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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/22/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendments
The amendments to claims 11 and 22 are acknowledged. Therefore, the 112(b) rejections are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 3, filed 12/22/2025, with respect to the 102 rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 11, and 21-22 over O’Regan in view of Feinsod have been fully considered and are persuasive. The examiner agrees that O’Regan in view of Feinsod fails to disclose or suggest “a single lever” and “a single link” such that they “apply a force only on one side of the plunge” as required by the claims. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made over O’Regan in view of Feinsod and Taylor (US 4950265).
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. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do use the word “means,” 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:
“means of a fixedly mounted hinge element” in claims 2 and 12. The limitation describing the means of a fixedly mounted hinge element in claims 2 and 12 fails to include sufficient structure to perform the recited function of “pivotally mounting”. In the specification, the means of a fixedly mounted hinge element is described as a living hinge (see para. 0045 of the PGPUB (US 20230011444) of the instant application. Therefore, the means of a fixedly mounted hinge element is interpreted as a living hinge or any structural equivalents thereof that pivotally mounts the lever to the syringe.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-6, 8, 11-13, 15-16, 18, 21-24, and 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Regan (US 5741273) in view of Taylor (US 4950265) and Feinsod et al. (US 20180271701) [hereinafter Feinsod].
Regarding claims 1 and 21, O’Regan discloses a hemorrhoid banding device 10 for treatment of hemorrhoidal tissue (Fig. 4, abstract, col. 3 lines 27-30, col. 4 lines 64-67, col. 5 lines 1-3; note: the embodiment of Fig. 4 is relied upon, however, Fig. 1 is referenced for like features not described in Fig. 4), the hemorrhoid banding device comprising:
a syringe 12,16 comprising a barrel 12 and a distal end having an extended tip 14 (Fig. 4, col. 3 lines 27-30 and 36-42);
a plunger 18 comprising a proximal end (interpreted as end comprising shoulder 36; Fig. 1, col. 4 lines 8-13), a distal end (interpreted as end comprising the head of plunger 18) and an intermediate portion (interpreted as portion comprising tubular element that connects the head of the plunger to a stem 34 of the plunger, Fig. 1, col. 4 lines 8-13) and wherein the plunger is slidably received in the syringe 12 (Fig. 4, col. 3 lines 27-30 and 36-42, col. 5 lines 5-13) and configured to be moved between
(i) a retracted position (not shown but described in col. 5 lines 5-13), and (ii) an extended position (Fig. 4, col. 5 lines 5-13);
a deployment sheath 22 comprising a distal end (interpreted as end adjacent to elastic band 20) and a proximal end (interpreted as end comprising pusher flange 26) (Fig. 4, col. 3 lines 54-60), wherein the deployment sheath 22 is configured to slidably fit over the extended tip 14 of the syringe 12, 16 (Fig. 4, col. 3 lines 56-63) and is configured to move between
(i) a proximal position (Fig. 4, col. 3 lines 54-63), and
(ii) a distal position (Fig. 4, col. 3 lines 54-63);
However, O’Regan fails to disclose a single lever comprising a proximal end and a distal end, with the distal end of the lever being hingedly mounted to the distal end of the syringe; and a single link comprising a proximal end and a distal end, wherein the proximal end of the link is hingedly mounted to the proximal end of the plunger and the distal end of the link is hingedly mounted to the proximal end of the lever, and wherein the single lever and the single link are configured to form an obtuse angle during retraction of the plunger and apply a force only on one side of the plunger.
Taylor in the same field of endeavor of syringe devices 110 teaches a single living hinge handle 112 comprising a proximal end (interpreted as end comprising collar 130) and a distal end 116, with the distal end 116 being hingedly mounted to a distal end of the syringe 64 (Fig. 6, col. 4 lines 30-33), wherein the proximal end 130 is hingedly mounted to a proximal end of a plunger 88 (Fig. 6, col. 4 lines 30-33), and wherein the handle 112 is configured to retract the plunger 88 and apply a force only on one side of the plunger 88 (Fig. 6, col. 4 lines 36-43).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to modify device in O’Regan to include the single living hinge handle of Taylor in order to allow a user to actuate the syringe single handedly, which is important when working in tight body spaces of a patient such as the rectum (col. 5 lines 33-38 of Taylor).
