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
The Office Action is in response to the remarks and amendments filed on 9/04/2025. The objections to the Specification are maintained. The objections to the Claims have been maintained. The rejections pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been withdrawn in light of the amendments filed. Claims 4, 19 and 28 are cancelled. Claim 32 is new. Accordingly, claims 1-3, 5-18, 20-27 and 29-32 are pending for consideration in this Office Action.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the conditional language in the recitation such as “may be draped…” lacks clear and concise language. Please amend the recitation to at least - - is draped - - for clarity.
The recitation of “… and the one or more alignment member and, in some configurations, rotationally interlocked together” is unclear. Please amend the claim to - - …and one or more alignment members and rotationally interlock - - for clarity.
Exemplary language “for example” is also not concise.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informality.
Please correct the recitation of “…vertical portion ranges is 90 degrees or less” to - - …the vertical portion is 90 degrees or less - - for grammatical clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
§ 112(b)
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 1-32 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.
Regarding Claims 1, 17 and 25, it is noted that the conditional step of “the alignment member will pull through the lower sidewall portion if a force generated between the piston attachment member and the drape engagement member exceeds a predetermined threshold” may never occur.
In particular, the claims as amended do not positively recite the condition precedent, (i.e. a force generated between the piston attachment member and the drape engagement member exceeds a predetermined threshold), actually occurs, or is ever required to occur, within the broadest reasonable interpretation. Since the recited “if” conditions need not be satisfied to meet the claim, the recited steps of determining need not occur to satisfy the claim.
As such, the Examiner need not present evidence establishing the obviousness of the conditional "if” step of claim 1, because it is not required to be performed under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim
Claims 2-3,5-16,18,20-24, 26, 27 and 29-32 are rejected based on their dependency on rejected claims.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-10, 12-14, 16-18, 20, 22-7, 29, 30 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Faries et al. (US7350373B1) in view of Hoefelmayr (US20110193342A1) and Kim et al. (US20110269332A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Faries teaches a surgical slush system comprising:
a basin [basin 11, Figure 1] configured to receive and hold a surgical fluid [where sterile liquid is disposed within the basin and used in forming surgical slush; col. 5, lines 31-36];
a thermal treatment device [evaporator 13, Figure 4] thermally coupled to the basin and configured to cool the surgical fluid to generate a surgical slush [where the evaporator 13 cools the wall of the basin 11; col.5 , lines 23-36];
a surgical drape [drape 17, Figure 1] configured to be positioned in the basin to separate the surgical fluid and the surgical slush from the basin [where drape 17 conforms to wall of basin 11 and serves as a sterile receptacle for liquid to be frozen into slush, col. 5, lines 41-47], the surgical drape comprising a top side configured to face away from the basin [where cover 18 is secured to the sterile upper side of drape 17, col. 6, lines 40-50] and a bottom side configure to face the basin [where the non-sterile surface of drape 17 connects to base 16 in basin 11; col. 6, lines 9-18], wherein the surgical drape comprises a piston attachment member [plate 19 and annular engagement member 22, Figure 5] on the bottom side [plate 19 and annular engagement member 22 disposed on base 16, Figure 5; col.7, lines 13-26]; and
a piston [drive shaft 29, Figure 5] having a terminal end projecting into the basin [where drive shaft 29 extends upwardly through bottom of basin 11, Figure 5; col. 7, lines 62-67], the piston being operable to move relative to the basin [where drive shaft 29 reciprocates longitudinally through bottom of basin 11; col. 8, lines 1-13], the terminal end of the piston defining a drape engagement member [Shaft 29 extends upwardly through adapter tube 30 and has its upper end secured to the center of the underside of plate 26; col. 8, lines 13-20],
comprising a sidewall defining a perimeter of a drape engagement plate [plate 26, Figure 5] and an alignment member [at plate 26, annotated Figure 5] extending outwardly from the drape engagement plate [where a lip 24 snap fits to the perimeter of plate 26, Figure 5; col. 8, lines 34-49];
wherein the
wherein the downwardly extending sidewall [projections 23, Figure 5] comprises a terminal end [at lips 24, Figure 5], a cutout [where a cutout form lips 24, annotated Figure 5] into which the alignment member of the drape engagement member is configured to be inserted [where a lip 24 snap fits to the perimeter of plate 26, Figure 5; col. 8, lines 34-49],
an alignment member [plate 19 and annular engagement member 22, Figure 5];
a drape engagement member [plate 26, Figure 5];
Faries does not teach a lower sidewall portion positioned between a portion of the cutout and a portion of the sidewall terminal end.
