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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant amended claims 1-2 and 5-8. Claims 1-8 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 2-3 of Applicant’s Remarks, filed 02/03/26, with respect to the rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite due to lacking antecedent basis have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 3-4 of Applicant’s Remarks, filed 02/03/26, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oneda in view of Kim, in further view of Siegmund, and in further view of Gilreath have been fully considered. In light of the amendments to claim 1, new grounds of rejection have been made as indicated below.
Applicant argues, see page 4, that integrating pumps into the shell of Oneda as suggested by Kim would defeat Oneda’s design for easy disassembly and sterilization, citing Col. 4, line 63 – Col. 6, line 24 of Oneda. However, Oneda discloses that removing the shell (Figs. 1-4, feat. 48) from rest of the endoscope merely allows it to be cleaned more thoroughly than the rest of the endoscope (Col. 5, lines 4-15). Integrating pumps into the shell of Oneda as suggested by Kim would result in a device in which the pumps are cleaned separately from the rest of the endoscope, which is not contrary to the design of Oneda.
Applicant further argues, see page 4, that Burke and Argenta each teach one-way fluid systems, and that therefore the claimed system in which both infusion and return paths terminate at a common applying sponge for the purpose of recycling excess medicine during application is distinct from the teachings of Burke and Argenta. However, even if neither Burke nor Argenta teach the entire claimed system, Burke teaches the infusion of fluids to a wound site through a sponge and Argenta teaches the extraction of fluid from a wound site through a sponge, and therefore Burke and Argenta are both reasonably pertinent to the problems faced by the inventor of the claimed invention. Please see MPEP §2141.01(a).
Applicant further argues, see page 4, that Siegmund and Gilreath each provide generic mechanical teachings for different kinds of scopes, and that modifying the device of Oneda would not be obvious as they could interfere with the fluid handling and sterilization requirements of Oneda. However, Oneda, Siegmund, and Gilreath each teach endoscopes (See the abstracts of Oneda and Siegmund, and ¶0010 of Gilreath). As discussed in the Non-Final Rejection dated 12/16/25 and below, incorporating the threaded connections of Siegmund into the endoscope of Oneda would improve the ease of disassembly, cleaning, sterilization, and reassembly, and Siegmund further teaches that the endoscope is constructed in a watertight fashion so that it may be cleaned (Col. 1, lines 29-56). Therefore, incorporating the teachings of Siegmund into the device suggested by modified Oneda would not be expected to interfere with fluid handling or sterilization requirements.
Similarly, the self-contained, integrated camera taught by Gilreath (Figs. 4A-B, feat. 13) may be integrated into a multi-piece endoscope which handles fluids (Figs. 4A-B, feat. 1; ¶0039-0040), in a similar manner to the endoscope disclosed by Oneda, and therefore would not be expected to interfere with fluid handling or sterilization requirements.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 4-6 of Applicant’s Remarks, with respect to the rejections of claims 2-4 in further view of Lankford and Burke have been fully considered. In light of the amendment to independent claim 1, new ground of rejection have been made below.
Applicant argues, see page 4, that there is no motivation to adapt the connection system taught by Lankford into the device suggested by modified Oneda because it would add unnecessary complexity, cost, and failure points such as leaks without solving any problem recognized in Oneda. However, as discussed below, the quick connection system taught by Lankford improves the ease of assembly and disassembly of endoscopes (Col. 2, lines 30-45) and includes provisions for connecting the pieces of the endoscope in a sealed (and therefore leak-free) manner (Col. 7, lines 26-38.
With respect to claim 3, applicant argues, see page 5, that Lankford does not disclose or suggest that the springs biasing the driving ring are fixedly connected between the driving ring and the infusion pipe as required by claim 3. However, as discussed below, Lankford teaches that the springs are connected between the tubular member, corresponding the infusion pipe of modified Oneda, and the driving ring. Applicant further argues the “bi-directionally fixed structure provides a precise, predictable return force and stroke limitation for the sliding motion of the driving ring, ensuring stable and controlled mechanical action during assembly/disassembly operations” and the specific fixed connection defined in claim 3 is critical for achieving “reliable, play-free operation”, and that the connection system taught by Lankford does not achieve these functions. However, these functions of the connections between the spring, driving ring, and infusion pipe are not recited in the claims, and the specification does not appear to describe these functions or properties, let alone that these functions or properties result from the fixed connection between the spring, driving ring, and infusion pipe.
