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
Claims 1, 5, and 25 have been amended. Claims 7-8, 16-18 and 26 have been canceled. Claims 1-3, 5-6, 15, 19-20, 22-25 and 27-28 remain pending.
Claim 19 was previously objected to and has been amended to overcome the objection. The objection to claim 19 is accordingly withdrawn.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5-6, 15, 19, 22-25, and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiltebrandt et al. (US Pat. No. 4207887, henceforth Hiltebrandt) in view of Takami et al. (US Pat. No. 6328690, henceforth Takami) and Yamaki et al. (JP 2003250886, henceforth Yamaki, which has a machine translation of its specification attached).
Regarding claim 1, Hiltebrandt discloses a gas feeding apparatus (assembly of fig. 3) for use with an endoscope (outer shell 16, fig. 3, which appears to be an endoscope since it is at least partially for insufflating gas similar to an endoscope), the gas feeding apparatus comprising: a pressure sensor (pressure gauge 6, fig. 3) configured to measure a pressure (gas pressure in intermediate container 5, fig. 3) in a gas feeding bottle (intermediate container 5, fig. 3), the gas feeding bottle is provided between a gas supply source (compressed gas bottle 1, shown in fig. 1 and understood to be present in the embodiment of fig. 3) and a gas feeding conduit of the endoscope (cannula 13, fig. 3); and a control circuit (the controller of Col. 1 lines 28-56 is considered to be a control circuit as claimed and is responsible for measuring with pressure gauges and automatic valve control) open a valve (safety valve 7, fig. 3) capable of releasing the gas in the gas feeding apparatus to an ambient environment outside of the endoscope (while not explicitly disclosed, it is understood from the figures of Hiltebrandt that safety valve 7 is meant to release the gas of the intermediate container 5 somewhere other than the tubing which it is connected to since the valve is shown as not being attached to any other structures in the schematic; this other location can be considered an ambient environment outside of the endoscope as claimed since the gas is not flowing towards cannula 13 of outer shell 16 thereof).
Hiltebrandt does not disclose that the control circuit is configured to: detect a point in time when a gas feeding has started based on the measured pressure, or control a gas feeding amount from the gas feeding bottle to the gas feeding conduit, based on the point in time. Takami teaches a controller which is configured to detect a point in time when a gas feeding has started based on a measured pressure (see fig. 3 and see Col. 6 lines 37-58, the figure and description include a large pressure drop off when the main valve is opened at time T4 where a measured pressure drops below a set threshold such as to confirm to the machine that gas feeding has started properly).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured the control circuit of Hiltebrandt to have detected a point in time when a gas feeding has started based on the measured pressure as in Takami for as this is taught as an art effective means of determining whether or not a gas feeding has started and allows for further valve and compressor/decompressor control as appropriate for a given system depending on whether or not a gas feeding is occurring (see fig. 3 and see Col. 6 lines 37-58). Such a modified device would have then disclosed that the control circuit was configured to control a gas feeding amount from the gas feeding bottle to the gas feeding conduit, based on the point in time as claimed (detection of a starting of a gas feeding in the modified device would include the control circuit controlling a gas feeding amount from the intermediate container 5 to the cannula 13 as disclosed in Col. 3 lines 7-31 as an additional valve 20 and pressure switch 26 which control the amount of gas fed during gas feeding, and this is based on the point in time since it occurs after the gas feeding has started at the point in time).
Hiltebrandt as modified by Takami discloses that the detecting the point in time where the gas feeding has started based on the measured pressure is detecting a point in time when the measured pressure starts to decrease after the measured pressure is maintained at a constant predetermined value (see Takami fig. 3, a decrease in measured gas pressure beyond a threshold from a previous pressure value is what is used to detect the point in time and is considered to be a maintaining at a constant predetermined value where the value of the pressure prior to the pressure drop must necessarily be maintained for some time, even a single point in time, as the previous pressure which is the predetermined pressure exists at that time) for a predetermined time period (see Takami fig. 3, the pressure at the moment before T4 can be a single moment in time which is a predetermined time period which the pressure level exists for).