However, Hoefelmayr teaches a temporary coupling [0009] a lower sidewall [Figure 1a] positioned between a portion of the cutout [annotated Figure 1a] and a portion of the sidewall terminal end [annotated Figure 1], where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable, i.e., providing reliable locking against tensile loading during movement along the longitudinal axis [0039].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Faries to have a lower sidewall portion positioned between a portion of the cutout and a portion of the sidewall terminal end in view of the teachings of Hoefelmayr where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results, i.e., providing reliable locking against tensile loading during movement along the longitudinal axis [Hoefelmayr: 0039].
The combined teachings do not teach wherein the lower sidewall portion is configured such that the alignment member will pull through the lower sidewall portion if a force generated between the piston attachment member and the drape engagement member exceeds a predetermined threshold.
However, Kim teaches a breakaway mechanism [0004] where the lower sidewall portion [fingers 315A-D, Figure 3] is configured such that the alignment member [snaps 355A-D, Figure 3] will pull through the lower sidewall portion if a force generated between the attachment member [retention component 210, Figure 3] and the engagement member [breakaway component 220, Figure 3] exceeds a predetermined threshold [where the snap members 255A-D flex and unsnap from the finger members 315A-D at a predetermined pull force causing the breakaway component 220 to separate from the retention 210; 0045] where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique, breakaway coupling, to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art i.e., preventing damage to expensive equipment due to unexpected high forces by including a sacrificial part [Kim, 0003].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of the combined teachings have where the lower sidewall portion is configured such that the alignment member will pull through the lower sidewall portion if a force generated between the piston attachment member and the drape engagement member exceeds a predetermined threshold in view of the teachings of Kim where this known technique could have been applied to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable i.e., preventing damage to expensive equipment due to unexpected high forces by including a sacrificial part [Kim, 0003].
Regarding Claim 2, Faries, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1, and does not teach where the threshold corresponds to a force sufficient to damage a component of the surgical slush system.
However, Kim teaches a breakaway mechanism [0004] where the lower sidewall portion [fingers 315A-D, Figure 3] the threshold [a predetermined pull force causing the breakaway component 220 to separate from the retention 210; 0045] corresponds to a force sufficient to damage a component of the surgical slush system [where the mechanism prevents damage to the charging station or wires; 0007] where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique, breakaway coupling, to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art i.e., preventing damage to expensive equipment due to unexpected high forces by including a sacrificial part [Kim, 0003].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of the combined teachings to have where the threshold corresponds to a force sufficient to damage a component of the surgical slush system in view of the teachings of Kim where this known technique could have been applied to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable i.e., preventing damage to expensive equipment due to unexpected high forces by including a sacrificial part [Kim, 0003].
Regarding Claim 3, Faries, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 2 and does not teach wherein the cutout comprises the vertical portion extending upwardly from the terminal end of the at least one downwardly extending sidewall and a lateral portion extending laterally at an angle from the vertical portion, the cutout being configured to receive the alignment member by positioning the alignment member in the vertical portion of the cutout and rotating the alignment member relative to the to move the alignment member into the lateral portion of the cutout.