With respect to claim 4, see page 6, applicant argues that the claimed corrugated pipe fixedly connected to the inclined surface block and the infusion pipe is more than a simple connection and results in a dynamically sealed enclosure that prevents external contaminants from entering the sliding interface. Applicant further argues that none of the references cited by the examiner involve such a corrugated pipe to achieve contamination-proof sealing. However, claim 4 only requires that the corrugated pipe is fixedly connected to the inclined surface block and infusion pipe, which is achieved by the retaining pipes of Lankford as discussed below. Neither the claims nor the specification recite or describe the corrugated pipe as providing a sealing function.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). In this case, as discussed below, Lankford teaches the claimed structures and provides the motivation for incorporating such structures into the device suggested by modified Oneda of allowing for quick and easy assembly and disassembly of the device.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-7, with respect to the rejections of claims 5-7 as unpatentable over the combination for claim 1 in further view of Richmond and Argenta have been fully considered and are not persuasive. In light of the amendments to the claims, new grounds of rejection have been made as indicated below.
Applicant argues that incorporating the vacuum drainage system of Richmond into the device suggested by modified Oneda would add bulk and complexity without addressing any problems. However, as discussed below, the device suggested by modified Oneda is only being modified to include the protective cover and filter taught by Richmond, not the whole system of Richmond.
Applicant argues that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to incorporate the sealing plate of Argenta into the device suggested by modified Oneda. However, as discussed below, such a sealing provides an airtight seal that ensures the successful transmission of suction.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7, with respect to the rejection of claim 8 as unpatentable over the combination of claim 1 in further view of Gobels and Karimov have been fully considered and are not persuasive. In light of the amendments to the claims, new grounds of rejection have been made as indicated below.
Applicant argues that there is no motivation to apply the respective teachings of Gobels or Karimov to the device suggested by modified Oneda. However, as discussed below, Gobels teaches features which provide trouble free and safe mechanical operation, and Karimov teaches features which facilitate opening and closing the battery compartment. Therefore, Gobels and Karimov each provide motivation for the inclusion of the elements of claim 8 in the device suggested by modified Oneda.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 2 recites “… wherein the infusion pipe (31) is fixedly connected to the interior of the applying shell (2), wherein the through hole (32) is formed in the infusion pipe (31), wherein the applying sponge (33) is fixedly connected to the outer side of the infusion pipe (31), wherein the applying sponge (33) is in contact with the applying shell (2) …” in lines 5-8. In the amendment, these limitations were added to claim 1 (see lines 19-22 of claim 1), without being removed from claim 2. This appears to be a typographic error. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oneda et al. (US 5,447,148 A) in view of Kim et al. (US 2020/0094030 A1), in further view of Siegmund (US 4,919,112 A), in further view of Gilreath et al. (US 2005/0080342 A1), in further view of Burke (US 2021/0260335 A1), and in further view of Argenta et al. (US 2001/0029956 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Oneda discloses an esophagus medicine applying device (Figs. 1 and 5, feat. 10; Col. 1, lines 12-23; Col. 4, lines 32-62: endoscope 10 may access the esophagus and supply fluid to it, and is therefore an esophagus medicine applying device), comprising: a shell (Figs. 1-3, feat. 48; Col. 4, line 48 - Col. 5, line 15; Fig. 5, feat. 95; Col. 6, lines 6-13), an applying shell (Figs. 1-3, feats. 12 and 18; Col. 4, lines 32-47), an assembling mechanism (Figs. 2 and 4, feats. 72, 80, and 82-88; Col. 5, line 32 – Col. 6, line 5), a return mechanism (Figs. 2 and 4, feat. 74; Col. 4, lines 32-45; Col. 8, lines 15-36), an arc cover (Figs. 1 and 6, feat. 12; Col. 6, lines 25-56), a transparent cover (Fig. 6, feat. 100; Col. 6, lines 25-56), and an end cover (Fig. 5, feat. 97; Col. 6, lines 6-13), wherein the return mechanism is arranged within the shell (Figs. 2 and 4, feat. 74; Col. 4, lines 32-45; Col. 8, lines 15-36), wherein the assembling mechanism is arranged on the applying shell (Figs. 2 and 4, feats. 