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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a).
Claim 2 introduces “an elastic clamping part”. However, the drawings do not illustrate the elastic clamping part nor does the specification include a reference number to define the elastic clamping part described in para. 0028. The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the elastic clamping part must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Claim 4 recites that “an end of the pushing rod extends out of the pushing connector and is fixed with the pushing piston”. However, the drawings do not illustrate the end of pushing rod extending out of the pushing connector (see Fig. 4) nor the pushing piston being fixed with the pushing connector (see Figs. 3 and 4 which illustrates the two elements separately). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the end of the pushing rod extends out of the pushing connector and fixed with the pushing piston must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Claim 5 recites “external threads are formed on the connecting part, internal threads are formed on the pushing connector”. Figures 3 and 4 appear to include small black markings on the inner surface of the pushing connector 41 and the outer surface of the mounting opening. However, these markings are not described with reference numbers to clearly indicate that they are meant to be the claimed internal and external threads. The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the external threads formed on the connecting part and the internal threads formed on the pushing connector must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Claim 6 recites “an annular protrusion is arranged on an inner wall of the cylindrical groove”. However, the drawings do not illustrate the annular protrusion as claimed. The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the annular protrusion must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abeltonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“an elastic clamping part” in claim 2. The limitation in claim 2 fails to include sufficient structure to perform the recited function of “clamping". In the specification, the written description fails to include additional structure defining the elastic clamping part, only its function (para. 0028 discloses that the elastic clamping part clamps stop serrated protrusions to limit movement of an occlusion belt relative to a through hole). Therefore, the limitation will be interpreted as any structural equivalent thereof capable of clamping protrusions to limit movement of an occlusion belt relative to a through hole.
“an operating part” in claim 4. The limitation introducing the operating part in claim 4 fails to include sufficient structure to perform the recited function of “operating" the filling element. In the specification, the operating part comprises a bending lever, a handle and a reset spring connected to the connecting pipe of the filling element to actuate the pushing rod of the filling element (para. 0034 of the instant application). Therefore, the limitation will be interpreted as a device comprising the bending lever, handle, and reset spring or any structural equivalent thereof capable of operating the filling element.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 2 reciting “an elastic clamping part” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The written description of the instant application fails to describe or provide sufficient structure for the “elastic clamping part” other than that the elastic clamping part clamps stop serrated protrusions to limit movement of an occlusion belt relative to a through hole (para. 0028 of the instant application).
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 2-9 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 2 reciting “an elastic clamping part” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The written description of the instant application fails to describe or provide sufficient structure for the “elastic clamping part” other than that the elastic clamping part clamps stop serrated protrusions to limit movement of an occlusion belt relative to a through hole (para. 0028 of the instant application). As would be recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art, there are many different ways to construct an elastic clamping part to engage the stop serrated protrusions. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which mechanical structures perform(s) the claimed function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claim 3, line 2, recites the limitation “an end of the filling element”. It is unclear to the examiner if the end of the filling element in claim 3 is meant to further define “an end of the filling element” communicating with the expansion element as recited in claim 1 (lines 7-8). For examination purposes, “an end of the filling element” recited in claim 3 is interpreted as “the end of the filling element” which further defines the limitation of claim 1 (lines 7-8).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dlugos et al. (US 20060211913) [hereinafter Dlugos] in view of Ortiz (US 20070027356).
The examiner notes that the embodiment of Fig. 43 is relied upon for the rejection. However, other embodiments are relied upon for like features not described in the embodiment of Fig. 43.
