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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This is the first office action in response to the above identified patent application filed on 09/30/2021. Claims 1, 2, 4-7, 11, and 12 are currently pending and being examined.
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 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.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 3, and 8-10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 08/01/2025.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, and 11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dewaele (USPAP 2013/0123661) in view of Daggett (USPN 9,867,915).
In reference to the independent claim 1, Dewaele discloses a suction system (fig 12) comprising: a branch conduit (100) comprising a main conduit (46) and a suction pipe sleeve (pipe of 49) branching from the main conduit (46);
a suction path (lumen of 49) provided in the suction pipe sleeve, the suction path comprising a first opening communicating with the main conduit (where the branch of 49 meets 46); a working channel (channel of 42) comprising an insertion path (the path of 42) communicating with the main conduit (46); and a liquid feed tube (10, para 0143 discloses “It is within the scope of the invention that the elongated member 10 is provided as a further channel to the endoscope. In other words, an endoscope comprises an additional channel having the same properties as the elongated member 10”) inserted through the main conduit and the working channel ( para 0094 discloses “The elongated member 10 is provided with a coupling 40 proximal 20 to the pressure detecting body 50 configured for dismountable coupling with a proximal rinse port 250, 254 of an endoscope. Throughout the description, a rinse port 250, 254 is mentioned for coupling with a coupling 40 of the elongated member 10; this may be the rinse inlet port 254 or the rinse outlet port 250” as such examiner takes the position that 10 can be used as a fluid inlet according to para 0143 above and 42 can be connected as a fluid outlet), however
Dewaele is silent to wherein a first minimum length A, a maximum length B, and a second minimum length C have a dimensional relation of C-B<(A-B)/2, the first minimum length A passing through a first center on a plane of the first opening, the maximum length B passing through a second center on a cross section orthogonal to a longitudinal direction of the liquid feed tube, the second minimum length C passing through a third center on a cross section orthogonal to a longitudinal direction of the insertion path.
Daggett, a similar multi-lumen device for putting fluids in and out of the body, teaches (col 10, lines 40-44 discloses “a size of an aperture that optimizes the balance between not clogging the drainage tube with excessively large particulates or matter, while still permitting larger size particulates or matter to be removed from the region of interest of the patient or subject”).
It has been held that a particular parameter must be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation. In re Antoine, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2144.05 II(B).
Furthermore, it has been held that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.05II(A). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the dimensions taught by Dewaele in view of Daggett because the dimensions were recognized as a result-effective variable achieving a particular level of performance and it would have been a matter of routine experimentation to determine the optimum or workable ranges of the dimensions to achieve a desired level of flow.
In reference to independent claim 11, Dewaele discloses an endoscope (200) comprising:
an insertion portion (50) inserted into a body cavity (500, fig 13); an operation portion (20) provided continuously with the insertion portion (50); a branch conduit (100) provided on the operation portion (seen in fig 13), the branch conduit (100) comprising a main conduit (46) provided in a longitudinal direction of the branch conduit (fig 13 shows the branch conduit in the general longitudinal direction), and a suction pipe sleeve (pipe of 49) branching from the main conduit (seen in fig 12); a suction path (lumen of 49) provided in the suction pipe sleeve (pipe of 49), the suction path (lumen of 49) comprising a first opening communicating with the main conduit (where the branch of 49 meets 46); a working channel (channel of 42) provided in the insertion portion and the operation portion, the working channel comprising an insertion path communicating with the main conduit; and a liquid feed tube (10, para 0143 discloses “It is within the scope of the invention that the elongated member 10 is provided as a further channel to the endoscope. In other words, an endoscope comprises an additional channel having the same properties as the elongated member 10”) inserted through the main conduit and the working channel (para 0094 discloses “The elongated member 10 is provided with a coupling 40 proximal 20 to the pressure detecting body 50 configured for dismountable coupling with a proximal rinse port 250, 254 of an endoscope. Throughout the description, a rinse port 250, 254 is mentioned for coupling with a coupling 40 of the elongated member 10; this may be the rinse inlet port 254 or the rinse outlet port 250” as such examiner takes the position that 10 can be used as a fluid inlet according to para 0143 above and 42 can be connected as a fluid outlet), however
Dewaele is silent to wherein a first minimum length A, a maximum length B, and a second minimum length C have a dimensional relation of C-B<(A-B)/2, the first minimum length A passing through a first center on a plane of the first opening, the maximum length B passing through a second center on a cross section orthogonal to a longitudinal direction of the liquid feed tube, the second minimum length C passing through a third center on a cross section orthogonal to a longitudinal direction of the insertion path.
Daggett, a similar multi-lumen device for putting fluids in and out of the body, teaches (col 10, lines 40-44 discloses “a size of an aperture that optimizes the balance between not clogging the drainage tube with excessively large particulates or matter, while still permitting larger size particulates or matter to be removed from the region of interest of the patient or subject”).
It has been held that a particular parameter must be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation. In re Antoine, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2144.05 II(B).
Furthermore, it has been held that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.05II(A). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the dimensions taught by Dewaele in view of Daggett because the dimensions were recognized as a result-effective variable achieving a particular level of performance and it would have been a matter of routine experimentation to determine the optimum or workable ranges of the dimensions to achieve a desired level of flow.
In reference to dependent claim 2, Dewaele in view of Daggett discloses the suction system according to claim 1, Dewaele further discloses a system wherein the main conduit (46) is provided in a longitudinal direction of the branch conduit (46 is in the longitudinal direction of the branch conduit 100).
