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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of invention I in the reply filed on 2/13/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that because claim 17 requires each of the elements of claim 1, each element of claim 1 would be required to be searched in the examination of claim 17 and therefore no serious search and/or examination burden exists. This is not found persuasive because as detailed in the restriction requirement mailed 9/18/2025, a serious search and/or examination burden does exist since the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification and require a different field of search (E.G. searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries); and/or prior art applicable to one group would not likely be applicable to another group. Particularly, art applicable to one group would not be applicable to another group as art which discloses or teaches an instrument connection device as claimed in claim 1 could be manufactured in a variety of different ways and may disclose a different way of manufacturing the instrument connection device than required by claim 17. For example, the product as claimed (invention I) can be made by another and materially different process such as a process that does not require elastically bending the hollow cylindrical body and inserting the wire into the straight section such that the wire penetrates the body at the bent site. The wire could instead be positioned within a hole that has already been pre-formed. The instrument connection device could also be made in a variety of other ways such as forming the punctured hole in a different portion. Therefore, a serious search and/or examination burden does exist. Applicant states that the Office asserted “(1) that the process as claimed can be used to make another and materially different product…”. However, as detailed in the restriction requirement mailed 9/18/2025, it was stated that (2) the product as claimed can be made by another and materially different process, not that the process as claimed can be used to make another and materially different product. In order to show that inventions I and II are distinct one or both of (1) the process as claimed can be used to make another and materially different product or (2) the product as claimed can be made by another and materially different process must be shown. As detailed above and in the restriction requirement mailed 9/18/2025, the product as claimed can be made by another and materially different process.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim 17 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 2/13/2026.
The proper status indicator of “withdrawn” has not been given to claim 17. Claim 17 should be given the status indicator of withdrawn. See MPEP 714(II)(c) and 37 CFR 1.121.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 9/28/2022, 6/2/2025, 9/12/2025, 10/3/2025, and 10/8/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: item 37.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because:
Line 2 recites “the proximal end of a hose”. As the proximal end has not been previously introduced, Examiner suggests replacing “the proximal end of a hose” in line 2 with “a proximal end of a hose” to put the abstract in clearer form.
Line 6-7 recites “a penetration of wall”. This is grammatically incorrect. Examiner suggests replacing “a penetration of wall” in line 6-7 with “a penetration of the wall” to put the abstract in clearer form.
Line 7-8 recites “The punctured hole may be straight and guides the obliquely”. It is unclear what is meant by “and guides the obliquely”. It is unclear what structure is guided obliquely. Examiner suggests replacing “The punctured hole may be straight and guides the obliquely” in line 7-8 with “The punctured hole may be straight or angled”.
Line 8 recites “the hole”. All other instances of the hole are referred to as the punctured hole. Examiner suggests replacing “the hole” in line 8 with “the punctured hole” to put the abstract in clearer form and clearly refer to the punctured hole.
Line 9 recites “the radial axis”. As the radial axis has not been previously introduced, Examiner suggests replacing “the radial axis” in line 9 with “a radial axis” to put the abstract in clearer form.
Line 9 recites “the longitudinal center axis”. As the longitudinal center axis has not been previously introduced, Examiner suggests replacing “the longitudinal center axis” in line 9 with “a longitudinal center axis” to put the abstract in clearer form.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 4 recites “the wall”. The wall is introduced as a flexible wall in line 2 and referred to as the flexible wall in claim 3. Examiner suggests replacing “the wall” in line 4 of claim 1 with “the flexible wall” to put the claim in clearer form and clearly refer to the flexible wall of line 2.
Line 5 recites “extending in proximal direction”. This is grammatically incorrect. Examiner suggests replacing “extending in proximal direction” in line 5 of claim 1 with “extending in a proximal direction”.
Claim 5 objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 2 recites “the wall”. Claim 5 depends on claim 1. The wall is introduced as a flexible wall in claim 1 and referred to as the flexible wall in claim 3. Examiner suggests replacing “the wall” in line 2 of claim 5 with “the flexible wall” to put the claim in clearer form and clearly refer to the flexible wall of claim 1.
Line 3 recites “the wall”. Claim 5 depends on claim 1. The wall is introduced as a flexible wall in claim 1 and referred to as the flexible wall in claim 3. Examiner suggests replacing “the wall” in line 3 of claim 5 with “the flexible wall” to put the claim in clearer form and clearly refer to the flexible wall of claim 1.
