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 .
Priority
1. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/24/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, this submission of the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not 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 not use the word “means,” but 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 limitations are: “actuator mechanism” in claims 1 and 9.
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. Terms such as “mechanism” followed by functional language are a generic placeholder for the phrase “means for”. For examination purposes, “actuator mechanism” in claims 1 and 9 is interpreted as heating circuit with tension wire (Specification, Pages 11-12).
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 § 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.
Claim 7-8 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.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the bias member". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Rephrase “the bias member” to read --the biasing element--.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “substantially” which is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Since the meets and bounds of “substantially” are not explicitly defined as marginal deviations of curvature, remove the term “substantially” from claim 8 to improve clarity.
Double Patenting
8. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent No. 12485038.
Regarding claim 1 of the instant application, U.S. Patent No. 12485038 claims 1 and 5 discloses an implantable tube valve for implanting in a human vessel, the tube valve comprising: a tube, having an inner tube wall and an outer tube wall that extend between two axial tube ends; a valve member, connected to a pivot shaft supported by the tube, wherein the valve member is pivotable between an open position and a closed position; an actuator mechanism that is mounted on the outer tube wall; a pivot member that is arranged for driving the pivot shaft from the outer tube wall by an actuation force from the actuator mechanism; and at least one biasing element that is connected to the pivot member and arranged for preloading the pivot member to bistably bias the valve member towards the open position or the closed position; wherein the pivot member is substantially curved, having a curvature following a contour of the inner tube wall to limit a lateral extension of the implantable tube valve; wherein the at least one biasing element comprises at least two bow-shaped rods that are interconnected at both ends in a mirrored fashion.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the difference between claim 1 of the current application and claims 1 and 5 of patent 12485038 lies in the fact that the patented claims include many more elements and is thus much more specific. Thus, the invention of claims 1 and 5 of patent 12485038 in effect a “species” of the “generic” invention of current application claim 1. It has been held that the generic invention is “anticipated” by the “species". See In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Since claim 1 of the current application is anticipated by claims 1 and 5 of patent (12485038), it is not patentably distinct from claims 1 and 5 of patent 12485038.
All of the limitations of claim 2 can be found in claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12485038.
All of the limitations of claim 3 can be found in claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12485038.
All of the limitations of claim 4 can be found in claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12485038.
All of the limitations of claim 5 can be found in claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 12485038.
All of the limitations of claim 6 can be found in claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12485038.
All of the limitations of claim 7 can be found in claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12485038.
All of the limitations of claim 8 can be found in claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12485038.
All of the limitations of claim 9 can be found in claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 12485038.
All of the limitations of claim 10 can be found in claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12485038.
All of the limitations of claim 11 can be found in claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12485038.
All of the limitations of claim 12 can be found in claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12485038.
All of the limitations of claim 13 can be found in claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. 12485038.
All of the limitations of claim 14 can be found in claim 14 of U.S. Patent No. 12485038.
This is a nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
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.
Claims 1, 5, 7, and 11-14, as best understood given by the 35 USC 112(B) above, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van De Graaf et al. (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 20170281401) in view of Woehr et al. (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 20200188634) and in further view of Mooney (U.S Patent No. 4659062).
Regarding claim 1, Van De Graaf discloses an implantable tube valve 100 (Paragraphs 24, 30, 43 and Figures 1-7 tube valve 100 for catheterization implanting comprising tube wall 113 with valve 120, pivot member 410, pivot shaft 415, and actuator 400 therein for pivoting valve 120 between open and closed position) for implanting in a human vessel, the tube valve 100 comprising: a tube 113, having an inner tube wall 111 and an outer tube wall 113 that extend between two axial tube ends; a valve member 120 that is connected to a pivot shaft 415supported by the tube 113, wherein the valve member 120 is pivotable between an open position and a closed position; an actuator mechanism 400 that is mounted (Paragraph 5 and Figure 4) on the outer tube wall; a pivot member 410 that is arranged for driving the pivot shaft 415 from the outer tube wall 113 by an actuation force from the actuator mechanism 400.
