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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 1/22/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-4, 6-8, 10, 12, 14, 17, and 20-23 remain pending in the application.
On page 7 of applicant’s arguments, filed on 1/22/2026, Applicant asserts that claim 17 has been amended to address the objection as suggested in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 10/23/2025. However, claim 17, in the amendment filed on 1/22/2026, does not reflect this. The examiner believes the discrepancy is due to possible oversight. Accordingly, the objection to claim 17 set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 10/23/2025 stands. Please see section Claim Objections below for further explanation.
With the exception of the aforementioned objection, Applicant’s amendments to the Drawings and Claims have overcome each and every objection and 112 rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 10/23/2025. The claim interpretations being interpreted under 112(f) presented in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 10/23/2025 have been withdrawn in light of the Applicant’s amendments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see pages 7-10, filed 1/22/2026 with respect to Claims 1, 10, and 17 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has amended independent claims 1, 10, and 17 with a limitation stating that the coupling mechanism includes “a first ridge having a size and shape configured to specifically engage with a structure on the first gas supply” and “a second ridge having a size and shape configured to specifically engage with a structure on the second gas supply.” The applicant argues that the amended claims 1, 10, and 17 overcome the current grounds of rejection over Adams in view of Greep. The applicant’s argument is on the grounds that neither Adams nor Greep teaches distinct first and second ridges, each having a specific size or shape to engage with structures on different gas supplies such that a seal is formed with each supply interchangeably. However, examiner respectfully disagrees. Greep teaches a universal connector with ridges of various diameters and sizes, wherein at least one of these ridges may form a seal with the receptacles of a variety of air supplies. The variety of air supplies are said to have receptacles of various sizes, tapers, and shapes (paragraph 0050). For example, when placed inside a receptacle with a smaller diameter, the distalmost ridge of the universal connector of Greep could form the seal with the receptacle of the air supply. While when placed inside a receptacle with a larger diameter, the proximal most ridge of the universal connector of Greep could form the seal with the receptacle of the air supply. An example of the first ridge and second ridge can be seen below.
PNG
media_image1.png
373
464
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In addition, Applicant has amended independent claim 17 with a limitation stating that the coupling mechanism includes “an annular seal being less rigid than at least a first ridge and a second ridge of the plurality of ridges.” The applicant argues that Greep fails to teach any of the fins as being less rigid that others of the plurality of fins. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Greep teaches that the fins can have different rigidity values (paragraph 0049) and that rigidity of the fins can be manipulated by manipulating the height of each rib and corresponding recessed portion (paragraph 0070). Please see section 35 USC § 103 below for further explanation.
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 17, line 13, “the second end” should read “the second end of the substantially tubular body”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 4, 12, and 17 are 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.
Claims 4, 12, and 17 introduce new matter with the recitation of the limitation “wherein the annular seal has a rigidity that is less than a rigidity of the two others of the plurality of ridges.” An annular seal with a rigidity less than a rigidity of the other plurality of ridges is not supported by the originally filed claims, specification, or drawings. In paragraphs 0067-0068 of the Applicant’s Specification, the preferred materials used for the tubular body of the coupling mechanism and the annular seal are provided. Merely disclosing a list of potential materials does not directly correlate to rigidity, as rigidity depends not only on material selection but also on factors such as geometry, dimensions, thickness, and structural configuration. Therefore, one skilled in the art would not be able to determine that the inventor at the time of filing had possession of the claimed invention.
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.
Claim 23 is 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 23 recites the limitation "the size and shape of the first ridge" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, "the size and shape of the first ridge" is being interpreted as "a size and shape of the first ridge."
Claim 23 recites the limitation "the size and shape of the second ridge" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, "the size and shape of the second ridge" is being interpreted as "a size and shape of the second ridge."
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.