Claim 14 objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 2 recites “a steel wire .”. There is a space between the term “wire” and “.” which should be removed.
Claim 16 objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 1-2 recites “an instrument connection device according to claim 1”. Claim 1 introduces the instrument connection device. Examiner suggests replacing “an instrument connection device according to claim 1” in line 1-2 of claim 16 with “the instrument connection device according to claim 1” as claim 16 refers to the instrument connection device already introduced in claim 1.
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 1-16 are 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.
In regard to claim 1,
Line 3 recites “and configured to limit a through channel”. It is unclear whether the gas junction, hollow cylindrical body, flexible wall, or punctured hole is configured to limit a through channel. Additionally, it is unclear what is meant by “to limit a through channel”. It is unclear if “to limit” is intended to mean “to define” or if “to limit” is intended to mean to restrict a through channel. Furthermore, is it unclear what structure the through channel is of. For examination purposes Examiner construes the gas junction to be configured to define/limit a through channel. Examiner suggests replacing “and configured to limit a through channel” in line 3 of claim 1 with “and the gas junction defining a through channel”.
Line 4 recites “and arranged to abut the wall”. It is unclear if the hose or the at least one lumen is arranged to abut the wall. For examination purposes Examiner construes the how to be arranged to abut the wall. Examiner suggests replacing “at least one lumen and arranged to abut” in line 4 of claim 1 with “at least one lumen, the hose arranged to abut”.
Line 4 recites “the body”. It is unclear if the body refers to the hollow cylindrical body or to a body of a patient/human as all other instances of the body are referred to as the hollow cylindrical body (see line 4-5 of claim 1 and also claim 9-11). For examination purposes Examiner construes “the body” to be “the hollow cylindrical body”. Examiner suggests replacing “the body” in line 4 with “the hollow cylindrical body”.
Examiner notes claims 2-15 are similarly rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 1 and claim 16 is similarly rejected by virtue of requiring the limitations on claim 1.
In regard to claim 6,
Line 2-3 recites “a longitudinal direction the through channel”. It is unclear what is meant by this. It is unclear if the longitudinal direction is of the through channel or of a different structure. Additionally, the through channel is not positively required in claim 1, which claim 6 depends on. It is unclear if claim 6 is attempting to positively require the through channel. For examination purposes Examiner construes “a longitudinal direction the through channel” to be “a longitudinal direction of the through channel”. Examiner suggests replacing “a longitudinal direction the through channel” in line 2-3 of claim 6 with “a longitudinal direction of the through channel” Examiner also construes the through channel to be positively required and further suggests amending line 3 of claim 1 as suggested above.
Examiner notes claim 7 is similarly rejected by virtue of its dependency on claim 6.
In regard to claim 8,
Line 2 recites “the longitudinal direction”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in this claim. It is unclear what structure the longitudinal direction is of. For examination purposes Examiner construes the longitudinal direction to be a longitudinal direction of the through channel. Examiner suggests replacing “the longitudinal direction” in line 2 of claim 8 with “a longitudinal direction of the through channel”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1, 4, 6, 9-10, 12-13, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by a first interpretation of Graham (U.S. PG publication 20160279374).
In regard to claim 1,
Graham discloses an instrument connection device (see all of figure 5; Examiner notes figure 2 shows an example instrument connected to an instrument connection device/breathing tube) comprising:
a gas junction (figure 5, item 7; paragraph [0003] and [0099]; Examiner notes item 7 functions as a gas junction as it can be connected to other structures and functions as a junction to allow gas to flow through item 7) comprising a hollow cylindrical body (see figure 5) having a flexible wall (paragraph [0082]) having a punctured hole (figure 5, item 21; Examiner notes the claimed phrase “punctured hole” is being treated as a product-by-process limitation and since it has been held that a product-by-process limitation is not construed as being limited to the product formed by the specific process recited, therefore, even though Graham is silent as to the process used to make the hole, it appears that Graham’s product would be the same or similar as that claimed, especially since both applicant’s product and the prior art product is made of a flexible material. MPEP 2113) and configured to limit a through channel (see 112 rejection above for claim interpretation. Examiner notes item 7 defines/limits a through channel 11);
a hose (figure 5, item 3 and 8) comprising at least one lumen (see figure 5 wherein item 3 defines the at least one lumen) and arranged to abut the wall inside the body (see 112 rejection above for claim interpretation; see figure 5 wherein a portion of item 3 abuts the wall inside the body), the at least one lumen having a first end extending in proximal direction into the hollow cylindrical body (see figure 5); and
a wire (figure 5, item 9; paragraph [0100]-[0101]) arranged inside the hose (see figure 5), projecting proximally from the hose and extending through the punctured hole (see figure 5; paragraph [0101]).