Regarding claim 1, Dlugos discloses a laparoscopic hepatic portal occlusion device (Fig. 43, para. 0131, see note below), comprising an occlusion belt 514 (Fig. 43, para. 0131), a tightening buckle 512 (Fig. 43, para. 0131) and a filling element (interpreted as catheter 44, injection port 42, and syringe/injection instrument; Figs. 2, 6, 43, para. 0053: “In the embodiment shown, injection port 42 fluidly communicates with adjustable band 38 via a catheter 44”; para. 0057: “. Septum 76 is penetrable by a Huber needle, or a similar type of injection instrument, for adding or withdrawing fluid from the port. Septum 76 self-seals upon withdrawal of the syringe needle to maintain the volume of fluid inside of injection port 42. Injection port 42 further comprises a reservoir 80 for retaining a working fluid and a catheter connector 82. Connector 82 attaches to catheter 44, shown in FIG. 2, to form a closed hydraulic circuit between reservoir 80 inside of injection port 42 and cavity 46 within adjustable band 38. Fluid from reservoir 80 may be used to expand the volume of band cavity 46”),
an expansion element 46 is mounted on a side of the occlusion belt 514 (see Figs. 2, 43, para. 0054), a pressure sensor 510 is mounted at a lower end of the tightening buckle 512 (Fig. 43, para. 0131: “In addition, pressure sensors 500, 504, 510, 1504 may be positioned within (e.g., against an inner wall of) their respective band 502, catheter 506, and buckle 512, or alternatively, a portion of such band 502, catheter 506, and buckle 512 may comprise a protrusion extending outwardly therefrom to house at least a portion of the corresponding pressure sensor 500, 504, 510, 1504”, a fixed end of the occlusion belt 514 is mounted on a mounting side of the tightening buckle 512 (interpreted as the side of the tightening buckle 512 connected to the catheter 44; see Fig. 2),
the expansion element 46 is located inside an annular structure (see Fig. 43), an end of the filling element (interpreted as the end comprising catheter 44) communicates with the expansion element 46 (Fig. 43, para. 0053), another end of the filling element (interpreted as the syringe/injection instrument) is located outside a body (para. 0057), the filling element is capable of filling the expansion element with filling material to expand the expansion element (para. 0054, 0057), and the expansion element presses the pressure sensor after expansion (see Fig. 43 which illustrates the expansion element pressing against the tightening buckle 512, and thereby the pressure sensor, after expansion, para. 0131).
Dlugos further discloses a through hole (see annotated Figs. 2 and 43 below) formed in a wall at a side, opposite to the mounting side, of the tightening buckle 512 (see annotated Figs. 2 and 43 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
312
1051
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figs. 43 and 2 of Dlugos
However, Dlugos fails to disclose a free end of the occlusion belt is capable of passing through and being locked at the through hole to form the annular structure.
Ortiz in the same field of endeavor of occlusion belt devices teaches a belt locking mechanism comprising a tightening buckle 306 comprising a through hole (interpreted as hole in which a tail end 304 enters, see Fig. 1A) formed in a wall at a side, opposite a mounting side (interpreted as the side of the tightening buckle mounted to a head 302 of occlusion belt 300) of the tightening buckle (Fig. 1A, para. 0023) and a free end 304 of an occlusion belt 300 is capable of passing through and being locked at the through hole to form an annular structure by way of a latch mechanism comprising a plurality of stop serrated protrusions 304a-h on the free end 304 of the occlusion belt 300 (Fig. 1A, para. 0022-0023) and one or more arms 307a-c formed on an inner wall of the through hole of the tightening buckle 306 (Fig. 1A, para. 0023-0024).