The present rejection(s) reference specific passages from cited prior art. However, Applicant is advised that the rejections are based on the entirety of each cited prior art. That is, each cited prior art reference “must be considered in its entirety”. (See MPEP 2141.02(VI)) Therefore, Applicant is advised to review all portions of the cited prior art if traversing a rejection based on the cited prior art.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-8, 10, 12, 14, 17, and 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Appl. Publ. No. 2017/0347866 A1 to Adams et al. (“Adams”) in view of U.S. Patent Appl. Publ. No. 2020/0096142 A1 to Greep et al. (“Greep”).
Regarding claim 1, Adams discloses a container and tube set arranged and configured to couple to an endoscope (tube set 10 provides a connector 18 on one end of the tube set that can be connected to an endoscope; Fig. 1, paragraph 0037), a first gas supply, and a second gas supply (gas supply connector 225 can be connected to a gas source [one source for air and one source for carbon dioxide]; Fig. 5B, paragraph 0052) for use in an endoscopic procedure, the container and tube set comprising:
a container having an interior volume configured to contain a fluid (air/water tube set 10 attached to water bottle 60; Fig. 2, paragraph 0038);
a gas supply tube including a first end, a second end, and a first lumen extending therethrough (gas (e.g. air, carbon dioxide, or the like) may be supplied to the bottle by gas tube 215 attached to bottle cap 130; Fig. 5B, paragraph 0052), wherein the first end of the gas supply tube terminates at or in the container (while end 230 of gas tube set 215 extends through bottle cap 230 in the embodiment shown, in other embodiments end 230 may stop at bottle cap 230; Fig. 5B, paragraph 0052) and the first lumen is in fluid communication with the interior volume of the container (when gas valve 220 is open, gas flows into the bottle through the gas tube set 215; Fig. 5B, paragraph 0052);
a coupling mechanism having a first end and a second end (gas supply connector 225; Fig. 5B, paragraph 0052), wherein the first end of the coupling mechanism is configured to engage with the second end of the gas supply tube (gas connector 225 is connected to gas tube set 115; Fig. 5B) and the second end of the coupling mechanism comprises a tubular body configured to engage with the first gas supply and the second gas supply interchangeably (gas supply connector 225 may be connected to a gas source; Fig. 5B, paragraph 0052) (gas (e.g. air, carbon dioxide, or the like) may be supplied to the bottle by gas tube 215 attached to bottle cap 130; Fig. 5B, paragraph 0052); and
a water supply tube including a first end, a second end, and a second lumen extending therethrough (irrigation tube set 106; Fig. 5B, paragraph 0052), wherein the first end of the water supply tube terminates at or in a bottom portion of the container (as with water tube 120 of air/water tube set 104, water source end 200 of the irrigation tube set 106 may include an anchor (not shown) to weigh down water source end 200 towards the bottom of the sterile water bottle; Fig. 5A-B, paragraph 0050), the second lumen is in fluid communication with the interior volume of the container (when bottle cap 130 is placed on a water bottle, water source end 200 of irrigation tube set 106 extends into water bottle; Fig. 5A-B, paragraph 0050), and the second end of the water supply tube is positioned external to the container (a first end of irrigation tube set 106 provides irrigation connector 150, which may be connected to an endoscope; Fig. 5A-B, paragraph 0048).
However, Adams does not explicitly disclose wherein the second end of the coupling mechanism comprises a tubular body including a plurality of ridges including a first ridge having a size and shape configured to specifically engage with a structure on the first gas supply, such that a seal is formed between the coupling mechanism and the first gas supply, and a second ridge having a size and shape configured to specifically engage with a structure on the second gas supply, such that a seal is formed between the coupling mechanism and the second gas supply.
Greep teaches a coupling mechanism having a first end and a second end, wherein the first end of the coupling mechanism is configured to engage with the second end of the gas supply tube and the second end of the coupling mechanism comprises a tubular body including a lumen and a plurality of ridges including a first ridge having a size and shape configured to specifically engage with a structure on the first gas supply, such that a seal is formed between the coupling mechanism and the first gas supply, and a second ridge having a size and shape configured to specifically engage with a structure on the second gas supply, such that a seal is formed between the coupling mechanism and the second gas supply, wherein the coupling mechanism is configured to engage with the first gas supply and the second gas supply interchangeably (the universal connector 130 may be compatible with receptables 132 of various sizes, tapers, and shapes because at least one or more fins 154 of various diameters and sizes with engage with the tapered wall 138 of the receptacle 132. One will also appreciate that the universal connector 130 may form an airtight seal within a receptacle 132 having threaded features because one or more fins 154 may flex and/or conform to the internal threaded surface of the tapered wall 138; Fig. 3, paragraph 0050). Greep teaches the use of fins on the coupling mechanism for creating a secure and airtight connection between the coupling mechanism and air supply (paragraph 0043).