However, modified O’Regan in view of Taylor fails to disclose a lever and a link, wherein the lever and link are configured to form an obtuse angle during retraction of the plunger.
Feinsod in the same field of endeavor of syringe devices teaches that living hinge handles (see Figs. 1A-B, para. 0048) are a known alternative to handles comprising a link 75A, 75B and a lever 75C, 75D connection (see Fig. 7A, para. 0089), wherein the lever 75C, 75D and the link 75A, 75B are configured to form an obtuse angle during retraction of the plunger 76 (7A, para. 0098).
The substitution of one known hinged handle construction (lever and link as shown in Feinsod) for another (living hinge as shown in modified O’Regan) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention since the substitution of the lever and link hinged construction shown in Feinsod would have yielded predictable results, namely, an alternative way to provide the syringe with the single link and lever handle that still provides an ergonomic design that allows the user to have better control of the syringe (para. 0134 of Feinsod).
Regarding claim 2, modified O’Regan discloses wherein the distal end of the lever is pivotally mounted to the syringe by means of a fixedly mounted hinge element on the barrel (interpreted as either living hinges, pin joints, spring hinges, or the link, as described in para. 0048 of Feinsod) of the syringe (para. 0048 of Feinsod).
Regarding claim 3, modified O’Regan discloses further comprising a band 20 disposed on the extended tip 14 of the syringe 12, 16 when the deployment sheath 22 is in its proximal position (Fig. 4, col. 3 lines 42-46 of O’Regan).
Regarding claim 5, modified O’Regan discloses wherein the proximal end of the deployment sheath 22 comprises a thumb tab 26 (Fig. 4, col. 3 lines 58-63 of O’Regan), whereby distal motion of the thumb tab 26 causes distal motion of the deployment sheath 22, whereby to deploy the band 20 from the extended tip 14 of the syringe 12, 16 (Fig. 4, col. 3 lines 58-63 of O’Regan).
Regarding claim 6, modified O’Regan discloses further comprising an obturator 44 slidably disposed in the syringe 12, 16 distal to the plunger 18 (Fig. 4, col. 4 lines 64-67 and col. 5 line 1 of O’Regan), further wherein the obturator 44 is slidably disposed in the extended tip 14 of the syringe 12, 16 (Fig. 4, col. 4 lines 64-67 and col. 5 line 1 of O’Regan), with a portion of the obturator 44 projecting out of the extended tip 14 of the syringe 12, 16 when the plunger 18 is in its distal position (Note: Fig. 4 illustrates the plunger in the extended position, col. 4 lines 64-67 and col. 5 line 1 of O’Regan).
Regarding claim 8, modified O’Regan discloses wherein the obturator 44 is separated from the plunger 18 by an air gap (interpreted as space between the proximal end of the obturator and distal end of the plunger, see Fig. 4 of O’Regan).
Regarding claims 23, modified O’Regan discloses wherein the link 75A, 75B employs a geometry which minimizes deflection under a load (para. 0090, 0098 of Feinsod teaches that the user applies a load 79 onto the link 75A, 75B to retract the plunger and does not state that the link deflects under said load, but allows the syringe to generate negative pressure in the barrel).