72, 80, and 82-88; Col. 5, line 32 – Col. 6, line 5), wherein the transparent cover is fixedly connected to the arc cover (Figs. 1 and 6, feats. 12 and 100; Col. 6, lines 25-56), wherein a partition plate is fixedly connected to the interior of the shell (Fig. 4; Col. 5, lines 32-45: the partitions in cartridge 48 between air/suction port 74, biopsy port 78, and fluid port 76), wherein an input pipe is fixedly connected to the interior of the shell (Fig. 4, feat. 76; Col. 5, lines 32-45), an output pump (Fig. 1, feat. 30; Col. 4, lines 32-62: fluid control unit 30 supplies fluid to the device), wherein the assembling mechanism comprises an infusion pipe (Fig. 4, feat. 86) fixedly connected to the interior of the applying shell (Figs. 2, 4, and 5, feat. 80), wherein two ends of the input pipe (Figs. 1-2 and 4, feat. 76) are respectively connected to the output pump (Fig. 1, feats. 30 and 44; Col. 5, line 58 – Col. 6, line 5) and the infusion pipe (Fig. 4, feat. 86), wherein the return mechanism comprises a return pipe (Fig. 4, feat. 82), and a return pump (Fig. 1, feat. 30; Col. 4, lines 32-47; Col. 8, lines 15-36), wherein the return pipe (Fig. 4, feat. 82) is fixedly connected to the applying shell (Figs. 2-4, feat. 80), wherein one end of the return pipe (Figs. 1-2 and 4, feat. 82) is connected to the return pump .(Fig. 1, feat. 30; Col. 4, lines 32-47; Col. 8, lines 15-36).
Oneda does not disclose a power supply mechanism arranged on the shell, that the arc cover is connected to the applying shell through threads, a camera fixedly connected to the interior of the arc cover, that one end of the shell is in threaded connection with the end cover, that the output pump is fixedly connected to the partition plate, a through hole formed in the infusion pipe, an applying sponge fixedly connected to the outer side of the infusion pipe, wherein the applying sponge is in contact with the applying shell, or that another end of the return pipe is in contact with the applying sponge.
Kim teaches an endoscope (Figs. 7A-9, feat. 100; ¶0065-0066) with an internally or externally arranged battery, or power supply mechanism, (110; ¶0057 and 0065) and a medication dispensing pump, or output pump, mounted in the housing of the endoscope (Fig. 9, feat. 190; ¶0055 and 0066) for dispensing medication fluid from a reservoir (160) through a fluid channel (180). Kim teaches that providing the battery and the dispensing pump with the endoscope housing advantageously improves the portability of the endoscope (¶0044). Oneda discloses a separate fluid control unit (Oneda: Fig. 1, feat. 30; Col. 4, lines 32-62) which is electrically (Oneda: Fig. 1, feat. 32) and fluidically (Oneda: Fig. 1, feats. 40,42, and 44) connected to the endoscope, and modifying the device of Oneda to include a power supply mechanism and output pump with the endoscope as taught by Kim would improve the portability of the modified device. For the output pump of Kim to be in fluid communication with the fluid port of Oneda, the output pump would be connected to the partition plate which separates the fluid port from the other port. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by Oneda to include a power supply mechanism arranged on the shell and an output pump fixedly connected to the partition plate in order to improve the portability of the device as taught by Kim.
Oneda in view of Kim does not suggest that the arc cover is connected to the applying shell through threads, a camera fixedly connected to the interior of the arc cover, that one end of the shell is in threaded connection with the end cover, a through hole formed in the infusion pipe, an applying sponge fixedly connected to the outer side of the infusion pipe, wherein the applying sponge is in contact with the applying shell, or that another end of the return pipe is in contact with the applying sponge.
Siegmund teaches an endoscope (Fig. 1, feat. 11; Col. 2, lines 39-58) comprising a control handle unit (12) threadably connected (14) to a shaft unit (13). Siegmund teaches that threads advantageously provide a quick operating and reliable connection (Col. 2, lines 39-58). The endoscope of Oneda is disassembled, cleaned and sterilized, and reassembled (Oneda: Col. 4, line 63 – Col. 6, line 24), and the quick operating and reliable connections taught by Siegmund would improve the ease of that process. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device suggested by Oneda in view of Kim so that the arc cover is connected to the applying shell through threads and that one end of the shell is in threaded connection with the end cover in order to provide a quick operating and reliable connection between the arc cover and the applying shell, and the shell and the end cover, as taught by Siegmund.