Greep is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endoscopes with a universal connector for connecting a gas supply to a gas supply tube. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the coupling mechanism of Adams to incorporate the teachings of Greep by adding a plurality of ridges of various sizes and diameters to the outer surface of the coupling mechanism. Doing so would create a secure and airtight connection between the coupling mechanism and a variety of gas supplies interchangeably, as recognized by Greep.
Regarding claim 3, Adams, as previously modified by Greep, discloses the container and tube set according to claim 1. Greep further teaches wherein the second end of the coupling mechanism includes the plurality of ridges on an outer surface of the coupling mechanism (the illustrated universal connector 130 includes a body 150 having a proximal end 151 and a distal end 143 and a seal 152 disposed on or about a portion of the length of the body 150. The seal 152 includes a plurality of fins 154 along the length of the body 150, with each fin 154 extending circumferentially around the body 150; Fig. 3-4, paragraph 0043).
Regarding claim 4, Adams, as previously modified by Greep, discloses the container and tube set according to claims 1 and 3. Greep further teaches wherein an annular seal comprising at least one of the plurality of ridges is positioned between two others of the plurality of ridges (the illustrated universal connector 130 includes a body 150 having a proximal end 151 and a distal end 143 and a seal 152 disposed on or about a portion of the length of the body 150. The seal 152 includes a plurality of fins 154 along the length of the body 150, with each fin 154 extending circumferentially around the body 150; Fig. 3-4, paragraph 0043-0044), wherein the annular seal has a rigidity that is less than a rigidity of another of the plurality of ridges (some fins 154, such as the larger fins toward the proximal end 151 of the universal connector 130 flex to a greater degree than most distal fins 154. In some cases, one or more fins 154 may not flex at all, such as the distal most fin 154 illustrated in Fig. 3, Fig. 3, paragraph 0049).
However, Adams, as modified by Greep, does not explicitly disclose wherein the annular seal has a rigidity that is less than a rigidity of the two others of the plurality of ridges. While Greep does not expressly disclose the specific arrangement of a less rigid fin positioned between two more rigid fins, Greep does teach the broader concept of providing fins of differing rigidity to facilitate coupling with different air supply receptacles. Greep further teaches that fin rigidity may be adjusted by modifying the dimensions of the supporting rib structure beneath each fin (paragraph 0070), thereby providing a known mechanism for tuning fin rigidity characteristics. In view of this teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to vary the rigidity of individual fins, including arriving at the claimed arrangement, as a matter of routine optimization to achieve predictable coupling characteristics for a given receptacle configuration. Because Greep identifies fin rigidity as a result-effective variable and provides a known means for adjusting that variable through rib dimensions, selecting a particular rigidity arrangement, including one in which a rigid fin is disposed between more rigid fins, would have been no more than an obvious to try design choice involving a finite number of predictable solutions. The Supreme Court decided that a claim can be proved obvious merely by showing that the combination of known elements was obvious to try. In this regard, the Supreme Court explained that, “[w]hen there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill in the art has a good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.” An obviousness determination is not the result of a rigid formula disassociated from the consideration of the facts of the case. Indeed, the common sense of those skilled in the art demonstrates why some combinations would have been obvious where others would not. Therefore, choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation for success, is likely to be obvious to a person if ordinary skill in the art. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, E.).