{Additionally, Examiner notes that claim 1 requires that the claimed control circuit is configured to detect a point in time when the measured pressure starts to decrease after the measured pressure is maintained at a constant predetermined value for a predetermined time period; this appears to be satisfied further by Hiltebrandt as modified by Takami as it is not a positive recitation of the pressure being constantly maintained at a value of a span of time including multiple time points, as the control circuit of Takami works by checking to see if pressure drops below a threshold (Level 2) after being above the threshold as taught in Takami Col. 6 lines 37-62; this would then mean that the control circuit is configured as claimed because it is capable of detecting such a point in time as claimed because if the pressure of fig. 3A were maintained at a constant value over a span of time including multiple time points and then dropped below pressure Level 2 as shown at time T4, the controller would detect the point in time. This is the configuration of the controller taught in Takami and would not require further programming. Thus, Hiltebrandt as modified discloses the claimed control circuit.}
Hiltebrandt as modified does not disclose that the circuit is configured to open the valve at the point in time so as to release the gas in the gas feeding apparatus to an ambient environment outside of the endoscope based on the measured pressure as claimed. Further, Hiltebrandt as modified does not disclose how the safety valve is meant to provide safety. Yamaki teaches that when gas flow has started and a valve has been opened (see Yamaki [0024], gas flow occurs when a manifold valve is opened at the initial point of the graph of fig. 4), there is an initial spike in the flow rate of the gas being fed (see fig. 4, there is a pictured spike, or overshoot, of the gas flow rate as measured by a sensor which is above the flow rate value once the gas flow as a part of gas feeding has stabilized as shown in fig. 4) which sees the flow rate go above a desired target value (see fig. 4, the desired target value is the flow rate value once the flow rate has stabilized, see fig. 4) and that there is a time period after the opening of the valve after which the flow rate stabilizes (see [0024]-[0026], the period of time can be about 240 ms until the flow rate stabilizes).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have opened the safety valve (7) of Hiltebrandt at the point in time that the gas feeding starts such as to release gas in the gas feeding apparatus to an ambient environment outside of the endoscope to minimize the initial amount of gas flowing through the endoscope and into the patient such as to prevent and/or minimize the gas feeding flow rate spike taught by Yamaki since there would be less gas flowing to create the spike and instead feed the gas closer to the desired flow rate.
Regarding claim 2, Hiltebrandt as modified discloses the apparatus of claim 1 wherein the gas feeding apparatus further comprises: an exhaust conduit (the tubing shown in the schematic which connects intermediate container 5 with pressure regulator 8 in fig. 3 is considered to be an exhaust conduit since it allows for gas to be passed through from intermediate container 5 as exhaust and into body cavity 14) connected with the gas feeding bottle (see fig. 3, the called out tubing is directly connected to intermediate container 5 as shown), and the valve configured to open and close the exhaust conduit (safety valve 7 is configured to open and close the connection between the exhaust conduit and the ambient environment outside of the endoscope which meets the limitations of the claim), and the control circuit is configured to control the valve based on the measured pressure (see the rejection of claim 1 above, safety valve 7 is configured to be opened by the controller at the point in time, and the point in time is detected based on the measured pressure, and thus the safety valve 7 is controlled based on the measured pressure via the point in time).
Regarding claim 15, Hiltebrandt as modified discloses the apparatus of claim 1 wherein the control circuit is configured to open the valve at the point in time (see the rejection of claim 1).
Hiltebrandt as modified does not explicitly disclose the apparatus of claim 1 wherein the control circuit is configured to close the valve after a predetermined time from the point in time. Yamaki teaches that the initial spike in gas flow only lasts for a short period of time from when a gas feeding is started and then stabilizes without an overshoot (see [0024]-[0026]; the spike in the gas flow rate lasts for a short period of time and then the gas flow rate stabilizes).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have closed the safety valve 7 of Hiltebrandt at a predetermined time from the point in time since the flow rate of the tube stabilizes after a predetermined time from the start of the gas feeding and thus spike prevention and minimization would not be needed after this predetermined point in time at which stabilization occurs. Further, while Yamaki calls out this time to stabilization as 240 ms, this time may change depending on the specifics of the tubing used and how the opening of the valve to allow gas to escape into the ambient environment outside of the endoscope would change, and it would be within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the teachings of Yamaki to be able to determine and optimize the predetermined amount of time and have the valve close after that time has passed to not waste excess gas by releasing it when it is not needed to be released for stabilization.
