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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 26 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant has amended claim 1 to include the limitations of claim 6 which is reformatted below and rejected under the same header as now cancelled claim 6. Applicant argues the prior art fails to teach a mechanism capable of actively switching flow paths to control suction and maintain negative pressure. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes the Weston device already teaches the location of the connector but lacks teaching of the valve inside the connector. Weston further comprising a three-way connector (1038) with multiple valves with an airflow passage, wherein the airflow passage is connected to a first connecting port (end of 1038 connected to syringe), a second connecting port (opposite the T junction) and a pressure detection port (outlet of 1042), wherein the first connecting port is connected to the suction port of the suction component (figure 15). Bernstein discloses a would treatment device and teaches a three-way valve ([0097]) that moderates the pump. The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Here, Weston already teaches the location of the connector but fails to teach the switching limitation of the connector. Bernstein is introduced to teach the three way valve capable of switching. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date to modify Weston with the three way check valve of Bernstein since three way check valves are a known substitute for multiple valves. The modification would not destroy the intended operation of the device and the Bernstein three way valve assists with controlling movement of material ([0097]) similar to what is accomplished in Weston.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). Here, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to replace the multiple valves in Weston with the single three way valve of Bernstein since three way check valves are a known substitute for multiple valves.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-5, 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weston (US 2010/0042074) in view of Bernstein (US 2010/0150991).
Regarding claim 1, Weston discloses a negative pressure medical device (1010, figure 15), comprising:
a suction component (1018, [0189]) including a cylinder body (1024) having a chamber (chamber inside the syringe), wherein one end of the cylinder body has a suction port connected to the chamber(end closer to the T connector), and the other end of the cylinder body opposite the suction port has an insertion port (port to put the piston 1022 into, figure 15), wherein a plunger rod (1022) is disposed in the chamber, such that the plunger rod is movable in a direction along the suction port and the insertion port ([0189]), and wherein the plunger rod abuts an inner peripheral wall of the cylinder body by an airtight component (1020); and
a care component (1034) configured to cover skin around a wound area of a user to maintain a negative pressure environment between the care component and the wound area ([0189]), wherein the care component is connected to the suction port of the suction component, such that gas of the negative pressure environment flows unidirectionally to the suction component ([0189], when suction is applied, the gas flows unidirectionally to the location of the negative pressure).
Weston further comprising a three-way connector (1038) with multiple valves with an airflow passage, wherein the airflow passage is connected to a first connecting port (end of 1038 connected to syringe), a second connecting port (opposite the T junction) and a pressure detection port (outlet of 1042), wherein the first connecting port is connected to the suction port of the suction component (figure 15), wherein the pressure detection port is connected to a pressure meter (1120, figure 16), wherein the care component has an attachment surface (1034 is attached to the body and has an attachment surface [0189]) and a through hole (hole that 1035 fits into, see for example figure 1), and wherein an opening at one end of the through hole is located at the attachment surface (figure 1), and an opening at the other end of the through hole is connected to the second connecting port of the three-way valve (figure 15).
Weston does not disclose a three-way valve, wherein the three-way valve includes a switching component for switching the connection between the airflow passage and the first connecting port, the second connecting port, and the pressure detection port, respectively.
Bernstein discloses a would treatment device and teaches a three-way valve ([0097]) that moderates the pump, wherein the three-way valve includes a switching component for switching the connection between the airflow passage and the first connecting port, the second connecting port, and the pressure detection port, respectively ([0097]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date to modify Weston with the three way check valve of Bernstein since three way check valves are a known substitute for multiple valves. The modification would not destroy the intended operation of the device and the Bernstein three way valve assists with controlling movement of material ([0097]) similar to what is accomplished in Weston.
Regarding claim 2, Weston discloses wherein one end of the cylinder body is shrunk to form the suction port (figure 15, the syringe narrows to fit into smaller diameter section of 1038).
Regarding claim 3, Weston discloses wherein the chamber adjacent to the suction port forms a stopping part by reducing a diameter of the cylinder body (figure 15 depicts the volume of the chamber which extends and narrows and thus forms a reduction in diameter).
Regarding claim 4, Weston discloses wherein the airtight component is a plug ([0189], the piston is in the form of a plug), and wherein the airtight component is located at one end of the plunger rod facing the suction port (figure 15).
Regarding claim 5 Weston discloses wherein the airtight component is a ring (the piston is in the shape of a ring), and wherein the airtight component is disposed around a circumferential surface of the plunger rod (1020 is around the rod 1022), such that the airtight component radially abuts the inner peripheral wall of the cylinder body (figure 15).
Regarding claim 7, Weston discloses wherein the airflow passage is a T-shaped channel (1038 is T shaped), such that the first connecting port and the second connecting port are located at opposite ends in an X-direction (from 1035-1038 to the syringe), and the pressure detection port is located at an end in a Y-direction perpendicular to the X-direction (conduit leading to 1040, figure 15).
Regarding claim 8, Weston discloses wherein the through hole of the care component is connected to the second connecting port of the three-way valve by a connecting hose (1035, figure 15).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 KAI H WENG whose telephone number is (571)272-5852. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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.
/KAI H WENG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781
Prosecution Insights