However, Van De Graaf fails to explicitly disclose (1) at least one biasing element that is connected to the pivot member and arranged for preloading the pivot member to bistably bias the valve member towards the open position or the closed position; wherein the biasing element comprises a bowed rod in a mirrored fashion; (2) there are at least two bow-shaped rods that are interconnected at both ends in a mirrored fashion
Woehr teaches an analogous implantable tube valve (Paragraphs 9, 25, 80, 230, 491-495, and Figure 15, IV catheter implantable tube with valve member 120) wherein at least one biasing element 240 (Paragraphs 9, 25, 80, 230, 491-492, and Figure 15, bowed elliptical-mirror coil spring 240 to impart a proximally directed axial force vector to the nose section 150 of the valve actuator to open and close valve 120 with a pivot member to attach the spring 240 to a securing device 124 against the nose section 150) that is connected to an analogous pivot member (Paragraph 80) and arranged for preloading the analogous pivot member (Paragraph 80) to bistably bias the analogous valve member 120 towards the analogous open position (Paragraphs 494-495 and Figure 16) or the analogous closed position (Paragraphs 494-495 and Figure 17); wherein the biasing element 240 comprises a bowed rod 240 in a mirrored fashion.
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary level of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pivot member of Van De Graaf, so that there is at least one biasing element that is connected to the pivot member and arranged for preloading the pivot member to bistably bias the valve member towards the open position or the closed position; wherein the biasing element comprises a bowed rod in a mirrored fashion, as taught by Woehr, in order to provide an improved implantable tube valve with an enhanced pivot member that is biasingly adjustable via an elliptical bowed spring shape to impart force onto the valve member to desirably control movement of the valve member from an open and closed position (Woehr, Paragraphs 9, 25, 80, 230, 491-493)
However, the combination of Van De Graaf in view of Woehr fails to explicitly disclose (2) there are at least two bow-shaped rods that are interconnected at both ends in a mirrored fashion.
Mooney teaches an analogous valve member (Col. 9, lines 21-45 and Figure 9, valve with elliptical spring 61 formed by two bowed leaf springs 63a,63b joined at ends 64 in mirrored fashion to apply force to valve) wherein the analogous biasing element 61 comprises at least two bow-shaped rods 63a,63b that are interconnected at both ends 64 in an analogous mirrored fashion.
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary level of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the singular bowed biasing element of Van De Graaf in view of Woehr, so that the biasing element comprises at least two bow-shaped rods that are interconnected at both ends in a mirrored fashion, as taught by Mooney, in order to provide an improved implantable tube valve with an enhanced biasing element formed of two interconnected leaf springs for desirable resilience and force throughout both rods forming the bow (Mooney, Col. 9, lines 21-45).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Van De Graaf in view of Woehr in view of Mooney discloses the invention as described above and further discloses wherein the biasing element (Woehr, Paragraphs 9, 25, 80, 230, 491-495, and Figure 15, biasing spring 240 is an integrally formed part as the spring 240 is attached within the tube; Mooney, Col. 9, lines 21-45 and Figure 9, leaf springs 631,63b are integrally formed and attached ) is an integrally formed part.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Van De Graaf in view of Woehr in view of Mooney discloses the invention as described above. Van De Graaf further discloses wherein the tube 113 comprises a cavity (Paragraphs 24, 30-32, 43 and Figures 4-5 and 7, cam 410 on outer tube wall 113 with cavity between outer tube wall 113 and inner tube wall 111 to connect cam 410 with pivot shaft 415 to internal valve 120, thereby enclosing a portion of the pivot shaft 415 of cam 410 therebetween) between the inner 111 and outer tube 113 wall, for enclosing at least the pivot member 410.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Van De Graaf in view of Woehr in view of Mooney discloses the invention as described above and further discloses wherein the actuator mechanism (Paragraphs 24, 30-32 and Figures 5A-5B, actuator 400 with cam 410, tension wires M1,M2, detent wire D, and heating circuit 425 for providing actuation force onto pivot shaft 415) comprises a heating circuit425 arranged for heating at least one tension wire M1, M2, D by means of an electrical current through the tension wire M1, M2, D, the tension wire M1, M2, D being attached between (Figure 5B) the heating circuit 425 and the pivot member 410 so that by heating the tension wire M1, M2, D, provides an actuation force on the pivot member 410.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Van De Graaf in view of Woehr in view of Mooney discloses the invention as described above and further discloses wherein the tension wire M1, M2, D is mechanically connected to at least two respective terminals (Paragraph 43 and Figure 6) of the heating circuit 425 at one end, to provide a current running therethrough, and mechanically connected to the pivot member 410 (Paragraph 43 and Figures 6-7) at another end, so that the current runs through the tension wire M1, M2, D without branching off to the pivot member 410.