DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 6, 12, 17 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Pre-Grant Publication 2002/0092566 to Rhone et al. (Rhone hereinafter).
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.
Regarding claim 3, Rhone teaches an input mechanism (62) configured to modify a compression force of the proximal spring.
Regarding claim 6, Rhone teaches leak passages (76) configured to modulate a fluid pressure between a proximal cavity portion and a distal cavity portion (see paragraph 37).
Regarding claim 12, Rhone teaches fluidic couplings at a proximal side (22) and a distal side (16).
Regarding claim 17, as best understood by the examiner, Rhone teaches a bypass mechanism (76).
Regarding claim 21, Rhone teaches the fluid flow (50, 53) from the distal opening to the proximal opening over the distal-facing surface (74, by flow 50) and the proximal facing surface (71, by 53)
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) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rhone in view of U.S. Patent 4,030,520 to Sands.
Regarding claim 13, Rhone teaches the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above, but does not teach a spherical plug. Sands teaches a valve with a plug that is spherical (see Fig. 1) and which includes dimples (53) which bypass the plug to adjust the pressure differential across the valve (col. 4, ln. 38-59). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the application to use a dimpled ball as taught by Sands as the valve element of Rhone in order to allow the plug to modulate the pressure differential across the valve when closed.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rhone in view of US Pre-Grant Publication 2018/0207397 to Look et al. (Look).
Regarding claim 16, Rhone 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 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Look in view of Rhone.
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 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 9, filed 27 October 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) over the Sands reference 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 Sands.
Applicant’s remaining arguments have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
With respect to the argument that Rhone does not teach flow over a distal-facing surface, the examiner notes that the conical surface (74) of Rhone faces distally and bounds the fluid flow path such that the fluid flows over it. The examiner therefore holds that this limitation does not patentably distinguish over Rhone.
With respect to the Sands reference, as this reference is no longer relied on as anticipating, the examiner holds that the spring teachings of Rhone teach the argued limitations.
In view of the above, the examiner maintains that the claimed invention is anticipated or obvious as indicated above.
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 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 14 February 2026