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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in People’s Republic of China on 07/06/2019. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the CN 201910612451.3 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species 1, which corresponds to claims 1-11 and 16-18, in the reply filed on 04/25/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 12-15, 19, and 20 were withdrawn from further consideration.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 6 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, lines 4, 7, 11, and 15: the bullets A–D should be deleted;
Claim 6, line 3: “may” should be replaced with –is configured to–.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“Illumination module” in claim 1 because it uses a generic placeholder (“module”) that is coupled with functional language (“illumination”) without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
“Illumination module” is being interpreted to correspond to a light-emitting diode lamp of ¶ [0090] of the specification and equivalents thereof.
“Signal processing module” in claim 1 because it uses a generic placeholder (“module”) that is coupled with functional language (“signal processing”) without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
The specification does not provide any structure for performing the claimed function, so the term is being given its broadest reasonable interpretation.
“Identification system” in claim 1 because it uses a generic placeholder (“system”) that is coupled with functional language (“identification”) without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
“Identification system” is being interpreted to correspond to a graduated scale of ¶ [0040] of the specification and equivalents thereof.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
The recitations of “uterine curettage mechanism”, “observation mechanism”, negative pressure suction mechanism”, and “flushing mechanism” are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. §112(f) because the claims recite sufficient structure for performing the claimed functions.
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.
Claims 1-11 and 16-18 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.
Claim 1 recites “A direct-vision abortion uterine curettage device” in line 1. It is unclear how “direct-vision” should be interpreted. There is no plain and ordinary meaning for “direct-vision”, and the specification does not define the term. Therefore, it is unclear what constitutes “direct-vision”. For the purposes of examination, the recitation will be interpreted to be “An abortion uterine curettage device”.
Claim 1 recites “images and videos observed by the lens module” in line 8. It is unclear how the limitation should be interpreted in light of the specification. The recitation suggests that the lens module observes or watches images and videos. However, the specification indicates that the lens module is configured for observing tissue and generating an image or video signal (¶ [0043] of the specification), which is different from the claim language. Therefore, it is unclear whether the images and videos are observed or generated by the lens module. For the purposes of examination, the recitation will be interpreted to be “video signals generated by the lens module”.
Claim 1 recites “the negative pressure suction mechanism are located in a pipe body of the operating rod” in lines 17-18. Fig. 1 depicts a pipe body 5-3. Claim 1 also recites “the negative pressure suction mechanism comprises a suction inlet, a suction outlet and a suction channel” in lines 11-12. Fig. 1 depicts a suction outlet 42 of a negative pressure suction mechanism 4. In light of the specification, it is unclear how the pipe body is related to the negative pressure suction mechanism. The recitation in lines 17-18 of claim 1 indicates that all of the negative pressure suction mechanism is located in the pipe body. However, Fig. 1 depicts the pipe body 5-3 being separate from the negative pressure suction mechanism 4 and the suction outlet 42. Therefore, it is unclear how all of the elements of the negative pressure suction mechanism are located in the pipe body. The Examiner suggests amending the recitation in lines 17-18 to be “at least a portion of the suction channel are located in a pipe body of the operating rod”.
With regards to claim 1, claim limitation “signal processing module” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. In this case, the specification is completely devoid of any structure, material, or acts for performing the signal processing. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 2-11 and 16-18 are rejected by virtue of their dependence from claim 1.
Claim 4 recites “the pipe body of the operating rod is a double-cavity pipe, the circuit is arranged in one cavity pipe, and the other cavity pipe constitutes or is provided with the suction channel of the negative pressure suction mechanism” in lines 1-4. First, it unclear how the cavity pipe and the other cavity pipe are related to the double-cavity pipe. The term “double-cavity pipe” is understood to be a pipe with two cavities. A pipe is understood to be a tube or hollow body. However, a double-cavity pipe is not necessarily associated with two tubes. However, the specification and the claim language suggest that the elements are related. Second, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the other cavity pipe” in line 3. For the purposes of examination, the recitation will be interpreted to be “the pipe body of the operating rod is a double-cavity pipe, the circuit is arranged in a first cavity of the double-cavity pipe, and a second cavity of the double-cavity pipe constitutes or is provided with the suction channel of the negative pressure suction mechanism”. Claim 5 recites a similar limitation, so it is rejected on similar grounds.
Claim 6 recites “the water outlets” and “the flushing mechanism” in line 2. There are insufficient antecedent bases for these limitations in the claim. The Examiner suggests amending the recitations to be, respectively, “water outlets” and “a flushing mechanism”.
Claim 7 recites “the flushing mechanism” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner suggests amending the claim 7 to be dependent upon claim 3.
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.
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.
