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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vaninetti (US 20220104965 A1) in view of Botella (US 20230408042 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, discloses a control head for a modular control unit of a urinary relief system (Fig 3 [0051] fluid removal system 104 of urinary relief device 100), comprising: a pressurized gas source input (Fig 3, where cartridge 126 meets sub-system 124); a toggle configured to activate a pressurized gas source coupled to the pressurized gas source input (Fig 3 ¶[0061] human-machine interface (HMI) 130. When 130 is pressed, the flow of CO2 from cartridge 126 begins); a first connector fluidly coupled to the pressurized gas source input and configured to allow a first gas from the pressurized gas source input to flow through the control head (Fig 3, ¶[0059] motive fluid port).
Vaninetti is silent regarding a second connector fluidly coupled to the first connector and configured to allow a second gas to pass through the control head.
However, Botella teaches a modular pressurized gas tank, thus reasonably pertinent to the claimed invention, wherein a second connector fluidly is coupled to the first connector (Fig 1 ¶[0032][0036] tube 3 connects second cylinder 2 to valve 7 of the first cylinder 2) to increase the overall storage capacity of the tank (¶[0031]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Vaninetti so that a second connector is fluidly coupled to the first connector to increase the overall storage capacity of the pressurized gas source (as motivated by Botella ¶[0031]). In combination, the additional cartridge and connection taught by Botella would allow the system of Vaninetti to have increased capacity of pressurized gas, and thus allowing a second pressurized gas to pass through the control head.
Regarding Claim 2, Vaninetti/Botella discloses a valve coupled to the pressurized gas source input, wherein the first connector is fluidly coupled to the pressurized gas source input through the valve (Fig 3 ¶[0061] HMI 130 necessarily actuates a valve implicitly in order to begin flow out of the cartridge 126).
Regarding Claim 3, Vaninetti/Botella discloses that the toggle is further configured to open the valve (Fig 3 ¶[0061] HMI 130 necessarily actuates a valve implicitly in order to begin flow out of the cartridge 126).
Regarding Claim 4, Vaninetti is silent regarding a first port on the first connector; and a second port on the second connector, the second port configured to engage the first port.
However, Botella teaches a modular pressurized gas tank, thus reasonably pertinent to the claimed invention, including a first port on the first connector (Fig 3, connection to tube 3 at valve 7 of first cylinder 2); and a second port on the second connector (connection to valve 7 at tube 3 of the second cylinder 2), the second port configured to engage the first port (Fig 1 ¶[0032][0036] tube 3 connects second cylinder 2 to valve 7 of the first cylinder 2) to increase the overall storage capacity of the tank (¶[0031]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Vaninetti/Botella to include a first port on the first connector; and a second port on the second connector, the second port configured to engage the first port, as taught by Botella to increase the overall storage capacity of the pressurized gas (as motivated by Botella ¶[0031]).
Regarding Claim 5, Vaninetti/Botella does not explicitly disclose wherein the first connector includes a first rail and the second connector includes a second rail that is configured to engage the first rail.
However, Vaninetti teaches connection mechanisms between inlet hose 106 and interface device 102 that may include interference fitting mechanisms, slot-and-groove mechanism, or the like (¶[0052]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effecting filing date of the claimed invention to simply substitute the generic connection mechanism between the first and second connector of Vaninetti/Botella to be a slot-and-groove mechanism as taught by Vaninetti so that the first connector includes a first rail and the second connector includes a second rail that is configured to engage the first rail because slot-and-groove mechanisms are well known in the art and would produce the predictable result of providing a secure fluid and mechanical connection (as motivated by Vaninetti ¶[0052]).
Regarding Claim 7, Vaninetti/Botella does not explicitly disclose wherein the first connector includes a first snap connector and the second connector includes a second snap connector that is configured to engage the first snap connector.
However, Vaninetti teaches connection mechanisms between inlet hose 106 and interface device 102 that may include interference fitting mechanisms, slot-and-groove mechanism, or the like (¶[0052]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effecting filing date of the claimed invention to simply substitute the generic connection mechanism between the first and second connector of Vaninetti/Botella to be an snap mechanism as taught by Vaninetti so that the first connector includes a first snap connector and the second connector includes a second snap connector that is configured to engage the first snap connector because snap connectors are well known in the art and would produce the predictable result of providing a secure fluid and mechanical connection (as motivated by Vaninetti ¶[0052]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vaninetti (US 20220104965 A1) in view of Botella (US 20230408042 A1), further in view of Chavan (US 20220218973 A1).
Regarding Claim 6, Vaninetti/Botella does not explicitly disclose wherein the first connector includes a first threading and the second connector includes a second threading that is configured to engage the first threading.
However, Chavan teaches a connector for a urine drainage system, thus from the same field of endeavor, wherein the first connector includes a first threading and the second connector includes a second threading that is configured to engage the first threading (¶[0007] he connector further includes a distal coupling disposed at a distal end of the body and configured to releasably engage a proximal end of the catheter to provide fluid communication between the catheter and the distal portion of the drainage lumen. In some embodiments, the distal coupling is one of a luer slip fit, threaded, spin-nut, interference fit, press-fit, or snap-fit coupling.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effecting filing date of the claimed invention to simply substitute the generic connection mechanism between the first and second connector of Vaninetti/Botella to be an snap mechanism as taught by Chavan so that the first connector includes a first threading and the second connector includes a second threading that is configured to engage the first threading because threads are well known in the art and would produce the predictable result of providing fluid communication between the first and second connectors (motivated by Chavan ¶[0007]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY LEE FLYNN whose telephone number is (571)272-8255. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-5 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, Rebecca Eisenberg can be reached at 571-270-5879. 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.
TIMOTHY LEE. FLYNN
Examiner
Art Unit 3781
/REBECCA E EISENBERG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3781
Prosecution Insights