In regard to claim 4,
Graham discloses the instrument connection device according to claim 1, wherein the wire extends through the punctured hole without a gasket (see figure 5 wherein no gasket is located in the punctured hole 21 which the wire extends through).
In regard to claim 6,
Graham discloses the instrument connection device according to claim 1, wherein the punctured hole is arranged at an angle relative to a longitudinal direction the through channel that is less than 90° (see 112 rejection above for claim interpretation; see figure 5).
In regard to claim 9,
Graham discloses the instrument connection device according to claim 1, wherein the hollow cylindrical body has a flexibility that is greater than a flexibility of the hose (paragraph [0082]; Examiner notes the hollow cylindrical body has a flexibility that is greater than a flexibility of item 3 of the hose).
In regard to claim 10,
Graham discloses the instrument connection device according to claim 1, wherein the hose is held inside the hollow cylindrical body in a friction-fit manner (see figure 5 and paragraph [0098]).
In regard to claim 12,
Graham discloses the instrument connection device according to claim 1, wherein the hose comprises at least one of a polyamide, a polyester, a polycarbonate, TPA, Pebax, polypropylene and a polyethylene (paragraph [0116]; item 8 of the hose comprises at least one of the materials above).
In regard to claim 13,
Graham discloses the instrument connection device according to claim 1, wherein the wire is fixed inside the hose (see figure 5).
In regard to claim 16,
Graham discloses an instrument (see figure 2) having an instrument connection device according to claim 1 (see analysis of claim 1 above, breathing tube shown in figure 5).
Claims 1, 4-8, 10, 12-13, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by a second interpretation of Graham (U.S. PG publication 20160279374).
In regard to claim 1,
Graham discloses an instrument connection device (see all of figure 5; Examiner notes figure 2 shows an example instrument connected to an instrument connection device/breathing tube) comprising:
a gas junction (figure 5, item 3 and 8; Examiner notes item 3 and 8 function as a gas junction as they can be connected to other structures and function as a junction to allow gas to flow through item 3 for example) comprising a hollow cylindrical body having a flexible wall (wall of item 8) having a punctured hole (hole/opening into item 8 that is received over item 3; Examiner notes the claimed phrase “punctured hole” is being treated as a product-by-process limitation and since it has been held that a product-by-process limitation is not construed as being limited to the product formed by the specific process recited, therefore, even though Graham is silent as to the process used to make the hole, it appears that Graham’s product would be the same or similar as that claimed, especially since both applicant’s product and the prior art product is made of a flexible material. MPEP 2113) and configured to limit a through channel (see 112 rejection above for claim interpretation wherein the gas junction item 3 and 8 defines/limits a through channel through item 3 and 8);
a hose (figure 5, item 7) comprising at least one lumen (see figure 5) and arranged to abut the wall inside the body (see figure 5), the at least one lumen having a first end extending in proximal direction into the hollow cylindrical body (see figure 5); and
a wire (figure 5, item 9) arranged inside the hose (see figure 5), projecting proximally from the hose and extending through the punctured hole (see figure 5).
In regard to claim 4,
Graham discloses the instrument connection device according to claim 1, wherein the wire extends through the punctured hole without a gasket (see figure 5 wherein no gasket is located in the punctured hole of item 8 which the wire extends through).
In regard to claim 5,
[AltContent: textbox (Wall )][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
495
622
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Graham discloses the instrument connection device according to claim 1, wherein the punctured hole is one of oriented at a right angle relative to the wall or inclined relative to the wall (see figure 5 above).
In regard to claim 6,
[AltContent: textbox (Longitudinal direction)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
495
622
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Graham discloses the instrument connection device according to claim 1, wherein the punctured hole is arranged at an angle relative to a longitudinal direction the through channel that is less than 90° (see figure 5 above; Examiner notes the longitudinal direction of the through channel changes at multiple times through item 3).