Regarding claims 11 and 22, O’Regan discloses a method for banding hemorrhoidal tissue (abstract), the method comprising:
providing a hemorrhoid banding device 10 for treatment of hemorrhoidal tissue (Fig. 4, abstract, col. 3 lines 27-30, col. 4 lines 30-35, 64-67, col. 5 lines 1-3; note: the embodiment of Fig. 4 is relied upon, however, Fig. 1 is referenced for like features not described in Fig. 4), the hemorrhoid banding device comprising:
a syringe 12, 16 comprising a barrel 12 and a distal end having an extended tip 14 (Fig. 4, col. 3 lines 27-30 and 36-42);
a plunger 18 comprising a proximal end (interpreted as end comprising shoulder 36; Fig. 1, col. 4 lines 8-13), a distal end (interpreted as end comprising the head of plunger 18) and an intermediate portion (interpreted as portion comprising tubular element that connects the head of the plunger to a stem 34 of the plunger, Fig. 1, col. 4 lines 8-13) and wherein the plunger is slidably received in the syringe 12 (Fig. 4, col. 3 lines 27-30 and 36-42, col. 5 lines 5-13) and configured to be moved between
(i) a retracted position (not shown but described in col. 5 lines 5-13), and (ii) an extended position (Fig. 4, col. 5 lines 5-13);
a deployment sheath 22 comprising a distal end (interpreted as end adjacent to elastic band 20) and a proximal end (interpreted as end comprising pusher flange 26) (Fig. 4, col. 3 lines 54-60), wherein the deployment sheath 22 is configured to slidably fit over the extended tip 14 of the syringe 12, 16 (Fig. 4, col. 3 lines 56-63) and is configured to move between
(i) a proximal position (Fig. 4, col. 3 lines 54-63), and
(ii) a distal position (Fig. 4, col. 3 lines 54-63);
and using the hemorrhoid banding device 10 to apply a band 20 to the hemorrhoidal tissue (col. 4, lines 35-46).
However, O’Regan fails to disclose a single lever comprising a proximal end and a distal end, with the distal end of the lever being hingedly mounted to the distal end of the syringe; and a single link comprising a proximal end and a distal end, wherein the proximal end of the link is hingedly mounted to the proximal end of the plunger and the distal end of the link is hingedly mounted to the proximal end of the lever, and wherein the single lever and the single link are configured to form an obtuse angle during retraction of the plunger and apply a force only on one side of the plunger.
Taylor in the same field of endeavor of syringe devices 110 teaches a single living hinge handle 112 comprising a proximal end (interpreted as end comprising collar 130) and a distal end 116, with the distal end 116 being hingedly mounted to a distal end of the syringe 64 (Fig. 6, col. 4 lines 30-33), wherein the proximal end 130 is hingedly mounted to a proximal end of a plunger 88 (Fig. 6, col. 4 lines 30-33), and wherein the handle 112 is configured to retract the plunger 88 and apply a force only on one side of the plunger 88 (Fig. 6, col. 4 lines 36-43).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to modify device in O’Regan to include the single living hinge handle of Taylor in order to allow a user to actuate the syringe single handedly, which is important when working in tight body spaces of a patient such as the rectum (col. 5 lines 33-38 of Taylor).
However, modified O’Regan in view of Taylor fails to disclose a lever and a link, wherein the lever and link are configured to form an obtuse angle during retraction of the plunger.
Feinsod in the same field of endeavor of syringe devices teaches that living hinge handles (see Figs. 1A-B, para. 0048) are a known alternative to handles comprising a link 75A, 75B and a lever 75C, 75D connection (see Fig. 7A, para. 0089), wherein the lever 75C, 75D and the link 75A, 75B are configured to form an obtuse angle during retraction of the plunger 76 (7A, para. 0098).
The substitution of one known hinged handle construction (lever and link as shown in Feinsod) for another (living hinge as shown in modified O’Regan) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention since the substitution of the lever and link hinged construction shown in Feinsod would have yielded predictable results, namely, an alternative way to provide the syringe with the single link and lever handle that still provides an ergonomic design that allows the user to have better control of the syringe (para. 0134 of Feinsod).
Regarding claim 12, modified O’Regan discloses wherein the distal end of the lever is pivotally mounted to the syringe by means of a fixedly mounted hinge element on the barrel (interpreted as either living hinges, pin joints, spring hinges, or the link, as described in para. 0048 of Feinsod) of the syringe (Fig. 1A, para. 0048 of Feinsod).
Regarding claim 13, modified O’Regan discloses wherein the band 20 disposed on the extended tip 14 of the syringe 12, 16 when the deployment sheath 22 is in its proximal position (Fig. 4, col. 3 lines 42-46 of O’Regan).
