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 amendments filed on 05/20/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 4, 6, 8-12, and 15-23 have been amended; claims 2, 3, 5, and 7 have been cancelled. Accordingly, claims 1, 4, 6, and 8-23 are pending and under consideration.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-23 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the same combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
In light of further search and consideration, claim 1 is hereby rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahkter et al. WO 2020081981 A1 (newly cited) in view of Braga et al. US 2019/0001030 A1 (previously cited), as the change in scope is necessitated by amendment.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 6, 8, and 11-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahkter et al. WO 2020081981 A1 (newly cited, hereinafter Ahkter) in view of Braga et al. US 2019/0001030 A1 (previously cited, hereinafter Braga).
Regarding claim 1, Akhter discloses a cylindrical liquid collection cannister (Fig. 17, and Par. 45 – “FIG. 17 shows an example of a canister…”) comprising:
a first end (see annotated Fig. 17 below) and a second end (see annotated Fig. 17 below) connected by a cylindrical body wall (see annotated Fig. 17 below) forming a cannister (Fig. 17) for receiving fluid during use (Par. 50 – “…in some configurations the storage canister… is configured to… hold sufficient fluid volume as needed…”, which discusses the fluid storage capability of the cannister),
the body wall (see annotated Fig. 17 below) having one or more inlet ports (see annotated Fig. 17 below) configured to be coupled with one or more aspiration tubing 176 (Fig. 2 – suction tube 176),
each of the first end (see annotated Fig. 17 below) and the second end (see annotated Fig. 17 below) having a three-dimensional hollow filter (see annotated Fig. 17 below – each end has one three-dimensional hollow filter; since Par. 13 discloses that the filters are intended to trap debris/solid particles, the filter itself has to be hollow via pores of certain sizes to trap debris while allowing fluid to pass) projecting inwardly therefrom into the canister (Fig. 17 – the filters extend into the cavity/inner interior of the cannister once assembled) and coupled to a vacuum inlet (see annotated Fig. 17’ below), the three-dimensional hollow filters (see annotated Fig. 17 below) configured to retain liquid in the cannister and allow gas to be removed from the cannister during use (Par. 13 – “In certain aspects, filter(s) can be position at one or both ends of the canister to protect the pump from solid and viscous particles during suction and changes in orientation (see FIG. 17 for an example)”; the disclosed filters trap solid debris and are understood to be capable of allowing fluid to pass through, including air, given that fluid has to travel into the cannister for containment).
PNG
media_image1.png
443
820
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 17 of Ahkter
PNG
media_image2.png
471
860
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 17’ of Ahkter (the last Figure of the disclosure)
However, Ahkter does not disclose each of the first end and the second end having at least two three-dimensional hollow hydrophobic filters.
Braga, in the same field of endeavor of canister for suction/vacuum tehrapy (Abstract and Par. 10), teaches the filters are hydrophobic (Par. 87 – “Filter 262 may be a hydrophobic or oleophobic filter”).
Since Ahkter does discuss that filters can be position at both ends of the canister (Par. 13), it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have duplicated the filter of each end to have at least two filters, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. Furthermore, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). See MPEP 2144. Furthermore, having a plurality of filters at both ends of the canister can enhance filtration by further protect the pump from solid and viscous particles during suction (Par. 13 of Ahkter). Once the modification is made as discussed, the duplicated filters on each side will be stacked upon the pre-existent filter on their respective end.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the filters of Ahkter to make them hydrophobic as taught by Braga, in order to prevent exudate from exiting the canister (Par. 87 of Braga).
Regarding claim 4, Ahkter in view of Braga suggests the invention of claim 1. Braga further discloses wherein the cylinder has a length and a radius (see annotated Fig. 17 of Ahkter above; Examiner contends that a cylinder inherently has a length and radius).
However, the combination does not disclose a length of 10 cm to 100 cm and a radius of 2 cm to 50 cm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the length and radius of the cannister to be of 10-100cm and 2-50cm respectively, in order to fit the particular procedure being done since this claimed dimension of the cylinder does not change the cannister ability to container liquid. Since applicant has not given any criticality to why the dimension disclosed has any importance to the function of the claimed device (Par. 12 of Applicant’s PG-PUB), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777.
Regarding claim 6, Ahkter in view of Braga suggests the invention of claim 1. The combination further discloses wherein the at least two three-dimensional hollow hydrophobic filters (see annotated Fig. 17 of Ahkter above upon modification) are positioned on opposite sides (see annotated Fig. 17 of Ahkter above) of the first end (see annotated Fig. 17 of Ahkter above upon modification; the first end will have at least two filters stacked upon each other; thus, they are opposite to each other).
