends. In addition, McGinley discloses the valve sealed housing portion (figure 40, item 3 OR figure 40, items 101/103/110) houses a mechanical duckbill valve (figure 40, item 103) (paragraphs [0091], [0092]).
[Claims 35 and 42] McGinley teaches the limitations of claims 33 and 40, upon which claims 35 and 42 depend. McGinley further discloses the valve sealed housing portion (figure 40, item 3 OR figure 40, items 101/103/110) includes a gas inlet path in the form of a luer type fitting (figure 41, item 111) (see 112b interpretation above) (figure 41; paragraph [0099]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 36, 37, 43, and 44, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McGinley et al. (PGPub 2015/0173792).
[Claims 36 and 43] McGinley teaches the limitations of claims 33 and 40, upon which claims 36 and 43 depend. McGinley does not specifically disclose the gas sealed housing portion (figure 40, item 3 OR figure 40, items 101/103/110) includes diametrically opposed spring biased latches for detachably engaging an upper reception portion of the single lumen tubular body portion.
However, McGinley teaches the upper reception portion of the single lumen tubular body portion (figure 8, item 5) comprises diametrically opposed spring biased latches (figure 6, items 7/7a) for detachably engaging the gas sealed housing portion (figure 40, item 3 OR figure 40, items 101/103/110) (figures 6-8; paragraphs [0065]-[0067]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the structure taught by McGinley, to relocate the spring biased latches onto the gas sealed housing portion, since it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167.
[Claims 37 and 44] McGinley teaches the limitations of claims 33 and 40, upon which claims 37 and 44 depend. McGinley does not specifically disclose the valve sealed housing portion (figure 40, item 3 OR figure 40, items 101/103/110) includes diametrically opposed spring biased latches for detachably engaging an upper reception portion of the single lumen tubular body portion.
However, McGinley teaches the upper reception portion of the single lumen tubular body portion (figure 8, item 5) comprises diametrically opposed spring biased latches (figure 6, items 7/7a) for detachably engaging the valve sealed housing portion (figure 40, item 3 OR figure 40, items 101/103/110) (figures 6-8; paragraphs [0065]-[0067]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the structure taught by McGinley, to relocate the spring biased latches onto the valve sealed housing portion, since it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167.
Claims 34 and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McGinley et al. (PGPub 2015/0173792), in view of Mastri et al. (USPN 9,526,886).
[Claims 34 and 41] McGinley teaches the limitations of claims 33 and 40, upon which claims 34 and 41 depend. Although disclosing the gas sealed housing portion (figure 40, item 3 OR figure 40, items 101/103/110) comprises a gas inlet path (aperture created by luer fitting 111) and a gas outlet path (aperture communication with trocar cannula 5) (paragraph [0100]), McGinley does not specifically disclose a manifold wherein the paths are concentrically arranged.
However, Mastri teaches a surgical access port (figure 1, item 200) comprising concentrically arranged inlet (figure 1, item 222) and outlet (figure 1, item 226) paths (figure 1; column 5, lines 25-35).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the gas sealed housing portion of McGinley, to utilize a concentric inlet and outlet manifold, as taught by Mastri, in order to provide improved design and functionality, by allowing for a more compact structure whereby less tubing is utilized to and from the access port.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 38 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON E FLICK whose telephone number is (571)270-7024. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7 a.m.-3 p.m. Eastern Time.
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.
/JASON E FLICK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3783 09/23/2026
Prosecution Insights