Regarding claim 15, modified O’Regan discloses wherein the proximal end of the deployment sheath 22 comprises a thumb tab 26 (Fig. 4, col. 3 lines 58-63 of O’Regan), whereby distal motion of the thumb tab 26 causes distal motion of the deployment sheath 22, whereby to deploy the band 20 from the extended tip 14 of the syringe 12, 16 (Fig. 4, col. 3 lines 58-63 of O’Regan).
Regarding claim 16, modified O’Regan discloses further comprising an obturator 44 slidably disposed in the syringe 12, 16 distal to the plunger 18 (Fig. 4, col. 4 lines 64-67 and col. 5 line 1 of O’Regan), further wherein the obturator 44 is slidably disposed in the extended tip 14 of the syringe 12, 16 (Fig. 4, col. 4 lines 64-67 and col. 5 line 1 of O’Regan), with a portion of the obturator 44 projecting out of the extended tip 14 of the syringe 12, 16 when the plunger 18 is in its extended position (Note: Fig. 4 illustrates the plunger in the distal position, col. 4 lines 64-67 and col. 5 line 1 of O’Regan).
Regarding claim 18, modified O’Regan discloses wherein the obturator 44 is separated from the plunger 18 by an air gap (interpreted as space between the proximal end of the obturator and distal end of the plunger, see Fig. 4 of O’Regan).
Regarding claim 24, modified O’Regan discloses wherein the link 75A, 75B employs a geometry which minimizes deflection under a load (para. 0090, 0098 of Feinsod teaches that the user applies a load 79 onto the link 75A, 75B to retract the plunger and does not state that the link deflects under said load, but allows the syringe to generate negative pressure in the barrel).
Regarding claims 27 and 28, modified O’Regan discloses wherein using the hemorrhoid banding device to apply the band to the hemorrhoidal tissue comprises retracting the plunger by decreasing a distance between the lever and the syringe (see Figs. 1A (plunger in a first position) and 1B (plunger in a second, retracted position, wherein the distance between the syringe and the lever decreased, para. 0046, 0055 of Feinsod).
Claim(s) 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Regan (US 5741273) in view of Taylor (US 4950265) and Feinsod et al. (US 20180271701) [hereinafter Feinsod] as applied to claims 6 and 16 above, and further in view of Chotenovsky et al. (US 20150057679) [hereinafter Chotenovsky].
Regarding claims 7 and 17, modified O’Regan discloses all of the limitations set forth above in claims 6 and 16. Modified O’Regan further discloses wherein the obturator 44 and the plunger 18 are two separate elements (see Fig. 4 of O’Regan). However, modified O’Regan fails to disclose wherein the obturator is fixed to the plunger.
Chotenovsky in the same field of endeavor teaches a hemorrhoid banding device for the treatment of hemorrhoidal tissue (Fig. 1, abstract, para. 0055-0056, 0061) comprising an obturator 26 and a plunger 16 (Figs. 1, 8, para. 0057-0058), wherein the obturator 26 is fixed to the plunger 16 (para. 0058) as a known alternative to the plunger and obturator being separate elements (para. 0073).
The substitution of one known element (the plunger and obturator being fixedly connected as shown in Chotenovsky) for another (the plunger and obturator being separate elements as shown in modified O’Regan) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention since the substitution of the combined plunger/obturator element shown in Chotenovsky would have yielded predictable results, namely, providing the device with a single plunger/obturator element (Fig. 8, para. 0073 of Chotenovsky); KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim(s) 10, 20, 31, and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Regan (US 5741273) in view of Taylor (US 4950265) and Feinsod et al. (US 20180271701) [hereinafter Feinsod] as applied to claims 1, 11, 21, and 22 above, and further in view of Naganuma (US 5468232).
Regarding claims 10, 20, 31, and 33, modified O’Regan discloses all of the limitations set forth above in claims 1, 11, 21, and 22. However, modified O’Regan fails to disclose further comprising a locking element to selectively hold the plunger in its retracted position.