The substitution of one known tightening buckle mechanism (tightening buckle comprising latch mechanism such that the free end of the occlusion belt may pass through and lock at the through hole of the tightening buckle as shown in Ortiz) for another (tightening buckle comprising through hole on the free end of the occlusion belt in which the mounting side of the tightening buckle pass through the through hole as shown in Dlugos) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention since the substitution of the latch locking mechanism shown in Ortiz would have yielded predictable results, namely, an alternative way to lock the belt in the annular structure by way of the elastic arms and plurality of serrated protrusions as taught by Ortiz (Fig. 1A, para. 0024 of Ortiz); KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Note: The limitation “laparoscopic hepatic portal occlusion device” has not been given patentable weight because it has been held that a preamble is denied the effect of a limitation where the claim is drawn to a structure and the portion of the claim following the preamble is a self-contained description of the structure not depending for completeness upon the introductory clause. Kropa v. Robie, 88 USPQ 478 (CCPA 1951). The language in the preamble is not interpreted as describing the claimed structural components of the claimed invention, but interpreted as describing the functionality and the intended use of the claimed invention. Therefore, “laparoscopic hepatic portal occlusion device” is interpreted as functional language that the occlusion device of Dlugos is capable of being used for. The device of Dlugos comprises all of the structure required for the functional language in the preamble as defined int the rejection above and is intended to be used as an occlusion device (para. 0055). Furthermore, Dlugos contemplates other intended uses (para. 0136). A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 2, modified Dlugos discloses all of the limitations set forth above in claim 1. Modified Dlugos further discloses a plurality of stop serrated protrusions 304a-h are formed at the free end 304 of the occlusion belt 300 (Fig. 1A, para. 0022-0023 of Ortiz), an elastic clamping part (interpreted as the one or more arms 307a-c formed from an elastic material, Fig. 1A, para. 0025 of Ortiz; see 112(f) interpretation above) is arranged at an inner wall of the through hole of the tightening buckle 306 (Fig. 1A, para. 0023-0024 of Ortiz), when the stop serrated protrusions 304a-h are clamped by the elastic clamping part 307 a-c, a movement direction of the occlusion belt 300 relative to the through hole is limited (Fig. 1A, para. 0024 of Ortiz).
However, modified Dlugos fails to disclose that the occlusion belt is made of flexible material.
Ortiz further teaches that it is known in the art to make the occlusion belt 300 out of flexible material (para. 0022).
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 occlusion belt in modified Dlugos to include the flexible material of Ortiz since it is well within the general skill of one skilled in the art to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use. (In re Leshin 125 USPQ 416; MPEP 2144.07)
Regarding claim 3, modified Dlugos discloses wherein a mounting opening (interpreted as the interface between the catheter 44 and the occlusion belt 514) is formed in a side wall of the tightening buckle 512 (see Fig. 43, para. 0131 states that the pressure sensor 510 is “at the interface of a gastric band and catheter”), and an end of the filling element (interpreted as catheter 44, injection port 42, and syringe/injection instrument) is detachably connected with the mounting opening (interpreted as the syringe/injection instrument of the filling element which is detachably connected to the mounting opening by way of their common connection to the injection port 42; para. 0057: “Septum 76 self-seals upon withdrawal of the syringe needle to maintain the volume of fluid inside of injection port 42”. The examiner notes that the claim does not require the end of the filling element to be directly attached to the mounting opening.) and is configured for filling the expansion element with the filling (Fig. 43, para. 0053: “injection port 42 fluidly communicates with adjustable band 38 via a catheter 44”).
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dlugos et al. (US 20060211913) [hereinafter Dlugos] in view of Ortiz (US 20070027356), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Altobelli et al. (US 20120232578) [hereinafter Altobelli].
Regarding claim 10, modified Dlugos discloses all of the limitations set forth above in claim 1. Modified Dlugos further discloses wherein the expansion element 46 is provided as an inflatable diaphragm (Fig. 2, para. 0053 of Dlugos) and the filling element (42, 44, injection instrument/syringe, para. 0057) may alternatively be connected to a pump (para. 0128 of Dlugos: “It will also be appreciated that pressure sensor 500 may be used when a pump (not shown) or any other device is used to adjust pressure within gastric band 502”), the pump and the pressure sensor are both electrically connected with a controller (para. 0056 of Dlugos: “Pressure-reading device 60 non-invasively measures the pressure of the fluid within implanted portion 32 even when injection port 42 is implanted beneath thick (at least over 10 centimeters) subcutaneous fat tissue. The physician may hold pressure-reading device 60 against the patient's skin near the location of injection port 42 in the patient and observe the pressure reading on display 66 of control box 64”), the pressure sensor transmits a detected pressure signal to the controller, and flow and pressure of the pump is controlled by the controller (see para. 0128, 0131 of Dlugos).
However, modified Dlugos fails to disclose that the expansion element is inflatable by gas (thereby forming the interpreted inflatable gasbag) and the filling element is connected with a gas pump through a hose.