However, Hoefelmayr teaches a temporary coupling [0009] where cutout [recesses 121b, Figure 1a] comprises a vertical portion [area 123b, Figure 1b] extending upwardly from a terminal end of the at least one downwardly extending sidewall [sliding surface 122b, Figure 1a] and a lateral portion [locking area 124b, Figure 1c] extending laterally at an angle from the vertical portion [where locking area 124b extends at an angle to area 123b, Figures 1b and 1c; 0039] the cutout being configured to receive an alignment member [where at least one cam 121a is adapted to engage a complementary recess 121b, Figures 1b and 1c; 0035] by positioning the alignment member in the vertical portion of the cutout [where the coupling is in a joined condition prior to locking, Figure 1b; 0030] and rotating the alignment member relative to the cutout [where the coupling parts 100a and 100b are displaced by a certain angle; 0039] to move the alignment member into the lateral portion of the at least one cutout [where the coupling is in a locked condition; Figure 1c], where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable, i.e., providing reliable locking against tensile loading during movement along the longitudinal axis [0039].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of the combined teachings to have where the cutout comprises the vertical portion extending upwardly from the terminal end of the at least one downwardly extending sidewall and a lateral portion extending laterally at an angle from the vertical portion, the cutout being configured to receive the alignment member by positioning the alignment member in the vertical portion of the cutout and rotating the alignment member relative to the to move the alignment member into the lateral portion of the cutout in view of the teachings of Hoefelmayr where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e., providing reliable locking against tensile loading during movement along the longitudinal axis [Hoefelmayr: 0039].
Regarding Claim 5, Faries, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 3 and further teaches the terminal end of the sidewall [at lips 24 of projections 23, Figure 5] defines a retention lip [where lips 24 extend along bottom surface of plate 25 when engaged in a snap fit; col. 8, lines 21-34] but does not teach wherein the lower sidewall portion extends from a first end bounded by the vertical portion of the least one cutout to a second end bounded by an undivided portion of the at least one downwardly extending sidewall, and the first end of the lower sidewall portion defines a retention lip.
However, Hoefelmayr teaches a temporary coupling [0009] where a lower sidewall portion [Figure 1a] extends from a terminal end bounded by the vertical portion [area 123b, Figure 1b] of the least one cutout [recesses 121b, Figure 1a] to an undivided portion of the at least one downwardly extending sidewall [at 122b, Figure 1a], where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, such that the first end of the lower sidewall portion defines a retention lip, and that in combination, each element would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable, i.e., providing reliable locking against tensile loading during movement along the longitudinal axis [0039].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of the combined teachings to have where the lower sidewall portion extends from a first end bounded by the vertical portion of the least one cutout to a second end bounded by an undivided portion of the at least one downwardly extending sidewall, and the first end of the lower sidewall portion defines a retention lip in view of the teachings of Hoefelmayr where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e., providing reliable locking against tensile loading during movement along the longitudinal axis [Hoefelmayr: 0039].
Regarding Claim 7, Faries, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 3 and does not teach wherein the angle at which the lateral portion extends from the vertical portion ranges is 90 degrees or less.
However, Hoefelmayr teaches a temporary coupling [0009] where the angle at which the lateral portion [locking area 124b, Figure 1c] extends from the vertical portion [area 123b, Figure 1b] is 90 degrees or less [where locking area 124b extends at an angle relative to 123b; 0039, Figure 1b and 1c], where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable, i.e., providing reliable locking against tensile loading during movement along the longitudinal axis [0039].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of the combined teachings to have where the angle at which the lateral portion extends from the vertical portion ranges is 90 degrees or less in view of the teachings of Hoefelmayr where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e., providing reliable locking against tensile loading during movement along the longitudinal axis [Hoefelmayr: 0039].
Regarding Claim 8, Faries, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 and further teaches wherein the cutout [to form lips 24, Figure 5] has a width larger than a width of the alignment member [where plate 26 has a diameter slightly smaller those formed by projections 23, Figure 5; col. 8, lines 21-40]
Regarding Claim 9, Faries, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 and further teaches wherein the piston attachment member [plate 19 and annular engagement member 22, Figure 5] on the bottom side of the surgical drape [drape 17, Figure 5] further comprises a lateral wall extending inwardly [lips 24, Figure 5] from the terminal end of the downwardly extending sidewall [projections 23, Figure 5], the lateral wall being configured to extend at least partially under a bottom side of the drape engagement plate [where once plate 26 clears projections 23 the lips 24 extend a short radial distance along the bottom surface of the plate, Figure 5; col. 8, lines 24-33].
