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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species A, sub-species 1, claims 14-18, 20 and 21 in the reply filed on February 18, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the examination of the different species and sub-species does not present a serious burden because they share common elements. This is not found persuasive because even though the species may share common elements, there are still elements within the species and sub-species that are mutually exclusive, as explained in the prior action. The concurrent examination of these mutually exclusive elements is what creates a serious burden. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Claims 1-13 and 19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species or sub-species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. The following title is suggested: Irrigation Sleeve.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 16 be found allowable, claim 21 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claims 14-18, 20 and 21 are objected to because of the following informalities: in claim 14 lines 9-10, “wherein the first and second ports and the third and fourth ports are separated circumferentially from each other by a web of material” would be clearer if written as --wherein the first and second ports are separated circumferentially from each other by a web of material and the third and fourth ports are separated circumferentially from each other by another web of material--.
In claim 17 lines 3-4, “the at least one of the first port and the second port” would be clearer if written as --the at least one of the first port, the second port, the third port, and the fourth port--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 14-16, 18, 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U. S. Patent Publication 2015/0157502 to Velasco in view of U.S. Patent Publication 2016/0192982 to Just.
Referring to claim 14, Velasco teaches an irrigation sleeve (800), comprising:
a first set of irrigation ports (812, 814) comprising a first port (812) and a second port (814) and a second set of irrigation ports (802, 804) comprising a third port (802) and a fourth port (804) (Figures 8A and 8B; paragraph [0044]-[0045]),
wherein the first (812, 814) and second (802, 804) set of irrigation ports are located on a distal portion of the irrigation sleeve (800) (Figures 8A and 8B; paragraph [0044]-[0045]),
wherein the first port (812) and second port (814) are located on opposite sides of the irrigation sleeve (800) and the third port (802) and fourth port (804) are located on opposite sides of the irrigation sleeve (800) offset (axially offset) from the first set of irrigation portions (812, 814) (Figures 8A and 8B; paragraph [0044]-[0045]), and
wherein the first (812) and second (814) ports and the third (802) and fourth (804) ports are separated circumferentially from each other by a web of material
wherein the first (812) and second (814) ports are separated circumferentially from each other by a web of material and the third (802) and fourth (804) ports are separated circumferentially from each other by another web of material (material of sleeve 800 in which the ports are formed) (Figures 8A and 8B, Fig. 8B annotated below, wherein the first port is circumferentially spaced from the second port and the third port is circumferentially spaced from the fourth port; paragraph [0044]-[0045]).
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Web)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
230
544
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotation of Velasco Figure 8B.
While ports (802, 804) operate to provide irrigation, Velasco teaches the second set of irrigation ports (802, 804) operating only when the pressure reaches a threshold, in order to relieve the pressure in the sleeve. Furthermore, Velasco does not teach the all four ports spaced apart circumferentially. However, Just teaches a sleeve comprising:
a first set of irrigation ports comprising a first port and a second port and a second set of irrigation ports comprising a third port and a fourth port, wherein the first and second ports are separated circumferentially from each other by a web of material and the third and fourth ports are separated circumferentially from each other by another web of material (Figures 1-6, Fig. 6, annotated below; paragraph [0064], wherein the fourth port is not shown in the cross section, but the ports are disclosed at 90 degree intervals so a fourth port exists outside of the cross section, furthermore, the first and second ports are on opposite sides of a bisecting plane, such as one containing line A in Figure 1, passing therethrough and therefore on opposite sides of the plane and sleeve and offset from the third and fourth ports which are similarly arranged).
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Second Port)][AltContent: textbox (Third Port)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Web)][AltContent: textbox (First Port)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image2.png
441
601
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotation of Just Figure 6.
It would have been obvious before the invention was effectively filed, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the sleeve taught by Velasco with the multiple irrigation ports used during normal operation and spacing thereof (by adding more ports) taught by Just in order to increase the flow of irrigation fluid, and to disperse the fluid over a larger area, during normal operation.
Referring to claim 15, Velasco and Just teach an irrigation sleeve comprising all the limitations of claim 14, as detailed above, but are silent as to the width of the web. However, the Applicant has not provided any reason why the web width is critical to the claimed invention, and therefore it would have been obvious before the invention was effectively filed, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to make a width of the web less than 0.012 inches or less than 1.5 times a wall thickness of the irrigation sleeve, as an obvious matter of design choice since applicant has not disclosed that different web widths solve any stated problems or are for any particular purpose, and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with different web widths. Furthermore, such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237, (CCPA 1955)), and since the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)).
Referring to claim 16, Velasco and Just teach an irrigation sleeve comprising all the limitations of claim 14, as detailed above, and Velasco further teaches a sleeve wherein:
the first set of irrigation ports (812, 814) and the second set (802, 804) of irrigation ports have a same size or have different sizes; and wherein the first set of irrigation (812, 814) and the second set (802, 804) of irrigation ports have a same shape or a different shape (Figures 8A and 8B; paragraph [0044]-[0045]).
Referring to claim 18, Velasco and Just teach an irrigation sleeve comprising all the limitations of claim 14, as detailed above, and Velasco further teaches a sleeve wherein:
at least one of the first set of irrigation ports (812, 814) and the second set (802, 804) of irrigation ports have a shape of one selected from the group consisting of: a half-circle shape, a rounded rectangular shape, a circular shape, a tear drop shape, and an oval shape (Figures 8A and 8B; paragraph [0044]-[0045]).
Referring to claim 20, Velasco and Just teach an irrigation sleeve comprising all the limitations of claim 14, as detailed above, and Velasco further teaches a sleeve wherein:
the web is parallel with the longitudinal axis of the sleeve (Figures 8A and 8B; paragraph [0044]-[0045]).
Velasco does not teach the all four ports spaced apart circumferentially. Just further teaches a sleeve wherein:
the web is parallel with the longitudinal axis of the sleeve (Figures 1-6, Fig. 6, annotated below; paragraph [0064]).
Referring to claim 21, Velasco and Just teach an irrigation sleeve comprising all the limitations of claim 14, as detailed above, and Velasco further teaches a sleeve wherein:
the first set of irrigation ports (812, 814) and the second set (802, 804) of irrigation ports have a same size or have different sizes; and wherein the first set of irrigation (812, 814) and the second set (802, 804) of irrigation ports have a same shape or a different shape (Figures 8A and 8B; paragraph [0044]-[0045]).
Claims 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U. S. Patent Publication 2015/0157502 to Velasco in view of U. S. Patent Publication 2016/0192982 to Just and U. S. Patent Publication 2021/0128800 to Chon.
Referring to claim 17, Velasco and Just teach an irrigation sleeve comprising all the limitations of claim 14, as detailed above, but are silent as to the dimensions of the ports. Chon teaches a sleeve wherein:
at least one port (290) comprises an axial length (290L) along a longitudinal axis (282) of the sleeve (270) and a diametrical width (290W) normal to the longitudinal axis (282), wherein the port has a ratio of the axial length (290L) to the diametrical width (290W) of 3:2 or more (Fig. 2; paragraph [0036], wherein the recited ranges includes the claimed ratio).
It would have been obvious before the invention was effectively filed, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the sleeve taught by Velasco with the ratio taught by Chon in order to provide sufficient flow area for the fluid, to prevent objects of a certain roundness from passing through the port, and since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237, (CCPA 1955)), and since the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Todd, Akahoshi and Boudreault teach similar sleeves as claimed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRYAN MATTHEW LETTMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7860. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-4pm.
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, Essama Omgba can be reached at 469-295-9278. 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.
/BRYAN M LETTMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746