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Van De Graaf in view of Woehr in view of Mooney discloses the invention as described above and further discloses wherein the at least one tension wire M1, M2, D is coupled to a connector 413 (Paragraphs 40, 43 and Figures 5A-5B, connector 413 mounted within cam 410 having pivot shaft 415 ), and wherein the connector410 is mounted in the pivot member 410.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Van De Graaf in view of Woehr in view of Mooney discloses the invention as described above and further discloses wherein the at least one tension wire M1, M2, D is coupled to a connector 413 (Paragraphs 40, 43 and Figures 5A-5B, connector 413 mounted within cam 410 having pivot shaft 415 ), said connector 413 mounted in the pivot member 410.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van De Graaf et al. (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 20170281401) in view of Woehr et al. (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 20200188634) in further view of Mooney (U.S Patent No. 4659062), as applied to claim 1, and in further view of Zamberger (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 20200096071).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Van De Graaf in view of Woehr in view of Mooney discloses the invention as described above but fails to explicitly disclose wherein each bow-shaped rod has a middle section with an increased bending stiffness with respect to a distal end and a proximal end section bending stiffness.
Zamberger teaches an analogous biasing rod 1 (Paragraph 48 and Figure 1, leaf spring rod 1 with middle having increased bending stiffness and thickness than ends 3a,3b) has a middle section with an increased bending stiffness with respect to a distal end 3b and a proximal end 3b section bending stiffness.
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary level of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a material thickness of each bow-shaped rod of Van De Graaf in view of Woehr in view of Mooney, so that the rod has a middle section with an increased bending stiffness with respect to a distal end and a proximal end section bending stiffness, as taught by Zamberger, in order to provide an improved implantable tube valve with an enhanced biasing rod member with a non-uniform stiffness and thickness throughout the leaf spring rod for desirable greater resisting bowing forces located centrally during bending (Zamberger, Paragraph 48).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Van De Graaf in view of Woehr in view of Mooney in view of Zamberger discloses the invention as described above and further discloses wherein each bow shaped rod (Woehr, Paragraphs 9, 25, 80, 230, 491-495, and Figure 15, biasing spring 240 is an integrally formed part as the spring 240 is attached within the tube; Mooney, Col. 9, lines 21-45 and Figure 9, leaf springs 631,63b are integrally formed and attached ) has a middle section cross-sectional area (Zamberger , Paragraph 48 and Figure 1) which is larger than a cross-sectional area of any end section of each bow shaped rod.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van De Graaf et al. (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 20170281401) in view of Woehr et al. (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 20200188634) in further view of Mooney (U.S Patent No. 4659062), as applied to claim 1, and in further view of Duchemin (U.S. Patent No. 3945625).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Van De Graaf in view of Woehr in view of Mooney discloses the invention as described above but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the biasing element is a planar structure with a constant thickness.
Duchemin teaches an analogous biasing element rod 1 (Col. 1, lines 64-65 and Figure 1, leaf 1 has a perimeter that is substantially constant and a wall thickness that is substantially constant, thereby providing a planar side of the leaf) is a planar structure with a constant thickness.
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary level of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a material thickness of each bow-shaped biasing rod of Van De Graaf in view of Woehr in view of Mooney, so that the rod of the biasing element is a planar structure with a constant thickness, as taught by Duchemin, in order to provide an improved implantable tube valve with an enhanced biasing rod member with a uniform thickness throughout the leaf spring rod for desirable constant resilient bowing forces throughout bending (Duchemin, Col. 1, lines 64-65).
Claim 8, as best understood given by the 35 USC 112(B) above, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van De Graaf et al. (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 20170281401) in view of Woehr et al. (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 20200188634) in further view of Mooney (U.S Patent No. 4659062), as applied to claim 1, and in further view of Ebels et al. (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 20180014929).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Van De Graaf in view of Woehr in view of Mooney discloses the invention as described above but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the pivot member is curved, having a curvature following a contour of the inner tube wall to limit a lateral extension of the implantable tube valve.
