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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS form(s) submitted on 10/15/2025 is/are in compliance with the requirements of the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure(s) are being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
This office action is responsive to the claim amendments filed on 10/15/2025. As directed by the amendment: claims 1, 8, 12, 15, and 19 have been amended; claims 9-11, 18, and 23-50 have been cancelled; and claims 51-52 have been added. Thus, claims 1-8, 12-17, 19-22, and 51-52 are presently pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/4/2025 directed to newly amended claim limitations is addressed below with amended claim rejections.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6-8, 12, 16-17, 19, 22 and 51 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0022565 A1 to Sigmon, Jr. et al. in view of US 2015/0173821 A1 to Cressman et al. further in view of US 2004/0202980 A to Policicchio.
In regard to claim 1:
Sigmon teaches a system for delivering an agent including a plurality of particles to a target site (Para. 34 “System 10 may be used to deliver the agent in a wide range of procedures and the agent” para 37 “the agent may comprise a powder, liquid, gel, aerosol, other substances or combinations thereof”), the system comprising: a catheter having a first wall defining an inner lumen for delivery of the agent to the target site (Fig. 4 element 40, para 38 “therapeutic agents, may be used in conjunction with system 10 and delivered through catheter 40.”), and a second wall surrounding the first wall to define an outer lumen therebetween for delivery of a fluid to the target site (Fig. 4 element 30), the catheter having a distal end terminating with a primary opening of the inner lumen (para 26” Catheter 40 includes a wall 42 defining a lumen 44 sized for delivery of the agent, such as a therapeutic agent, to the target site. Catheter 40 has a proximal end 46 and an opposing distal end 48 terminating with a primary opening 50 into lumen 44.”) and a secondary opening of the outer lumen (Fig. 4 element 30 distal opening); and, a hub associated with a proximal end of the catheter (Fig. 1 elements 12 and 14) wherein the fluid comprises a gas (para. 7 “A secondary opening is formed at the distal end, wherein the secondary opening is configured to allow fluid, e.g., gas or liquid, to flow through the secondary opening to create a steady flow of fluid at an angle with respect to the longitudinal axis and prevent the plurality of particles from flowing through the secondary opening.”)
Sigmon does not appear to explicitly describe the inlets as claimed. Cressman teaches, a hub associated with a proximal end of the catheter (Fig. 1 element 135) and comprising a first inlet for receiving a supply of the agent (Fig. 1 element 136) and a second inlet for receiving a supply of the fluid (Fig. 1 element 137), wherein the first inlet is in fluid communication with the inner lumen, and the second inlet is in fluid communication with the outer lumen (Para. 22 “first fluid line 136 of the fluid delivery device 130 to the first reservoir 110 and the second fluid line 137 to the second reservoir 120. Such fluid line connections permit the first and second reservoirs 110 and 120 to be in fluid communication with the first and second lumens 142 and 144.”),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective date of filing, to modify the hub taught by Sigmon to have the first and second inlets as taught by Cressman. This would have been motivated as Sigmon does not explicitly teach how the fluid and powder are supplied or connected to the lumens leading one of ordinary skill in the art to seek a teaching of how to connect the fluid and powder agent sources.
Sigmon in view of Cressman does not appear to explicitly disclose the second inlet provided by a connection interface for connection to a source of pressurized gas as claimed. Policicchio teaches, and the second inlet (second inlet taught by Cressman as described above. Analogous to element 32 of Policicchio Fig. 1 elements 32 and 36, connecting to element 16) is provided by a connection interface for connection of the catheter to a source of pressurized gas (Fig. 1 element 16, para. 19 “a compressed air source 16 in fluid communication with hand piece 12”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective date of filing, to connect the second inlet taught by Sigmon in view of Cressman to be connected to a source of pressurized gas as taught by Policicchio. This would have been motivated by Sigmon Para. 20 “During operation, a pressurized fluid, e.g., a gas such as carbon dioxide, is advanced through the catheter to carry the agent particles to the target site. With the catheter in an extended position, i.e., extended distally from the accessory channel, the agent particles exit the lumen through the primary opening while at least a portion of the fluid exits the catheter, e.g., through the lumen or a coaxially positioned second lumen, through the secondary openings to create a steady fluid flow forming a fluid curtain over or near the lens to prevent or limit agent particles from obscuring or interrupting an image or view of the target site through the imaging device of the endoscope. In addition [sic] or alternatively, the fluid curtain may also be used to protect other structures, such as anatomical structures or devices, other than or in addition to the image device. As used herein to describe example embodiments, the term “fluid” may refer to a gas or a liquid.”