Oneda in view of Kim and in further view of Siegmund does not suggest a camera fixedly connected to the interior of the arc cover, a through hole formed in the infusion pipe, an applying sponge fixedly connected to the outer side of the infusion pipe, wherein the applying sponge is in contact with the applying shell, or that another end of the return pipe is in contact with the applying sponge.
Gilreath teaches endoscopes (Figs. 4A-B, feat. 1; ¶0039-0040) comprising an insertion shaft (200), which is analogous to the arc cover of Oneda, with an imaging unit (Figs. 2A-D, feats. 13 and 23; Figs. 4A-B, feat. 13; ¶0025-0032 and 0040) comprising a transparent cover (16, 26; ¶0025-0030) and a CMOS imaging device, or camera (12, 22; ¶0025-0030) attached to the insertion shaft. Gilreath teaches that this advantageously allows the imaging system to be self-contained (¶0006-0010). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device suggested by Oneda in view of Kim and in further view of Siegmund so that it includes a camera fixedly connected to the interior of the arc cover so that the imaging system of the device is self-contained as taught by Gilreath.
Oneda in view of Kim, in further view of Siegmund, and in further view of Gilreath does not suggest a through hole formed in the infusion pipe, an applying sponge fixedly connected to the outer side of the infusion pipe, wherein the applying sponge is in contact with the applying shell, or that another end of the return pipe is in contact with the applying sponge.
Burke teaches an endoscope for treating the esophagus (Figs. 1-3, feat. 110; ¶0026-0027) comprising an inner tube (Figs. 1-2B, feat. 140; ¶0031) with a plurality of through holes (Figs. 2A-B, feat. 143; ¶0044) in fluid communication with an expandable sponge (Figs. 2A-B, feat. 160; ¶0039, 0044, and 0048). The expandable sponge (160) is in contact and engaged with an outer tube (150), homologous to the applying shell, in order to control the size and shape of the sponge (¶0045). Burke teaches that this advantageously allows fluids to applied and/or collected from a wound site (Fig. 3, feat. 22; ¶0039-0040, 0048, and 0056-0060). Because the inner tube may deliver fluids to a wound site through the sponge (¶0039-0040), it is an infusion tube. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device suggested by Oneda in view of Kim, in further view of Siegmund, and in further view of Gilreath so that it comprises a through hole formed in the infusion pipe, an applying sponge fixedly connected to the outer side of the infusion pipe, wherein the applying sponge is in contact with the applying shell in order to apply to a wound site in the esophagus as taught by Burke.
Oneda in view of Kim, in further view of Siegmund, in further view of Gilreath, and in further view of Burke does not suggest that another end of the return pipe is in contact with the applying sponge.
Argenta teaches a vacuum wound drainage system (Fig. 1, feat. 25; ¶0031-0034) comprising an appliance (29) comprising a suction or return pipe (12, 12a; ¶0033-0034) attached to a foam sponge (10) in order to apply suction to a wound site and speed up wound healing times (¶0008). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device suggested by Oneda in view of Kim, in further view of Siegmund, in further view of Gilreath, and in further view of Burke so that another end of the return pipe is in contact with the applying sponge in order to apply suction to the wound side and speed up wound healing times as taught by Argenta.
Regarding claim 7, Oneda in view of Kim, in further view of Siegmund, in further view of Gilreath, in further view of Burke, and in further view of Argenta suggests the device of claim 5. As discussed above, Argenta teaches a return pipe (Fig. 1, feats. 12, 12a; ¶0033-0034) attached to a foam sponge (10) and a flexible sealing cover or plate (18) in connected to both the pipe and sponge (¶0031-0034). Therefore, Oneda in view of Kim, in further view of Siegmund, in further view of Gilreath, in further view of Burke, and in further view of Argenta further suggests that a sealing plate is fixedly connected to the interior of the applying shell, that the sealing plate and return pipe are both in contact with the applying sponge, and that the return pipe is fixedly connected to the sealing plate.
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oneda in view of Kim, in further view of Siegmund, in further view of Gilreath, in further view of Burke, in further view of Argenta, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Lankford (US 5,682,199 A).