Regarding claim 8, Ahkter in view of Braga suggests the invention of claim 1. Ahkter in view of Braga further discloses wherein the at least two three-dimensional hollow hydrophobic filters (see annotated Fig. 17 of Ahkter above upon modification) are positioned on opposite sides (see annotated Fig. 17 of Ahkter above) of the second end (see annotated Fig. 17 of Ahkter above upon modification; the second end will have at least two filters stacked upon each other; thus, they are opposite to each other).
Regarding claim 11, Ahkter in view of Braga suggests the invention of claim 1. The combination further discloses wherein the three-dimensional hollow hydrophobic filters (see annotated Fig. 17 of Ahkter above, upon modification) are three-dimensional hollow filters (Examiner notes that any physical object is three-dimensional, and since Par. 13 of Ahkter discloses that the filters are intended to trap debris/solid particles, there are openings and gaps within the filter for passage of fluid/air).
Regarding claim 12, Ahkter in view of Braga suggests the invention of claim 1. The combination further discloses wherein the three-dimensional hollow hydrophobic filters (see annotated Fig. 17 of Ahkter above, upon modification) are three-dimensional hollow filters (Examiner notes that any physical object is three-dimensional, and since Par. 13 of Ahkter discloses that the filters are intended to trap debris/solid particles, there are openings and gaps within the filter for passage of fluid/air) that project from the first end (see annotated Fig. 17 of Ahkter above) and the second end (see annotated Fig. 17 of Ahkter above) into the cannister (see annotated Fig. 17 of Ahkter above) and are operably coupled to the vacuum source (Fig. 17 of Ahkter (the last Figure) – “Pump” coupled to “Canister”, and Par. 15 of Ahkter – “The apparatus of any embodiment described herein can where the centrifugal pump is configured to generate a vacuum pressure”).
Regarding claim 13, Ahkter in view of Braga suggests the invention of claim 1. The combination further discloses further discloses further comprising an aspiration tube 184 (Fig. 2 of Ahkter and Fig. 17 of Ahkter (the last Figure) coupled to the inlet (see annotated Fig. 17’ of Ahkter above).
Regarding claim 14, Ahkter in view of Braga suggests the invention of claim 13. The combination further discloses further comprising a suction tip 184 (Fig. 2 of Ahkter – suction catheter 184, and Fig. 17 of Ahkter (the last Figure)) coupled to the aspiration tube 176 (Fig. 2 of Ahkter).
Regarding claim 15, Ahkter discloses a portable apparatus (Fig. 17 (the last Figure), and Par. 2 – “the present disclosure relates to methods, apparatuses, and systems… where the apparatus is portable”) for aspirating an airway of a patient (Par. 2 – “the present disclosure relates to methods, apparatuses, and systems that assist in aspirating the airway of a patient and where the apparatus is portable”), the apparatus comprising the liquid collection cannister of claim 1 (see annotated Fig. 17 above; see rejection of claim 1 above) operably coupled to a pump portion (see annotated Fig. 17’ above)
Regarding claim 16, Ahkter suggests the invention of claim 15. Ahkter further discloses wherein the pump portion (see annotated Fig. 17’ above) comprises a controller portion (Fig. 17 (the last Figure) – “Pump Speed Controller”), a vacuum source (Fig. 17 (the last Figure) – “Miniature Diaphragm Pump”), and an optional power source (Examiner interprets this limitation as optional; Fig. 17 (the last Figure) – “Battery Pack”) configured to provide a vacuum to the liquid collection cannister (Fig. 17) during use (Par. 14 – “power source in communication with the controller”).
Regarding claim 17, Ahkter suggests the invention of claim 16. Ahkter further discloses wherein the vacuum source (Fig. 17 (the last Figure) – “Miniature Diaphragm Pump”) is a diaphragm pump (Fig. 17 (the last Figure) – “Miniature Diaphragm Pump”)
Regarding claim 18, Ahkter suggests the invention of claim 16. However, Ahkter does not disclose wherein the vacuum source is configured to generate a vacuum pressure of at least 400 to 550 mmHg.
Ahkter, in another embodiment, teaches wherein the vacuum source is configured to generate a vacuum pressure of at least 400 mmHg (Par. 13 – “The centrifugal pump can be configured to generate a vacuum pressure of at least or about 400, 500, 600, 700, to 800 mmHg”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vacuum pressure of Ahkter’s device from at least 400 mmHg to 400 to 550 mmHg, as applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (Par. 15 of Applicant’s PG-PUB) and since it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists”. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). In the instant case, Braga would not operate differently with the claimed range since Braga’s working range overlaps with the claimed range.
