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 .
Response to Amendment
This is in response to amendment received on 03/18/26. Claims 1, 7, 8, 10, 13, and 14 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are examined herein.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the title is repeated in the abstract. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The use of the term BLUETOOTH, which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be entirely capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: support needs to be provided for the limitations “one or more couplers positioned along a top edge of the outer panel configured to removable attach the top edge of the upper panel, the first member and the mating second strip member positioned below and spaced from the one or more couplers”, “wherein the mating second strip is flexible so as to be bendable with the outer panel”, and “the outer panel is partially openable” as found in claims 1, 8 and 14.
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.
Claim 10 is 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. It is unclear what the metes and bounds of “soft” when referring to the strip flexible material. What materials would or would not read on the term “soft”? What one person calls “soft” another person may not call “soft”, therefore, since the term is indefinite and the specification fails to define the meaning of “soft” and therefore it is unclear what is required of the claimed structure.
Any remaining claims are rejected depending from a rejected base claim.
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) 1, 3 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bentley et al. (US 2016/0050995).
In regard to claim 1, Bentley et al. teaches a medical apparatus for retaining at least one medical device (garment: 510), comprising: a garment, the garment comprising a body portion comprising an outward facing surface and an inward facing surface (figures 13-17), the outward facing surface further comprising a front panel (560A), an upper panel (520) and a lower panel (540) (paragraph 0095, figures 13-17), wherein both the upper panel and the lower panel are attached to the front panel about a first seam (common seam: 564, figure 14, paragraph 0105); the body portion comprising, a juxtaposition of the upper panel and the lower panel (paragraph 0092), the juxtaposition defining an access opening (paragraph 0092, access opening: 570), the access opening providing access from the outward facing surface to the inward facing surface between the upper portion and the lower portion (see figures 13-19); an anchor secured on the outward facing surface (anchor: 586), the anchor comprising a first strip member and a mating second strip member hingedly joined to the first strip member (see figure 20A), and wherein the anchor is configured for releasable securement of a first portion of a first medical device (paragraph 0092); and an outer panel affixed to and selectively detachable from the body portion along at least one peripheral edge (outer panel: 552 detachable along edge 558: see figure 15), the outer panel having a first peripheral edge attached to a front of the body portion by a second seam (seam 554, paragraph 0105) and the outer panel spanning at least a portion of the access opening and defining a selectively closeable pocket configured to retain a second portion of the first medical device (paragraph 0108).
In regard to claim 3, Bentley et al. teaches wherein the anchor is configured for releasable securement of a first length of catheter tube as the first portion, and the selectively closeable pocket is configured to retain a second length of catheter tube as the second portion (anchor: 586 and pocket (P) created by cover panel 552, paragraph 0108).
In regard to claim 7, Bentley et al. teaches further comprising a side retention strap affixed to a side portion of the garment (shoulder strap: 583), the side retention strap being selectively detachable from the side of the garment for securing a third portion of the first medical device to the garment (see figures 17 and 18); and a shoulder strap selectively detachable from the garment along one end for securing a portion of the medical device (shoulder strap on opposite shoulder as seen in figures 17 and 18).
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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bentley et al. (US 2016/0050995) in view of Rogers (US 7,418,741).
Bentley teaches a medial apparatus as described above in claim 1. However, Bentley fails to teach the mating second strip member being hingedly joined to the first strip member by a sewn coupling.
In regard to claim 2, Rogers teaches a first strip member and a second strip member of an anchor joined by stitching to form a hinge (see figure 4B detailing the stitching creating the hinge of first and second strip members: 50 and 46).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to one having ordinary skill in the art to have provided the anchor of Bentley et al. being an anchor with a first and second strip hingedly joined via a sewn seam as taught by Rogers, since the anchor of Bentley et al. provided with a first strip member and a second strip member hingedly attached by stitching would create a strong and secure coupling that would allow the first and second strip members to hinge and flex with respect to each other to assist with holding of a medical device therein. Here we are taking one well-known medical device anchor and replacing it with another well-known medical device anchor.
Claim(s) 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bentley et al. (US 2016/0050995) in view of Zinreich (US 5,795,335).
Bentley teaches a medial apparatus as described above in claim 1. However, Bentley et al. fails to teach wherein the anchor comprises a plurality of spaced apart joining members configured to releasably secure the first medical device.
In regard to claim 4, Zinreich teaches an anchor for medical tubing comprising a plurality of spaced apart joining members configured to releasably secure the first medical device (16) (42) (see figure 2 and abstract).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to one having ordinary skill in the art to have provided the anchor of Bentley et al. to be an anchor comprising a plurality of spaced apart joining members as taught by Zinreich, since the anchor of Bentley et al. comprising a plurality of spaced apart joining members would provide an anchor that not only secures the medical tubing but also protects the medical tubing held therein (see column 1, lines 5-9 of Zinreich).
In regard to claim 5, Zinreich teaches wherein the plurality of spaced apart joining members comprise one or more of snaps, hooks, or adhesive surfaces (see column 1, lines 5-9 of Zinreich and figure 2, identifiers 16 and 26).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to one having ordinary skill in the art to have provided the anchor of Bentley et al. to be an anchor comprising a plurality of spaced apart hook members as taught by Zinreich, since the anchor of Bentley et al. comprising a plurality of spaced apart hook members would provide an anchor that not only secures the medical tubing but also protects the medical tubing held therein (see column 1, lines 5-9 of Zinreich).
In regard to claim 6, Zinreich teaches wherein the anchor comprises a color coding, the color coding being a visual indication for communicating information relating to a type of the first medical device being secured therein, the visual indication comprising one or more of a color indicator, a text indicator, and a spatial indicator (column 4, lines 12-14).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to one having ordinary skill in the art to have provided the anchor of Bentley et al. to be an anchor with color coding as taught by Zinreich, since the anchor of Bentley et al. comprising color coded members would provide an anchor that helps secure the proper medical device/tubing into the correct sized retainer (Zinreich: column 4, lines 12-14).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-9 and 11-20 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/18/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALISSA L HOEY whose telephone number is (571)272-4985. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00-5:30 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, Clinton T Ostrup can be reached at (571)272-5559. 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.
ALISSA L. HOEY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3732
/ALISSA L HOEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732