In regard to claim 2:
The system of claim 1, taught by Sigmon in view of Cressman, further in view of Policicchio, as described in parent claim rejection above.
Sigmon teaches, wherein the hub is fixed to the proximal end of the catheter (Fig. 1 element 14 affixed to element 12).
In regard to claim 6:
The system of claim 1, taught by Sigmon in view of Cressman, further in view of Policicchio, as described in parent claim rejection above.
Sigmon does not appear to explicitly describe the first lumen as claimed. Cressman teaches, wherein a first lumen extends through the hub from the first inlet to a first outlet in fluid communication with the inner lumen of the catheter (See annotated Fig. 1 below. First inlet fig. 1 element 136, first outlets fig. 2 elements 145a), the first lumen being axially aligned with the inner lumen (see annotated Fig. 1 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
203
498
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective date of filing, to modify the hub taught by Sigmon to have the first lumen extending from the first inlet to first outlet as taught by Cressman. This would have been motivated as Sigmon does not explicitly teach how the fluid and powder are supplied or connected to the lumens leading one of ordinary skill in the art to seek a teaching of how to connect the fluid and powder agent sources.
In regard to claim 7:
The system of claim 6, taught by Sigmon in view of Cressman, further in view of Policicchio, as described in parent claim rejection above.
Sigmon teaches, the second lumen at least partially surrounding the first lumen at the second outlet (Fig. 4 element 30 at least partially surrounding first lumen element 40 at second outlet.).
Sigmon does not appear to explicitly describe the second lumen as claimed. Cressman teaches, wherein a second lumen extends through the hub from the second inlet to a second outlet in fluid communication with the outer lumen of the catheter (see annotated fig. 1 below. Second inlet fig. 1 element 137, Second outlets fig. 2 elements 145b)
PNG
media_image1.png
203
498
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective date of filing, to modify the hub taught by Sigmon to have the second lumen extending from the second inlet to second outlet as taught by Cressman. This would have been motivated as Sigmon does not explicitly teach how the fluid and powder are supplied or connected to the lumens leading one of ordinary skill in the art to seek a teaching of how to connect the fluid and powder agent sources.
In regard to claim 8:
The system of 7, taught by Sigmon in view of Cressman, further in view of Policicchio, as described in parent claim rejection above.
Sigmon does not appear to explicitly describe the first and second inlets as claimed. Cressman teaches, wherein the first inlet and the second inlet are formed on the connection interface" and para. 33 "(see annotated Fig. 1 below, elements 137 and 136 formed on said connection interface)
PNG
media_image2.png
209
355
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective date of filing, to modify the connection interface taught by Sigmon to include the first and second inlet are formed on the connection interface as taught by Cressman. This would have been motivated as Sigmon does not explicitly teach how the fluid and powder are supplied or connected to the lumens leading one of ordinary skill in the art to seek a teaching of how to connect the fluid and powder agent source
In regard to claim 12:
Sigmon teaches a system for delivering an agent including a plurality of particles to a target site (Para. 34 “System 10 may be used to deliver the agent in a wide range of procedures and the agent” para 37 “the agent may comprise a powder, liquid, gel, aerosol, other substances or combinations thereof”), the system comprising: a catheter having a first wall defining an inner lumen for delivery of the agent to the target site (Fig. 4 element 40, para 38 “therapeutic agents, may be used in conjunction with system 10 and delivered through catheter 40.”), and a second wall surrounding the first wall to define an outer lumen therebetween for delivery of a fluid to the target site (Fig. 4 element 30), the catheter having a distal end terminating with a primary opening of the inner lumen (para 26” Catheter 40 includes a wall 42 defining a lumen 44 sized for delivery of the agent, such as a therapeutic agent, to the target site. Catheter 40 has a proximal end 46 and an opposing distal end 48 terminating with a primary opening 50 into lumen 44.”) and a secondary opening of the outer lumen (Fig. 4 element 30 distal opening); a hub associated with a proximal end of the catheter (Fig. 1 elements 12 and 14) wherein the fluid comprises a gas (para. 7 “A secondary opening is formed at the distal end, wherein the secondary opening is configured to allow fluid, e.g., gas or liquid, to flow through the secondary opening to create a steady flow of fluid at an angle with respect to the longitudinal axis and prevent the plurality of particles from flowing through the secondary opening.”)