Claims 1-2, 11, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 103565499 A (Li) in view of US 2017/0085825 A1 (Okawa).
With regards to claim 1, Li teaches a direct-vision abortion uterine curettage device (Fig. 1 and Abstract depict a visual gynecologic uterine curettage device. The Examiner notes “abortion” is a recitation of intended use. The structure of the device of Li is capable of being used for an abortion) comprising a uterine curettage mechanism (Fig. 1 and ¶ [0008] depict a spatula 3), an observation mechanism (Fig. 1 and ¶ [0008] depict a lens 4 provided with an illuminating lamp 5), a circuit (Fig. 1 and ¶ [0008] depict a data line 2), a negative pressure suction mechanism (Fig. 1 and ¶ [0008] depict an oval opening 6 suction head connected with suction connector 10) and an operating rod (Fig. 1 and ¶ [0008] depict a tube body 1, arc elbow 3, and a sleeve handle 8, the combination of which is corresponds to the claimed operating rod); wherein: A. the uterine curettage mechanism comprises at least one diagnostic curette (Fig. 1 and ¶ [0008] depict the spatula 3, which is a curette), and the diagnostic curette is arranged at a front end of the operating rod (Fig. 1 depicts the spatula 3 being at the arc elbow 2) and is in a visual field of the observation mechanism (Fig. 1 depicts the lens 4 being positioned to view the spatula 3; ¶¶ [0003], [0005] discloses observing the uterine cavity wall cleaning condition); B. the observation mechanism comprises an illumination module and a lens module (Fig. 1 and ¶ [0008] depict the lens 4 provided with the illuminating lamp 5), and imaging signals generated by the lens module in a light field of the illumination module output by the circuit (Fig. 1 and ¶ [0008] depict the illuminating lamp 5 surrounding lens 4, which indicates that the lens 4 observes elements illuminated by the illuminating lamp; Fig. 1 and ¶ [0008] depict the data line 14 connecting the lens 4 to the display screen); C. the negative pressure suction mechanism comprises a suction inlet, a suction outlet and a suction channel (Fig. 1 and ¶ [0008] depict a combination of oval openings 6, suction connector 10, and a channel which necessarily connects oval opening 6 with the suction connector 10), the suction inlet is arranged at the front end of the operating rod (Fig. 1 depicts oval opening 6 at the arc elbow 2), the suction outlet of the negative pressure suction mechanism is arranged at a rear end of the operating rod (Fig. 1 depicts suction connector 10 at the sleeve handle 8), and the suction channel is arranged in the operating rod (Fig. 1 depicts the channel which connects oval opening 6 with the suction connector 10 running through the tube body 1); and D. the rear end of the operating rod is provided with a handle (Fig. 1 depicts the handle 8 being at the rear end of the combination of 2, 1, and 8), the front end of the operating rod is provided with the uterine curettage mechanism and the observation mechanism (Fig. 1 depicts the spatula 3, lens 4, lamp 5 being arranged at the arc elbow 2) and the circuit and the negative pressure suction mechanism are located in a pipe body of the operating rod (Fig. 1 depict the data line 12 and the channel for connecting 6 and 10 running through the tube body 1).
Li is silent with regards to the observation mechanism comprising a signal processing module, wherein images and videos observed by the lens module processed by the signal processing module, and then output.
In a system relevant to the problem of imaging within a body, Okawa teaches an observation mechanism comprising a signal processing module, wherein images and videos observed by the an imaging module are processed by the signal processing module (Fig. 1 and ¶¶ [0028]-[0029] depict a CMOS image sensor 11 at a distal end of an insertion portion of a subject, wherein the CMOS image sensor 11 comprises an AFE circuit 13 and P/S circuit 14 for processing signals obtained by image pickup portion 12 (PD 12)), and then output (Fig. 1 and ¶ [0028] depict a cable 40 for transmitting a digital image pickup signal). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the lens of Li to incorporate that it is used in conjunction with the CMOS image sensor as taught by Okawa. The motivation would have been to provide improve image quality by reducing signal deterioration (see ¶ [0012] of Okawa).
With regards to claim 2, the above combination teaches or suggests a camera of the lens module is arranged at a rear end of the diagnostic curette (see the above rejection of claim 1 regarding the combination of the lens of Li and the CMOS image sensor (“camera”) of Okawa; Fig. 1 of Li depicts the lens being arranged at a rear end of the spatula 3), and the diagnostic curette is in a visual field of the camera (see the above rejection of claim 1 regarding the combination of the lens of Li and the CMOS image sensor (“camera”) of Okawa; Fig. 1 of Li depicts the lens being positioned to view the spatula 3; ¶¶ [0003], [0005] of Li disclose observing the uterine cavity wall cleaning condition).