Ebels teaches an analogous implantable tube valve 11 (Paragraph 40 and Figures 1 and 6, heart tube valve 11 with pivot member 13 allowing for valve members 31,33 to pivot therefrom, wherein the pivot member 13 is curved within inner surface of tube wall 13, thereby limiting lateral extension of valve 11) wherein the analogous pivot member 13 is curved, having a curvature following a contour of the analogous inner tube wall 13 to limit a lateral extension of the analogous implantable tube valve 11.
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary level of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a shape of the pivot member of Van De Graaf in view of Woehr in view of Mooney, so that the pivot member is curved, having a curvature following a contour of the inner tube wall to limit a lateral extension of the implantable tube valve, as taught by Ebels, in order to provide an improved implantable tube valve with an enhanced pivot member that is curved with the tubing to increase streamlined flow characteristics through the valve with low turbulence (Ebels ,Paragraph 40).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 9-10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 6 would be allowable for disclosing wherein the biasing element comprises at least one cylindrically rounded end engageable with a cylindrically rounded cutout on the pivot member to form a rotatable connection.
An embodiment of Figure 25 of Woehr teaches an analogous biasing element 256 (Paragraph 506, leaf spring 256 with ends that are radiused) comprising rounded end of the analogous biasing member256.
Based on the structures of embodiment of Figure 25 of Woehr it would be improper hindsight to modify Van De Graaf in view of Woehr in view of Mooney so that cylindrically rounded end engageable with a cylindrically rounded cutout on the pivot member to form a rotatable connection. One of ordinary skill would instead be drawn to the structure of Van De Graaf, Woehr, and Mooney wherein the biasing elements ends are rounded and are pivotable with the pivot member, but the pivot member is explicitly described or shown to also have a rounded cut-out to receive the biasing element rounded ends. Therefore the combination of features is considered to be allowable.
Claim 9 would be allowable for disclosing wherein the pivot member comprises at least two opposing mounts radially extending from the pivot shaft for transferring the actuation force from the actuator mechanism to the pivot shaft.
Van De Graaf teaches wherein the pivot member 410 (Paragraphs 23, 30, 43 and Figures 6-7) comprises at least two opposing mounts for transferring the actuation force from the actuator mechanism 400 to the pivot shaft 415.
Based on the structures of Van De Graaf it would be improper hindsight to modify Van De Graaf in view of Woehr in view of Mooney so that there are two opposing mounts radially extending from the pivot shaft. One of ordinary skill would instead be drawn to the structure of Van De Graaf wherein the two mounts of the pivot member receive the tension wires of the actuation mechanism, but Van De Graaf does not explicitly describe or show a position of the mounts as radial from pivot shaft. Therefore the combination of features is considered to be allowable.
Claim 10 would be allowable for disclosing wherein the pivot member comprises at least one mount radially extending from the pivot shaft for transferring the preload force from the biasing element to the pivot shaft.
Woehr teaches the pivot member (Paragraphs 9, 25, 80, 230, 491-492, and Figure 15, bowed elliptical-mirror coil spring 240 to impart a proximally directed axial force vector to the nose section 150 of the valve actuator to open and close valve 120 with a pivot member to attach the spring 240 to a securing device 124 against the nose section 150) transferring the preload force from the biasing element 240.
Based on the structures of embodiment of Woehr it would be improper hindsight to modify Van De Graaf in view of Woehr in view of Mooney so that there is at least one mount radially extending from the pivot shaft for transferring the preload force from the biasing element to the pivot shaft. One of ordinary skill would instead be drawn to the structure of Van De Graaf, Woehr, and Mooney wherein the biasing element is pivotally mounted, but there is no explicit mention or showing the mounts being radially positioned. Therefore the combination of features is considered to be allowable.
Conclusion
17. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chu et al. (US 20040249451A1) teaches a tube valve.
Conclusion
18. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Milo whose telephone number is (571)272-6476. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 7:00-5:00.
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, Alireza Nia can be reached on +1(571) 270-3076. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL MILO/
Art Unit 3786
/OPHELIA A HAWTHORNE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3786