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 .
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.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figure 3 appears incomplete since it appears to be missing lines/details. 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 Objections
Claims 1-10 are objected to because they appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: “to The outside of the rear section” in line 8 should be amended to --to the outside of the rear section--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: “Tail cap” in lines 3-4 should be amended to --tail cap--; “Extend out” in line 11 should be amended to --extending out--; “is symmetrically provided” in line 17 should be amended to. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the locking piece (12) is a locking piece” is redundant language and should be removed. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: “Designed with barbs” in line 5 should be amended to --and is designed with barbs--. Appropriate correction is required.
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 2 and 6-10 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 2 recites the limitation "the upper part of the second sleeve" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 6, the claim recites the elements “a first sleeve”, “a lower conductive sheet”, and “an electrode” which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether these are the same or different than the same elements already incorporated from the smoke evacuation tube according to claim 1 as previously set forth in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the first casing" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The terms “close to the electrode”, “gradually changing”, and “near the end” in claim 7 are relative terms which render the claim indefinite. The terms “close”, “gradually”, and “near” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the tightening part" in line 4 and “the locking part” in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
The terms “close to the electrode”, “gradually changing”, and “near the end” in claim 8 are relative terms which render the claim indefinite. The terms “close”, “gradually”, and “near” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Regarding claim 8, the claim recites the elements “a button”, “PCB board”, “front cap”, “lower conductive sheet”, “an electrode”, “a first sleeve”, “an upper conductive sheet”, and “two arc-shaped locking parts” which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether these are the same or different than the same elements as previously set forth in claims 6 and 7.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the other end of the connecting wire" in lines 12-13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the locked piece". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the end of the electrode" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Choi (US 2023/0293225).
Regarding claim 1, Choi discloses a smoke evacuation tube, comprising a first sleeve (see operating rod 160 and head 140, Fig. 4) and a second sleeve (see operating rod 150, Fig. 4), characterized in that, the first sleeve includes a first sleeve front section and a first sleeve rear section (see front and rear sections of rod 160, Fig. 4), and an electrode is installed inside the first sleeve font section and one end of the electrode protrudes from one end of the front section of the first sleeve (as shown in Fig. 2, electrode 130 is inserted into 150 that is contained within rod 160, see also Fig. 4, [0016]), the diameter of the first sleeve is larger than the diameter of the second sleeve (see [0016], Figs. 2 and 4), on or outside the second sleeve and located at the first sleeve is provided with an engaging structure for assembling a lower conductive sheet (see jack 158, jack seating groove 157, and cable groove 151 capable of accommodating a conductive sheet, Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 2, Choi further discloses wherein the engaging structure includes a locking hole arranged on the upper part of the second sleeve and located in the inner cavity of the first sleeve for assembling the lower conductive sheet (see jack seating groove arranged on the upper part of the rod 150 and located in the lumen of the rod 160 when assembled, Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 3, Choi further discloses wherein the engaging structure includes a clamping plate arranged outside the second sleeve and on the inner wall of the first sleeve for assembling the lower conductive sheet (see flat jack 158 forming a plate of material and cooperating with groove 151 on the outside of rod 150 capable of clamping conductive sheet on the inner wall of rod 160, Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 4, Choi further discloses wherein the lower conductive sheet is provided with conductive branches extending vertically or obliquely toward the central axis of the second sleeve (the lower conductive sheet is claimed within functional language of the preceding claims, and in this context, the prior art clamping plate as identified above is considered capable of assembling a conductive sheet having branches vertically or obliquely within the space provided by the prior art clamping plate when dimensioned appropriately).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi in view of Cosmescu (US 5,693,044).
Regarding claim 5, Choi discloses the limitations of claim 1, however Choi fails to further disclose wherein a rib connecting the first sleeve and the second sleeve is disposed on the second sleeve.
Cosmescu teaches an electrosurgical smoke evacuation device (see Figs. 1-4) wherein an inner sleeve is connected to an outer sleeve via pin disposed on the inner sleeve designed to fit into a slot on the outer sleeve (see col. 7, lines 23-29, Fig. 3). Therefore, 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 second sleeve as disclosed by Choi to have a rib disposed on its outer surface for connecting the first and second sleeves in light of Cosmescu, the motivation being to provide a mechanical connection between the two sleeves that is airtight (see Cosmescu col. 7, lines 18-23).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi in view of Ineson (US 2015/0209100).
Regarding claim 6, Choi further discloses a telescopic smoke evacuation scalpel, comprising the smoke evacuation tube according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein it also includes a front cap (see 113, Fig. 4), a first sleeve (see 160, Fig. 4), an electrode (see 130, Fig. 4). However, Choi fails to specifically disclose a button, a PCB board, a lower conductive sheet, and an upper conductive sheet, and the first sleeve rear section is provided with a communication hole away from the end of the front section of the first sleeve, one end of the lower conductive sheet is connected to the electrode, and the other end of the lower conductive sheet extends out along the communication hole to the outside of the rear section of the first sleeve is then in contact with the upper conductive sheet, and the PCB board is electrically connected to the upper conductive sheet.