Regarding claim 6, Adams, as previously modified by Greep, discloses the container and tube set according to claim 1. However, Adams does not explicitly disclose wherein the first end of the coupling mechanism includes a hose barb mechanism. Greep teaches wherein the first end of the coupling mechanism includes a hose barb mechanism (a hose retaining lip 128 is disposed at the proximal end 151; Fig. 4, paragraph 0051). Greep teaches the use of a hose barb mechanism for forming an airtight fit between the gas supply tube and the coupling mechanism (paragraph 0051).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the coupling mechanism of Adams to incorporate the teachings of Greep by adding hose barb mechanism to the coupling mechanism. Doing so would form an airtight fit between the gas supply tube and the coupling mechanism, as recognized by Greep.
Regarding claim 7, Adams, as previously modified by Greep, discloses the container and tube set according to claim 1. Adams further discloses wherein the coupling mechanism is a single, monolithic structure (the gas supply connector must be a single sealed component to perform its function of connecting the gas supply and the gas supply tube and to prevent air from leaking out of the gas supply connector; Fig. 5B).
Regarding claim 8, Adams, as previously modified by Greep, discloses the container and tube set according to claim 1. Greep further teaches wherein the second end of the coupling mechanism is shaped to facilitate an interference fit between the coupling mechanism and the first gas supply and the second gas supply interchangeably (the universal connector 130 may be compatible with receptables 132 of various sizes, tapers, and shapes because at least one or more fins 154 of various diameters and sizes with engage with the tapered wall 138 of the receptacle 132. One will also appreciate that the universal connector 130 may form an airtight seal within a receptacle 132 having threaded features because one or more fins 154 may flex and/or conform to the internal threaded surface of the tapered wall 138; Fig. 3, paragraph 0050 and 0055).
Regarding claim 10, Adams discloses a coupling mechanism (gas supply connector 225; Fig. 5B, paragraph 0052) for an endoscope system comprising:
a substantially tubular body having an outer surface, an inner surface, a first end, and a second end (gas supply connector 225 has a substantially tubular body with an outer surface, an inner surface, a first end, and a second end; Fig. 5B); and
a lumen extending through the substantially tubular body from the first end to the second end (gas flows into the bottle through the gas tube set 215; Fig. 5B, paragraph 0052);
wherein the first end is configured to engage with a gas supply tube (gas connector 225 is connected to gas tube set 115; Fig. 5B) and the second end is configured to engage with the first gas supply and the second gas supply interchangeably (gas supply connector 225 may be connected to a gas source; Fig. 5B, paragraph 0052) (gas (e.g. air, carbon dioxide, or the like) may be supplied to the bottle by gas tube 215 attached to bottle cap 130; Fig. 5B, paragraph 0052); and
wherein the gas supply tube is configured to engage with a container configured to contain a fluid (when gas valve 220 is open, gas flows into the [water] bottle through the gas tube set 215; Fig. 5B, paragraph 0052).
However, Adams does not explicitly disclose a plurality of ridges on the outer surface of the substantially tubular body at the second end, and the second end comprises at least a first ridge of the plurality of ridges having a size and shape configured to specifically engage with a structure on a first gas supply such that a seal is formed between the coupling mechanism and the first gas supply, and at least a second ridge of the plurality of ridges having a size and shape configured to specifically engage with a structure on a second gas supply such that a seal is formed between the coupling mechanism and the second gas supply.
Greep teaches a plurality of ridges on the outer surface of the substantially tubular body at the second end (the illustrated universal connector 130 includes a body 150 having a proximal end 151 and a distal end 143 and a seal 152 disposed on or about a portion of the length of the body 150. The seal 152 includes a plurality of fins 154 along the length of the body 150, with each fin 154 extending circumferentially around the body 150; Fig. 3-4, paragraph 0043), and the second end comprises at least a first ridge of the plurality of ridges having a size and shape configured to specifically engage with a structure on a first gas supply such that a seal is formed between the coupling mechanism and the first gas supply, and at least a second ridge of the plurality of ridges having a size and shape configured to specifically engage with a structure on a second gas supply such that a seal is formed between the coupling mechanism and the second gas supply (the universal connector 130 may be compatible with receptables 132 of various sizes, tapers, and shapes because at least one or more fins 154 of various diameters and sizes with engage with the tapered wall 138 of the receptacle 132. One will also appreciate that the universal connector 130 may form an airtight seal within a receptacle 132 having threaded features because one or more fins 154 may flex and/or conform to the internal threaded surface of the tapered wall 138; Fig. 3, paragraph 0050). Greep teaches the use of fins on the coupling mechanism for creating a secure and airtight connection between the coupling mechanism and air supply (paragraph 0043).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the coupling mechanism of Adams to incorporate the teachings of Greep by adding a plurality of ridges of various sizes and diameters to the outer surface of the coupling mechanism. Doing so would create a secure and airtight connection between the coupling mechanism and a variety of gas supplies interchangeably, as recognized by Greep.