Sigmon does not appear to explicitly describe the inlets as claimed. Cressman teaches, a hub associated with a proximal end of the catheter (Fig. 1 element 135) and comprising a first connection interface (see annotated Fig. 1 below having a first inlet for receiving a supply of the agent (Fig. 1 element 136), and a second connection interface (see annotated fig. 1 below) having a second inlet for receiving a supply of the fluid (Fig. 1 element 137); wherein the first connection interface is separate from the second connection interface (see annotated Fig. 1 below); and, wherein the first inlet is in fluid communication with the inner lumen, and the second inlet is in fluid communication with the outer lumen (see annotated Fig. 1 below. Para. 22 “first fluid line 136 of the fluid delivery device 130 to the first reservoir 110 and the second fluid line 137 to the second reservoir 120. Such fluid line connections permit the first and second reservoirs 110 and 120 to be in fluid communication with the first and second lumens 142 and 144.”).
PNG
media_image3.png
326
549
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective date of filing, to modify the hub taught by Sigmon to have the first/second inlets, connection interfaces and lumens as taught by Cressman. This would have been motivated as Sigmon does not explicitly teach how the fluid and powder are supplied or connected to the lumens leading one of ordinary skill in the art to seek a teaching of how to connect the fluid and powder agent sources.
Sigmon in view of Cressman does not appear to explicitly disclose the second inlet provided by a connection interface for connection to a source of pressurized gas as claimed. Policicchio teaches, and the second inlet (second inlet taught by Cressman as described above. Analogous to element 32 of Policicchio Fig. 1 elements 32 and 36, connecting to element 16) is provided by a connection interface for connection of the catheter to a source of pressurized gas (Fig. 1 element 16, para. 19 “a compressed air source 16 in fluid communication with hand piece 12”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective date of filing, to connect the second inlet taught by Sigmon in view of Cressman to be connected to a source of pressurized gas as taught by Policicchio. This would have been motivated by Sigmon Para. 20 “During operation, a pressurized fluid, e.g., a gas such as carbon dioxide, is advanced through the catheter to carry the agent particles to the target site. With the catheter in an extended position, i.e., extended distally from the accessory channel, the agent particles exit the lumen through the primary opening while at least a portion of the fluid exits the catheter, e.g., through the lumen or a coaxially positioned second lumen, through the secondary openings to create a steady fluid flow forming a fluid curtain over or near the lens to prevent or limit agent particles from obscuring or interrupting an image or view of the target site through the imaging device of the endoscope. In addition [sic] or alternatively, the fluid curtain may also be used to protect other structures, such as anatomical structures or devices, other than or in addition to the image device. As used herein to describe example embodiments, the term “fluid” may refer to a gas or a liquid.”
In regard to claim 16:
The system of claim 12, taught by Sigmon in view of Cressman, further in view of Policicchio, as described in parent claim rejection above.
Sigmon does not appear to explicitly describe the first lumen as claimed. Cressman teaches, wherein a first lumen extends through the hub from the first inlet to a first outlet in fluid communication with the inner lumen of the catheter (See annotated Fig. 1 below. First inlet fig. 1 element 136, first outlets fig. 2 elements 145a), the first lumen being axially aligned with the inner lumen (see annotated Fig. 1 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
203
498
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective date of filing, to modify the hub taught by Sigmon to have the first lumen extending from the first inlet to first outlet as taught by Cressman. This would have been motivated as Sigmon does not explicitly teach how the fluid and powder are supplied or connected to the lumens leading one of ordinary skill in the art to seek a teaching of how to connect the fluid and powder agent sources.
In regard to claim 17:
The system of claim 16, taught by Sigmon in view of Cressman, further in view of Policicchio, as described in parent claim rejection above.