Regarding claim 19, Ahkter suggests the invention of claim 15. Ahkter further discloses where the liquid collection cannister (Fig. 17) has a storage volume (Examiner contends that a cannister inherently has a volume) of at least 0.2 L to 10 L (Par. 13 – “The storage canister can have a storage volume of at least 0.2, 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0 L to 3.0 L”).
Regarding claim 20, Ahkter suggests the invention of claim 15. Ahkter further discloses further comprising a suction tip 184 (Fig. 2 of Ahkter – suction catheter 184, and Fig. 17 of Ahkter (the last Figure)) attachment operably coupled to the inlet (see annotated Fig. 17 above) of the liquid collection cannister (Fig. 2 and Fig. 17).
Regarding claim 21, Ahkter suggests the invention of claim 15. Ahkter further discloses wherein the suction tip 184 (Fig. 2 and Fig. 17 of Ahkter (the last Figure)) includes a filter for trapping debris (Par. 13 – “where the suction tip attachment includes a filter for trapping debris”).
Regarding claim 22, Ahkter suggests the invention of claim 15. Ahkter further discloses wherein the apparatus (Fig. 17 (the last Figure)) has an overall dimensions (Examiner contends that the apparatus inherently has dimensions) of an overall dimension of 3 cm to 100 cm x 5 cm to 50 cm x 5 cm to 50 cm (Par. 13 – “where the apparatus has an overall dimension of 15 cm × 7.5 cm × 7.5 cm to 30 cm × 15 cm × 15 cm. In certain instances the overall dimension is at most 30 cm × 15 cm × 15 cm”, which is within the claimed dimension).
Regarding claim 23, Ahkter suggests the invention of claim 15. Ahkter further discloses wherein the apparatus 240 (Fig. 2) has an overall weight (Examiner contends that the apparatus inherently has a weight) of less than 1.2 kg (Par. 13 – “The apparatus of any embodiment described herein can have an overall weight of less than 0.5, 1.0, or 1.2 kg”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the overall weight of Braga's assembly to be of 0.25 kg to 10 kg, in order to fit the particular procedure being done since this claimed size/dimension of the cannister does not change the cannister ability to container liquid. Since applicant has not given any criticality to why the dimension disclosed has any importance to the function of the claimed device (Par. 50 of Applicant's PG-PUB), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner V. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahkter in view of Braga as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Johnson, III et al. US 6,093,230 A (previously cited, hereinafter Johnson).
Regarding claim 9, Ahkter in view of Braga suggests the invention of claim 1. However, the combination does not disclose wherein the three-dimensional hollow hydrophobic filters are paper filters.
Johnson, in the same field of endeavor of filters for medical suction canisters (Col. 1, line 8-10), teaches wherein the filter 46 (Fig. 4 – filter 46) are paper filter (Col. 4, line 44-60 – “The aerosol trap 46 (FIG. 4) preferably includes a first filter… The first filter is preferably a paper material...)”.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the filters of the combination to be paper filters as taught by Johnson, in order to provide an efficient trap of microorganisms and particulates (Col. 4, line 60-64 of Johnson). One of ordinary skill in the art also would have had the technological capability to recognize that paper filters are bio-degradable, thus helping with environmental waste.
Regarding claim 10, Ahkter in view of Braga suggests the invention of claim 1. However, the combination does not currently disclose wherein the three-dimensional hydrophobic filters comprise a paper filter on a mesh support.
Johnson, in the same field of endeavor of filters for medical suction canisters (Col. 1, line 8-10), teaches wherein the filters comprise a paper filter (Col. 4, line 44-60 – “The aerosol trap 46 (FIG. 4) preferably includes a first filter… The first filter is preferably a paper material…”) on a mesh support (Col. 1, line 57-60 – “The aerosol trap is a combination of two discs of filter material positioned on each side of a polyethylene web or grid”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the filters of the combination to be paper filters as taught by Johnson, in order to provide an efficient trap of microorganisms and particulates (Col. 1, line 61-62 of Johnson, and Col. 4, line 60-64 of Johnson).
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 QUYNH DAO LE whose telephone number is (571)272-7198. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 5:30 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sarah Al-Hashimi can be reached at (571) 272-7159. 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.
/QUYNH DAO LE/Examiner, Art Unit 3781
/PHILIP R WIEST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781
Prosecution Insights