Regarding claim 23, Hiltebrandt as modified discloses the apparatus of claim 1 wherein the gas feeding is stopped before the point in time (see Takami fig. 3 and Yamaki [0024]-[0026], the gas feeding valve is closed prior to its opening which causes the decrease in pressure used for the detecting of the point in time which is further used to open the valve as claimed; this prior closure of the gas feeding valve is what causes the initial spike in gas flow rate as the flow rate has not stabilized yet due to the changing conditions as a result of the changed valve configuration).
Regarding claim 5, Hiltebrandt discloses a gas feeding system (assembly of fig. 3) including: a gas feeding apparatus (assembly of fig. 3 not including outer shell 16) configured to feed a gas (carbon dioxide or nitrous oxide gas, see Col. 2 lines 6-7) through a gas feeding conduit (cannula 13, fig. 3) provided in an endoscope (outer shell 16, fig. 3, which appears to be an endoscope since it is at least partially for insufflating gas similar to an endoscope); and a gas feeding bottle (intermediate container 5, fig. 3) provided between the gas feeding apparatus and the gas feeding conduit (since the intermediate container 5 is in the middle of the assembly of fig. 3, it has a portion of the gas feeding apparatus which is upstream to it – this includes compress gas bottle 1 which is understood to be present in the embodiment of fig. 3, see Col. 3 lines 10-15 – and is upstream of cannula 13, the intermediate container 5 is considered to be provided between the structures as claimed), the gas feeding apparatus comprising: a pressure sensor (pressure gauge 6, fig. 3) configured to measure a pressure in the gas feeding bottle (pressure gauge 6, fig. 3); and a control circuit (the controller of Col. 1 lines 28-56 is considered to be a control circuit as claimed and is responsible for measuring with pressure gauges and automatic valve control) configured to: open a valve (safety valve 7, fig. 3) capable of releasing the gas in the gas feeding apparatus to an ambient environment outside of the endoscope (while not explicitly disclosed, it is understood from the figures of Hiltebrandt that safety valve 7 is meant to release the gas of the intermediate container 5 somewhere other than the tubing which it is connected to since the valve is shown as not being attached to any other structures in the schematic; this other location can be considered an ambient environment outside of the endoscope as claimed since the gas is not flowing towards cannula 13 of outer shell 16 thereof).
Hiltebrandt does not disclose that the control circuit is configured to: detect a point in time when a gas feeding has started based on the measured pressure, or control a gas feeding amount from the gas feeding bottle to the gas feeding conduit, based on the point in time. Takami teaches a controller which is configured to detect a point in time when a gas feeding has started based on a measured pressure (see fig. 3 and see Col. 6 lines 37-58, the figure and description include a large pressure drop off when the main valve is opened at time T4 where a measured pressure drops below a set threshold such as to confirm to the machine that gas feeding has started properly).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured the control circuit of Hiltebrandt to have detected a point in time when a gas feeding has started based on the measured pressure as in Takami for as this is taught as an art effective means of determining whether or not a gas feeding has started and allows for further valve and compressor/decompressor control as appropriate for a given system depending on whether or not a gas feeding is occurring (see fig. 3 and see Col. 6 lines 37-58). Such a modified device would have then disclosed that the control circuit was configured to control a gas feeding amount from the gas feeding bottle to the gas feeding conduit, based on the point in time as claimed (detection of a starting of a gas feeding in the modified device would include the control circuit controlling a gas feeding amount from the intermediate container 5 to the cannula 13 as disclosed in Col. 3 lines 7-31 as an additional valve 20 and pressure switch 26 which control the amount of gas fed during gas feeding, and this is based on the point in time since it occurs after the gas feeding has started at the point in time).
Hiltebrandt as modified by Takami discloses that the detecting the point in time where the gas feeding has started based on the measured pressure is detecting a point in time when the measured pressure starts to decrease after the measured pressure is maintained at a constant predetermined value (see Takami fig. 3, a decrease in measured gas pressure beyond a threshold from a previous pressure value is what is used to detect the point in time and is considered to be a maintaining at a constant predetermined value where the value of the pressure prior to the pressure drop must necessarily be maintained for some time, even a single point in time, as the previous pressure which is the predetermined pressure exists at that time) for a predetermined time period (see Takami fig. 3, the pressure at the moment before T4 can be a single moment in time which is a predetermined time period which the pressure level exists for).
