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 offset ring at the opening of claims 9 and 16 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. The examiner notes that while figure 2a, shows holes 206 at the opening, said figure does not show said holes being offset.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 306, 309, 312 in figures 3A-F. The examiner notes that said reference numbers are not provided in the specification. While 206,209, and 212, refer to the openings, ejection wire channel, and slot (for the knob), the specification regarding the embodiment of figure 3a-f fails to point out what these reference numbers are. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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.
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 § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1,2,5-8, 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Salehi et al. US 2013/0245613, hereafter Salehi.
Regarding Claim 1, Salehi discloses a suction apparatus for the removal of debris from a surgical site (abstract), the suction apparatus (Figure 17, see para. 0127) comprising: a suction tube (10) having a suction opening at a distal end of the suction apparatus (16 distal opening of suction tube where the distal end comprises a tip (50) seen in figure 1a and 1b) and having an interior defining a tubular suction channel (figures 2a, 2b) for the removal of debris through suction at the suction opening (para. 0071), the suction tube bending toward a first direction (figure 17 see bend, see also para. 0015); a handle portion adjacent the proximal end of the suction apparatus and connected to the suction tube (handle (100) see figure 1a, where handle is opposite distal end of suction tube (16) and thus is adjacent the proximal end); an ejection wire channel (guide tube 20’’’) extending from a longitudinal opening in the suction apparatus (figure 17) to a wire exit opening that opens into the tubular suction channel of the suction tube (entry port (114) in tube (10), see para. 0127); and a knob (75) for controlling an ejection wire within the ejection wire channel (para. 0109), the knob being positioned on a side of the suction tube that is opposite the first direction in which the suction tube is bending (figure 11, where the knob can be seen to be on the opposite side of first bend direction, see also figure 17). The examiner notes that the handle seen in figure 17 shows the configuration of the knob (75) as seen in figure 8a and 11. In figure 11, the knob node (76) is displaced, causing the stylet to move through the guide tube (20’’’ in figure 17), see para. 0109. In further function, the stylet can be retracted though displacing the node in the opposite direction.
The examiner notes that as detailed under the rejection of claim 1 above, the embodiment of figure 17, where the wire exit into the suction channel is interpreted to be entry port (114), reads to the claimed invention. The examiner provides a second rejection of claim 1 in view of the embodiment of figure 1a, where the wire exit is the junction conduit (40). The dependents are further rejected in view of the second interpretation (where the junction conduit (40)) is interpreted to be the wire exit.
Regarding Claim 1, Salehi discloses a suction apparatus for the removal of debris from a surgical site (abstract), the suction apparatus (Figure 1a, see para. 0070,0071) comprising: a suction tube (10) having a suction opening at a distal end of the suction apparatus (16 distal opening of suction tube) and having an interior defining a tubular suction channel (figures 2a, 2b) for the removal of debris through suction at the suction opening (para. 0071), the suction tube bending toward a first direction (figure 1a see bend, see also para. 0015); a handle portion adjacent the proximal end of the suction apparatus and connected to the suction tube (handle (100) see figure 1a, where handle is opposite distal end of suction tube (16) and thus is adjacent the proximal end); an ejection wire channel (guide tube 20’, for receiving a stylet within (para. 0108)) extending from a longitudinal opening in the suction apparatus (figure 1a) to a wire exit opening that opens into the tubular suction channel of the suction tube (junction conduit (40), see internal structure in figures 5a-c)). The examiner notes that as seen in figure 1a, the guide conduit for a stylet runs along suction tube (10) and joins with the suction conduit within the junction (40). Therefore the opening at which the guide tube (20’) joins with the junction conduit is interpreted as the wire exit opening that opens into the suction tube and thus allows the stylet to extend into the suction tube.