In regard to claim 7,
Graham discloses the instrument connection device according to claim 6, wherein the punctured hole is arranged at an angle relative to the longitudinal direction that is larger than 10° (see figure 5 above and analysis of claim 6).
In regard to claim 8,
[AltContent: textbox (Longitudinal direction)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
495
622
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Graham discloses the instrument connection device according to claim 1, wherein the punctured hole is arranged at an angle relative to the longitudinal direction that is larger than 10° (see figure 5 above).
In regard to claim 10,
Graham discloses the instrument connection device according to claim 1, wherein the hose is held inside the hollow cylindrical body in a friction-fit manner (see figure 5 and paragraph [0098]).
In regard to claim 12,
Graham discloses the instrument connection device according to claim 1, wherein the hose comprises at least one of a polyamide, a polyester, a polycarbonate, TPA, Pebax, polypropylene and a polyethylene (paragraph [0116]).
In regard to claim 13,
Graham discloses the instrument connection device according to claim 1, wherein the wire is fixed inside the hose (see figure 5).
In regard to claim 16,
Graham discloses an instrument (see figure 2) having an instrument connection device according to claim 1 (see analysis of claim 1 above, breathing tube shown in figure 5).
Claims 1-3, 11, 13, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kranys (U.S. Patent no 5207656).
In regard to claim 1,
Kranys discloses an instrument connection device (see figure 1 and 2, item 10 not including item 22 is an instrument connection device and can be connected to item 22; column 1, line 66-column 2, line 2: wherein the reclosable aperture may be a single, normally closed puncture hole through the partition member which may be stretched and expanded by an advancing, elongated member to facilitate passage through the partition member; column 1, line 51-54: wherein the elongate member is a guide wire) comprising:
a gas junction (figure 1 and 2, item 26, 28, and 24; Examiner notes item 26, 28, and 24 function as a gas junction as they can be connected to item 22 and function as a junction to allow a gas to flow through) comprising a hollow cylindrical body (see figure 1 and 2) having a flexible wall (item 24; column 1, line 66-column 2, line 2) having a punctured hole (column 1, line 66-column 2, line 2: wherein the reclosable aperture may be a single, normally closed puncture hole through the partition member which may be stretched and expanded by an advancing, elongated member to facilitate passage through the partition member) and configured to limit a through channel (see 112 rejection for claim interpretation; see figure 1 and 2);
a hose (figure 1 and 2, item 16) comprising at least one lumen (see figure 1 and 2) and arranged to abut the wall inside the body (see 112 rejection for claim interpretation; see figure 1 and 2), the at least one lumen having a first end extending in proximal direction into the hollow cylindrical body (see figure 1 and 2); and
a wire (guide wire; column 1, line 51-54: wherein the elongate member is a guide wire) arranged inside the hose (see figure 1, column 1, line 51-54) projecting proximally from the hose and extending through the punctured hole (column 1, line 66-column 2, line 2 and column 1, line 51-54).
In regard to claim 2,
Kranys discloses the instrument connection device according to claim 1, wherein the punctured hole is configured to be elastically widened by the wire (column 1, line 66-column 2, line 2: wherein the reclosable aperture may be a single, normally closed puncture hole through the partition member which may be stretched and expanded by an advancing, elongated member to facilitate passage through the partition member; column 1, line 51-54: wherein the elongate member is a guide wire).
In regard to claim 3,
Kranys discloses the instrument connection device according to claim 1, wherein the flexible wall abuts in an elastically tensioned manner against the wire at the punctured hole (column 1, line 66-column 2, line 2: wherein the reclosable aperture may be a single, normally closed puncture hole through the partition member which may be stretched and expanded by an advancing, elongated member to facilitate passage through the partition member; column 1, line 51-54: wherein the elongate member is a guide wire).
In regard to claim 11,
Kranys discloses the instrument connection device according to claim 1, wherein the hollow cylindrical body comprises a silicone plastic (column 3, line 42-47).
In regard to claim 13,
Kranys discloses the instrument connection device according to claim 1, wherein the wire is fixed inside the hose (column 1, line 66-column 2, line 2 and column 1, line 51-54; Examiner notes the wire is at least temporarily fixed inside the hose when inserted through item 24).