Regarding Claim 10, Faries, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1, and further teaches where a cutout [to form lips 24 on projection 23, Figure 5] has a length and a width [Figure 5], where the width of the cutout is smaller along at least a portion of the length than a width of the at least one alignment member cutout [where the engagement member may include a friction fit, claim 6], when the piston attachment member on the bottom side of the surgical drape [annular engagement member 22, Figure 5] is positioned on the drape engagement member of the piston [plate 26, Figure 5], the alignment member [Figure 5] is configured to be press fit into the cutout [where the engagement member may include a friction fit, claim 6] .
Regarding Claim 12, Faries, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 and further teaches where the piston attachment member [plate 19 and annular engagement member 22, Figure 5] on the bottom side of the surgical drape [drape 17, Figure 15] comprises a plate [plate 19, Figure 5], and the downwardly extending sidewall [projections 23, Figure 5] extends from a perimeter edge of the plate [where the projections 23 extend downward from a bottom surface of the engagement member 22; col. 7, lines 27-33].
Regarding Claim 13, Faries, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 and further teaches where the drape engagement plate [plate 26, Figure 5] of the piston [shaft 29. Figure 5] has a circular shape [where plate 26 has a diameter slightly smaller those formed by projections 23, Figure 5; col. 8, lines 21-40].
Regarding Claim 14, Faries teaches the invention of claim 13 and further teaches where the piston [drive shaft 29, Figure 5] comprises an alignment member [see annotated Figure 5] positioned about the perimeter of the drape engagement plate [plate 26, Figure 5] but does not teach where the piston comprises four alignment members positioned 90 degrees apart from each other.
However, Hoefelmayr teaches a temporary coupling [0009] where four alignment members are positioned 90 degrees apart from each other [where a total of four cams 121a are arranged around the engagement area 120 at an angular distance of approximately 90 degrees; 0036], where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art i.e., strengthening the locked condition of the coupling with uniformly spaced alignment members [0036].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of the combined teachings to have where the at least one alignment member is four alignment members positioned approximately 90 degrees apart from each other in view of the teachings of Hoefelmayr where this known technique could have been applied to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable i.e., strengthening the locked condition of the coupling with uniformly spaced alignment members [0036].
Regarding Claim 16, Faries teaches the invention of claim 1 and further teaches where the drape engagement member [plate 26, Figure 5] is positioned on a bottom of the basin [basin 11, Figure 4], and the piston is configured to move axially upwardly and downwardly in a reciprocating motion [where drive shaft 29 reciprocates longitudinally upward through adapter tube 30 of bottom of basin 11, Figure 4; col. 8 lines 1 - 15].
Regarding Claim 17, Faries teaches a drape for a surgical slush system [sterile drape 17, Figure 1], the drape comprising:
a basin portion configured to be inserted into a basin of a surgical slush system [where the drape is made to conform to the sidewall of basin 11, Figure 4; col. 5, lines 10-18], the basin portion comprising a top side configured to face away from the basin of the surgical slush system [where cover 18 is secured to the sterile upper side of drape 17, Figure 4; col. 6, lines 40-50] and a bottom side configure to face the basin of the surgical slush system [where the non-sterile surface of drape 17 connects to base 16 in basin 11, Figure 4; col. 6, lines 9-18];
a flexible side sheet extending about the basin portion and configured be positioned draping side portions of the surgical slush system [where drape 17 is disposed over the top and hangs down along the sides of cabinet 10, Figure 1; col. 5, lines 41-43]; and
a piston attachment member on the bottom side of the basin portion [plate 19 and annular engagement member 22 disposed on base 16, Figure 5; col.7, lines 13-2], the piston attachment member comprising a downwardly extending sidewall [projections 23, Figure 5] defining a perimeter of a receiving cavity [where plate 26 has a diameter slightly smaller than inside surfaces of projections 23; col. 8, lines 21-34] and a cutout extending through the downwardly extending sidewall [to form lips 24 on projections 23, Figure 5], the cutout being configured to receive an alignment member of the surgical slush system [where lips 24 extend along bottom surface of plate 25 when engaged in a snap fit; col. 8, lines 21-34]. and
Faries does not teach a lower sidewall portion positioned between a portion of the cutout and a portion of the sidewall terminal end.