Ineson teaches an electrosurgical smoke evacuation device (see Figs. 28-34) comprising a button (see 244, Fig. 28 and 30), a PCB board (see 52, Fig. 31), a lower conductive sheet (see 250, Fig. 29), and an upper conductive sheet (see 252, Fig. 29), and the first sleeve rear section is provided with a communication hole away from the end of the front section of the first sleeve (see 262, Fig. 29), one end of the lower conductive sheet is connected to the electrode (see [0077]), and the other end of the lower conductive sheet extends out along the communication hole to the outside of the rear section of the first sleeve is then in contact with the upper conductive sheet (see [0078]), and the PCB board is electrically connected to the upper conductive sheet (see [0079]). Therefore, 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 telescopic smoke evacuation scalpel as disclosed by Choi with a button, a PCB board, a lower conductive sheet, and an upper conductive sheet, and the first sleeve rear section is provided with a communication hole away from the end of the front section of the first sleeve, one end of the lower conductive sheet is connected to the electrode, and the other end of the lower conductive sheet extends out along the communication hole to the outside of the rear section of the first sleeve is then in contact with the upper conductive sheet, and the PCB board is electrically connected to the upper conductive sheet in light of Ineson, since the modification would have been a matter of simple substitution to one ordinary skill in the art for the same purpose of providing electrical control and connection of energy flow to the electrode of the device when the vent tube is being telescoped into and out of the handle of the device.
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi in view of Ineson and in further view of Greep et al. (US 2020/0155231).
Regarding claim 7, Choi in view of Ineson teaches the limitations of claim 6 and further teaches wherein the first sleeve passes through the front cap (see Fig. 2, [0059]). However, Choi in view of Ineson fails to further teach wherein the front cap is rotatably installed at one end close to the electrode, and the inner wall of the front cap is symmetrically connected with two arc-shaped locks and a locked part with a gradually changing diameter near the end of the electrode and at the locking part.
Greep teaches an electrosurgical pencil with smoke evacuation (see Fig. 17-20) comprising a front cap is rotatably installed at one end close to the electrode (unlocked position where rotation would be possible as shown in Fig. 19, see also Fig. 1), and the inner wall of the front cap is symmetrically connected with two arc-shaped locks (see two of the arc-shaped flanges 167, Fig. 17) and a locked part with a gradually changing diameter near the end of the electrode and at the locking part (see gradually changing diameter of the collar 152 of the handpiece; [0103], Figs. 19-20). Therefore, 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 front cap as taught by Choi in view of Ineson to be rotatably installed at one end close to the electrode, and the inner wall of the front cap is symmetrically connected with two arc-shaped locks and a locked part with a gradually changing diameter near the end of the electrode and at the locking part in light of Greep, the modification being a matter of simple substitution to one of ordinary skill in the art for the purpose of locking or adjusting a slidable smoke evacuation tube.
Regarding claim 8, Choi in view of Ineson and Greep further teaches wherein it includes a button (as indicated in the rejection of claim 6 above), upper cover (see Choi: cover separated from the top of the case 111, Fig. 5), PCB board (as indicated in the rejection of claim 6 above), pen body (see Choi: case 111, Fig. 5), front cap (as indicated in the rejection of claim 6 above), first sleeve (as indicated in the rejection of claim 1 above), lower conductive sheet (as indicated in the rejection of claim 6 above), electrode (as indicated in the rejection of claim 6 above), and tail cap (see Choi: rotator 120, Fig. 5), the pen body is tubular (as shown in Choi: Fig. 5), one end of the first sleeve extends into the inside of the pen body (see Choi: [0059]), and the inside of the pen body is inlaid with an upper conductive sheet (as set forth in the rejection of claim 6 above), the tail cap is clamped on the end of the pen body away from the electrode (as shown in Choi Fig. 5), the top of the pen body is provided with an opening (as shown in Choi: Fig. 5), the upper cover is installed at the opening (as shown in Choi: Fig. 5), and the PCB board electrically connected with an connecting wire (as set forth in the rejection of claim 6 above), and the connecting wire extending out to the outside of the pen body along the tail cap (see Choi: wire 31 extending out of the rotator 120, Fig. 5), and the front cap is rotatably mounted on the pen body close to the electrode end (as set forth in the rejection of claim 6 above), the first sleeve passes through the front cap (as set forth in the rejection of claim 6 above), and the inner wall of the front cap is symmetrically connected with two arc-shaped locking parts (see Greep: two of the flanges 167 as shown in Fig. 17), and the pen body is close to the electrode (the pen body as indicated is reasonably close to the electrode) and is symmetrically provided with two locked parts with gradually changing diameters on the inner wall at one end, and the two locking parts are located at the two locked parts respectively (see Greep: the other of the two flanges 167 as shown in Fig. 17, provided with the pen body and at the same longitudinal position as the other flanges in the configurations shown in Figs. 19-20). Choi in view of Ineson and Greep fails to specifically teach wherein the other end of the connecting wire is electrically connected to a plug, however it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have connected the end of the connecting wire to a plug in order to connect the device to a power supply as the examiner takes Official Notice that such technique is ubiquitous in the relevant prior art for such purposes.
Regarding claim 9, Choi in view of Ineson and Greep further teaches wherein the locking piece is a locking piece, and the locked piece is a notch to be locked (see Greep: notches between flanges 157 that assist in the locking action, Fig. 17).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art of record, Choi (US 2023/0293225), Ineson (US 2015/0209100), and Greep et al. (US 2020/0155231), fails to reasonably teach or suggest wherein the end of the lower conductive sheet connected to the electrode is designed with inverted teeth when considered in combination with the additional requirements of the claim and its dependencies. The prior art generally teaches conductive shafts connected to electrodes that also include a proximal bent tongue, however the prior art is silent with regard to a plural number of inverted teeth when also taking into account the additional requirements of the claims in combination with this feature.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN W COLLINS whose telephone number is (408)918-7607. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM-5:00 PM 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, Joanne Rodden can be reached at 303-297-4276. 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.
/SEAN W COLLINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3794