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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Svendsen (6,978,783) in view of Ferreira et al. (10,271,716).
Regarding claim 1, Svendsen discloses a closed suction catheter apparatus for extracting secretions from a patient's airway (abstract), the closed suction catheter apparatus comprising:
a suction collection tube (i.e. 5); a catheter (40) attached to the suction collection tube (i.e. via valve 200); and a control valve (210) disposed between the catheter (40) and the suction collection tube (5).
Svendsen discloses advancing the catheter (40) to extract secretions from a predetermined depth (respiratory tracts depth) and controlling the suction with a control valve (200, 210) (col. 3 lines 38-60, col. 4 lines 15-35) but does not specifically disclose the valve set to an open position as the catheter is being inserted into the patient's airway while suction is active so that the catheter extracts the secretions as the catheter travels into the patient's airway to the predetermined depth; the suction apparatus configured to maintain a controlled flow rate while suction is active. However, Ferreira discloses the control valve (40, 44) actuable to an open position (col. 4 lines 45-50), the suction apparatus configured to maintain a controlled flow rate while suction is active (col. 5 lines 30-40, col. 6 lines 40-60 disclose controlling fluid flow from the suction apparatus while active) and including all the structural features required to perform the function (col. 5 lines 45-50 disclose the valve can be locked in the open position, thereby freeing up a user’s hand) such that the catheter of Svendsen is able to be inserted into the patient's airway while suction is active able to extract the secretions as the catheter travels into the patient's airway to the predetermined depth (col. 5 lines 45-50 disclose the valve can include lock in the open position, thereby allowing suction to be maintained even as a user advances and withdraws a catheter). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the suction source and value of Svendsen to include a lock with controllable flow as taught by Ferreira to provide the advantage of enhanced prevention of unintended application or withdrawal of suctioning.
Regarding claim 6, Svendsen discloses a clear pathway for air flow is provided from the atmosphere to reach a tip of the catheter (40) instead of the air flow being extracted from lungs of the patient (col. 4 lines 17-35 discloses turnable valve 130 selectively allowing flow from passages 142 and 112 which are able to communicate with atmosphere at least when disconnected).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Svendsen in view of Ferreira et al., as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hanson (5,919,174).
Svendsen substantially teaches the claimed invention except for the control valve is a
stop-cock type valve. However, Hanson teaches a stop cock valve (col. 5 lines 60-65). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the suction valve of Svendsen to be a stop cock valve as taught by Hanson to provide the advantage of enhanced on/off positioning determinations since the stop cock would have discreet positionings.
Claim(s) 3 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Svendsen in view of Ferreira et al., as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cheung (5,269,768).
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Svendsen substantially teaches the claimed invention except for the control valve is a ball valve or slide valve. However, Cheung teaches in figs. 1-5, the valve includes a ball (61) and slide (58) (col. 4 lines 25-65). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the suction valve of Svendsen to be a ball and/or slide valve as taught by Cheung to provide the advantage of enhanced ease in one handed operation as disclosed by Cheung in col. 4 lines 45-48.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Svendsen in view of Ferreira et al., as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Elia et al. (2013/0014761).
Regarding claim 5, Svendsen substantially teaches the claimed invention except for the suction collection tube is connected to a peristaltic suction pump. However, Elia teaches the suction collection tube (602) is connected to a peristaltic suction pump ([0064] lines 1-20, [0070] lines 1-20). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the suction source of Svendsen to be a peristaltic pump as taught by Elia to provide the advantage of enhanced suction control responsive to sensors as taught by Elia in [0070] to meet a user’s changing need.
Claim(s) 7 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raitto (3,911,919) in view of Ferreira et al. (10,271,716).
Regarding claim 7, Raitto discloses an open suction catheter apparatus for extracting secretions from a patient's airway (abstract), the open suction catheter apparatus comprising:
a suction collection tube (16); a catheter (14) attached to the suction collection tube (i.e. via body 10); and a control valve (10, 28) disposed between the catheter (14) and the suction collection tube (16).
Raitto discloses advancing the catheter to extract secretions from a predetermined depth (respiratory tracts depth) and controlling the suction with a control valve (col. 3 lines 55-67) but does not specifically disclose the valve set to an open position as the catheter is being inserted into the patient's airway while suction is active so that the catheter extracts the secretions as the catheter travels into the patient's airway to the predetermined depth the suction apparatus configured to maintain a controlled flow rate while suction is active. However, Ferreira discloses the control valve (40, 44) actuable to an open position (col. 4 lines 45-50), the suction apparatus configured to maintain a controlled flow rate while suction is active (col. 5 lines 30-40, col. 6 lines 40-60 disclose controlling fluid flow from the suction apparatus while active) and including all the structural features required to perform the function (col. 5 lines 45-50 disclose the valve can be locked in the open position, thereby freeing up a user’s hand) such that the catheter of Raitto is able to be inserted into the patient's airway while suction is active able to extract the secretions as the catheter travels into the patient's airway to the predetermined depth (col. 5 lines 45-50 disclose the valve can include lock in the open position, thereby allowing suction to be maintained even as a user advances and withdraws a catheter). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the suction source and valve of Raitto to include a lock with controllable flow as taught by Ferreira to provide the advantage of enhanced prevention of unintended application or withdrawal of suctioning.
Regarding claim 12, Raitto discloses a clear pathway (i.e. via opening 20) for air flow is provided from the atmosphere to reach a tip of the catheter instead of the air flow being extracted from lungs of the patient (col. 3 lines 50-65).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raitto in view of Ferreira et al., as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Hanson (5,919,174).
Raitto substantially teaches the claimed invention except for the control valve is a
stop-cock type valve. However, Hanson teaches a stop cock valve (col. 5 lines 60-65). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the suction valve of Raitto to be a stop cock valve as taught by Hanson to provide the advantage of enhanced on/off positioning determinations since the stop cock would have discreet positionings.
Claim(s) 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raitto in view of Ferreira et al., as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Cheung (5,269,768).
Regarding claims 9 and 10, Raitto substantially teaches the claimed invention except for the control valve is a ball valve or slide valve. However, Cheung teaches in figs. 1-5, the valve includes a ball (61) and slide (58) (col. 4 lines 25-65). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the suction valve of Raitto to be a ball and/or slide valve as taught by Cheung to provide the advantage of enhanced ease in one handed operation as disclosed by Cheung in col. 4 lines 45-48.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raitto in view of Ferreira et al., as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Elia et al. (2013/0014761).
Regarding claim 11, Raitto substantially teaches the claimed invention except for the suction collection tube is connected to a peristaltic suction pump. However, Elia teaches the suction collection tube (602) is connected to a peristaltic suction pump ([0064] lines 1-20, [0070] lines 1-20). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the suction source of Raitto to be a peristaltic pump as taught by Elia to provide the advantage of enhanced suction control responsive to sensors as taught by Elia in [0070] to meet a user’s changing need.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13, 15-18, and 20 are allowed.
Claims 14 and 19 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on page 8 3rd paragraph through page 10 last paragraph that the references fail to disclose a suction apparatus maintaining suction as newly claimed. Examiner respectfully disagrees., Ferreira discloses the suction apparatus configured to maintain a controlled flow rate while suction is active (col. 5 lines 30-40, col. 6 lines 40-60 disclose controlling fluid flow from the suction apparatus while active). Thus, the combination of references including Ferreira teach this limitation as claimed.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 LATOYA M LOUIS whose telephone number is (571)270-5337. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 1 pm - 6:30 pm 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, Kendra Carter can be reached at 571-272-9034. 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.
/LaToya M Louis/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785