Sigmon teaches, the second lumen at least partially surrounding the first lumen at the second outlet (Fig. 4 element 30 at least partially surrounding first lumen element 40 at second outlet.).
Sigmon does not appear to explicitly describe the second lumen as claimed. Cressman teaches, wherein a second lumen extends through the hub from the second inlet to a second outlet in fluid communication with the outer lumen of the catheter (see annotated fig. 1 below. Second inlet fig. 1 element 137, Second outlets fig. 2 elements 145b)
PNG
media_image1.png
203
498
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective date of filing, to modify the hub taught by Sigmon to have the second lumen extending from the second inlet to second outlet as taught by Cressman. This would have been motivated as Sigmon does not explicitly teach how the fluid and powder are supplied or connected to the lumens leading one of ordinary skill in the art to seek a teaching of how to connect the fluid and powder agent sources.
In regard to claim 19:
Sigmon teaches, A system for delivering an agent including a plurality of particles to a target site (Para. 34 “System 10 may be used to deliver the agent in a wide range of procedures and the agent” para 37 “the agent may comprise a powder, liquid, gel, aerosol, other substances or combinations thereof”), the system comprising: a catheter having a first wall defining an inner lumen for delivery of the agent to the target site (Fig. 4 element 40, para 38 “therapeutic agents, may be used in conjunction with system 10 and delivered through catheter 40.”), and a second wall surrounding the first wall to define an outer lumen therebetween for delivery of a fluid to the target site (Fig. 4 element 30), the catheter having a distal end terminating with a primary opening of the inner lumen (para 26” Catheter 40 includes a wall 42 defining a lumen 44 sized for delivery of the agent, such as a therapeutic agent, to the target site. Catheter 40 has a proximal end 46 and an opposing distal end 48 terminating with a primary opening 50 into lumen 44.”) and a secondary opening of the outer lumen (Fig. 4 element 30 distal opening); and, a hub associated with a proximal end of the catheter and comprising (Fig. 1 elements 12 and 14) wherein the fluid comprises a gas (para. 7 “A secondary opening is formed at the distal end, wherein the secondary opening is configured to allow fluid, e.g., gas or liquid, to flow through the secondary opening to create a steady flow of fluid at an angle with respect to the longitudinal axis and prevent the plurality of particles from flowing through the secondary opening.”).
Sigmon does not appear to explicitly describe the inlets as claimed. Cressman teaches, a connection interface (Fig. 1 element 135) having a first inlet for receiving a supply of the agent (Fig. 1 element 136) and a second inlet for receiving a supply of the fluid (Fig. 1 element 137); wherein the first inlet is in fluid communication with the inner lumen, and the second inlet is in fluid communication with the outer lumen (Para. 22 “first fluid line 136 of the fluid delivery device 130 to the first reservoir 110 and the second fluid line 137 to the second reservoir 120. Such fluid line connections permit the first and second reservoirs 110 and 120 to be in fluid communication with the first and second lumens 142 and 144.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective date of filing, to modify the hub taught by Sigmon to have the first and second inlets as taught by Cressman. This would have been motivated as Sigmon does not explicitly teach how the fluid and powder are supplied or connected to the lumens leading one of ordinary skill in the art to seek a teaching of how to connect the fluid and powder agent sources.
Sigmon in view of Cressman does not appear to explicitly disclose the second inlet provided by a connection interface for connection to a source of pressurized gas as claimed. Policicchio teaches, and the second inlet (second inlet taught by Cressman as described above. Analogous to element 32 of Policicchio Fig. 1 elements 32 and 36, connecting to element 16) is provided by a connection interface for connection of the catheter to a source of pressurized gas (Fig. 1 element 16, para. 19 “a compressed air source 16 in fluid communication with hand piece 12”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective date of filing, to connect the second inlet taught by Sigmon in view of Cressman to be connected to a source of pressurized gas as taught by Policicchio. This would have been motivated by Sigmon Para. 20 “During operation, a pressurized fluid, e.g., a gas such as carbon dioxide, is advanced through the catheter to carry the agent particles to the target site. With the catheter in an extended position, i.e., extended distally from the accessory channel, the agent particles exit the lumen through the primary opening while at least a portion of the fluid exits the catheter, e.g., through the lumen or a coaxially positioned second lumen, through the secondary openings to create a steady fluid flow forming a fluid curtain over or near the lens to prevent or limit agent particles from obscuring or interrupting an image or view of the target site through the imaging device of the endoscope. In addition [sic] or alternatively, the fluid curtain may also be used to protect other structures, such as anatomical structures or devices, other than or in addition to the image device. As used herein to describe example embodiments, the term “fluid” may refer to a gas or a liquid.”