However, Hoefelmayr teaches a temporary coupling [0009] a lower sidewall [Figure 1a] positioned between a portion of the cutout [annotated Figure 1a] and a portion of the sidewall terminal end [annotated Figure 1], where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable, i.e., providing reliable locking against tensile loading during movement along the longitudinal axis [0039].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Faries to have a lower sidewall portion positioned between a portion of the cutout and a portion of the sidewall terminal end in view of the teachings of Hoefelmayr where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results, i.e., providing reliable locking against tensile loading during movement along the longitudinal axis [Hoefelmayr: 0039].
The combined teachings do not teach wherein the lower sidewall portion is configured such that the alignment member will pull through the lower sidewall portion if a force generated between the piston attachment member and the drape engagement member exceeds a predetermined threshold.
However, Kim teaches a breakaway mechanism [0004] where the lower sidewall portion [fingers 315A-D, Figure 3] is configured such that the alignment member [snaps 355A-D, Figure 3] will pull through the lower sidewall portion if a force generated between the attachment member [retention component 210, Figure 3] and the engagement member [breakaway component 220, Figure 3] exceeds a predetermined threshold [where the snap members 255A-D flex and unsnap from the finger members 315A-D at a predetermined pull force causing the breakaway component 220 to separate from the retention 210; 0045] where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique, breakaway coupling, to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art i.e., preventing damage to expensive equipment due to unexpected high forces by including a sacrificial part [Kim, 0003].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of the combined teachings have where the lower sidewall portion is configured such that the alignment member will pull through the lower sidewall portion if a force generated between the piston attachment member and the drape engagement member exceeds a predetermined threshold in view of the teachings of Kim where this known technique could have been applied to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable i.e., preventing damage to expensive equipment due to unexpected high forces by including a sacrificial part [Kim, 0003].
Regarding Claim 18, Faries teaches the invention of claim 17 and does not teach where at least one cutout comprises a vertical portion extending upwardly from a terminal end of the downwardly extending sidewall and a lateral portion extending laterally at an angle from the vertical portion.
However, Hoefelmayr teaches a temporary coupling [0009] where at least one cutout [recesses 121b, Figure 1a] comprises a vertical portion [area 123b, Figure 1b] extending upwardly from a terminal end of the downwardly extending sidewall [sliding surface 122b, Figure 1a] and a lateral portion [locking area 124b, Figure 1c] extending laterally at an angle from the vertical portion [where locking area 124b extends at an angle to area 123b, Figures 1b and 1c; 0039], where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable, i.e., providing reliable locking against tensile loading during movement along the longitudinal axis [0039].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of the combined teachings to have where the at least one cutout comprises a vertical portion extending upwardly from a terminal end of the downwardly extending sidewall and a lateral portion extending laterally at an angle from the vertical portion in view of the teachings of Hoefelmayr where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e., providing reliable locking against tensile loading during movement along the longitudinal axis [Hoefelmayr: 0039].
Regarding Claim 20, Faries, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 18 and further teaches the terminal end of the sidewall [at lips 24 of projections 23, Figure 5] defines a retention lip [where lips 24 extend along bottom surface of plate 25 when engaged in a snap fit; col. 8, lines 21-34] but does not teach wherein the lower sidewall portion extends from a first end bounded by the vertical portion of the least one cutout to a second end bounded by an undivided portion of the at least one downwardly extending sidewall, and the first end of the lower sidewall portion defines a retention lip.