Salehi further discloses and a knob (75, figure 8a) for controlling an ejection wire within the ejection wire channel (para. 0109), the knob being positioned on a side of the suction tube that is opposite the first direction in which the suction tube is bending (figure 1a,11 where the knob can be seen to be on the opposite side of first bend direction). The examiner notes that the handle seen in figure 1a shows the configuration of the knob (75) as seen in figure 8a and 11. In figure 11, the knob node (76) is displaced, causing the stylet to move through the guide tube (20’’’ in figure 17), see para. 0109. In further function, the stylet can be retracted though displacing the node in the opposite direction.
Regarding Claim 2, Salehi discloses the suction apparatus of claim 1, wherein the knob is positioned proximate the handle portion between the handle portion and the suction tube opening. The examiner notes that as seen in the figures (1a) the knob is positioned on the handle and is thus proximate the handle. As the knob is located between the (proximal) end of the handle and the suction tube opening (16) it is interpreted that the knob is between the handle and suction opening.
Regarding Claim 5, Salehi discloses the suction apparatus of claim 1, wherein the tubular suction channel includes a flow restriction (see figure 5c). The examiner notes that as seen in figure 5c, the junction conduit comprises a distal opening (44) and a proximal opening (42), where the proximal end contains the entry point (see figure 1) for both the suction tube (0076) and stylet (para. 0121). As seen in figure 5c, from this proximal end, the junction conduit narrows toward the tip at the distal end, both gradually, and in a step. Therefore, the junction conduit is interpreted to read to the claimed limitation of a flow restriction. The examiner notes as seen in the annotated figure 5c below, the junction conduit interior is shown, where the examiner points to multiple restrictions.
PNG
media_image1.png
317
505
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 6, Salehi discloses the suction apparatus of claim 5, wherein the wire exit opening into the tubular suction channel is at the location of the flow restriction or is located between the flow restriction and the suction opening at a distal end of the suction apparatus. The examiner notes that it is interpreted that the wire exit opening is at the location of the restriction, as both are within the junction conduit (40).
Regarding Claim 7, Salehi discloses the suction apparatus of claim 5, wherein the flow restriction is a gradual flow restriction. The examiner notes that as detailed under the rejection of claim 5, an annotated figure is provided showing a gradual flow restriction.
Regarding Claim 8, Salehi discloses the suction apparatus of claim 5, wherein the flow restriction is step flow restriction. The examiner notes that as detailed under the rejection of claim 5, an annotated figure is provided showing a step flow restriction.
Regarding Claim 17, Salehi discloses a method cleaning a surgical site with a suction apparatus comprising (abstract, para. 0135): (a) removing at least biological fluids and bone fragments from the surgical site using the suction apparatus (para. 0071, para. 0003, where para. 0003 details that devices like the one disclosed are known in the art to remove fluids during surgical procedures, where said fluids may include blood, bone chips/dust, and more), the suction apparatus comprising (Figure 1a, see para. 0070,0071): (i) a suction tube (10) having a suction opening at a distal end of the suction apparatus (16 distal opening of suction tube where the distal end comprises a tip (50) seen in figure 1a and 1b)and having an interior defining a tubular suction channel for the removal of debris through suction at the suction opening (figures 2a, 2b showing interior (para. 0071)), the suction tube bending toward a first direction figure 1a see bend, see also para. 0015); (a handle portion adjacent the proximal end of the suction apparatus and connected to the suction tube (handle (100) see figure 1a, where handle is opposite distal end of suction tube (16) and thus is adjacent the proximal end); an ejection wire channel (guide tube 20’, for receiving a stylet within (para. 0108)) extending from a longitudinal opening in the suction apparatus (figure 1a) to a wire exit opening that opens into the tubular suction channel of the suction tube (junction conduit (40), see internal structure in figures 5a-c)). The examiner notes that as seen in figure 1a, the guide conduit for a stylet runs along suction tube (10) and joins with the suction conduit within the junction (40). Therefore the opening at which the guide tube (20’) joins with the junction conduit is interpreted as the wire exit opening that opens into the suction tube and thus allows the stylet to extend into the suction tube.