Regarding claim 12, Adams, as previously modified by Greep, discloses the coupling mechanism according to claims 10. Greep further teaches wherein an annular seal comprising at least one of the plurality of ridges is positioned between two others of the plurality of ridges (the illustrated universal connector 130 includes a body 150 having a proximal end 151 and a distal end 143 and a seal 152 disposed on or about a portion of the length of the body 150. The seal 152 includes a plurality of fins 154 along the length of the body 150, with each fin 154 extending circumferentially around the body 150; Fig. 3-4, paragraph 0043-0044), wherein the annular seal has a rigidity that is less than a rigidity of another of the plurality of ridges (some fins 154, such as the larger fins toward the proximal end 151 of the universal connector 130 flex to a greater degree than most distal fins 154. In some cases, one or more fins 154 may not flex at all, such as the distal most fin 154 illustrated in Fig. 3, Fig. 3, paragraph 0049).
However, Adams, as modified by Greep, does not explicitly disclose wherein the annular seal has a rigidity that is less than a rigidity of the two others of the plurality of ridges. While Greep does not expressly disclose the specific arrangement of a less rigid fin positioned between two more rigid fins, Greep does teach the broader concept of providing fins of differing rigidity to facilitate coupling with different air supply receptacles. Greep further teaches that fin rigidity may be adjusted by modifying the dimensions of the supporting rib structure beneath each fin (paragraph 0070), thereby providing a known mechanism for tuning fin rigidity characteristics. In view of this teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to vary the rigidity of individual fins, including arriving at the claimed arrangement, as a matter of routine optimization to achieve predictable coupling characteristics for a given receptacle configuration. Because Greep identifies fin rigidity as a result-effective variable and provides a known means for adjusting that variable through rib dimensions, selecting a particular rigidity arrangement, including one in which a rigid fin is disposed between more rigid fins, would have been no more than an obvious to try design choice involving a finite number of predictable solutions. The Supreme Court decided that a claim can be proved obvious merely by showing that the combination of known elements was obvious to try. In this regard, the Supreme Court explained that, “[w]hen there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill in the art has a good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.” An obviousness determination is not the result of a rigid formula disassociated from the consideration of the facts of the case. Indeed, the common sense of those skilled in the art demonstrates why some combinations would have been obvious where others would not. Therefore, choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation for success, is likely to be obvious to a person if ordinary skill in the art. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, E.).
Regarding claim 14, Adams, as previously modified by Greep, discloses the coupling mechanism according to claims 10. However, Adams does not explicitly disclose wherein the first end of the coupling mechanism includes a hose barb mechanism. Greep teaches wherein the first end of the coupling mechanism includes a hose barb mechanism (a hose retaining lip 128 is disposed at the proximal end 151; Fig. 4, paragraph 0051). Greep teaches the use of a hose barb mechanism for forming an airtight fit between the gas supply tube and the coupling mechanism (paragraph 0051).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the coupling mechanism of Adams to incorporate the teachings of Greep by adding hose barb mechanism to the coupling mechanism. Doing so would form an airtight fit between the gas supply tube and the coupling mechanism, as recognized by Greep.
