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 without traverse of Invention I: a disposable elongate covering in the reply filed on 10/22/2025 is acknowledged.
Applicant's election with traverse of Species I: elongate covering having stabilizer as a balloon and illustrated in Figs. 2A-2B in the reply filed on 10/22/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Species A-C are not mutually exclusive alternative independent and distinct features that requires a serious burden in search and examination. This is not found persuasive because Species A as illustrated in Figs. 2A-B illustrate the stabilizer as a balloon, Species B illustrates the stabilizer as having folds 314A, and Species C illustrates the stabilizer as having expandable arms 314B. A balloon, folds 314a, and expandable arms 314B are all distinct, independent, and different constructions of a stabilizer. Thus, there is a serious burden placed on examination of such distinct and different physical constructions of each stabilizer because each individual distinct construction requires individual text and classification searches, which would result in a serious burden placed upon the examiner.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Status of Claims
In the present application, claims 1-20 are currently pending in the application. Claim 20 is withdrawn as being drawn to an unelected invention. Claims 1-19 are examined below in view of elected invention I and species A as illustrated in Figs. 2a-b.
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 1, 2, 4-8, 9, 16, 18, and 19 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the stabilizer" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested to amend the limitation to state, “the expandable stabilizer.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “a duodenoscope” in line 2. However claim 1, which claim 2 directly depends from also introduces the limitation, “a duodenoscope” in line 2. Therefore it is unclear whether the limitation in claim 2 line 2 is introducing a new duodenoscope or simply referencing the limitation in claim 1. It is suggested to amend the limitation to state, “the duodenoscope” and will examined as such. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the balloon" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested to amend the limitation to state, “ the inflatable ballon.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the proximal end" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested to amend the limitation to state, “the open proximal end.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the toroid-shaped ballon" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested to amend the limitation to state, “the inflatable balloon.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the balloon" twice in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested to amend the limitation to state, “ the inflatable ballon.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the balloon" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested to amend the limitation to state, “ the inflatable ballon.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the balloon" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested to amend the limitation to state, “ the inflatable ballon.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the covering" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested to amend the limitation to state, “the elongate covering.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the stabilizer" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested to amend the limitation to state, “the expandable stabilizer.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the duodenum" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested to amend the limitation to state, “ the patient duodenum.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the balloon" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested to amend the limitation to state, “ the inflatable ballon.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the balloon" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested to amend the limitation to state, “ the inflatable ballon.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the smaller inner diameter" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the larger diameter" in lines 5-6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 15, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Il G. Kim (US4631054) hereinafter Kim.
Regarding Claim 1, Kim discloses a disposable elongate covering (Figs. 1-5 tube 1) for a duodenoscope (Figs. 1-5 catheter 14) for use during endoscopic access of a duodenum (abstract), the covering (Figs. 1-5 tube 1) comprising:
a flexible thin-walled tube (Figs. 1-5 tube 1) including a distal end (Fig. 1 near reference numeral 3) and an open proximal end (Fig. 1 near reference numeral 2), and an elongate tubular portion (Figs. 1-5 tube 1) extending therebetween and sized and shaped to surround and engage an elongate portion of the duodenoscope (Figs. 1-5 catheter 14);
an expandable stabilizer (Figs. 1-5 bag 4) disposed at a part of the flexible thin-walled tube (Figs. 1-5 tube 1), expandable laterally with respect to the elongate tubular portion (Figs. 1-5 tube 1), the stabilizer (Figs. 1-5 bag 4) configured to be expanded to stabilize the flexible thin-walled tube (Figs. 1-5 tube 1) with respect to the duodenum (abstract); and
an end cap (Fig. 1 end 3) extending distally from the flexible thin-walled tube(Figs. 1-5 tube 1) at the distal end (Fig. 1 near reference numeral 3) and, the end cap (Fig. 1 end 3) including a port sized and shaped to permit lateral exit of a distal portion of a daughter scope (Fig. 3 guide wire 12) extending through the duodenoscope (Figs. 1-5 catheter 14).