Salehi further discloses and a knob (75, figure 8a) for controlling an ejection wire within the ejection wire channel (para. 0109), the knob being positioned on a side of the suction tube that is opposite the first direction in which the suction tube is bending (figure 1a,11 where the knob can be seen to be on the opposite side of first bend direction). The examiner notes that the handle seen in figure 1a shows the configuration of the knob (75) as seen in figure 8a and 11. In figure 11, the knob node (76) is displaced, causing the stylet to move through the guide tube (20’’’ in figure 17), see para. 0109. In further function, the stylet can be retracted though displacing the node in the opposite direction. Said stylet is used to clear obstructions in the tube per para. 0135, and therefore Salehi teaches the limitation of ejecting one or more bone fragments collected in the first portion of the tubular suction channel
Regarding Claim 18, Salehi discloses the method of claim 17, wherein the additional biological fluids are removed from the surgical site after (b) ejecting one or more bone fragment collected in the first portion of the tubular suction channel. Per paragraph 0135, the method of using the device and then using the stylet to remove blockages may be repeated any number of times as required. Therefore repeating the step would include the removal of additional fluids and further clearing of said blockages.
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.
Claim(s) 3-4,10-15,19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salehi.
Regarding Claim 3, Salehi discloses the suction apparatus of claim 1, however, Salehi fails to disclose wherein the knob has a range of travel that is 4 cm or less.
The examiner notes that the per the abstract, para. 0010, and para. 0114, the distal end of the stylet corresponds to the distal end of the suction tube to eject a blockage, where further the knob controls the movement of the stylet. As seen in figure 11 and detailed in para. 0114, the knob is a suitable length obvious to one of ordinary skill to fit within the handle section in which it is located, and can only move within said section (as seen in the figure, the range of motion is limited to the walls of the handle). No specific distance for the range of motion of the knob is disclosed. However, there is no evidence of record that changing this distance establishes that changing the in function of Salehi device as the knob would remain connect to and able to move the stylet within the device. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying knob of Salehi would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears the device would function as intended being given the claimed range of motion. Lastly, applicant has not disclosed that the claimed range solves any stated problem, indicating that the range of travel “may range from 1 to 4cm or “may have a range of travel that is 10% or less of the length of the suction device(specification at para. [0036]) and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the range as claimed such that it produces an unexpected result.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify range of travel of the knob of Salehi to be 4cm or less as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Regarding Claim 4, Salehi discloses the suction apparatus of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the knob has a range of travel that is 1 cm to 4 cm.
The examiner notes that the per the abstract, para. 0010, and para. 0114, the distal end of the stylet corresponds to the distal end of the suction tube to eject a blockage, where further the knob controls the movement of the stylet. As seen in figure 11 and detailed in para. 0114, the knob is a suitable length obvious to one of ordinary skill to fit within the handle section in which it is located, and can only move within said section (as seen in the figure, the range of motion is limited to the walls of the handle). No specific distance for the range of motion of the knob is disclosed. However, there is no evidence of record that changing this distance establishes that changing the in function of Salehi device as the knob would remain connect to and able to move the stylet within the device. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying knob of Salehi would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears the device would function as intended being given the claimed range of motion. Lastly, applicant has not disclosed that the claimed range solves any stated problem, indicating that the range of travel “may range from 1 to 4cm or “may have a range of travel that is 10% or less of the length of the suction device(specification at para. [0036]) and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the range as claimed such that it produces an unexpected result.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify range of travel of the knob of Salehi to be between 1 and 4cm as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Regarding Claim 10, Salehi discloses a suction apparatus for the removal of debris from a surgical site (abstract), the suction apparatus comprising(Figure 1a, see para. 0070,0071) comprising: a suction tube (10) having a suction opening at a distal end of the suction apparatus (16 distal opening of suction tube where the distal end comprises a tip (50) seen in figure 1a and 1b) and having an interior defining a tubular suction channel (figures 2a, 2b) for the removal of debris through suction at the suction opening (para. 0071), a handle portion adjacent the proximal end of the suction apparatus and connected to the suction tube (handle (100) see figure 1a, where handle is opposite distal end of suction tube (16) and thus is adjacent the proximal end); an ejection wire channel (guide tube 20’, for receiving a stylet within (para. 0108)) extending from a longitudinal opening in the suction apparatus (figure 1a) to a wire exit opening that opens into the tubular suction channel of the suction tube (junction conduit (40), see internal structure in figures 5a-c)).