With regards to claim 11, the above combination teaches or suggests the diagnostic curette of the uterine curettage mechanism comprises curette spoon (Fig. 1 and ¶ [0008] of Li depicts spatula 3, which amounts to a curette spoon).
With regards to claim 18, the above combination teaches or suggests the direct-vision abortion uterine curettage device further comprises an identification system (Fig. 1 and ¶ [0008] of Li depict a scale 7 on the pipe body 1).
Claims 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Okawa, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 5,536,234 A (Newman).
With regards to claim 3, The above combination is silent with regards to a flushing mechanism, a water outlet of the flushing mechanism is located at the front end of the operating rod, a water inlet of the flushing mechanism is located at the rear end of the operating rod, and a water inlet pipeline of the flushing mechanism is located in the pipe body of the operating rod.
In the same field of endeavor of optical surgical devices, Newman teaches a flushing mechanism (Figs. 1 and 6 and Col. 4, lines 52-59 depict a third channel 18 for providing an irrigating of flushing fluid for irrigating the operative site while also cleaning the endoscope of channel 16), a water outlet of the flushing mechanism is located at the front end of the operating rod (Fig. 1 depicts a fluid outlet for the third channel 18 at the distal end 20 of the sheath 12. Col. 6, lines 25-27 depicts the a stream a water being used as the irrigating solution), a water inlet of the flushing mechanism is located at the rear end of the operating rod (Figs. 1 and 2 depict a fluid inlet for the third channel at a proximal end 24), and a water inlet pipeline of the flushing mechanism is located in the pipe body of the operating rod (Figs. 1 and 6 depict the channel 18 extending through the body of the sheath 12). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the uterine curettage of Li of the above combination to incorporate the flushing mechanism as taught by Newman. The motivation would have been to allow for irrigation of the surgical site and cleaning of the visualization element.
With regards to claim 5, the above combination is silent with regards to whether the pipe body of the operating rod is a three-cavity pipe, the circuit is arranged in the first cavity pipe, the second cavity pipe constitutes or is provided with the suction channel of the negative pressure suction mechanism, and the third cavity pipe constitutes or is provided with the water inlet pipeline of the flushing mechanism.
In the field of endeavor of optical surgical devices, Newman teaches a pipe body being a three-cavity pipe (Figs. 1 and 6 depict a sheath 12 having three channels), the circuit is arranged in the first cavity pipe (Fig. 1 and Col. 4, lines 35-51 depict channel 16 for insertion of an endoscope and its associated elements), the second cavity pipe constitutes or is provided with the suction channel of the negative pressure suction mechanism (Fig. 1 and Col. 4, lines 35-51 depict channel 14 is for suction or drainage), and the third cavity pipe constitutes or is provided with the water inlet pipeline of the flushing mechanism (Fig. 1 and Col. 4, lines 52-59 depict channel 18 is provided as an irrigation line). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pipe body Li of the above combination to incorporate the a three-cavity pipe configuration, wherein the circuit is arranged in the first cavity pipe, the second cavity pipe constitutes or is provided with the suction channel of the negative pressure suction mechanism, and the third cavity pipe constitutes or is provided with the water inlet pipeline of the flushing mechanism, as taught by Newman. The motivation would have been to provide preformed, predefined channels (Col.4, lines 66-67 of Newman), which would reduce the likelihood of the channels adversely interacting with each other.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Okawa, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of CN 106943184 A (Hao) (Paragraph references are made with respect to the attached machine translation)
With regards to claim 4, the above combination is silent with regards to whether the pipe body of the operating rod is a double-cavity pipe, the circuit is arranged in one cavity pipe, and the other cavity pipe constitutes or is provided with the suction channel of the negative pressure suction mechanism.
In the same field of endeavor of uterine cavity visualization, Hao teaches a pipe body of an operating rod is a double-cavity pipe (Fig. 2 and ¶ [0029] depict a tube body 10 with a tissue suction cavity 20 and a line cavity 30), the circuit is arranged in one cavity pipe (Fig. 2 depicts line cavity 30 comprising flexible circuit board 70; ¶ [0031] depicts camera 40 connected to video signal interface 60 via flexible circuit board 70), and the other cavity pipe constitutes or is provided with the suction channel of the negative pressure suction mechanism (Fig. 2 and ¶¶ [0030], [0032] depict tissue suction cavity 20 connected to suction port 12). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the tube body of the above combination to incorporate that it is a double-cavity pipe, wherein the circuit is arranged in one cavity pipe, and the other cavity pipe constitutes or is provided with the suction channel of the negative pressure suction mechanism as taught by Hao. The motivation would have been to ensure that the suction cavity and circuitry are separated and independent of each other (¶ [0032] of Hao) in order to improve suction and safety (¶¶ [0033]-[0034] of Hao).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Okawa, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of 2015/0265136 A1 (Honda)
With regards to claim 6, the above combination is silent with regards to whether water sprayed from at least one water outlet of the water outlets of the flushing mechanism of the direct-vision abortion uterine curettage device may flush and clean a protective cover of the observation mechanism.