Regarding claim 17, Adams discloses a coupling mechanism (gas supply connector 225; Fig. 5B, paragraph 0052) for an endoscope system comprising:
a substantially tubular body having an outer surface, an inner surface, a first end, and a second end (gas supply connector 225 has a substantially tubular body with an outer surface, an inner surface, a first end, and a second end; Fig. 5B);
a lumen extending through the substantially tubular body from the first end to the second end (gas flows into the bottle through the gas tube set 215; Fig. 5B, paragraph 0052);
wherein the first end of the substantially tubular body is configured to engage with a second end of a gas supply tube (gas connector 225 is connected to gas tube set 115; Fig. 5B) and the second end is configured to engage with both a first gas supply and a second gas supply interchangeably (gas supply connector 225 may be connected to a gas source; Fig. 5B, paragraph 0052) (gas (e.g. air, carbon dioxide, or the like) may be supplied to the bottle by gas tube 215 attached to bottle cap 130; Fig. 5B, paragraph 0052); and
wherein a first end of the gas supply tube is configured to engage with a container configured to contain a fluid (when gas valve 220 is open, gas flows into the [water] bottle through the gas tube set 215; Fig. 5B, paragraph 0052).
However, Adams does not explicitly disclose a hose barb mechanism positioned at the first end of the substantially tubular body, a plurality of ridges positioned on the outer surface of the second end of the substantially tubular body, and an annular seal positioned within the plurality of ridges, the annular seal being less rigid than at least a first ridge and a second ridge of the plurality of ridges.
Greep teaches a hose barb mechanism positioned at the first end of the tubular body (a hose retaining lip 128 is disposed at the proximal end 151; Fig. 4, paragraph 0051), a plurality of ridges positioned at an outer surface of the second end of the tubular body, and wherein an annular seal is positioned within the plurality of ridges (the illustrated universal connector 130 includes a body 150 having a proximal end 151 and a distal end 143 and a seal 152 disposed on or about a portion of the length of the body 150. The seal 152 includes a plurality of fins 154 along the length of the body 150, with each fin 154 extending circumferentially around the body 150; Fig. 3-4, paragraph 0043). Greep teaches the use of a hose barb mechanism for forming an airtight fit between the gas supply tube and the coupling mechanism (paragraph 0051). Gage teaches the use of fins on the coupling mechanism for creating a secure and airtight connection between the coupling mechanism and air supply (paragraph 0043).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the coupling mechanism of Adams to incorporate the teachings of Greep by adding a plurality of ridges to the outer surface of the coupling mechanism and a hose barb mechanism. Doing so would create a secure and airtight connection between the coupling mechanism, the air supply, and the air supply tube, as recognized by Greep.
Greep further teaches wherein an annular seal comprising at least one of the plurality of ridges is positioned between two others of the plurality of ridges (the illustrated universal connector 130 includes a body 150 having a proximal end 151 and a distal end 143 and a seal 152 disposed on or about a portion of the length of the body 150. The seal 152 includes a plurality of fins 154 along the length of the body 150, with each fin 154 extending circumferentially around the body 150; Fig. 3-4, paragraph 0043-0044), wherein the annular seal has a rigidity that is less than a rigidity of another of the plurality of ridges (some fins 154, such as the larger fins toward the proximal end 151 of the universal connector 130 flex to a greater degree than most distal fins 154. In some cases, one or more fins 154 may not flex at all, such as the distal most fin 154 illustrated in Fig. 3, Fig. 3, paragraph 0049).
However, Adams, as modified by Greep, does not explicitly disclose wherein the annular seal has a rigidity that is less than a rigidity of the two others of the plurality of ridges. While Greep does not expressly disclose the specific arrangement of a less rigid fin positioned between two more rigid fins, Greep does teach the broader concept of providing fins of differing rigidity to facilitate coupling with different air supply receptacles. Greep further teaches that fin rigidity may be adjusted by modifying the dimensions of the supporting rib structure beneath each fin (paragraph 0070), thereby providing a known mechanism for tuning fin rigidity characteristics. In view of this teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to vary the rigidity of individual fins, including arriving at the claimed arrangement, as a matter of routine optimization to achieve predictable coupling characteristics for a given receptacle configuration. Because Greep identifies fin rigidity as a result-effective variable and provides a known means for adjusting that variable through rib dimensions, selecting a particular rigidity arrangement, including one in which a rigid fin is disposed between more rigid fins, would have been no more than an obvious to try design choice involving a finite number of predictable solutions. The Supreme Court decided that a claim can be proved obvious merely by showing that the combination of known elements was obvious to try. In this regard, the Supreme Court explained that, “[w]hen there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill in the art has a good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.” An obviousness determination is not the result of a rigid formula disassociated from the consideration of the facts of the case. Indeed, the common sense of those skilled in the art demonstrates why some combinations would have been obvious where others would not. Therefore, choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation for success, is likely to be obvious to a person if ordinary skill in the art. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, E.).