However, Hoefelmayr teaches a temporary coupling [0009] where a lower sidewall portion [Figure 1a] extends from a terminal end bounded by the vertical portion [area 123b, Figure 1b] of the least one cutout [recesses 121b, Figure 1a] to an undivided portion of the at least one downwardly extending sidewall [at 122b, Figure 1a], where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, such that the first end of the lower sidewall portion defines a retention lip, and that in combination, each element would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable, i.e., providing reliable locking against tensile loading during movement along the longitudinal axis [0039].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of the combined teachings to have where the lower sidewall portion extends from a first end bounded by the vertical portion of the least one cutout to a second end bounded by an undivided portion of the at least one downwardly extending sidewall, and the first end of the lower sidewall portion defines a retention lip in view of the teachings of Hoefelmayr where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e., providing reliable locking against tensile loading during movement along the longitudinal axis [Hoefelmayr: 0039].
Regarding Claim 22, Faries, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 17 and further teaches where the piston attachment member [plate 19 and annular engagement member 22, Figure 5] further comprises a lateral wall extending inwardly [lips 24, Figure 5] from a terminal end of the downwardly extending sidewall [projections 23, Figure 5]
Regarding Claim 23, Faries, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 17, further teaches where the cutout [to form lips 24 on projection 23, Figure 5] has a length and a width [Figure 5], and the width of the cutout is smaller along at least a portion of the length than a width of the alignment member [where the engagement member may include a friction fit, claim 6], thereby configuring the cutout to be press fit onto the alignment member into the at least one cutout [where the engagement member may include a friction fit, claim 6] .
Regarding Claim 24, Faries, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 17 and further teaches the receiving cavity [at projections 23, Figure 5] defines a circular shape [where plate 26 has a diameter slightly smaller those formed by projections 23, Figure 5; col. 8, lines 21-40], but Faries does not teach where the piston attachment member comprises four cutouts positioned 90 degrees apart from each other about a perimeter of the receiving cavity.
However, Hoefelmayr teaches a temporary coupling [0009] where the at least the attachment member [coupling part 100b, Figure 1a] comprises four cutouts [wherein there are provided precisely four cams 121a and locking recesses 121b which are complementary to said four cams; claim 7] positioned approximately 90 degrees apart from each other about a perimeter of the receiving cavity [where a total of four cams 121a are arranged around the engagement area 120 at an angular distance of approximately 90 degrees; 0036], where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art i.e., strengthening the locked condition of the coupling with uniformly spaced alignment members [Hoefelmayr; 0036].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of the combined teachings to have where the piston attachment member comprises four cutouts positioned 90 degrees apart from each other about a perimeter of the receiving cavity in view of the teachings of Hoefelmayr where this known technique could have been applied to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable i.e., strengthening the locked condition of the coupling with uniformly spaced alignment members [Hoefelmayr; 0036].
Regarding Claim 25, Faries teaches a method of draping a surgical slush system [col. 5, lines 10-36], the method comprising:
positioning a basin portion of a surgical drape in a basin of a surgical slush system [where the drape is made to conform to the sidewall of basin 11, Figure 4; col. 5, lines 10-18], wherein the surgical drape comprises a piston attachment member [plate 19 and annular engagement member 22 disposed on base 16, Figure 5; col.7, lines 13-26 ] defining a receiving cavity on a bottom side of the surgical drape [where plate 26 has a diameter slightly smaller than inside surfaces of projections 23; col. 8, lines 21-34], and the surgical slush system comprises a piston [drive shaft 29, Figure 5] carrying a drape engagement plate [plate 26, Figure 5] and an alignment member extending outwardly from the drape engagement plate [where a lip fits to the perimeter of plate 26, Figure 5; col. 8, lines 34-49]; and
pressing the piston attachment member of the surgical drape downwardly on the drape engagement plate and the at least one alignment member of the surgical slush system [where pushing axially plate 19 fits plate 26 in projections 23, Figure 5; col. 8, lines 24 - 33]
wherein the piston attachment member comprises at least one downwardly extending sidewall [projections 23, Figure 5] defining a perimeter of the receiving cavity [where pushing axially plate 19 fits plate 26 in projections 23, Figure 5; col. 8, lines 24 - 33];
wherein the downwardly extending sidewall comprises a terminal end [at lips 24, Figure 5], a cutout into which the alignment member of the drape engagement member is configured to be inserted [annotated Figure 5].