Regarding Claim 3. Kim discloses the disposable elongate covering of claim 1, wherein the end cap (Fig. 1 end 3) includes a transparent material configured to allow visualization therethrough (Col. 2 line 53 -Col. 3 line 7] “Clear poly vinyl is the preferred material of construction but other sterilizable flexible materials can be utilized without departing from the scope of the present invention.”).
Regarding Claim 4. Kim discloses the disposable elongate covering of claim 1, wherein the expandable stabilizer (Figs. 1-5 bag 4) includes an inflatable balloon (Figs. 1-5 bag 4) configured to expand against the duodenum, the balloon configured to vary between an inflated state and a deflated state ([col. 2 lines 59-64] “The inflatable mercury bag 4, is mounted around tube 1, near the inserted end 3. The extension of a small portion of tube 1, beyond bag 4, allows for ease of insertion without the bag being in the way. It is filled by injection through port 5, which communicates with the interior diameter 4.”).
Regarding Claim 5. Kim discloses the disposable elongate covering of claim 4, further comprising an elongate fluid-communicating vessel extending between the inflatable balloon (Figs. 1-5 bag 4) and the proximal end of the flexible thin-walled tube ([col. 2 lines 59-64] “The inflatable mercury bag 4, is mounted around tube 1, near the inserted end 3. The extension of a small portion of tube 1, beyond bag 4, allows for ease of insertion without the bag being in the way. It is filled by injection through port 5, which communicates with the interior diameter 4.”). .
Regarding Claim 6. Kim discloses the disposable elongate covering of claim 4, wherein the inflatable balloon (Figs. 1-5 bag 4) is generally toroid-shaped (Figs. 1-5 bag 4), the flexible thin-walled tube (Figs. 1-5 tube 1) extending into an opening of the toroid-shaped balloon ([col. 2 lines 59-64] “The inflatable mercury bag 4, is mounted around tube 1, near the inserted end 3. The extension of a small portion of tube 1, beyond bag 4, allows for ease of insertion without the bag being in the way. It is filled by injection through port 5, which communicates with the interior diameter 4.”).
Regarding Claim 7. Kim discloses the disposable elongate covering of claim 6, wherein the flexible thin-walled tube (Figs. 1-5 tube 1) extends into toroidal opening of the balloon (Figs. 1-5 bag 4)offset from a toroidal central axis of the balloon ([col. 2 lines 59-64] “The inflatable mercury bag 4, is mounted around tube 1, near the inserted end 3. The extension of a small portion of tube 1, beyond bag 4, allows for ease of insertion without the bag being in the way. It is filled by injection through port 5, which communicates with the interior diameter 4.”).
Regarding Claim 15. the disposable elongate covering of claim 1, wherein an interior surface of the elongate tubular portion has a greater coefficient of static friction than an exterior surface of the elongate tubular portion.
Regarding Claim 16. Kim discloses an endoscopy system (Fig. 5) for accessing anatomy inferior to a pylorus of a stomach of a patient (abstract), the system comprising:
an endoscope (Figs. 1-5 catheter 14) sized and shaped for insertion into a patient esophagus towards a patient duodenum (abstract), the endoscope including a proximal portion and a distal portion, and an access lumen (figs. 1-5 lumen of catheter 14 for guide wire 12) extending therebetween, the access lumen (figs. 1-5 lumen of catheter 14 for guide wire 12) providing an inner diameter to receive and pass a secondary medical instrument (Figs. 1-5 guide wire 12) therethrough; and
an elongate covering (Figs. 1-5 tube 1) for the endoscope (Figs. 1-5 catheter 14), the covering including:
a flexible thin-walled tube (Figs. 1-5 tube 1) including a distal end (Fig. 1 near reference numeral 3) and an open proximal end (Fig. 1 near reference numeral 2), and an elongate tubular portion (Figs. 1-5 tube 1) extending therebetween and sized and shaped to surround and engage an elongate portion of the endoscope (Figs. 1-5 catheter 14);
an expandable stabilizer (Figs. 1-5 bag 4) disposed at a part of the flexible thin-walled tube (Figs. 1-5 tube 1), expandable laterally with respect to the elongate tubular portion (Figs. 1-5 tube 1), the stabilizer (Figs. 1-5 bag 4) configured to be expanded to stabilize the flexible thin-walled tube (Figs. 1-5 tube 1) with respect to patient anatomy at a target site (abstract).