In regard to claim 16,
Kranys discloses an instrument (see all of figure 1) having an instrument connection device according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above).
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 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.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the first interpretation of Graham (U.S. PG publication 20160279374) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Foucras (U.S. Patent no 4038519).
In regard to claim 11,
The first interpretation of Graham discloses the instrument connection device according to claim 1.
The first interpretation of Graham fails to disclose wherein the hollow cylindrical body comprises a silicone plastic.
Foucras teaches wherein the hollow cylindrical body (figure 2, item 1) comprises a silicone plastic (column 3, line 26-27 and column 6, line 32-33).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hollow cylindrical body of the first interpretation of Graham to include a silicone plastic, as taught by Foucras, for the purpose of promoting the dissipation of heat (column 2, line 65-column 3, line 6 of Foucras).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the second interpretation of Graham (U.S. PG publication 20160279374) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Foucras (U.S. Patent no 4038519).
In regard to claim 11,
The second interpretation of Graham discloses the instrument connection device according to claim 1.
The second interpretation of Graham fails to disclose wherein the hollow cylindrical body comprises a silicone plastic.
Foucras teaches wherein the hollow cylindrical body (figure 2, item 3) comprises a silicone plastic (column 6, line 40-42).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hollow cylindrical body of the second interpretation of Graham to include a silicone plastic, as taught by Foucras, for the purpose of promoting the dissipation of heat (column 2, line 65-column 3, line 6 of Foucras).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Graham (U.S. PG publication 20160279374) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Scott (U.S. PG publication 20040250815). Examiner notes the rejection of claim 14 applies to both the first interpretation and the second interpretation of Graham.
In regard to claim 14,
Graham discloses the instrument connection device according to claim 1.
Graham fails to disclose wherein the wire comprises a steel wire.
Scott teaches wherein the wire comprises a steel wire (paragraph [0009]).
Further, Scott teaches that a steel wire and a copper wire could all be used to achieve the same result (paragraph [0009]) and thus a steel wire and a copper wire were art-recognized equivalents before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute a steel wire in place of the copper wire of Graham since it has been held that substituting parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. Paragraph [0118] of Graham also supports modifications can be made.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Graham (U.S. PG publication 20160279374) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lopstinsky (U.S. PG patent no 5600752). Examiner notes the rejection of claim 15 applies to both the first interpretation and the second interpretation of Graham.
In regard to claim 15,
Graham discloses the instrument connection device according to claim 1.
Graham fails to disclose wherein the wire comprises a springy bending-resistant material.
Lopstinsky teaches wherein the wire (item 20) comprises a springy bending-resistant material (column 3, line 3-5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Graham to substitute the material of the wire of Graham for spring steel which is a springy bending-resistant material, as taught by Lopstinsky, because the substitution is a simple substitution that would yield the same predictable result of enabling heating (column 3, line 49-67 of Lopstinsky and paragraph [0117] and [0086] of Graham). Paragraph [0118] of Graham also supports modifications can be made.
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kranys (U.S. Patent no 5207656) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yamashita (U.S. PG publication 20180050177).
In regard to claim 14,
Kranys discloses the instrument connection device according to claim 1.
Kranys is silent as to wherein the wire comprises a steel wire.
Yamashita teaches wherein the wire (item W) comprises a steel wire (paragraph [0031]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kranys to include wherein the wire comprises a steel wire, as taught by Yamashita, for the purpose of enabling the guidewire to be imaged (paragraph [0031] of Yamashita).
In regard to claim 15,
Kranys discloses the instrument connection device according to claim 1.
Kranys is silent as to wherein the wire comprises a springy bending-resistant material.
Yamashita teaches wherein the wire (item W) comprises a springy bending-resistant material (spring steel; paragraph [0031]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kranys to include wherein the wire comprises a springy bending-resistant material, as taught by Yamashita, for the purpose of enabling the guidewire to be imaged (paragraph [0031] of Yamashita).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDRA ELIZABETH LALONDE whose telephone number is (313)446-6594. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 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, Kevin Sirmons can be reached at (571) 272-4965. 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.
/ALEXANDRA LALONDE/Examiner, Art Unit 3783 /KEVIN C SIRMONS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3783