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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hinchliffe (US 5957888 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Hinchliffe discloses (see abstract; col. 3 line 55-col. 8 line 20; figs. 1-15) a portal saver device (fig. 4), comprising:
a tubular flexible body (body of anchor assembly 54, col. 5 lines 18-27) extending distally from a dermal threaded body (extends distally from sleeve 14 which is threaded via helical scoring 50, col. 5 lines 11-17; figs. 1 and 4);
wherein the tubular flexible body is movable radially with respect to the dermal threaded body (considered to be radially movable when collar 56 is expanded, col. 5 lines 18-27); and
a first seal (valve assembly 16, col. 4 lines 1-7) and a second seal (20, col. 4 lines 25-42) connected to the dermal threaded body (fig. 4).
Regarding claim 3, Hinchliffe discloses the portal saver device of claim 1. Hinchliffe further discloses further comprising external threads on the dermal threaded body (helical scoring 50, fig. 4).
Regarding claim 4, Hinchliffe discloses the portal saver device of claim 1. Hinchliffe further discloses wherein the first seal comprises a circular opening (depicted in fig. 2).
Regarding claim 7, Hinchliffe discloses the portal saver device of claim 1. Hinchliffe further discloses wherein the tubular flexible body is a single continuous piece of material (formed from an elastic material, considered to be a single continuous piece of material, since Hinchliffe is otherwise silent as to collar 56 being formed of multiple pieces of material, col. 5 lines 17-27).
Regarding claim 1, Hinchliffe discloses (see abstract; col. 3 line 55-col. 8 line 20; figs. 1-15), under an alternative interpretation with respect to the tubular flexible body, a portal saver device (fig. 4), comprising:
a tubular flexible body (includes body of anchor assembly 54, one-way valve 58 and supply tube 60, col. 5 lines 18-27) extending distally from a dermal threaded body (considered to include at least a portion extending distally from helical scoring 50 of sleeve 14, col. 5 lines 11-17; figs. 1 and 4);
wherein the tubular flexible body is movable radially with respect to the dermal threaded body (considered to be radially movable when collar 56 is expanded, col. 5 lines 18-27); and
a first seal (valve assembly 16, col. 4 lines 1-7) and a second seal (20, col. 4 lines 25-42) connected to the dermal threaded body (fig. 4).
Regarding claim 6, Hinchliffe discloses the portal saver device of claim 1. Hinchliffe further discloses wherein the tubular flexible body comprises a seal along its length (one-way valve 58).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hinchliffe in view of Albrecht (US 2007/0213675 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Hinchliffe discloses the portal saver device of claim 1.
Hinchliffe further discloses the tubular flexible body composed of a polymer (col. 5 lines 17-27).
However, Hinchliffe fails to disclose wherein the tubular flexible body is composed of thermoplastic urethane (TPU).
Albrecht teaches (paras. [0062]-[0076]; figs. 17 and 19), in the same field of endeavor, a portal saver device (fig. 17) comprising a tubular flexible body (balloon 400) composed of thermoplastic urethane (paras. [0062] and [0076]), for the purpose of forming the balloon of an appropriate material that provides increased gas retention and improved durability (paras. [0070] and [0076]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to compose the collar of Hinchliffe with a polymer such as a thermoplastic urethane, in order to form the collar of an appropriate material that provides increased gas retention and improved durability, based on the teachings of Albrecht (paras. [0070] and [0076]).
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hinchliffe in view of Reid (US 2017/0095269 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Hinchliffe discloses the portal saver device of claim 1.
However, Hinchliffe fails to disclose wherein the second seal comprises an opening formed from three slits converging at a central location.
Reid teaches (paras. [0044]-[0048]; fig. 1), in the same field of endeavor, a cannula seal assembly (fig. 1) comprising a seal (8) comprising an opening formed from three slits converging at a central location (intersecting three-slit trifold form, para. [0045]), in place of a duckbill seal (para. [0045]).
The substitution of one known element (intersecting three-slit seal) for another (duckbill seal, para. [0045] of Reid, col. 4 lines 25-42 of Hinchliffe) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, since the substitution of the intersecting three-slit seal as taught by Reid, would have yielded predictable results, specifically, preventing fluid backflow when desired in which one or more slits are held closed, but which are opened to allow fluid or an object to pass through the seal, providing a larger number of slits to better conform to the instrument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2005/0049624 A1 to Francese, disclosing a surgical port device.
US 2009/0306586 A1 to Ross, disclosing a laterally expandable access cannula.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIGID K BYRD whose telephone number is (571)272-7698. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00.
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, Darwin Erezo can be reached at (571)-272-4695. 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.
/BRIGID K BYRD/Examiner, Art Unit 3771