In a system relevant to the problem of visualizing surgical sites, Honda teaches water sprayed from at least one water outlet of the water outlets of a flushing mechanism may flush and clean a protective cover of the observation mechanism (Figs. 2-3 and ¶¶ [0029], [0031]-[0032] depict front-viewing observation window 14 and cleaning nozzles 16, 17 for cleaning the observation windows; ¶ [0026] discloses that the cleaning liquid includes water). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the above combination to incorporate water sprayed from at least one water outlet of the water outlets of a flushing mechanism may flush and clean a protective cover of the observation mechanism as taught by Honda. The motivation would have been to provide structure for cleaning the imaging components, thereby improving image quality.
Claims 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Okawa, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2011/0224494 A1 (Piskun)
With regards to claim 7, the above combination is silent with regards to whether the flushing mechanism of the direct-vision abortion uterine curettage device is provided with a flushing switch for controlling flushing water.
In a system relevant to the problem of visualizing surgical sites, Piskun teaches a flushing mechanism is provided with a flushing switch for controlling flushing water (¶ [0061] and Figs. 9a, 9b depict handle 20 comprising switches 27, 28 for air insufflations, water irrigation and vacuum activation, as well as switch (not shown) for switching camera(s) between frontal and inner locations). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the above combination to incorporate a flushing mechanism is provided with a flushing switch on the handle as taught by Piskun. The motivation would have been to provide elements for controlling water irrigation, thereby allowing for improved surgical treatment.
With regards to claim 8, the above combination teaches or suggests the flushing switch is arranged on the handle of the operating rod (see the above rejection of claim 7 regarding the combination in view of Piskun; ¶ [0061] and Figs. 9a, 9b of Piskun depict handle 20 comprising switches 27, 28 for water irrigation).
With regards to claim 9, the above combination is silent with regards to whether the negative pressure suction mechanism is provided with a negative pressure control switch capable of controlling a negative pressure state.
In a system relevant to the problem of visualizing surgical sites, Piskun teaches a negative pressure control switch capable of controlling a negative pressure state (¶ [0061] and Figs. 9a, 9b depict handle 20 comprising switches 27, 28 for air insufflations, water irrigation and vacuum activation, as well as switch (not shown) for switching camera(s) between frontal and inner locations). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the above combination to incorporate a negative pressure control switch on the handle as taught by Piskun. The motivation would have been to provide elements for controlling suction, thereby allowing for improved surgical treatment.
With regards to claim 10, the above combination teaches or suggests the negative pressure control switch is arranged on the handle of the operating rod (see the above rejection of claim 9 regarding the combination in view of Piskun; ¶ [0061] and Figs. 9a, 9b of Piskun depict handle 20 comprising switches 27, 28 for vacuum activation).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Okawa, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2013/0204085 A1 (Alexander).
With regards to claim 16, the above combination is silent with regards to a protective cover of the observation mechanism is provided with a coating.
In a system relevant to the problem of imaging within a body, Alexander teaches a protective cover of an observation mechanism is provided with a coating (¶ [0049] discloses a lens or transparent plastic cover being coated with a hydrophobic agent). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the observation mechanism of the above combination to incorporate a protective cover provided with a coating as taught by Alexander. The motivation would have been to provide structure for keeping fluid or other matter from accumulating on the observation mechanism (See ¶ [0049] of Alexander).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Okawa, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2018/0140177 A1 (Liu)
With regards to claim 17, the above combination further teaches a data line 12 being connected to display screen 14 (¶ [0008] of Li).
However, the above combination is silent with regards to whether the circuit is provided with an electrical interface connected with a host.
In a system relevant to the problem of imaging within a body, Liu teaches a circuit being provided with an electrical interface connected with a host (Fig. 1 and ¶ [0028]-[0030] depict micro camera module sending image data via conducting wires 17 to the handle 7 then to host machine 12 for visual display via cable 9 and host interface 8). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the data line and display screen of Li of the above combination with a circuit provided with an electrical interface connected with a host as taught by Liu. Because both configurations are capable of being used for transmitting image data and visualizing images, it would have been the simple substitution of one known equivalent element for another to obtain predictable results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMUEL C KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-8637. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM 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, Jacqueline Cheng can be reached at (571) 272-5596. 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.
/S.C.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/JACQUELINE CHENG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791