In reference to dependent claim 5, Dewaele in view of Daggett discloses the suction system according to claim 1, wherein a region of the main conduit (46) near the first opening on a proximal end side with respect to the first opening is provided with a position restriction member (48, fig 12), the position restriction member being configured to restrict a position of the liquid feed tube (10) such that the liquid feed tube is positioned away from the first opening (place where 49 meets 46 in fig 12) by a predetermined distance.
In reference to dependent claim 6, Dewaele in view of Daggett discloses the suction system according to claim 5, however
Dewaele is silent wherein the predetermined distance is greater than a difference between the second minimum length C and the maximum length B.
Daggett, a similar multi-lumen device for putting fluids in and out of the body, teaches (col 10, lines 40-44 discloses “a size of an aperture that optimizes the balance between not clogging the drainage tube with excessively large particulates or matter, while still permitting larger size particulates or matter to be removed from the region of interest of the patient or subject”).
It has been held that a particular parameter must be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation. In re Antoine, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2144.05 II(B).
Furthermore, it has been held that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.05II(A). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the dimensions taught by Dewaele in view of Daggett because the dimensions were recognized as a result-effective variable achieving a particular level of performance and it would have been a matter of routine experimentation to determine the optimum or workable ranges of the dimensions to achieve a desired level of flow.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dewaele (USPAP 2013/0123661) in view of Daggett (USPN 9,867,915) further in view of Goddard (USPAP 2016/0120557).
In reference to dependent claim 4, Dewaele in view of Daggett discloses the suction system according to claim 1, however
Dewaele and Daggett are silent to wherein the suction path has a rectangular cross section, and a length in a short-side direction of the first opening is the first minimum length A.
Although, Goddard, a similar multi-lumen device for putting fluids in and out of the body, teaches (para 0036 discloses “lumen 112′ may be have a different cross-sectional shape and/or size than lumen 114′. It should be noted that lumens 112′, 114′, and 116 may have any shape or size and be in any configuration.”).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the suction path rectangular, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dewaele (USPAP 2013/0123661) in view of Daggett (USPN 9,867,915) further in view of Kucklick (USPAP 2009/0182201).
In reference to dependent claim 7, Dewaele in view of Daggett discloses the suction system according to claim 6, however
Dewaele and Daggett do not disclose wherein the position restriction member is a rib protruding in a central direction of a cross section orthogonal to a longitudinal direction of the main conduit.
Kucklick, a similar medical device, teaches a position restriction member (41, fig 5) is a rib protruding in a central direction of a cross section orthogonal to a longitudinal direction of the main conduit.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the rib as taught in Kucklick in the system of Dewaele in view of Daggett “creating outer lumens facilitating the inflow and outflow of fluid to a surgical site” abstract, Kucklick.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dewaele (USPAP 2013/0123661) in view of Daggett (USPN 9,867,915) further in view of Ishibiki (JP H07116105).
In reference to dependent claim 12, Dewaele in view of Daggett discloses the endoscope according to claim 11, however
Dewaele and Daggett are silent to a distal end portion provided at a distal end of the insertion portion; and a conduit provided in the distal end portion, the conduit comprising a second opening communicating with the working channel and a third opening provided in a distal end face of the distal end portion, wherein an inner peripheral face of the conduit is formed to be tapered toward the third opening from the second opening, and an inside diameter of the third opening is equal to the second minimum length C.
Daggett, a similar multi-lumen device for putting fluids in and out of the body, teaches (col 10, lines 40-44 discloses “a size of an aperture that optimizes the balance between not clogging the drainage tube with excessively large particulates or matter, while still permitting larger size particulates or matter to be removed from the region of interest of the patient or subject”).
It has been held that a particular parameter must be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation. In re Antoine, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2144.05 II(B).
Furthermore, it has been held that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.05II(A). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the dimensions taught by Dewaele in view of Daggett because the dimensions were recognized as a result-effective variable achieving a particular level of performance and it would have been a matter of routine experimentation to determine the optimum or workable ranges of the dimensions to achieve a desired level of flow.
Ishibiki, a similar endoscope, teaches a distal end portion (near reference number 19, fig 6) provided at a distal end of the insertion portion; and a conduit (22) provided in the distal end portion, the conduit (22) comprising a second opening communicating (mouth 20) with the working channel (channel of 20) and a third opening (small opening in 19) provided in a distal end face of the distal end portion (small opening in 19 is in the distal portion of 22), wherein an inner peripheral face of the conduit is formed to be tapered toward the third opening from the second opening (the endoscope tapers down from the mouth 20 to the hole in 19 at the distal end of the endoscope).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the taper as taught in Ishibiki in the system of Dewaele in view of Daggett “so as to enhance the movement of insertion” Abstract; Ishibiki.
Conclusion
Examiner has cited particular columns and line and/or paragraph numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
The examiner requests, in response to this Office action, support be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line no(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the examiner in prosecuting the application.
When responding to this office action, Applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections See 37 CFR 1.111(c).
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
St. George (USPAP 2015/0305759) discloses a suction device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES W NICHOLS whose telephone number is (571)272-6492. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm 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, Michael Tsai can be reached at (571) 270-5246. 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.
/C.W.N/Examiner, Art Unit 3783
/MICHAEL J TSAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3783