The examiner notes that as seen in figure 1a, the guide conduit for a stylet runs along suction tube (10) and joins with the suction conduit within the junction (40). Therefore the opening at which the guide tube (20’) joins with the junction conduit is interpreted as the wire exit opening that opens into the suction tube and thus allows the stylet to extend into the suction tube.
Salehi further discloses and a knob (75, figure 8a) for controlling an ejection wire within the ejection wire channel (para. 0109), the knob being positioned on a side of the suction tube that is opposite the first direction in which the suction tube is bending (figure 1a,11 where the knob can be seen to be on the opposite side of first bend direction). The examiner notes that the handle seen in figure 1a shows the configuration of the knob (75) as seen in figure 8a and 11. In figure 11, the knob node (76) is displaced, causing the stylet to move through the guide tube (20’’’ in figure 17), see para. 0109. In further function, the stylet can be retracted though displacing the node in the opposite direction.
Salehi fails to disclose wherein the knob has a range of travel that is 4 cm or less.
The examiner notes that the per the abstract, para. 0010, and para. 0114, the distal end of the stylet corresponds to the distal end of the suction tube to eject a blockage, where further the knob controls the movement of the stylet. As seen in figure 11 and detailed in para. 0114, the knob is a suitable length obvious to one of ordinary skill to fit within the handle section in which it is located, and can only move within said section (as seen in the figure, the range of motion is limited to the walls of the handle). No specific distance for the range of motion of the knob is disclosed. However, there is no evidence of record that changing this distance establishes that changing the in function of Salehi device as the knob would remain connect to and able to move the stylet within the device. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying knob of Salehi would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears the device would function as intended being given the claimed range of motion. Lastly, applicant has not disclosed that the claimed range solves any stated problem, indicating that the range of travel “may range from 1 to 4cm or “may have a range of travel that is 10% or less of the length of the suction device(specification at para. [0036]) and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the range as claimed such that it produces an unexpected result.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify range of travel of the knob of Salehi to be between 1 and 4cm and thus 4cm or less as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Regarding Claim 11, Salehi discloses the suction apparatus of claim 10, wherein the knob is positioned proximate the handle portion between the handle portion and the suction tube opening. The examiner notes that as seen in the figures (1a) the knob is positioned on the handle and is thus proximate the handle. As the knob is located between the (proximal) end of the handle and the suction tube opening (16) it is interpreted that the knob is between the handle and suction opening.
Regarding Claim 12, Salehi discloses the suction apparatus of claim 10, wherein the knob has a range of travel that is 1 cm to 4 cm. The examiner notes that as detailed under the rejection of claim 10, it was found obvious to modify the range of travel of the knob of Salehi to be between 1 and 4cm as an obvious matter of design choice.
Regarding Claim 13, Salehi discloses the suction apparatus of claim 10, wherein the suction tube comprises a bend toward a first direction (figure 1a see bend, see also para. 0015).
Regarding Claim 14, Salehi discloses the suction apparatus of claim 10, wherein the tubular suction channel includes a flow restriction (see figure 5c). The examiner notes that as seen in figure 5c, the junction conduit comprises a distal opening (44) and a proximal opening (42), where the proximal end contains the entry point (see figure 1) for both the suction tube (0076) and stylet (para. 0121). As seen in figure 5c, from this proximal end, the junction conduit narrows toward the tip at the distal end, both gradually, and in a step. Therefore, the junction conduit is interpreted to read to the claimed limitation of a flow restriction. The examiner notes as seen in the annotated figure 5c below, the junction conduit interior is shown, where the examiner points to multiple restrictions.