Faries does not teach a lower sidewall portion positioned between a portion of the cutout and a portion of the sidewall terminal end.
However, Hoefelmayr teaches a temporary coupling [0009] a lower sidewall [Figure 1a] positioned between a portion of the cutout [annotated Figure 1a] and a portion of the sidewall terminal end [annotated Figure 1], where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable, i.e., providing reliable locking against tensile loading during movement along the longitudinal axis [0039].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Faries to have a lower sidewall portion positioned between a portion of the cutout and a portion of the sidewall terminal end in view of the teachings of Hoefelmayr where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results, i.e., providing reliable locking against tensile loading during movement along the longitudinal axis [Hoefelmayr: 0039].
The combined teachings do not teach wherein the lower sidewall portion is configured such that the alignment member will pull through the lower sidewall portion if a force generated between the piston attachment member and the drape engagement member exceeds a predetermined threshold.
However, Kim teaches a breakaway mechanism [0004] where the lower sidewall portion [fingers 315A-D, Figure 3] is configured such that the alignment member [snaps 355A-D, Figure 3] will pull through the lower sidewall portion if a force generated between the attachment member [retention component 210, Figure 3] and the engagement member [breakaway component 220, Figure 3] exceeds a predetermined threshold [where the snap members 255A-D flex and unsnap from the finger members 315A-D at a predetermined pull force causing the breakaway component 220 to separate from the retention 210; 0045] where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique, breakaway coupling, to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art i.e., preventing damage to expensive equipment due to unexpected high forces by including a sacrificial part [Kim, 0003].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of the combined teachings have where the lower sidewall portion is configured such that the alignment member will pull through the lower sidewall portion if a force generated between the piston attachment member and the drape engagement member exceeds a predetermined threshold in view of the teachings of Kim where this known technique could have been applied to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable i.e., preventing damage to expensive equipment due to unexpected high forces by including a sacrificial part [Kim, 0003].
Regarding Claim 26, Faries, as modified, teaches the method of claim 25 and further teaches pressing the piston attachment member of the surgical drape [plate 19 and annular engagement member 22, Figure 5] downwardly on the drape engagement plate [plate 26, Figure 5] and the alignment member [Figure 5] of the surgical slush system [where pushing axially plate 19 fits plate 26 in projections 23, Figure 5; col. 8, lines 24 – 33] but does not teach rotating the piston attachment member of the surgical drape relative to the drape engagement plate and the alignment member of the surgical slush system.
However, Hoefelmayr teaches a temporary coupling [0009] where an attachment member [coupling part 100b, Figure 1a] rotates relative to an engagement member [where the coupling parts 100a and 100b are displaced by a certain angle, Figure 1b and Figure 1c; 0039] and the alignment member [plurality of cams 121a, Figure 1a], where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable, i.e., providing reliable locking against tensile loading during movement along the longitudinal axis [0039].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of the combined teachings to have where the piston attachment member of the surgical drape rotates relative to the drape engagement plate and the alignment member of the surgical slush system in view of the teachings of Hoefelmayr where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e., providing reliable locking against tensile loading during movement along the longitudinal axis [Hoefelmayr: 0039].
Regarding Claim 27, Faries, as modified, teaches the method of claim 25, where pressing the piston attachment member of the surgical drape downwardly on the drape engagement plate and the alignment member of the surgical slush system [where pushing axially plate 19 fits plate 26 in projections 23, Figure 5; col. 8, lines 24 – 33] comprises positioning the at least one cutout over the alignment member [where plate 19 is properly centered in basin 11; col. 8, lines 24-33] and pressing the cutout down over the alignment member [where the plate resiliently forces lips 24 and projections 23 outward over plate 26; col. 8, lines 24-33].
Regarding Claim 29, Faries, as modified, teaches the method of claim 27 and further teaches wherein positioning the cutout over the alignment member [where plate 19 is properly centered in basin 11; col. 8, lines 24-33] and pressing the cutout down over the alignment member [where pushing axially on plate 19 fits plate 26 in projections 23 and where the plate 26 resiliently forces lips 24 and projections 23 outward over plate 26; col. 8, lines 24-33] comprise press fitting the at least one alignment member in the least one cutout down [where the engagement member may include a friction fit, claim 6].