Regarding claim 2, Oneda in view of Kim, in further view of Siegmund, in further view of Gilreath, in further view of Burke, and in further view of Argenta suggests the device of claim 1. Oneda further discloses, a first sealing ring (Fig. 4, feat. 88; Col. 5, lines 46-57) attached to the infusion pipe (86) and in contact with the input pipe (76), and that the input pipe (Fig. 4, feat. 76) is slidably connected to the infusion pipe (Fig. 4, feat. 86; Col. 5, line 32-57). Oneda in view of Kim, in further view of Siegmund, in further view of Gilreath, in further view of Burke, and in further view of Argenta does not suggest a driving ring slidably connected to the infusion pipe, a first spring arranged on the driving ring, a connecting column slidably connected to the interior of the infusion pipe, an inclined surface block fixedly connected to the connecting column and slidably connected to the driving ring, a corrugated pipe arranged on an outer side of the connecting column, or that the infusion pipe is in contact with the inclined surface block.
Lankford teaches an endoscope system (Fig. 1, feat. 10; Col. 5, line 39 – Col. 6, line 47) comprising a quick connection system between a body portion (12) and interchangeable head portions (14-24). The quick connection system comprises an assembling mechanism (Figs. 2, 3, and 6, feat. 48; Col. 6, line 47 – Col. 7, line 38) comprising a driving ring (52) which is slidable over a tubular member (54), corresponding to the infusion pipe of modified Oneda, springs biasing the driving ring into a closed position (Col. 6, lines 54-57; Col. 7, lines 15-21), connecting detents (58) which are slidably connected to receptacles (56) in the tubular member (54; Col. 6, lines 63-67), an annular inclined wedge (62) interfacing between the connecting detents (58) and driving ring (52), and which forces the connecting detents into the receptacles (56) in the tubular member (54; Col. 7, lines 1-4), and retainer pipes (60) around the outer side of the connecting detent (Col. 6, lines 63-67). Lankford teaches that such an assembling mechanism advantageously allows for quick and easy assembly and disassembly (Col. 2, lines 30-45). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device suggested by Oneda in view of Kim, in further view of Siegmund, in further view of Gilreath, in further view of Burke, and in further view of Argenta so that it the assembling mechanism includes a driving ring slidably connected to the infusion pipe, a first spring arranged on the driving ring, a connecting column slidably connected to the interior of the infusion pipe, an inclined surface block fixedly connected to the connecting column, slidably connected to the driving ring and in contact with the infusion pipe, and a corrugated pipe arranged on an outer side of the connecting column in order to allow for quick and easy assembly and disassembly of the device as taught by Lankford.
Regarding claim 3, Oneda in view of Kim, in further view of Siegmund, in further view of Gilreath, in further view of Burke, in further view of Argenta, and in further view of Lankford suggests the device of claim 2. As discussed above, Lankford teaches that the springs bias the driving ring (Fig. 3, feat. 52) to the closed position (Col. 6, lines 54-57; Col. 7, lines 15-21), which is away from the tubular member (Fig. 3, feat. 54), and therefore the springs of Langford are connected between the tubular member, corresponding to the infusion pipe of modified Oneda, and the driving ring. Therefore, Oneda in view of Kim, in further view of Siegmund, in further view of Gilreath, in further view of Burke, in further view of Argenta, and in further view of Lankford further suggests that one end of the first spring is fixedly connected to the driving ring and another end of the first spring is fixedly connected to the infusion pipe.
Regarding claim 4, Oneda in view of Kim, in further view of Siegmund, in further view of Gilreath, in further view of Burke, in further view of Argenta, and in further view of Lankford suggests the device of claim 2. Lankford further teaches that the retaining pipes (Fig. 3, feat. 60) retain the connecting detents (58) between the tubular member (54) and annular inclined wedge (62; Col. 6, lines 63-67). Therefore, Oneda in view of Kim, in further view of Siegmund, in further view of Gilreath, in further view of Burke, in further view of Argenta, and in further view of Lankford further suggests that one end of the corrugated pipe is fixedly connected to the inclined surface block and another end of the corrugated pipe is fixedly connected to the infusion pipe.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oneda in view of Kim, in further view of Siegmund, in further view of Gilreath, in further view of Burke, in further view of Argenta, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Richmond et al. (US 4,655,754 A).