Regarding Claim 18. Kim discloses the endoscopy system of claim 16, wherein the expandable stabilizer (Figs. 1-5 bag 4) includes an inflatable balloon (Figs. 1-5 bag 4) configured to expand against the duodenum, the balloon configured to vary between an inflated state and a deflated state ([col. 2 lines 59-64] “The inflatable mercury bag 4, is mounted around tube 1, near the inserted end 3. The extension of a small portion of tube 1, beyond bag 4, allows for ease of insertion without the bag being in the way. It is filled by injection through port 5, which communicates with the interior diameter 4.”).
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 2, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Swisher et al. (US2014/0073853) hereinafter Swisher.
Regarding Claim 2, Kim discloses the disposable elongate covering of claim 1, but is silent as to wherein the end cap includes at least one coupling feature sized and shaped to interface with a distal end of a duodenoscope.
However Swisher, in the same field of endeavor teaches wherein the end cap (Swisher - Fig. 10 cap 70) includes at least one coupling feature sized and shaped to interface with a distal end of a duodenoscope (Swisher – [0068] “The cap 70 can have an exterior surface comprising a cylindrical attachment portion 100 that is configured to couple or mate with the distal end of the tubular housing 50, and a dome-shaped portion 102 that may extend outward or project from the tubular housing. In one example, the cylindrical attachment portion 100 can be shaped and sized so that a snug fit is formed with the interior surface of the tubular housing 50. A bonding agent may be used to further secure the cylindrical attachment portion 100 to the tubular housing 50. The connection between the cap 70 and the housing 50 may be substantially waterproof to inhibit the ingress of liquid into the imaging assembly 18.”).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim with the teachings of Swisher to include the end cap includes at least one coupling feature sized and shaped to interface with a distal end of a duodenoscope for the benefit of having a connection between the end cap and a distal end of a duodenoscope be substantially waterproof (Swisher – [0068]).
Regarding Claim 11, Kim discloses the disposable elongate covering of claim 1, but is silent as whether wherein c
However Swisher, in the same field of endeavor, teaches an interior surface of the elongate tubular portion include a plurality of friction features configured to engage the elongate portion of the duodenoscope (Swisher – [0087] “The socket and the first interface connector 244 may include engagement structures, such as ribs or other components that provide a friction-fit between the connector and the socket to inhibit inadvertent disconnection.”).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim with the teachings of Swisher to include The socket and the first interface connector 244 may include engagement structures, such as ribs or other components that provide a friction-fit between the connector and the socket to inhibit inadvertent disconnection for the benefit of avoiding inadvertent disconnection (Swisher – [0087])
Regarding Claim 12, Kim in view of Swisher teaches the disposable elongate covering of claim 11, wherein the plurality of friction features includes a plurality of ribbing features along a length of the interior surfaces of the elongate tubular portion. (Swisher – [0087] “The socket and the first interface connector 244 may include engagement structures, such as ribs or other components that provide a friction-fit between the connector and the socket to inhibit inadvertent disconnection.”).
Claims 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Kaffes et al. (US2020/0405128) hereinafter Kaffes.
Regarding Claim 17. Kim discloses the endoscopy system of claim 16, wherein the elongate covering (Figs. 1-5 tube 1) includes an end cap (Figs. 1-5 end 3) extending distally from the flexible thin-walled tube (Figs. 1-5 tube 1) at the distal end, the end cap (Figs. 1-5 end 3) but is silent as to including a side port sized and shaped to permit view or entry out of the endoscope and into the target site of the patient anatomy.