In regard to claim 22:
The system of claim 19, taught by Sigmon in view of Cressman, further in view of Policicchio, as described in parent claim rejection above.
Sigmon teaches, the second lumen at least partially surrounding the first lumen at the second outlet (Fig. 4 element 30 at least partially surrounding first lumen element 40 at second outlet.).
Sigmon does not appear to explicitly describe the first and second lumen as claimed. Cressman teaches, wherein a first lumen extends through the hub from the first inlet to a first outlet in fluid communication with the inner lumen of the catheter (See annotated Fig. 1 below. First inlet fig. 1 element 136, first outlets fig. 2 elements 145a), the first lumen being axially aligned with the inner lumen (see annotated Fig. 1 below), and wherein a second lumen extends through the hub from the second inlet to a second outlet in fluid communication with the outer lumen of the catheter (see annotated fig. 1 below. Second inlet fig. 1 element 137, Second outlets fig. 2 elements 145b),
PNG
media_image1.png
203
498
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective date of filing, to modify the hub taught by Sigmon to have the first and second lumens extending from the first/second inlets to respective first/second outlets as taught by Cressman. This would have been motivated as Sigmon does not explicitly teach how the fluid and powder are supplied or connected to the lumens leading one of ordinary skill in the art to seek a teaching of how to connect the fluid and powder agent sources.
In regard to claim 51:
The system of claim 1, taught by Sigmon in view of Cressman, further in view of Policicchio, as described in parent claim rejection above.
Sigmon teaches, wherein the agent is transferred through the inner lumen of the catheter by a supply of gas (Para. 20 “During operation, a pressurized fluid, e.g., a gas such as carbon dioxide, is advanced through the catheter to carry the agent particles to the target site.).
Sigmon does not appear to explicitly teach the supply gas for transferring the agent using the same source of pressurized gas routed through the second outlet into the second lumen. Policicchio teaches, wherein the supply of gas used to transfer the agent through the inner lumen (taught by Cressman in parent claim rejection above. Policicchio second lumen gas supply considered analogous as it is a gas being delivered by a secondary lumen) originates from the same source of pressurized gas that is routed through the second inlet and into the outer lumen of the catheter (see annotated fig. 1 below. Gas source is bifurcated at element 36, para. 23 “Air supply line 36 may be diverted into two paths-an air delivery tube 38” and delivered to an agent container through element 44, and through a second lumen gas supply element 35)
PNG
media_image4.png
546
532
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective date of filing, to modify the supply of gas taught by Sigmon to come from the same source as the pressurized gas that is routed through the second inlet and into the outer lumen as taught by Policicchio. This would have been motivated by Sigmon Para. 20 “During operation, a pressurized fluid, e.g., a gas such as carbon dioxide, is advanced through the catheter to carry the agent particles to the target site. With the catheter in an extended position, i.e., extended distally from the accessory channel, the agent particles exit the lumen through the primary opening while at least a portion of the fluid exits the catheter, e.g., through the lumen or a coaxially positioned second lumen, through the secondary openings to create a steady fluid flow forming a fluid curtain over or near the lens to prevent or limit agent particles from obscuring or interrupting an image or view of the target site through the imaging device of the endoscope. In addition [sic] or alternatively, the fluid curtain may also be used to protect other structures, such as anatomical structures or devices, other than or in addition to the image device. As used herein to describe example embodiments, the term “fluid” may refer to a gas or a liquid.”
Claim(s) 3-5, 13-15, and 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0022565 A1 to Sigmon, Jr. et al. in view of US 2015/0173821 A1 to Cressman et al. further in view of US 2012/0083766 A1 to Haarala et al.
In regard to claim 3:
The system of claim 1, taught by Sigmon in view of Cressman, further in view of Policicchio, as described in parent claim rejection above.