{Additionally, Examiner notes that claim 5 requires that the claimed control circuit is configured to detect a point in time when the measured pressure starts to decrease after the measured pressure is maintained at a constant predetermined value for a predetermined time period; this appears to be satisfied further by Hiltebrandt as modified by Takami as it is not a positive recitation of the pressure being constantly maintained at a value of a span of time including multiple time points, as the control circuit of Takami works by checking to see if pressure drops below a threshold (Level 2) after being above the threshold as taught in Takami Col. 6 lines 37-62; this would then mean that the control circuit is configured as claimed because it is capable of detecting such a point in time as claimed because if the pressure of fig. 3A were maintained at a constant value over a span of time including multiple time points and then dropped below pressure Level 2 as shown at time T4, the controller would detect the point in time. Thus, Hiltebrandt as modified discloses the claimed control circuit.}
Hiltebrandt as modified does not disclose that the circuit is configured to open the valve at the point in time so as to release the gas in the gas feeding apparatus to an ambient environment outside of the endoscope based on the measured pressure as claimed. Further, Hiltebrandt as modified does not disclose how the safety valve is meant to provide safety. Yamaki teaches that when gas flow has started and a valve has been opened (see Yamaki [0024], gas flow occurs when a manifold valve is opened at the initial point of the graph of fig. 4), there is an initial spike in the flow rate of the gas being fed (see fig. 4, there is a pictured spike, or overshoot, of the gas flow rate as measured by a sensor which is above the flow rate value once the gas flow as a part of gas feeding has stabilized as shown in fig. 4) which sees the flow rate go above a desired target value (see fig. 4, the desired target value is the flow rate value once the flow rate has stabilized, see fig. 4) and that there is a time period after the opening of the valve after which the flow rate stabilizes (see [0024]-[0026], the period of time can be about 240 ms until the flow rate stabilizes).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have opened the safety valve (7) of Hiltebrandt at the point in time that the gas feeding starts such as to release gas in the gas feeding apparatus to an ambient environment outside of the endoscope to minimize the initial amount of gas flowing through the endoscope and into the patient such as to prevent and/or minimize the gas feeding flow rate spike taught by Yamaki since there would be less gas flowing to create the spike and instead feed the gas closer to the desired flow rate.
Regarding claim 6, Hiltebrandt as modified discloses the system of claim 5 wherein the gas feeding system further comprises: an exhaust conduit (the tubing shown in the schematic which connects intermediate container 5 with pressure regulator 8 in fig. 3 is considered to be an exhaust conduit since it allows for gas to be passed through from intermediate container 5 as exhaust and into body cavity 14) connected with the gas feeding bottle (see fig. 3, the called out tubing is directly connected to intermediate container 5 as shown), and the valve configured to open and close the exhaust conduit (safety valve 7 is configured to open and close the connection between the exhaust conduit and the ambient environment outside of the endoscope which meets the limitations of the claim), and the control circuit is configured to control the valve based on the measured pressure (see the rejection of claim 5 above, safety valve 7 is configured to be opened by the controller at the point in time, and the point in time is detected based on the measured pressure, and thus the safety valve 7 is controlled based on the measured pressure via the point in time).
Regarding claim 19, Hiltebrandt as modified discloses the system of claim 5 wherein the gas feeding apparatus further comprises an exhaust conduit (the tubing shown in the schematic which connects intermediate container 5 with pressure regulator 8 in fig. 3 is considered to be an exhaust conduit since it allows for gas to be passed through from intermediate container 5 as exhaust and into body cavity 14; safety valve 7 is configured to open and close the connection between the exhaust conduit and the ambient environment outside of the endoscope which meets the limitations of the claim) configured to be opened and closed by the the valve (safety valve 7 is configured to open and close the connection between the exhaust conduit and the ambient environment outside of the endoscope which meets the limitations of the claim).
Regarding claim 22, Hiltebrandt as modified discloses the system of claim 5 wherein the control circuit is configured to open the valve at the point in time (see the rejection of claim 5).