However Kaffes, in the same field of endeavor, teaches an end cap (Kaffes – Fig. 2 distal portion 44) including a side port (Kaffes – Fig. 2 opening 40) sized and shaped to permit view or entry out of the endoscope and into the target site of the patient anatomy (Kaffes - [0109] “The overtube body 18 is provided with an opening 40, wherein the opening 40 is between the first ring 38 and second ring 46, a profile of the opening 40 is defined by the edge 42 of the opening, and the opening 40 is in communication with the bore 20 in the overtube body 18.” [0085] “…the opening 40 is configured to allow a sensor 103 at the distal end of the passing portion 102 to capture images or video through the opening 40.”).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim with the teachings of Kaffes to include the end cap including a side port sized and shaped to permit view or entry out of the endoscope and into the target site of the patient anatomy for the benefit of a user capable of “..view[ing] outwardly in a radial direction…” (Kaffes – [0066]).
Claims 8 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Janssen et al. (US11813070) hereinafter Janssen.
Regarding Claim 8. Kim discloses the disposable elongate covering of claim 4, but is silent as to wherein the balloon rated to be maximally inflatable to a pressure between 1 cmH20 and 30 cmH20
However Janssen, in the same field of endeavor teaches, wherein the balloon rated to be maximally inflatable to a pressure between 1 cmH20 and 30 cmH20 (Janssen – [col. 5 lines 30-40] “It is another major advantage that the risk of squeezing blood vessels using a balloon which can be inflated to its “target volume” with such a low inflation pressure, is minimal or non-existing. It is noted in this respect that a pressure of about 20 to about 30 cm H2O, or about 2.0 to about 3.0 kPa, or about 14 to about 22 mm Hg or about 0.3 to about 0.4 psi, corresponding to the “endotracheal cuff pressure”, is widely accepted to be “safe”.”)
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim with the teachings of Janssen to have the balloon rated to be maximally inflatable to a pressure between 1 cmH20 and 30 cmH20 for the benefit of not squeezing blood vessels and is considered a safe pressure (Janssen – [col. 5 lines 30-40]).
Regarding Claim 19. Kim discloses the endoscopy system of claim 18, but is silent wherein the elongate tubular portion, when the balloon is in the deflated state, includes an elastic section wherein: the inner diameter of the elongate tubular portion is less than an outer diameter of the elongate portion of the endoscope; and the smaller inner diameter of the elongate tubular portion is stretchable around the larger diameter of the elongate portion of the endoscope.
However Janssen, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the elongate tubular portion, when the balloon is in the deflated state, includes an elastic section wherein: the inner diameter of the elongate tubular portion is less than an outer diameter of the elongate portion of the endoscope; and the smaller inner diameter of the elongate tubular portion is stretchable around the larger diameter of the elongate portion of the endoscope. (Janssen – [col. 4 lines 6-31 ] “…wherein an external diameter of the balloon catheter, when each of said balloons is deflated, is such that the balloon catheter can pass through a hole having a diameter of about 7.7 mm (23 French), said catheter containing at least a first lumen which is fluidly coupled to the inside of the first balloon via at least one first opening in the surface of the catheter; wherein the one or more balloons are adapted to have an overall non-spherical shape, and for having an outer diameter in the range from 4.0 to 7.0 cm, and for having an effective length from 7.0 cm to 18.0 cm or for having a total inner volume in the range from 90 ml to 330 ml, when each of said balloons is inflated by a pressure of 0.20 psi (or 1.379 kPa) in an environment of 20° C. and 1013 mbar absent a counter-pressure.”)
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim with the teachings of Janssen to include for the benefit of “…provid[ing] such a balloon catheter, which provides a reduced discomfort or bloating or nausea or pain (e.g. as compared to a balloon having a target volume larger than 300 ml), without substantially negatively influencing the accuracy” (Janssen – [col. 3 lines 62-67]).
Claims 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Rowland et al. (US2002/0193788) hereinafter Rowland.
Regarding Claim 9. Kim discloses the disposable elongate covering of claim 4, but is silent as wherein the balloon, in the inflated state, has an outer diameter between 20 cm and 45 cm.
However Rowland, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the balloon, in the inflated state, has an outer diameter between 20 cm and 45 cm (Rowland – [0036] “Consequently, fluid forced through the entrance port 23, as by a Syringe (not shown) attached to the Leur lock fitting 24, expands the balloon 30 into an occluding orientation as shown in Figs. 3 with an inflated diameter in the range up to 20mm.”)
