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). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the fitting surface 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 abandonment 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 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 1-10 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 following limitations:
“the end” in line 7
"the minimum" in line 8
“the end” in lines 13-14
“the inner side” in line 17
“the end” in lines 17-18
“the end” in line 18
“the smallest width” in line 19
There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 3 recites following limitations:
“the side” in line 1
"the outer diameter" in line 3
There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the side" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the end" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claims 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Graham et al. (US 2024/0399048).
With reference to claim 1, Graham et al. (hereinafter “Graham”) discloses
a retractable suction, comprising a handle sleeve (suction tube connector 50, figure 2B) , a fastening sleeve (fastener 12A, figure 2B) and a linear aspiration tube (sheath 30);
the handle sleeve is internally provided with an aspiration channel (see figure
2F for the section of the handle) penetrating through two ends of the handle
sleeve, and the aspiration channel comprises a first straight tube section (left
side in figure 2F) and a conical section (right side in figure 2F), the first straight
tube section and the conical section are sequentially disposed along an axis
direction;
an inner diameter of the end, close to the first straight tube section, of the
conical section is the minimum, and a minimum inner diameter of the conical
section is larger than or equal to an inner diameter of the first straight tube
section (as can be seen in figure 2F);
the fastening sleeve (fastener 12A) is sleeved on the linear aspiration tube
(figure 2B, [0044]), and the fastening sleeve slides on the linear aspiration tube;
one end of the linear aspiration tube is inserted into the handle sleeve, a fitting
surface matched with an inner wall surface of the conical section is disposed on
an outer side of the end, close to the handle sleeve, of the fastening sleeve, a
minimum diameter of the fitting surface is larger than the minimum inner
diameter of the conical section (figure 2F, [0050]), and
at least one wire slot (slit 106, figure 3A-3C) is formed in the fitting surface; and
the wire slot runs through the inner side and an outer side of the fastening
sleeve, and the end, close to the first straight tube section, of the wire slot is
open; when the end, close to the first straight tube section, of the wire slot
elastically deforms to the smallest width, the linear aspiration tube is fixedly
connected with the handle sleeve through the fastening sleeve, in such a case,
a gap between the linear aspiration tube and the handle sleeve is sealed by the
fastening sleeve as set forth in [0052-0053].
As to claim 4, Graham discloses the sequential disposal of elements as shown in the figures. See fastening section 120 and handle section 140.
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.
Claims 2-3 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Graham et al. (US 2024/0399048).
With reference to claims 2-3, Graham teaches the invention substantially as claimed as set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
The difference between Graham and claims 2-3 is the explicit recitation that the suction includes a limiting ring with a specific size (cl. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the suction Graham with a limiting ring having a diameter larger than the cited elements since setting a limit to the tube is a known solution that the skilled person would use to avoid that the tube enters too deep.
With reference to claim 5, Graham teaches the invention substantially as claimed as set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Graham recognizes the inclusion of proving a sealing section for an airtight seal as set forth in [0044].
The difference between Graham and claim 5 is the explicit recitation that the suction includes a third straight tube section.
It is noted that any section (i.e., portion) of the disclosed sections may be considered as first, second and/or third tube sections.
Alternatively, absent any teaching of an unexpected result, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide the suction of Graham with a third tube section as desired since it has been held the mere duplication of essential working parts of a device is considered to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
As to claim 6, absent any teaching of an unexpected result, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide the suction of Graham with decorative patterns as desired since such is considered as an aesthetic design change. Applicant is reminded that matters relating to ornamentation only which have no mechanical function cannot be relied upon to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. See MPEP 2144.04.
With reference to claim 7, Graham teaches the invention substantially as claimed as set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Graham provides with suction with a connector (50) to connect to the suction generation device as shown in figure 2A.
The difference between Graham and claim 7 is the provision that the connector is a pagoda connector.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the suction of Graham with a pagoda connector since it has been held that the substitution of one type of connector for another is considered to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Graham et al. (US 2024/0399048) and further in view of Acosta et al. (US 2009/0281386).
With reference to claims 8-10, Graham teaches the invention substantially as claimed as set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Graham discloses an outer side surface of the aspiration connector as a conical surface, and the end, away from the handle sleeve, of the conical surface is a large diameter section and an inner side surface of the aspiration connector as a cylindrical surface (cl. 10) as shown in figure .
The difference between Graham and claims 8-9 is the provision that the suction includes a plurality of resistance increasing concave-convex structures .
Acosta et al. (hereinafter “Acosta”) teaches an analogous device including a plurality of resistance increasing concave-convex structures (610) as shown in figures 13A-13C.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the suction of Graham with plurality of resistance increasing concave-convex structures in order to reinforce the device as taught by Acosta in [0155-0156].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHELE M KIDWELL whose telephone number is (571)272-4935. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7AM-4PM EST.
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.
/MICHELE KIDWELL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781
Prosecution Insights