Hiltebrandt as modified does not explicitly disclose the apparatus of claim 5 wherein the control circuit is configured to close the valve after a predetermined time from the point in time. Yamaki teaches that the initial spike in gas flow only lasts for a short period of time from when a gas feeding is started and then stabilizes without an overshoot (see [0024]-[0026]; the spike in the gas flow rate lasts for a short period of time and then the gas flow rate stabilizes).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have closed the safety valve 7 of Hiltebrandt at a predetermined time from the point in time since the flow rate of the tube stabilizes after a predetermined time from the start of the gas feeding and thus spike prevention and minimization would not be needed after this predetermined point in time at which stabilization occurs. Further, while Yamaki calls out this time to stabilization as 240 ms, this time may change depending on the specifics of the tubing used and how the opening of the valve to allow gas to escape into the ambient environment outside of the endoscope would change, and it would be within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the teachings of Yamaki to be able to determine and optimize the predetermined amount of time and have the valve close after that time has passed to not waste excess gas by releasing it when it is not needed to be released for stabilization.
Regarding claim 24, Hiltebrandt as modified discloses the system of claim 5 wherein the gas feeding is stopped before the point in time (see Takami fig. 3 and Yamaki [0024]-[0026], the gas feeding valve is closed prior to its opening which causes the decrease in pressure used for the detecting of the point in time which is further used to open the valve as claimed; this prior closure of the gas feeding valve is what causes the initial spike in gas flow rate as the flow rate has not stabilized yet due to the changing conditions as a result of the changed valve configuration).
Regarding claim 25, Hiltebrandt discloses a gas feeding apparatus (assembly of fig. 3) for use with an endoscope (outer shell 16, fig. 3, which appears to be an endoscope since it is at least partially for insufflating gas similar to an endoscope), the gas feeding apparatus comprising: a control circuit (the controller of Col. 1 lines 28-56 is considered to be a control circuit as claimed and is responsible for measuring with pressure gauges and automatic valve control) configured to: measure a pressure in a gas feeding bottle (gas pressure in intermediate container 5, fig. 3) by a pressure sensor (pressure gauge 6, fig. 3), control a gas feeding amount (the controller is responsible for the opening of additional valve 20 and pressure switch 26 which control the amount of gas fed during gas feeding as in Col. 3 lines 7-31) from the gas feeding bottle (intermediate container 5, fig. 3) to a gas feeding conduit of the endoscope (cannula 13, fig. 3); and open a valve (safety valve 7, fig. 3) capable of releasing the gas in the gas feeding apparatus to an ambient environment outside of the endoscope (while not explicitly disclosed, it is understood from the figures of Hiltebrandt that safety valve 7 is meant to release the gas of the intermediate container 5 somewhere other than the tubing which it is connected to since the valve is shown as not being attached to any other structures in the schematic; this other location can be considered an ambient environment outside of the endoscope as claimed since the gas is not flowing towards cannula 13 of outer shell 16 thereof).
Hiltebrandt does not disclose that the control circuit is configured to: detect a point in time when a gas feeding has started based on the measured pressure, or control a gas feeding amount from the gas feeding bottle to the gas feeding conduit, based on the point in time. Takami teaches a controller which is configured to detect a point in time when a gas feeding has started based on a measured pressure (see fig. 3 and see Col. 6 lines 37-58, the figure and description include a large pressure drop off when the main valve is opened at time T4 where a measured pressure drops below a set threshold such as to confirm to the machine that gas feeding has started properly).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured the control circuit of Hiltebrandt to have detected a point in time when a gas feeding has started based on the measured pressure as in Takami for as this is taught as an art effective means of determining whether or not a gas feeding has started and allows for further valve and compressor/decompressor control as appropriate for a given system depending on whether or not a gas feeding is occurring (see fig. 3 and see Col. 6 lines 37-58). Such a modified device would have then disclosed that the control circuit was configured to control a gas feeding amount from the gas feeding bottle to the gas feeding conduit, based on the point in time as claimed (detection of a starting of a gas feeding in the modified device would include the control circuit controlling a gas feeding amount from the intermediate container 5 to the cannula 13 as disclosed in Col. 3 lines 7-31 as an additional valve 20 and pressure switch 26 which control the amount of gas fed during gas feeding, and this is based on the point in time since it occurs after the gas feeding has started at the point in time).