Regarding claim 5, Oneda in view of Kim, in further view of Siegmund, in further view of Gilreath, in further view of Burke, and in further view of Argenta suggests the device of claim 1. Oneda further discloses a return ring (Figs. 2 and 4, feat. 74) connected to the shell (48), that the return pipe (82) slidably connected to the return ring (74), a cover movably connected to an outer side of the return pipe (Fig. 5, feat. 97; Col. 6, lines 6-13: cover 97 is movably connected to the handle by screws 98 outside of the return pipe 82 in the flange 80), a second sealing ring (88), a Y-shaped pipe (Fig. 1, feats. 40, 42, and 44), wherein the Y-shaped pipe is fixedly connected to the partition plate (Figs. 1-4, feats. 40, 42, 44, 48, 74, 76, and 78; Col. 4, lines 32-62; Col. 5, line 32 – Col. 6, line 5: portion 44 of Y-shaped pipe connects to the channels 74, 76, and 78, and the partitions between them, of cartridge 48), wherein the return pump (Fig. 1, feat. 30) is fixedly connected to the Y-shaped pipe (Fig. 1, feats. 40, 42, and 44; Col. 4, lines 48-62), wherein the Y-shaped pipe (Figs. 1-4, feats. 40, 42, and 44) is fixedly connected to the shell (48) and the return ring (Fig. 4, feat. 74; portion 44 of Y-shaped pipe connects to the channels 74 of cartridge 48).
Oneda does not disclose that the cover is threaded and in threaded connection with the return ring, a sealing plate, that a threaded pipe connected to an outer side of the Y-shaped pipe through threads and connected to the return pump, a protective cover fixedly connected to an outer side of the threaded pipe, a filter screen fixedly connected to the protective cover.
As discussed above, Siegmund teaches an endoscope (Fig. 1, feat. 11; Col. 2, lines 39-58) comprising a control handle unit (12) threadably connected (14) to a shaft unit (13). Siegmund teaches that threads advantageously provide a quick operating and reliable connection (Col. 2, lines 39-58). Modifying the endoscope suggested by Oneda in view of Kim, in further view of Siegmund, and in further view of Gilreath so that the cover is threaded and in threaded connection with the return ring, and so that the conduits of the endoscope include a threaded pipe connecting the Y-shaped pipe and return pump would further provide quick operating and reliable connections between the components of the endoscope and improve the ease of disassembly, cleaning and sterilization, and reassembly as discussed above with respect to claim 1. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device suggested by Oneda in view of Kim, in further view of Siegmund, in further view of Gilreath, in further view of Burke, and in further view of Argenta so that the cover is threaded and in threaded connection with the return ring and to include a threaded pipe connected to an outer side of the Y-shaped pipe through threads and connected to the return pump in order to improve the ease of disassembly, cleaning and sterilization, and reassembly.
Oneda in view of Kim, in further view of Siegmund, in further view of Gilreath, in further view of Burke, and in further view of Argenta does not suggest a sealing plate, a protective cover fixedly connected to an outer side of the threaded pipe, or a filter screen fixedly connected to the protective cover.
Richmond teaches a vacuum drainage system (Figs. 1-2, feat. 10; Col. 2, lines 10-24) comprising conduits (Figs. 1-2, feats. 251 and 274; Col. 3, line 9 – Col. 10, line 27) for fluidly communicating with a vacuum pump (Fig. 6, feat. 12; Col. 2, lines 25-46), therefore being analogous to the threaded pipe, and which are fixed in a protective cover (Figs. 1-2, feat. 223; Col. 2, line 58 – Col. 3, line 31). The protective cover further comprises a hydrophobic filter (Figs. 1-2, feat. 266; Col. 3, lines 39-54). Richmond teaches that such a cover comprising a filter upstream of the vacuum pump advantageously protects the pump from contamination (Col. 1, lines 14-44). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device suggested by Oneda in view of Kim, in further view of Siegmund, in further view of Gilreath, in further view of Burke, and in further view of Argenta so that it comprises a protective cover fixedly connected to an outer side of the threaded pipe and a filter screen fixedly connected to the protective cover in order to protect the return pump from contamination as taught by Richmond.