Sigmon in view of Cressman does not appear to teach the threaded connector as claimed. Haarala teaches, wherein the first inlet comprises a male or female threaded connector (Fig. 1 element 60).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective date of filing, to modify the first inlet connector taught by Cressman to be a female threaded connector as taught by Haarala. This would have been motivated by design choice as merely picking between known alterative connector types is considered to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. This would have been further motivated by making it easier/faster to connect and disconnect reservoirs to the fist inlet.
In regard to claim 4:
The system of claim 1, taught by Sigmon in view of Cressman, further in view of Policicchio, as described in parent claim rejection above.
Sigmon in view of Cressman does not appear to teach the threaded connector as claimed. Haarala teaches, wherein the second inlet comprises a male or female threaded connector (Fig. 1 element 70).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective date of filing, to modify the second inlet connector taught by Cressman to be a female threaded connector as taught by Haarala. This would have been motivated by design choice as merely picking between known alterative connector types is considered to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. This would have been further motivated by making it easier/faster to connect and disconnect reservoirs to the second inlet.
In regard to claim 5:
The system of claim 1, taught by Sigmon in view of Cressman, further in view of Policicchio, as described in parent claim rejection above.
Sigmon in view of Cressman does not appear to teach the threaded connectors as claimed. Haarala teaches, wherein the first inlet comprises one of a male or female threaded connector (Fig. 1 element 60).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective date of filing, to modify the first inlet connector taught by Cressman to be a female threaded connector as taught by Haarala. This would have been motivated by design choice as merely picking between known alterative connector types is considered to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. This would have been further motivated by making it easier/faster to connect and disconnect reservoirs to the fist inlet.
Haarala teaches using a female luer connectors for the first and second connectors Fig. 1 elements 60 and 70.
Sigmon in view of Cressman further in view of Haarala discloses the claimed invention except the second inlet is a male threaded connector when the first inlet is a female threaded connector (alternatives the second is a female threaded connector when the first inlet is a male threaded connector). It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to change the second inlet to be a male threaded connector when the first inlet is female threaded connector, since such a modification would have involved a mere changing which side the female/male threaded connector was oriented (downstream or upstream of the connection). This change is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.
In regard to claim 13:
The system of claim 12, taught by Sigmon in view of Cressman, further in view of Policicchio, as described in parent claim rejection above.
Sigmon in view of Cressman does not appear to teach the threaded connector as claimed. Haarala teaches, wherein the first inlet comprises a male or female threaded connector (Fig. 1 element 60).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective date of filing, to modify the first inlet connector taught by Cressman to be a female threaded connector as taught by Haarala. This would have been motivated by design choice as merely picking between known alterative connector types is considered to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. This would have been further motivated by making it easier/faster to connect and disconnect reservoirs to the fist inlet.
In regard to claim 14:
The system of claim 12, taught by Sigmon in view of Cressman, further in view of Policicchio, as described in parent claim rejection above.
Sigmon in view of Cressman does not appear to teach the threaded connector as claimed. Haarala teaches, wherein the second inlet comprises a male or female threaded connector (Fig. 1 element 70).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective date of filing, to modify the second inlet connector taught by Cressman to be a female threaded connector as taught by Haarala. This would have been motivated by design choice as merely picking between known alterative connector types is considered to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. This would have been further motivated by making it easier/faster to connect and disconnect reservoirs to the second inlet.
In regard to claim 15:
The system of claim 12, taught by Sigmon in view of Cressman, further in view of Policicchio, as described in parent claim rejection above.
Sigmon in view of Cressman does not appear to teach the threaded connectors as claimed. Haarala teaches, wherein the first inlet comprises one of a male or female threaded connector (Fig. 1 element 60).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective date of filing, to modify the first inlet connector taught by Cressman to be a female threaded connector as taught by Haarala. This would have been motivated by design choice as merely picking between known alterative connector types is considered to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. This would have been further motivated by making it easier/faster to connect and disconnect reservoirs to the fist inlet.
Haarala teaches using a female luer connectors for the first and second connectors Fig. 1 elements 60 and 70.