Hiltebrandt as modified by Takami discloses that the detecting the point in time where the gas feeding has started based on the measured pressure is detecting a point in time when the measured pressure starts to decrease after the measured pressure is maintained at a constant predetermined value (see Takami fig. 3, a decrease in measured gas pressure beyond a threshold from a previous pressure value is what is used to detect the point in time and is considered to be a maintaining at a constant predetermined value where the value of the pressure prior to the pressure drop must necessarily be maintained for some time, even a single point in time, as the previous pressure which is the predetermined pressure exists at that time) for a predetermined time period (see Takami fig. 3, the pressure at the moment before T4 can be a single moment in time which is a predetermined time period which the pressure level exists for).
{Additionally, Examiner notes that claim 25 requires that the claimed control circuit is configured to detect a point in time when the measured pressure starts to decrease after the measured pressure is maintained at a constant predetermined value for a predetermined time period; this appears to be satisfied further by Hiltebrandt as modified by Takami as it is not a positive recitation of the pressure being constantly maintained at a value of a span of time including multiple time points, as the control circuit of Takami works by checking to see if pressure drops below a threshold (Level 2) after being above the threshold as taught in Takami Col. 6 lines 37-62; this would then mean that the control circuit is configured as claimed because it is capable of detecting such a point in time as claimed because if the pressure of fig. 3A were maintained at a constant value over a span of time including multiple time points and then dropped below pressure Level 2 as shown at time T4, the controller would detect the point in time. Thus, Hiltebrandt as modified discloses the claimed control circuit.}
Hiltebrandt as modified does not disclose that the circuit is configured to open the valve at the point in time so as to release the gas in the gas feeding apparatus to an ambient environment outside of the endoscope based on the measured pressure as claimed. Further, Hiltebrandt as modified does not disclose how the safety valve is meant to provide safety. Yamaki teaches that when gas flow has started and a valve has been opened (see Yamaki [0024], gas flow occurs when a manifold valve is opened at the initial point of the graph of fig. 4), there is an initial spike in the flow rate of the gas being fed (see fig. 4, there is a pictured spike, or overshoot, of the gas flow rate as measured by a sensor which is above the flow rate value once the gas flow as a part of gas feeding has stabilized as shown in fig. 4) which sees the flow rate go above a desired target value (see fig. 4, the desired target value is the flow rate value once the flow rate has stabilized, see fig. 4) and that there is a time period after the opening of the valve after which the flow rate stabilizes (see [0024]-[0026], the period of time can be about 240 ms until the flow rate stabilizes).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have opened the safety valve (7) of Hiltebrandt at the point in time that the gas feeding starts such as to release gas in the gas feeding apparatus to an ambient environment outside of the endoscope to minimize the initial amount of gas flowing through the endoscope and into the patient such as to prevent and/or minimize the gas feeding flow rate spike taught by Yamaki since there would be less gas flowing to create the spike and instead feed the gas closer to the desired flow rate.
Regarding claim 27, Hiltebrandt as modified discloses the apparatus of claim 25 further comprising an exhaust conduit (the tubing shown in the schematic which connects intermediate container 5 with pressure regulator 8 in fig. 3 is considered to be an exhaust conduit since it allows for gas to be passed through from intermediate container 5 as exhaust and into body cavity 14) connected with the gas feeding bottle (see fig. 3, the called out tubing is directly connected to intermediate container 5 as shown), wherein the valve is configured to open and close the exhaust conduit (safety valve 7 is configured to open and close the connection between the exhaust conduit and the ambient environment outside of the endoscope which meets the limitations of the claim).
Claim(s) 3, 20, and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiltebrandt et al. (US Pat. No. 4207887, henceforth Hiltebrandt) in view of Takami et al. (US Pat. No. 6328690, henceforth Takami) and Yamaki et al. (JP 2003250886, henceforth Yamaki, which has a machine translation of its specification attached) as applied to claims 2, 6, and 27 above, respectively, and further in view of Gord et al. (US Pat. No. 6238365, henceforth Gord) and Mantell (US 20090082718, henceforth Mantell).
