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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-5, 16-18, and 20 are pending and examined on the merits.
Claims 6-15 and 19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 1/12/2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/16/2023 was filed before the mailing date of the First Office Action on the Merits. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3 and 20 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.
Regarding claim 3, the phrase "for example" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 20, the phrase “providing a suction control handle according to claim [0036]”, in line 3, is indefinite. For the purposes of this Office Action, and in the interest in compact prosecution, Examiner will treat this claim to recite “providing a suction control handle according to claim 1”. Additionally, in line 10, a period is included in the claim before the end of the claim.
Appropriate action is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Corbett (U.S. Patent No. 3,625,221 A).
Regarding claim 1, Corbett teaches: A suction control handle for a medical suction device (see at least Abstract; see also airway suction catheter 10 in Fig. 1), said medical suction device being configured for creating a vacuum or connected to a vacuum supply (col. 1, lines 25-40 teach controlling suction in a catheter; therefore, the suction catheter is configured for creating a vacuum), such that an airflow is present through the suction control handle during use (see at least col. 1, lines 25-40), the suction control handle comprising:
- an aeration hole for regulating the airflow through the suction control handle during use (see suction control aperture 16 in Figs. 1-6 and at least col. 1, lines 25-40); and
- a cover element attached to the suction control handle (see closure means 18 at least in Fig. 2), and formed such that, in use, the airflow through the suction control handle can be gradually adjusted by covering the aeration hole, wholly or partly, by the cover element (see at least col. 2, lines 48-61).
Regarding claim 2, Corbett teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Additionally, Corbett teaches wherein the cover element is a bendable flap comprising a fixed end attached to the suction control handle and a free end having at least one degree of freedom (see for example Figs. 2 and 3).
Regarding claim 3, Corbett teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 2. Additionally, Corbett teaches wherein the cover element is configured to cover the aeration hole upon applied pressure to the free end, e.g. by a finger (see Figs. 2 and 3), said pressure being directed towards the aeration hole (see at least col. 2, lines 48-61).
Regarding claim 4, Corbett teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 2. Additionally, Corbett teaches wherein the free end of the cover element is configured to return to an equilibrium position above said aeration hole upon release of said pressure (col. 2, lines 42-47 teach that the strip 18 is formed of a resilient material, therefore, when pressure is released, the strip 18 will return to its original position; see also col. 3, line 37 thru col. 4, line 10).
Regarding claim 5, Corbett teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 2. Additionally, Corbett teaches wherein the fixed end of the cover element is attached to a proximal end of the suction control handle, and wherein a distal section of the cover element is configured to cover the aeration hole upon applied pressure on top of the cover element (see at least Fig. 2-3).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Corbett (U.S. Patent No. 3,625,221 A) in view of Berry (U.S. Patent No. 7,316,034 B1).
Regarding claim 16, Corbett teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 1. However, Corbett fails to explicitly teach that the cover element comprises an absorbent pad, as required by the claim.
Berry teaches an analogous medical device comprising an absorbent protective finger cover to protect the surface of a user’s skin while performing a medical operation (see Abstract). Berry further teaches that the absorbent protective finger cover comprises a layer of absorbent material (16 in Figs. 1-3 and col. 3, lines 31-34).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Corbett to incorporate the teachings of Berry by including an absorbent pad on the cover element such that the absorbent pad comprises an absorbent material for absorbing liquids or body fluids at least in order to prevent a user’s finger from contacting bodily fluids and to provide absorption capacity to the cover element, as taught by Berry (see col. 3, lines 25-45).
Regarding claim 17, Corbett in view of Berry teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 16. Additionally, in the device of Corbett in view of Berry, the absorbent pad is placed underneath the cover element in an area that contacts the aeration hole during use at least because Berry teaches that the absorbent material provides absorption capacity to the device (see col. 3, lines 25-45) and one of ordinary skill in the art would have been reasonably motivated to place the absorbent material in an area that contacts the aeration hole during use to improve the absorption capacity and to prevent a user’s finger from contacting bodily fluids, as taught by Berry (see col. 3, lines 25-45).
Regarding claim 18, Corbett in view of Berry teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 16. Additionally, in the device of Corbett in view of Berry, the cover element is a bendable flap comprising a fixed end and a free end (see at least Fig. 2-3 of Corbett), and wherein the absorbent pad is placed near the free end on a lower side of the bendable flap (see col. 3, lines 25-45 of Berry; see also claim 17 above).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Corbett (U.S. Patent No. 3,625,221 A) in view of Felix (U.S. Pre Grant Pub. No. 2004/0230169 A1).
Regarding claim 20, Corbett teaches A method of adjusting the vacuum force of a medical suction device (see at least Abstract and col. 1, lines 25-40). Additionally Corbett teaches:
- covering the aeration hole, wholly or partly, by the cover element of the suction control handle, such that the airflow is gradually adjusted, thereby adjusting the vacuum force of the medical suction device (see at least col. 2, lines 48-61);
wherein the suction control handle is configured for being operated by a single hand (see Figs. 2-3), and wherein the cover element is configured for being operated by a finger (see Figs. 2-3).
However, Corbett fails to explicitly teach a vacuum supply device as required by the claim.
Felix teaches an analogous suction device for use with a vacuum source (see at least Abstract and para. [0001]) comprising the method steps of:
- providing a suction control handle according to claim 1 (see above; see also suction line assembly 10 in Fig. 1), wherein the suction control handle forms part of the medical suction device (see Figs. 1), said medical suction device being connected to a vacuum supply (see at least Fig. 1);
- running the vacuum supply in order to provide an airflow through the suction control handle (see at least para. [0006]);
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Corbett to incorporate the teachings of Felix by including the method steps of providing a suction control handle that forms part of the medical suction device that is connected to a vacuum supply, and running the vacuum supply in order to provide an airflow through the suction control handle at least because Corbett envisions the device to be used concurrently with a suction device (see at least col. 2, lines 48-61) while Felix teaches such a suction device (see at least Fig. 1 and para. [0006]). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably recognized that a combination of the suction control handle of Corbett with the medical suction device of Felix would result in the medical device of Corbett being able to function as intended.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Schultz (U.S. Patent No. 7,802,574 B2) – Medical Component System
Kurtis (U.S. Patent No. 5,509,408 A) – Neonatal Resuscitation Device
Sauer (U.S. Patent No. 3,834,388 A) – Suction Control Arrangement for a Suction Catheter.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIHAD DAKKAK whose telephone number is (571)272-0567. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 9AM - 5PM ET.
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 (571) 272-7159. 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.
/JIHAD DAKKAK/ Examiner, Art Unit 3781
/ANDREW J MENSH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781