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 .
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gillis et al. (US 2005/0182368)
Regarding claim 1, Taormina discloses
A securement device (figs. 1-8 and pars. 0027-0040) comprising:
a securement band (12, fig. 1);
a securement body (14, fig. 1) comprising a base (24) attached to the securement band (12, see fig. 1 and par. 0029) and further comprising a securement flange (flange of 28) and a termination end (22, fig. 1) which define a slot (30B, fig. 2A) connected to a grip channel (30A, fig. 2A), the grip channel (30A) formed therethrough the securement body (14, see figs. 1 and 2A) and configured to hold a single tube, line or cord (Examiner notes: the limitation “configured to hold…” is interpreted as functional limitation, and the limitation “a single tube, line or cord” is not positively recited in claim 1. See fig. 8 for the device being used to hold multiple tubes);
a securement strap (32, figs. 1 and 7A) connected to the base (24) and located at least partially around the securement body to sandwich the securement flange between the securement strap and the termination end (see fig. 1 and pars. 0029-0030, see also figs. 7A-8 and pars. 0037 and 0039), the securement strap (32) configured to apply an increasing level of tension to the securement body as the securement strap is tightened around the securement flange and the termination end to create compression of the securement body (see fig. 1 and pars. 0029-0030, see also figs. 7A-8 and pars. 0037 and 0039. Examiner notes: the limitation “configured to apply…” is interpreted as functional limitation. See par. 0028 for 14 being a flexible member, and see par. 0030 for 32 being an elastic member. Therefore, 32 is capable of performing the claimed functional limitation),
wherein the securement body (14), when under tension, deforms to prevent at least a portion of the at least one tube, line or cord held by the securement body from moving within the securement body due to a pull force (see figs. 1-8 and pars. 0028-0030, 0037 and 0039. Examiner notes: the limitation “deforms to prevent…” is interpreted as functional limitation. See par. 0028 for 14 being a flexible member, and see par. 0030 for 32 being an elastic member. Therefore, 14 and 32 are capable of performing the claimed functional limitation).
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Roddy (US 2018/0207416)
Regarding claim 1, Roddy discloses
A securement device (910 in figs. 9A-9B. Examiner notes: par. 0059 discloses embodiment 910 in figs. 9A-9B is similar to the medical tubing organizer 10 in figs. 1A-1C such that “only the differences between the medical tubing organizers will be discussed in detail. In addition, components or features described with respect to only one or some of the embodiments described herein are equally applicable to any other embodiments described herein. For example, the various connectors between bases and the structure 18 may be interchangeable between embodiments, as are the various adjustment mechanisms used for adjusting the projections used to retain the medical tubes, and as are the particular projection shapes used in the various embodiments”) comprising:
a securement band (44, see fig. 1A);
a securement body (970, figs. 9A-9B and par. 0076) comprising a base (920) attached to the securement band (44. Examiner notes: see fig. 1 for base 20 attached to bands/straps 44. See par. 0059 for base 920 being similar to base 20 since “similar components are designated with similar references numbers plus 900 for the embodiment in figs. 9A-9B) and further comprising a securement flange (960) and a termination end (the left end of 970 and the right end of 970, see annotated fig. 9A below) which define a slot (964/top opening between two elements 960, see annotated fig. 9A below) connected to a grip channel (bottom/circle opening between two elements 960, see annotated fig. 9A below), the grip channel (see annotated fig. 9A below) formed therethrough the securement body (970) and configured to hold a single tube, line or cord (Examiner notes: the limitation “configured to hold…” is interpreted as functional limitation, and the limitation “a single tube, line or cord” is not positively recited in claim 1. See fig. 1 for the device 10 configured to hold tube 14);
a securement strap (974, figs. 9A-9B) connected to the base (920) and located at least partially around the securement body (970) to sandwich the securement flange (960) between the securement strap (974) and the termination end (the left end and the right end of 970), the securement strap (974) configured to apply an increasing level of tension to the securement body as the securement strap is tightened around the securement flange and the termination end to create compression of the securement body (see fig. 9B and pars. 0076-0078),
wherein the securement body (970), when under tension, deforms to prevent at least a portion of the at least one tube, line or cord held by the securement body from moving within the securement body due to a pull force (see fig. 9B and pars. 0076-0078).
Regarding claim 2, Roddy discloses
The device of claim 1 wherein the securement strap (974) and the securement body (970) are formed integrally (see par. 0076 for 974 extending from a side of 970).
Regarding claim 3, Roddy discloses
The device of claim 1 wherein, when the securement body (970) is under tension by the securement strap (974), the securement flange (960) and termination end (the left end and the right end of 970) deform to generate hoop stress around the grip channel to prevent at least a portion of the at least one tube, line or cord from moving within the securement body (see fig. 9B and pars. 0076-0078).
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 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim(s) is/are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim(s) of U.S. Patent No. 12,036,374. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all of the limitations of the application claims can be found in the patent claims.
Instant application 18/772,155
U.S. Patent No. 12,036,374
Claim 1
Claim 1 or Claim 9 or Claim 22
Claim 2
Claim 24
Claim 3
Claim 9
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO 892 form.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUNG T ULSH whose telephone number is (571)272-9894. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-6pm.
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.
/DUNG T ULSH/Examiner, Art Unit 3783
Prosecution Insights