Altobelli in the same field of endeavor of belt occlusion devices (Fig. 12, para. 0022) teaches an expansion element provided as an inflatable gas bag 80 (Figs. 8A, 10, para. 0031 teaches that the inflatable bladder is inflated with air), a filling element (interpreted as tubing comprising connector 64) is connected with an external gas pump 90 through a hose (interpreted as tubing comprising connector 62 (Figs. 8A, 12, para. 0009 teaches that the gas pump may be alternative to manual pump 60 shown in Fig. 8A, para. 0036), the gas pump 90 and a pressure sensor 92 are both electrically connected with a controller 94, the pressure sensor 92 transmits a detected pressure signal to the controller 94, and flow and pressure of the gas pump 90 is controlled by the controller 94 (Fig. 12, para. 0036).
First, 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 filling material in modified Dlugosto include gas filling material, as taught by Altobelli since it is well within the general skill of one skilled in the art to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use. (In re Leshin 125 USPQ 416; MPEP 2144.07)
Second, the substitution of one known pump (gas pump with the hose as shown in Altobelli) for another (pump as shown in modified Dlugos) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention since the substitution of the gas pump shown in Altobelli would have yielded predictable results, namely, an alternative way to automatically control the inflation and deflation of the expansion element by delivering gas to the expansion element to prevent overinflation of the device (para. 0036 of Altobelli); KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-9 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.
Regarding claim 4, modified Dlugos fails to disclose or suggest “wherein the filling element comprises a pushing connector, a connecting pipe, a pushing rod, a pushing piston and an operating part, the pushing connector is detachably connected with the mounting opening, an end of the connecting pipe is fixedly connected with the pushing connector, another end of the connecting pipe is connected with an external filling device, the pushing rod is located inside the connecting pipe, an end of the pushing rod extends out of the pushing connector and is fixed with the pushing piston, another end of the pushing rod is connected with the operating part, force is applied to the operating part by a surgeon, and the pushing piston is driven by the pushing rod to close or open the mounting opening”.
Chakraborty et al. (US 20170290594) in the same field of endeavor of inflatable occlusion devices (para. 0032) teaches a detachable filling element (Fig. 1, para. 0034) comprises a pushing connector 36 (Fig. 1, para. 0034), a connecting pipe 32 (Fig. 1, para. 0034), a pushing rod 34 (Fig. 1, para. 0034), and an operating part 46 (Fig. 4, para. 0042), the pushing connector 36 is detachably connected with a mounting opening (interpreted as opening of the implantable device) by way of internal and external locking mechanisms (Figs. 5-6, para. 0044-0045), an end of the connecting pipe 32 is fixedly connected with the pushing connector 36 (Fig. 1, para. 0034), another end of the connecting pipe 32 is connected with an external filling device (Fig. 4, para. 0053; The examiner notes that the connecting pipe is connected with the external filling device by way of their common connection to the pushing rod. The claim does not require a direct connection), the pushing rod 34 is located inside the connecting pipe 32 (Fig. 1, para. 0034), an end of the pushing rod 34 extends out of the pushing connector 36 (Fig. 1, para. 0036), another end of the pushing rod 34 is connected with the operating part 46 (Fig. 4, para. 0042), force is applied to the operating part 4 by a surgeon to drive the pushing rod 34 to close or open the mounting opening (para. 0032 discloses that the implantable device includes a one-way seal, para. 0053).
However, it would have not been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the filling element of modified Dlugos to include the filling element structure as claimed and found in Chakraborty nor substitute the Chakraborty filling element for the filling element of modified Dlugos since such a modification would require a substantial reconstruction and redesign of the elements shown in modified Dlugos as well as a change in the basic principle under which the modified Dlugos construction was designed to operate.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAUREN DUBOSE whose telephone number is (571)272-8792. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am-5:30 pm.
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, Elizabeth Houston can be reached at 571-272-7134. 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.
/LAUREN DUBOSE/Examiner, Art Unit 3771
/ELIZABETH HOUSTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3771