Sigmon in view of Cressman further in view of Haarala discloses the claimed invention except the second inlet is a male threaded connector when the first inlet is a female threaded connector (alternatives the second is a female threaded connector when the first inlet is a male threaded connector). It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to change the second inlet to be a male threaded connector when the first inlet is female threaded connector, since such a modification would have involved a mere changing which side the female/male threaded connector was oriented (downstream or upstream of the connection). This change is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.
In regard to claim 20:
The system of claim 19, taught by Sigmon in view of Cressman, further in view of Policicchio, as described in parent claim rejection above.
Sigmon in view of Cressman does not appear to teach the first inlet as claimed. Haarala teaches, wherein a gasket surrounds the first inlet (Fig. 3a element 202. Para. 23 “the sleeve 202 may define a gasket (e.g., an o-ring) type seal.”), and the second inlet is positioned outside the gasket (Fig. 1 element 60).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective date of filing, to modify the first inlet taught by be Cressman to include a gasket type connection as taught by Haarala. This would have been motivated by improving the ease of connecting and disconnecting the inlet while maintaining a sealed connection.
In regard to claim 21:
The system of claim 19, taught by Sigmon in view of Cressman, further in view of Policicchio, as described in parent claim rejection above.
Sigmon in view of Cressman does not appear to teach the threaded connectors as claimed. Haarala teaches, wherein the connection interface comprises a male or female threaded connector (Fig. 1 element 60).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective date of filing, to modify the connection interface taught by Cressman to be a female threaded connector as taught by Haarala. This would have been motivated by design choice as merely picking between known alterative connector types is considered to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. This would have been further motivated by making it easier/faster to connect and disconnect reservoirs to the connection interface.
Claim(s) 52 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0022565 A1 to Sigmon, Jr. et al. in view of US 2015/0173821 A1 to Cressman et al. further in view of US 2004/0202980 A to Policicchio and US 2006/0229498 A to Kohno.
In regard to claim 52:
The system of claim 1, taught by Sigmon in view of Cressman, further in view of Policicchio, as described in parent claim rejection above.
Sigmon does not appear explicitly disclose the handle housing the source of pressurized gas. Kohno teaches, further comprising a handle that houses the source of pressurized gas (Fig. 1 element 16 (handle), fig. 3 element 74 within element 16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective date of filing to modify the handle taught by Sigmon to house the source of pressurized gas as taught by Kohno. This would have been motivated by Kohno (Para. 9 “The invention was made in view of these circumstances, and an object thereof is to provide an endoscope that has a suction section that performs suction from the distal end of the insertion portion and is excellent in portability.”). Housing the gas source within the handle is considered to improve portability as it removes the need to carry a source of pressurized gas in addition to the base device taught by Sigmon.
Sigmon in view of Cressman, further in view of Policicchio teach, wherein the gas from the source of pressurized gas (source of pressurized gas taught Policicchio as described in parent claim rejection above) is routed through the first inlet (taught by Cressman as described in parent claim rejection above) to facilitate delivery of the agent via the inner lumen (Sigmon Para. 20 “During operation, a pressurized fluid, e.g., a gas such as carbon dioxide, is advanced through the catheter to carry the agent particles to the target site. With the catheter in an extended position, i.e., extended distally from the accessory channel, the agent particles exit the lumen through the primary opening while at least a portion of the fluid exits the catheter, e.g., through the lumen or a coaxially positioned second lumen, through the secondary openings to create a steady fluid flow forming a fluid curtain over or near the lens to prevent or limit agent particles from obscuring or interrupting an image or view of the target site through the imaging device of the endoscope. In addition [sic] or alternatively, the fluid curtain may also be used to protect other structures, such as anatomical structures or devices, other than or in addition to the image device. As used herein to describe example embodiments, the term “fluid” may refer to a gas or a liquid.”, and Fig. 3, para. 26 “Catheter 40 includes a wall 42 defining a lumen 44 sized for delivery of the agent,”) and wherein the gas from the source of pressurized gas is also routed through the second inlet that is in fluid communication with the outer lumen of the catheter.
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 Mark A Igel whose telephone number is (571)272-7015. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday 11 am to 5 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, Bhisma Mehta can be reached at (571) 272-3383. 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.
/M.A.I./Examiner, Art Unit 3783
/BHISMA MEHTA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3783