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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 28 April 2026 has been entered.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 6, 12-13, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pre-Grant Publication 2002/0092566 to Rhone et al. (Rhone hereinafter) in view of U.S. Patent 1,788,358 to Goerg (Goerg).
Regarding claim 1, Rhone teaches a flow switch (10) with a housing (from 26 to 28, see paragraph 28) defining an internal cavity (not labeled), proximal (28) and distal (26) openings configured to receive tubular elements such as a catheter and draw aspirated flows therefrom (such as via appropriate adapters), and a plug (42) disposed within the internal cavity and configured to move proximally (i.e. left in Fig. 1) in response to an above threshold drag force (maximum flow rating, see paragraph 24) to close the proximal opening (40) and to move distally to open the proximal opening in response to an absence of the fluid flow (50, see paragraph 32). Rhone further teaches a proximal spring (56) and a distal spring (54), wherein the proximal spring is configured to bias the plug (42) away from the proximal opening and toward an open position (Fig. 4, see paragraph 32: “In the open position… the force provided by the second biasing spring 56 equalizes a combined force provided by the first biasing spring and the normally regulated fluid flow”), and that the flow (50) proceeds over the distal-facing surface (74) of the plug. The examiner notes that the claimed open position is only claimed as spaced from the proximal opening and is silent to any spacing or lack thereof relative to the distal opening.
Furthermore, Rhone teaches bypass passages (76) on the surface of the plug. As such, Rhone does not teach preventing fluid flow about the plug through the internal cavity of the flow switch. Georg teaches another check valve generally, and particularly teaches that bypass passages (17) are provided separate from the valve body, or plug (16). Rhone therefore teaches a valve which differs from the claimed flow switch only in separation of the bypass passages from the surface of the valve plug. Georg teaches another valve which functions similarly to Rhone’s valve and which teaches separate bypass passages (17). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the application to substitute the separate bypass passages of Georg for the bypass passages of Rhone as the mere substitution of one known bypass structure for another according to known methods of construction and operation as evinced by both references. Thus substituted, the modified switch of Rhone renders obvious the invention of claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, Rhone teaches an input mechanism (62) configured to modify a compression force of the proximal spring.
Regarding claim 6, as modified in view of Georg, the Rhone switch includes leak channels (Georg, 17) extending from a distal cavity portion to a proximal cavity portion.
Regarding claim 13, Rhone teaches the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above, but does not teach a spherical plug. Georg teaches a valve with a plug (16) that is spherical (see Fig. 1) and which seals the valve.
Regarding claim 21, Rhone teaches the fluid flow (50, 53) from the distal opening to the proximal opening over the distal-facing surface (of 16) and the proximal facing surface of the plug (16) of Georg, as discussed above.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rhone in view of Georg as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Pre-Grant Publication 2018/0207397 to Look et al. (Look).
Regarding claim 16, Rhone as modified by Georg teaches the invention of claim 1 as discussed above, but does not teach the use of an O-ring for sealing. Look teaches a medical aspiration device generally and in particular teaches that an O-ring (e.g. 266, see paragraph 123) may be used for sealing fluid systems. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the application to use an O-ring to seal portions of the valve of Rhone with an O-ring as taught by Look.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Look in view of Rhone and Georg.
Regarding claim 19, Look teaches a medical aspiration device including a suction source (22), aspiration tubing (to 32), and a flow switch (32). Look does not teach the limitations of the flow switch. As discussed with respect to claim 1, Rhone as modified in view of Georg teaches such a flow switch for limiting maximum flow rate (see e.g. col. 1, ln. 31-34). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the application to use a valve as taught by Rhone to limit maximum flow in the system of Look. Furthermore, Rhone teaches a proximal spring (56) and a distal spring (54), wherein the proximal spring is configured to bias the plug (42) away from the proximal opening (see rejection of claim 1 above).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 8, filed 16 April 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) over the Rhone reference alone have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made over Rhone in view of Georg.
The examiner notes that the switch structure alone relates to valves generally, and as such a great deal of art appliesfrom areas which are not medical in nature, such as USPC 137/513.7 and 251/43. It may be possible to draft around these art areas by the recitation of medical functions such as sealing to a thrombus for removal thereof as discussed in applicant’s paragraph 48. Such limitations will likely receive greater weight in combination with the system claims (e.g. claims 19-20). Applicant is invited to discuss such limitations via the interview process as discussed below.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHILIP E STIMPERT whose telephone number is (571)270-1890. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8a-4p.
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, Chelsea Stinson can be reached at 571-270-1744. 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.
/PHILIP E STIMPERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3783 5 June 2026
Prosecution Insights