Regarding claim 20, Adams, as previously modified by Greep, discloses the coupling mechanism according to claim 17. Greep further teaches wherein the second end of the coupling mechanism is shaped to facilitate an interference fit between the coupling mechanism and the first gas supply and the second gas supply interchangeably (the universal connector 130 may be compatible with receptables 132 of various sizes, tapers, and shapes because at least one or more fins 154 of various diameters and sizes with engage with the tapered wall 138 of the receptacle 132. One will also appreciate that the universal connector 130 may form an airtight seal within a receptacle 132 having threaded features because one or more fins 154 may flex and/or conform to the internal threaded surface of the tapered wall 138; Fig. 3, paragraph 0050 and 0055).
Regarding claim 21, Adams, as previously modified by Greep, discloses the container and tube set according to claim 1. Greep further teaches wherein at least one of the size and shape of the first ridge is different from at least one of the size and shape of the second ridge (the fins 154 have diameters that increase along the length of the body 150; Fig. 5A, paragraphs 0044-0046 and 0050).
PNG
media_image1.png
373
464
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 22, Adams, as previously modified by Greep, discloses the coupling mechanism according to claim 10. Greep further teaches wherein at least one of the size and shape of the first ridge is different from at least one of the size and shape of the second ridge (the fins 154 have diameters that increase along the length of the body 150; Fig. 5A, paragraphs 0044-0046 and 0050).
PNG
media_image1.png
373
464
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 23, Adams, as previously modified by Greep, discloses the coupling mechanism according to claim 17. Greep further teaches wherein at least one of the size and shape of the first ridge is different from at least one of the size and shape of the second ridge (the fins 154 have diameters that increase along the length of the body 150; Fig. 5A, paragraphs 0044-0046 and 0050).
PNG
media_image1.png
373
464
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adams, as modified by Greep, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Appl. Publ. No. 2005/0245789 A1 to Smith et al. (“Smtih”).
Regarding claim 2, Adams, as previously modified by Greep, discloses the container and tube set according to claim 1. However, Adams does not explicitly disclose further comprising a split flow junction at the second end of the water supply tube wherein the second lumen of the water supply tube is in fluid communication with both a third lumen of a lens wash tube and a fourth lumen of an irrigation supply tube.
Smith teaches a split flow junction at the second end of the water supply tube wherein the second lumen of the water supply tube is in fluid communication with both a third lumen of a lens wash tube and a fourth lumen of an irrigation supply tube (water can be selectively applied to a tube 170 that provides a high pressure lavage for irrigating a patient lumen, as well as a lens wash tube 172 that cleans contaminants from the front of an imaging lens at the distal end of the endoscope… the flow of water in each of the tubes 170, 172, 174 is selectively controlled by an associated valve which allows water to be pumped through the tube if desired; Fig. 3F, paragraph 0097).
Smith is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endoscopes connected to a water supply container. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a split flow junction in the endoscope system of Adams, as taught by Smith, to increase the functionality of the endoscope system of Adams by enabling fluid supply to both a lens wash tube and an irrigation supply tube.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLIVIA G STARKEY whose telephone number is (571)272-3375. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00 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, Michael Carey can be reached at 5712707235. 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.
/OLIVIA GRACE STARKEY/ Examiner, Art Unit 3795
/MICHAEL J CAREY/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3795
Prosecution Insights