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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 25 March 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 5-6, 10-11 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and not persuasive. Applicant argues Schultz does not teach the claimed limitation of the “cannulated tubing diameter being larger than the second diameter and adapter channel diameter being larger than the first, second diameter and cannulated tubing”. Applicant argues that Schultz fit around does not teach “deliberately oversized /larger relative to the cannulated tubing diameter”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As seen in figures 1-2 of Schultz, the second diameter i.e., the diameter of 101, mating with 121 cannulated tubing 121 and fulfills the limitation of the cannulated tubing diameter being larger than the second diameter. There is no explicit recitation regarding for example, the entirety of the cannulated tubing being larger or that the stepped up diameter being prevalent on the entire tubing. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The limitations merely recite the cannulated tubing diameter being larger than the second diameter and adapter channel diameter being larger than the first, second diameter and cannulated tubing which is taught by Schultz. Applicant is invited to further limit the scope of the claims to overcome the prior art.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Applicant argues that the “easy manipulation of the tip” cannot be the rationale to re-dimension the internal flow path to the specific stepped up geometry. Examiner respectfully disagrees. To clarify, Examiner is not modifying the entirety of the diameter of the cannulated tubing but merely the distal end that allows the fitting to occur thus helping the practitioner manipulate the adapter tip. The claims recite “the cannulated tubing diameter being larger than the second diameter and adapter channel diameter being larger than the first, second diameter and cannulated tubing”. The claims do not require the entirety of the diameter being larger. Thus claims1, 5-6, and 10-11 remain rejected.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vandenberg (US 5921970) in view of Schultz (US 7955318).
Regarding claim 1, Vandenberg discloses a suction system (entire device as depicted in figure 1), comprising: a Yankauer suction device (100, figure 1-2, Yankauer suction devices are typically used in suction device and fluid collection) having a distal tip with a first diameter (28 has a diameter) and a proximal end, the proximal end having a second diameter (end 106 has a diameter, figure 2); wherein the second diameter is greater than the first diameter (figure 2 appears to depict the catheter proximal end having a larger diameter); cannulated tubing (102) having a distal end (110) and a proximal end (108), the distal end configured to mate with the proximal end of the Yankauer suction device (figure 2); an adapter (16) having a distal end and a proximal end (ends of 16), an adapter channel having an adapter channel diameter extending therebetween (inner diameter of 16); the distal end configured to mate with the proximal end of the cannulated tubing (figure 1). Further, Vandenberg discloses a channel (22, figure 2) extending from the distal tip of the Yankauer suction device to the proximal end of the Yankauer suction device, the channel having an inner diameter increasing from the first diameter of the distal tip to the second diameter of the proximal end (col 5, lines 62-67 to col6, lines 1-2, figure 2, the diameter at the hole of the distal tip is smaller than the diameter at the proximal tip).
Vandenberg does not disclose wherein the cannulated tubing diameter therebetween being larger than the second diameter and the adapter channel diameter is larger than the first diameter and second diameter, and the cannulated tubing diameter.
Schultz discloses a suction device and teaches a cannulated tubing (121) with a diameter therebetween of larger than the second diameter (101, figure 1, the cannulated tuibn fits around the end 101 thus being larger than the second diameter), an adapter (110’, figure 1, with an adapter channel (103) having an adapter channel diameter (diameter of 103) extending therebetween, wherein the adapter channel diameter is larger than the first diameter and second diameter and the cannulated tubing diameter (end diameter fits around the tubing at end 154 thus being larger than that portion, figure 1).
Schultz provides an adapter with a large bore to help medical practitioners manipulate the adapter tip during procedures (col 10, lines 54-61). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date to modify the adapter with the arrangement in Schultz in order to provide easy manipulation of the tip while providing an adapter to the tubing.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vandenberg in view of Schultz further in view of Joslin (US 4455140).
Regarding claims 5-6, Vandenberg does not disclose wherein the distal end of the cannulated tubing is a first flared end and the proximal end of the cannulated tubing is a second flared end, wherein an inner diameter of the cannulated tubing increases from a central position toward the first flared end and toward the second flared end.
Joslin discloses a suction collection device wherein the distal end of the cannulated tubing (42) is a first flared end (end connected to catheter 44, figure 1) and the proximal end of the cannulated tubing is a second flared end (end connected to adapter 40, figure 1), wherein an inner diameter of the cannulated tubing increases from a central position toward the first flared end and toward the second flared end (figure 1 depicts the tubing increases from the central diameter toward the ends of the tubing).
Joslin provides the cannulated tubing in order to connect the catheter to a vacuum source (col 3, lines 24-34). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date to modify Vandenberg by substituting the tubing with the tubing of Joslin to connect the catheter to a vacuum source, as the tubing appears to be a functional equivalent way of connecting the catheter to a source and collection container.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vandenberg in view of Schultz further in view of Yarger (US 7794421).
Regarding claim 10, Vandenberg does not disclose the suction device comprising one or more flats extending along the length of the proximal end of the adapter.
Yarger discloses a tip end assembly in the same field of endeavor as the Applicant. Yarger discloses the suction device (34) comprising one or more flats (flat areas in grip 22) extending along the length of the proximal end of the adapter.
Yarger provides the grip flats in order to aid the user in gripping the device (col 4, lines 1-6). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date to modify the adapter of Vandenberg with the flat areas of Yarger in order to aid the user in gripping the suction device.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vandenberg in view of Schultz further in view of Ryhman (US 7350834).
Regarding claim 11, Vandenberg does not disclose wherein the distal end of the adapter includes exterior hose barbs and the proximal end of the Yankauer suction device have exterior hose barbs, and wherein the exterior hose barbs of the adapter match the exterior hose barbs on the proximal end of the Yankauer suction device.
Ryhman discloses a coupling device for holding piping together relatively pertinent to problem posed by Applicant of joining tubing together. Ryhman teaches a coupling device 1 that couples two ends (10, figure 3a) with each tubing having exterior hose barbs (11) that can also be grooves (col 3, lines 35-43) which would match each other and couple to the coupling device between them.
Ryhman provides the two pipes with flanges/grooves in order to prevent against advertent disengagement of the coupling (col 3, lines 5-15). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date to modify the coupling ends of Vandenberg with the coupling ends of Ryhman in order to prevent against advertent disengagement of the coupling.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 KAI H WENG whose telephone number is (571)272-5852. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Rebecca Eisenberg can be reached on (571) 270-5879. 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.
/KAI H WENG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781
Prosecution Insights