Regarding claims 3, 20, and 28, Hiltebrandt as modified discloses the apparatus of the respective claims which claims 3, 20, and 28 are dependent on.
Hiltebrandt is silent as to the inner diameter of the exhaust conduit and the inner diameter of the gas feeding conduit, and thus Hiltebrandt as modified does not disclose the respective apparatuses wherein an inner diameter of the exhaust conduit is larger than an inner diameter of the gas feeding conduit. Gord teaches a gas feeding conduit with a needle for insufflation to be inserted into a body cavity as having a small internal diameter (see col. 6 lines 39-42, the internal diameter of the needle can be approximately 3 mm, or approximately 1/8 inches). Mantell teaches an exhaust conduit (output line 12 and first tube 14, figs. 2 and 3) with a large inner diameter (see [0024] and see [0026], first tube 14 has an internal diameter of approximately 3/8 inches and output line 12 should be sized such as to not restrict the flow to first tube 14, meaning it should have at least the same internal diameter as first tube 14, meaning it too would have an internal diameter of approximately 3/8 inches). Mantell further teaches that tube diameters can be varied to optimize for flow rate requirements as needed for a particular system ([0026]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have sized the gas feeding conduit and exhaust conduit of Hiltebrandt as modified to have had the respective inner diameters of Gord and Mantell for the benefits of allowing proper flow rates into the body and since these tubing sizes were taught as being acceptable in the art (see Mantell [0026] and see Gord col. 6 lines 39-42), meaning that such a sizing would have yielded the same, predictable result of gas flowing through the exhaust conduit and gas feeding conduit for introduction into the body cavity as desired. Such a modification would then mean that the inner diameter of the exhaust conduit would be larger than the inner diameter of the gas feeding conduit as claimed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/27/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has argued that Hiltebrandt as modified in claims 1, 5, and 25 does not disclosed the claimed control circuit configuration regarding the control circuit being configured to “detect a point in time when the measured pressure starts to decrease after the measured pressure is maintained at a constant predetermined value for a predetermined time period”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As defined by Merriam Webster and as provided by Applicant, “maintain” can mean to “preserve," meaning to persist in a state in spite of counterinfluences; the claim further specifies this to occur “for a predetermined time period”. There is no limitation provided on the amount of time which this time period is meant to last for, or that the time period must last for multiple points of time, meaning that an instantaneous point in time could be a predetermined time period over which the pressure could be maintained. Thus, it is the Examiner’s position that at the moment before the gas feeding has started in Hiltebrandt as modified, the pressure is maintained at a predetermined value for an instantaneous predetermined time period, which meets the limitations of the claim.
Further as an alternative or addition, and as noted by Examiner in the rejection above, the respective independent claims require that that the claimed control circuit is configured to detect a point in time when the measured pressure starts to decrease after the measured pressure is maintained at a constant predetermined value for a predetermined time period; this appears to be satisfied further by Hiltebrandt as modified by Takami as it is not a positive recitation of the pressure being constantly maintained at a value of a span of time including multiple time points, as the control circuit of Takami works by checking to see if pressure drops below a threshold (Level 2) after being above the threshold (referred to as a lower limit in Takami) as taught in Takami Col. 6 lines 37-62; this would then mean that the control circuit is configured as claimed because it is capable of detecting such a point in time as claimed because if the pressure of fig. 3A were constantly maintained at a constant value over a span of time including multiple time points and then dropped below pressure Level 2 as shown at time T4, the controller would detect the point in time. This is in line with the Typhoon Touch Techs holding as referred to in Applicant’s arguments as the control circuit of the modified would not require further programming to meet the functional limitations required in the claim.
Thus, Applicant’s arguments are respectfully found unpersuasive and the claims are rejected as indicated above.
Examiner also notes that Torisawa (US 20120277532, previously made of record) appears to teach a gas feeding bottle (buffer tank 106) which is configured to maintain pressure at a constant value ([0074]) over time prior to feeding to allow for more stable feedings ([0074]-[0076]).
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 SAMUEL J MARRISON whose telephone number is (703)756-1927. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00a-3:30p ET.
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, Kevin Sirmons can be reached at (571) 272-4965. 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.
/SAMUEL J MARRISON/Examiner, Art Unit 3783 /EMILY L SCHMIDT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3783