As discussed above, Argenta teaches a vacuum wound drainage system (Fig. 1, feat. 25; ¶0031-0034) comprising an appliance (29) comprising a suction or return pipe (12, 12a; ¶0033-0034) attached to a foam sponge (10). Argenta further teaches a flexible sealing cover or plate (18), which advantageously forms a gas-tight seal so that suction is transmitted through the return pipe, through the sponge, and to the wound (¶0031-0034). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify the device suggested by Oneda in view of Kim, in further view of Siegmund, in further view of Gilreath, in further view of Burke, in further view of Argenta, and in further view of Richmond so that it includes a sealing plate in order to form a gas-tight seal so that suction is transmitted from the return pipe to the sponge as taught by Argenta.
Regarding claim 6, Oneda in view of Kim, in further view of Siegmund, in further view of Gilreath, in further view of Burke, in further view of Argenta, and in further view of Richmond suggests the device of claim 5, and Oneda further discloses that the second sealing ring (Fig. 4, feat. 88) is attached to the return ring (Figs. 1-4, feat. 74), wherein the second sealing ring is in contact with the return pipe (Fig. 4, feat. 82; Col. 5, line 46 – Col. 6, line 5).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oneda in view of Kim, in further view of Siegmund, in further view of Gilreath, in further view of Burke, in further view of Argenta, as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Gobels (US 3,826,248 A), and in further view of Karimov et al. (US 2018/0185557 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Oneda in view of Kim, in further view of Siegmund, in further view of Gilreath, in further view of Burke, and in further view of Argenta suggests the device of claim 1, but is silent with respect to the construction of the power supply mechanism.
Gobels teaches a laryngoscope (Figs. 1-4; Col. 3, line 64 – Col. 4, line 38) comprising a power supply handle (Fig. 1, feat. 18; Col. 4, lines 26-38) connected to the outer side of a device shell (6), a conductive plate slidably connected to an interior of the power supply handle (16), a spring on the conductive plate (Fig. 1, feat. 16; Col. 4, lines 26-38: 16 is resiliently supported by a spring) and connected between the power supply handle and the conductive plate (Fig. 1, feat. 16), a conductive cover (19), a conductive elastic piece connected to the cover (20), and a dry battery compartment (18) in contact with the conductive plate (16) and conductive elastic piece (20). Gobels teaches that such a power supply advantageously provides trouble free and safe mechanical operation (Col. 2, lines 22-28). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device suggested by Oneda in view of Kim, in further view of Siegmund, in further view of Gilreath, in further view of Burke, and in further view of Argenta so that the power supply mechanism comprises a power supply handle compartment connected to the outer side of a device shell, a conductive plate slidably connected to an interior of the power supply handle compartment, a second spring arranged on the conductive plate and fixedly connected between the power supply handle compartment and the conductive plate, a cover, a conductive elastic piece fixedly connected to the cover, and a dry battery compartment in contact with the conductive plate and conductive elastic piece and slidably connected to the interior of the power supply handle compartment in order to provide trouble free and safe mechanical operation as taught by Gobels.
Oneda in view of Kim, in further view of Siegmund, in further view of Gilreath, in further view of Burke, in further view of Argenta, and in further view of Gobels does not suggest that the cover is hinged to the power supply handle compartment, a screw slidably connected to the interior of the conductive cover and is in threaded connection with the power supply handle, or a baffle fixedly connected to an outer side of the screw and in contact with the power supply handle compartment.
Karimov teaches a powered medical device (Figs. 4-6, feat. 100; ¶0056) comprising a battery compartment (182; ¶0062) including a door or cover (182) which is secured by a hinge (186) and a latch, or baffle which may be secured by a screw (¶0062). Karimov teaches that such a cover advantageously facilitates opening and closing the compartment (¶0062). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device suggested by Oneda in view of Kim, in further view of Siegmund, in further view of Gilreath, in further view of Burke, in further view of Argenta, and in further view of Gobels so that the cover is hinged to the power supply handle compartment, so that it includes a screw slidably connected to the interior of the conductive cover and is in threaded connection with the power supply handle, and so that it includes a baffle fixedly connected to an outer side of the screw and in contact with the power supply handle compartment in order to facilitate opening and closing the compartment as taught by Karimov.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARJUNA P CHATRATHI whose telephone number is (571)272-8063. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
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, Sarah Al-Hashimi can be reached at 5712727159. 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.
/ARJUNA P CHATRATHI/Examiner, Art Unit 3781
/JESSICA ARBLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781
Prosecution Insights