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim with the teachings of Rowland to have the balloon, in the inflated state, has an outer diameter between 20 cm and 45 cm for the benefit of “…sealing a space…” within a body cavity lumen (Rowland – [0006].).
Claims 10, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Ewers et al. (US2003/0233066) hereinafter Ewers.
Regarding Claim 10. Kim discloses the disposable elongate covering of claim 1, but is silent as to wherein an interior surface of the elongate tubular portion having a coefficient of static friction that is greater than 0.70 at an ambient temperature of 40 degrees Celsius.
However Ewers, in the same field of endeavor teaches wherein an interior surface of the elongate tubular portion having a coefficient of static friction that is greater than 0.70 at an ambient temperature of 40 degrees Celsius (Ewers – [0084] “ In particular, a ratio of the radius of curvature of distal surface 31 to that of proximal surface 32 is in an approximate range of about 0.9 to 1.0. Furthermore, the coefficient of static friction between the distal and proximal surfaces preferably is in an approximate range of 0.2 to 1.4 (based on ASTM standard D1894). This structure appears to permit sufficient frictional force to develop between the surfaces to prevent relative movement between adjacent elements when overtube 22 is rigidized.”)
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim with the teachings of Ewers to have an interior surface of the elongate tubular portion having a coefficient of static friction that is greater than 0.70 at an ambient temperature of 40 degrees Celsius for the benefit of having “…sufficient frictional force to develop between the surfaces to prevent relative movement between adjacent elements…” (Ewers – [0087].)
Regarding Claim 13. Kim discloses the disposable elongate covering of claim 1, but is silent as to further comprising at least one of a liquid lubricant, a medicament, or a biocide, included on an exterior surface of the elongate tubular portion or the expandable stabilizer.
However Ewers, in the same field of endeavor teaches, further comprising at least one of a liquid lubricant, a medicament, or a biocide, included on an exterior surface of the elongate tubular portion or the expandable stabilizer (Ewers – [0156] “Advantageously, the present configuration provides lumen 25 with a substantially continuous profile. This permits smooth advancement of colonoscope 10 therethrough, and thereby eliminates the need to dispose a separate liner within lumen 25. To provide a lubricious passageway to further facilitate advancement of the colonoscope, each frustoconical element optionally may incorporate an integral hydrophilic polymeric lining as described with respect to the preceding embodiment of FIG. 19, or a thin, flexible lining having a hydrophilic coating may be disposed through lumen 25.”)
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim with the teachings of Ewers to have at least one of a liquid lubricant, a medicament, or a biocide, included on an exterior surface of the elongate tubular portion or the expandable stabilizer for the benefit of smooth advancement within the body cavity (Ewers – [0156]).
Regarding Claim 14. Kim discloses the disposable elongate covering of claim 1, but is silent as to further comprising one of: a water- activated hydrophilic coating, a hydrophobic coating, or an antibiotic coating included on an exterior surface of the elongate tubular portion or the expandable stabilizer.
However Ewers, in the same field of endeavor teaches, further comprising one of: a water- activated hydrophilic coating, a hydrophobic coating, or an antibiotic coating included on an exterior surface of the elongate tubular portion or the expandable stabilizer. (Ewers – [0156] “Advantageously, the present configuration provides lumen 25 with a substantially continuous profile. This permits smooth advancement of colonoscope 10 therethrough, and thereby eliminates the need to dispose a separate liner within lumen 25. To provide a lubricious passageway to further facilitate advancement of the colonoscope, each frustoconical element optionally may incorporate an integral hydrophilic polymeric lining as described with respect to the preceding embodiment of FIG. 19, or a thin, flexible lining having a hydrophilic coating may be disposed through lumen 25.”)
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim with the teachings of Ewers to have at least one of a liquid lubricant, a medicament, or a biocide, included on an exterior surface of the elongate tubular portion or the expandable stabilizer for the benefit of smooth advancement within the body cavity (Ewers – [0156]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MEGAN E MONAHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7330. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8am - 5pm.
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, Michael Carey can be reached at (571) 270-7235. 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.
/MEGAN ELIZABETH MONAHAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 3795
/MICHAEL J CAREY/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3795