Naganuma (US 5468232) teaches a syringe 1 (Figs. 1-3, col. 3 lines 10-12) and a plunger 15 configured to be slidably received in the syringe 1 (Figs. 1-3, col. 5 lines 27-32) and movable between (i) a proximal position (shown in Fig. 1), and (ii) a distal position (shown in Fig. 3), and further comprising a locking element 21 to selectively hold the plunger 15 in its retracted position (Figs. 1, 3, col. 4 lines 52-58 and col. 5 lines 1-7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to modify the plunger in modified O’Regan to include the locking element of Naganuma in order to lock the plunger in the proximal, retracted, position (as shown in Fig. 1, col. 5 lines 1-7), thereby preventing premature distal movement of plunger (col. 2 lines 48-53 of Naganuma).
Claim(s) 25-26, 32, and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Regan (US 5741273) in view of Taylor (US 4950265) and Feinsod et al. (US 20180271701) [hereinafter Feinsod] and Naganuma (US 5468232) as applied to claims 10, 20, 31, and 33 above, and further in view of Fiser et al. (US 7361159) [hereinafter Fiser].
Regarding claims 25-26, 32, and 34, modified O’Regan discloses all of the limitations set forth above in claims 10, 20, 31, and 33. Modified O’Regan further discloses wherein the proximal end of the plunger comprises the locking element (Fig. 1, col. 4 lines 52-58 and col. 5 lines 1-7 of Naganuma). However, modified O’Regan fails to disclose that the locking element is configured for engagement with the link.
Fiser teaches that it is known in the art to lock a link (interpreted as proximal portion of extensible frame 56 which structure is analogous with the link 75A-B of Feinsod, see Figs, 1A-B, 7D, para. 0048; col. 5 lines 22-30 of Fiser) with a locking element 50 (which structure is analogous to the locking element shown in Naganuma, see Figs. 1, 3) such that a proximal end 42 of an elongate member 44 comprises the locking element 50 and the locking element 50 is configured for engagement with the link 56 via. retaining pockets 66 to lock the link 56 in place (Fig. 3, col. 6 lines 58-66) and disengage with the link 56 to unlock the link (Figs. 4A-5, col. 9 lines 22-25).
In light of this teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the link of modified O’Regan to include the pair of pockets of Fiser and substitute the locking element of Fiser for the locking element of modified O’Regan, since such a substitution is for one known locking element for another and since the modification would yield predictable results, namely a way for the user to selectively lock the link to the proximal end of plunger (Figs. 3, 4A-5, col. 6 lines 58-66 and col. 9 lines 22-25 of Fiser); KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)
Claim(s) 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Regan (US 5741273) in view of Taylor (US 4950265) and Feinsod et al. (US 20180271701) [hereinafter Feinsod] as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Fiser et al. (US 7361159) [hereinafter Fiser].
Regarding claims 29-30, modified O’Regan discloses all of the limitations set forth above in claims 1 and 11. However, modified O’Regan fails to disclose wherein at least one of the lever or the link comprises a U- shaped geometry.
Fiser in the related art of hinge mechanisms, teaches that it is known in the art to structure a link (interpreted as proximal segment 58 of extensible frame 56 which structure is analogous with the link 75A-B of Feinsod, see Figs, 1A-B, 7D, para. 0048 of Feinsod; col. 5 lines 22-30 of Fiser) and a lever (interpreted as distal segment 60 of extensible frame 56 which structure is analogous with the lever 75C-D of Feinsod, see Figs, 1A-B, 7D, para. 0048 of Feinsod; col. 5 lines 22-30 of Fiser) with a U-shaped geometry (see Figs. 1-2, 12-13 of Fiser).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the link and lever of modified O’Regan to be shaped in the U-shaped geometry as taught by Fiser, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the form or shape of a component. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAUREN DUBOSE whose telephone number is (571)272-8792. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am-5:30 pm.
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, Elizabeth Houston can be reached on 571-272-7134. 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.
/LAUREN DUBOSE/Examiner, Art Unit 3771
/SARAH A LONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771