Regarding Claim 30, Faries, as modified, teaches the method of claim 27 and further teaches where pressing the piston attachment member of the surgical drape [plate 19 and annular engagement member 22, Figure 5] downwardly on the drape engagement plate [where pushing axially plate 19 fits plate 26 in projections 23, Figure 5; col. 8, lines 24 - 33] comprises positioning a lateral wall extending inwardly from a terminal end of the downwardly extending sidewall [lips 24, Figure 5] at least partially under a bottom side of the drape engagement plate [where once plate 26 clears projections 23 the lips 24 extend a short radial distance along the bottom surface of the plate, Figure 5; col. 8, lines 24-33].
Regarding Claim 32, Faries, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 25, and does not teach where the threshold corresponds to a force sufficient to damage a component of the surgical slush system.
However, Kim teaches a breakaway mechanism [0004] where the lower sidewall portion [fingers 315A-D, Figure 3] the threshold [a predetermined pull force causing the breakaway component 220 to separate from the retention 210; 0045] corresponds to a force sufficient to damage a component of the system [where the mechanism prevents damage to the charging station or wires; 0007] where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique, breakaway coupling, to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art i.e., preventing damage to expensive equipment due to unexpected high forces by including a sacrificial part [Kim, 0003].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of the combined teachings to have where the threshold corresponds to a force sufficient to damage a component of the surgical slush system in view of the teachings of Kim where this known technique could have been applied to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable i.e., preventing damage to expensive equipment due to unexpected high forces by including a sacrificial part [Kim, 0003].
PNG
media_image1.png
589
694
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
506
772
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claims 6 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Faries et al. (US7350373B1) in view of Hoefelmayr (US20110193342A1) and Kim et al. (US20110269332A1) and in further view of Willis (GB2346416A).
Regarding Claim 6, Faries, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 3 and teaches the lower sidewall portion defines a length parallel to the lateral portion of the cutout and a width parallel to the vertical portion of the cutout [See Hoefelmayr as applied in claim 4 where length and width are inherent geometric properties of the structure], but does not teach the width of the lower sidewall portion is less than 5 mm.
However, Willis teaches a bayonet-type connection [p. 1, para. 3] comprising a lower sidewall portion [at 52, Figure 2] where in order to provide adequate strength it has been found advantageous to increase the thickness in the region adjacent each slot [p. 2, para. 5], where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying routine optimization of a known result effective variable to achieve a recognized result, i.e., increasing or decreasing the strength of the lower sidewall.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of the combined teachings to have where the width of the lower sidewall portion is less than 5 mm in view of the teachings of Willis where the modification constitutes routine optimization of a known result-effective variable to achieve a recognized result, i.e., increasing or decreasing the strength of the lower sidewall.
Regarding Claim 21, Faries, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 18 and teaches the lower sidewall portion defines a length parallel to the lateral portion of the cutout and a width parallel to the vertical portion of the cutout [See Hoefelmayr as applied in claim 4 where length and width are inherent geometric properties of the structure] and does not teach the width of the lower sidewall portion is less than 5 mm.
However, Willis teaches a bayonet-type connection [p. 1, para. 3] comprising a lower sidewall portion [at 52, Figure 2] where in order to provide adequate strength it has been found advantageous to increase the thickness in the region adjacent each slot [p. 2, para. 5], where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying routine optimization of a known result effective variable to achieve a recognized result, i.e., increasing or decreasing the strength of the lower sidewall.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of the combined teachings to have where the width of the lower sidewall portion is less than 5 mm in view of the teachings of Willis where the modification constitutes routine optimization of a known result-effective variable to achieve a recognized result, i.e., increasing or decreasing the strength of the lower sidewall.
Claims 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Faries et al. in in view of Hoefelmayr (US20110193342A1) and Kim et al. (US20110269332A1) and in further view of Lehmann et al. (US20130341917A1).
Regarding Claim 15, Faries teaches the system of claim 1