PNG
media_image1.png
317
505
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 15, Salehi discloses the suction apparatus of claim 14, wherein the wire exit opening into the tubular suction channel is at the location of the flow restriction or is located between the flow restriction and the suction opening at a distal end of the suction apparatus. The examiner notes that it is interpreted that the wire exit opening is at the location of the restriction, as both are within the junction conduit (40).
Regarding Claim 19, Salehi discloses a method cleaning a surgical site with a suction apparatus comprising(abstract, para. 0135): (a) removing at least biological fluids and bone fragments from the surgical site using the suction apparatus (para. 0071, para. 0003, where para. 0003 details that devices like the one disclosed are known in the art to remove fluids during surgical procedures, where said fluids may include blood, bone chips/dust, and more), the suction apparatus comprising (Figure 1a, see para. 0070,0071): (i) a suction tube (10) having a suction opening at a distal end of the suction apparatus (16 distal opening of suction tube where the distal end comprises a tip (50) seen in figure 1a and 1b) and having an interior defining a tubular suction channel for the removal of debris through suction at the suction opening (figures 2a, 2b showing interior (para. 0071)); (ii) a handle portion adjacent the proximal end of the suction apparatus and connected to the suction tube (handle (100) see figure 1a, where handle is opposite distal end of suction tube (16) and thus is adjacent the proximal end); an ejection wire channel (guide tube 20’, for receiving a stylet within (para. 0108)) extending from a longitudinal opening in the suction apparatus (figure 1a) to a wire exit opening that opens into the tubular suction channel of the suction tube (junction conduit (40), see internal structure in figures 5a-c)). The examiner notes that as seen in figure 1a, the guide conduit for a stylet runs along suction tube (10) and joins with the suction conduit within the junction (40). Therefore the opening at which the guide tube (20’) joins with the junction conduit is interpreted as the wire exit opening that opens into the suction tube and thus allows the stylet to extend into the suction tube.
Salehi further discloses and a knob (75, figure 8a) for controlling an ejection wire within the ejection wire channel (para. 0109), the knob being positioned on a side of the suction tube that is opposite the first direction in which the suction tube is bending (figure 1a,11 where the knob can be seen to be on the opposite side of first bend direction). The examiner notes that the handle seen in figure 1a shows the configuration of the knob (75) as seen in figure 8a and 11. In figure 11, the knob node (76) is displaced, causing the stylet to move through the guide tube (20’’’ in figure 17), see para. 0109. In further function, the stylet can be retracted though displacing the node in the opposite direction. Said stylet is used to clear obstructions in the tube per para. 0135, and therefore Salehi teaches the limitation of ejecting one or more bone fragments collected in the first portion of the tubular suction channel
Salehi fails to disclose wherein the knob has a range of travel that is 4 cm or less.
The examiner notes that the per the abstract, para. 0010, and para. 0114, the distal end of the stylet corresponds to the distal end of the suction tube to eject a blockage, where further the knob controls the movement of the stylet. As seen in figure 11 and detailed in para. 0114, the knob is a suitable length obvious to one of ordinary skill to fit within the handle section in which it is located, and can only move within said section (as seen in the figure, the range of motion is limited to the walls of the handle). No specific distance for the range of motion of the knob is disclosed. However, there is no evidence of record that changing this distance establishes that changing the in function of Salehi device as the knob would remain connect to and able to move the stylet within the device. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying knob of Salehi would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears the device would function as intended being given the claimed range of motion. Lastly, applicant has not disclosed that the claimed range solves any stated problem, indicating that the range of travel “may range from 1 to 4cm or “may have a range of travel that is 10% or less of the length of the suction device(specification at para. [0036]) and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the range as claimed such that it produces an unexpected result.
Regarding Claim 20, Salehi discloses the method of claim 19, wherein the additional biological fluids are removed from the surgical site after (b) ejecting one more bone fragment collected in the first portion of the tubular suction channel. Per paragraph 0135, the method of using the device and then using the stylet to remove blockages may be repeated any number of times as required. Therefore repeating the step would include the removal of additional fluids and further clearing of said blockages.
Claim(s) 9,16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salehi in view of PACIFIC HOSPITAL SUPPLY CO DE 202012103439 hereafter Pacific.
Regarding Claim 9, Salehi discloses the suction apparatus of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the suction apparatus includes an offset ring structure at the suction opening.
Pacific teaches a suction device and is thus considered analogous to the claimed invention. Pacific teaches that the suction section has an opening (121) in which ribs (2) are located. The ribs allow for keeping the interior of the device clear when said device is being flattened, twisted or deformed, as said ribs prevent the inner walls from touching one another (see para. 0022, figure 4). Further per paragraph 0021, Pacific teaches that the ribs are arranged at equal intervals as seen in figure 2, but “the invention is not limited to this”. While the translation states “Ribs (2) cannot be arranged with equal spacing” the examiner notes that this is clearly a translation error and intends to me that the ribs can be arranged with non-equal spacing, as the context of the citation is used to teach an embodiment directly opposed to an embodiment with ribs having equal spacing. As such it is interpreted that the ribs of Pacific may be equally spaced apart or alternatively non-equally spaced apart, and still provide the same intended function.
The examiner notes that per the rejection of claim 1, the distal end of the tube of Salehi comprises a tip with a suction opening (para. 0079, figure 1a), where said tip “may be made of a plastically or mechanically deformable material such that it is bendable by the user to any desired angle relative to the longitudinal axis of the tubular tip” (para. 0089). Therefore, it would have been able to provide the tip structure (forming the suction opening of the device of Salehi) with the rib structures as taught in Pacific as a means to prevent clogging of the deformable opening. Doing so would merely involve combining prior art elements (suction tubing with ribs) according to known methods to yield predictable results (the prevention of deformation in the tubing), and as such a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Regarding Claim 16, Salehi discloses the suction apparatus of claim 10, but fails to teach wherein the suction apparatus includes an offset ring structure at the suction opening.
Pacific teaches a suction device and is thus considered analogous to the claimed invention. Pacific teaches that the suction section has an opening (121) in which ribs (2) are located. The ribs allow for keeping the interior of the device clear when said device is being flattened, twisted or deformed, as said ribs prevent the inner walls from touching one another (see para. 0022, figure 4). Further per paragraph 0021, Pacific teaches that the ribs are arranged at equal intervals as seen in figure 2, but “the invention is not limited to this”. While the translation states “Ribs (2) cannot be arranged with equal spacing” the examiner notes that this is clearly a translation error and intends to me that the ribs can be arranged with non-equal spacing, as the context of the citation is used to teach an embodiment directly opposed to an embodiment with ribs having equal spacing. As such it is interpreted that the ribs of Pacific may be equally spaced apart or alternatively non-equally spaced apart, and still provide the same intended function.
The examiner notes that per the rejection of claim 1, the distal end of the tube of Salehi comprises a tip with a suction opening (para. 0079, figure 1a), where said tip “may be made of a plastically or mechanically deformable material such that it is bendable by the user to any desired angle relative to the longitudinal axis of the tubular tip” (para. 0089). Therefore, it would have been able to provide the tip structure (forming the suction opening of the deivce of Salehi) with the rib structures as taught in Pacific as a means to prevent clogging of the deformable opening. Doing so would merely involve combining prior art elements (suction tubing with ribs) according to known methods to yield predictable results (the prevention of deformation in the tubing), and as such a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Matthew Wrubleski whose telephone number is (571)272-1150. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-4:00 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.
/MATTHEW WRUBLESKI/Examiner, Art Unit 3781
/ARIANA ZIMBOUSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781