DETAILED ACTION
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 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 under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the plurality of cantilevered fingers (claim 38) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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
Claim 33 is objected to because of the following informalities:
line 2 should be amended to – [[a]] the feeding catheter as claimed in claim 1;-.
line 7 should be amended to - through, the [[guide]] guiding passageway having a bend for maintaining the catheter in-. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 46 is objected to because of the following informalities:
line 3 should be amended to – providing [[a]] the feeding catheter as claimed in any one of claims 1 to 32 claim 1;-.
line 6 should be amended to - inserting [[a]] the first end of the feeding catheter through the distal opening of-. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 3, 6, 7, 10, 17, 21, 22, 24, 26, 33, 38, 44 and 46-52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1:
The limitation “a flexible membrane web wall extending completely between all but one pair of adjacent ribs to define a single side facing opening located between the one pair of adjacent ribs configured for fluid to exit into the gastrointestinal tract” (emphasis added by the examiner) in lines 16-18 is new matter. This limitation is new matter because the original disclosure does not support this amendment. The limitation is not found in the original claims, specification or abstract. The drawings do show various embodiments but none show an embodiment where all but one pair of adjacent ribs have a flexible membrane web between them. The closest embodiment to the claim would be the one shown in figure 4b that includes two ribs (153) which lack a flexible membrane web on one side but they do include a flexible membrane web on the other. For this reason, the embodiment in figure 4b would not support the limitation since the two adjacent ribs do include a flexible membrane web wall between them on one side even though the other side between the two adjacent ribs do not. For this reason, the limitation is rejected as new matter.
Claims 3, 6, 7, 10, 17, 21, 22, 24, 26, 33, 38, 44 and 46-52 are rejected due to their dependence on claim 1.
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 3, 6, 7, 10, 17, 22, 26, 33, 38, 44 and 49 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.
Regarding claim 3:
The claim recites the limitation "the pair of adjacent ribs" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The limitation “the ribs” in line 3 is unclear. Several ribs have been established in the claims (see “the pair of adjacent ribs” in line 2 of claim 3 and “plurality of ribs” in line 14 of claim 1) and its unclear which structure this limitation refers to. for the sake of examination, the office has assumed that the limitation in line 3 refers to adjacent ribs described in line 2 of claim 3. The applicant should amend the claim to clarify.
Regarding claim 6:
The claim recites the limitation "the adjacent ribs" in lines 2 and 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 7:
The term “approximately” in line 4 of the claim is unclear. The term is unclear since it suggests an acceptable range around the 140º angular orientation however the claims and specification fail to shed light on what this acceptable range would be. For this reason, the “approximately” limitation is unclear and by extension the claim is as well. For the sake of examination, the office has taken the interpretation that the limitation of b) requires the angular orientation to be 140 º apart. The applicant should amend the claim to clarify.
Regarding claim 10:
The term “approximately” in line 5 of the claim is unclear. The limitation is unclear for the same reasons indicated in the claim 7 rejection above and the office has taken the same interpretation.
Regarding claim 17:
The claim recites the limitation "the retention member" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The office has interpreted this as the retention feature.
Regarding claim 22:
The limitation “a) three to five ribs, or b) three ribs” in lines 3-4 are unclear. The limitations are unclear because they establish three to five ribs or three ribs but it is unclear if this is part of the plurality of ribs established in line 14 of claim 1 or if it is part of the same structure. For the sake of examination, the office has assumed that the ribs established in claim 22 are part of the plurality of ribs in claim 1. However, the applicant should amend the claims to clarify.
Regarding claim 26:
The terms “approximately” in lines 3, 5, 7 and 9 of the claim are unclear. The limitations are unclear for the same reasons indicated in the claim 7 rejection above and the office has taken the same interpretation.
Regarding claim 33:
The claim limitation “a bent position” in the final line is unclear. The limitation is unclear because of the earlier recitation of the limitation “a bent position” in line 8 of the claim which raises a question of if two bent positions are required by the claim or only one. For the sake of examination, the office has assumed that only one bent position is required by the claim.
Claim 38 is rejected due to its dependence on claim 33.
Regarding claim 44:
The claim limitation “A nutrient recycling device for transferring fluid digestive
contents from a proximal opening of a gastrointestinal tract to a distal opening of a
gastrointestinal tract…” in lines 1-3 is unclear. Its unclear where the preamble of the claim ends and where the body of the claim begins and for this reason its unclear what structure the claim requires. For the sake of examination, the office has assumed that the preamble of the claim ends with the term “comprising” in line 3. However, the applicant should amend the claim to clarify.
Regarding claim 49:
The claim recites the limitation "the extended diameter portion" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The office has interpreted this as the retention feature.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 7, 10, 17, 22, 24, 26 and 44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20100057013 A1 to Harada in view of WO 9427656 A1 to Goldhardt et al. (Goldhardt).
Regarding claim 1:
Harada discloses:
A feeding catheter (figure 12 and 13) adapted to transfer fluid into an opening of a gastrointestinal tract (¶0063), the feeding catheter comprising:
a hollow tube (11) having:
a first end (see the first end A in figure 1 below) adapted to be inserted into a distal portion of the gastrointestinal tract through a distal opening (¶0063);
a second end (see the second end B in figure 1 below) adapted to be connected to a fluid source (fluid feeding tube as indicated in ¶0050); and
a tube lumen (11a) between the first end (A in figure 1 below) and the second end (B in figure 1 below) of the hollow tube (11) defining a fluid pathway (¶0050);
a retention feature (40) adapted to retain at least a portion of the feeding catheter in the distal portion of the gastrointestinal tract (internal holding member as described in ¶0055), the retention feature (40) located at or towards the first end (A in figure 1 below) of the hollow tube (11) (as shown in figure 1 below) and comprises:
an insertion end (see the insertion end C in figures 1 and 2 below) and a trailing end (see the trailing end D in figures 1 and 2 below), the trailing end (D in figures 1 and 2 below) located at or towards the first end (A in figure 1 below) of the hollow tube (11) (as shown in figures 1 and 2 below);
a plurality of ribs (42a, 42b, 42c and 42d as shown in figure 13) extending outwardly and longitudinally away from the hollow tube (11) and terminating at a nose junction (as shown in figure 12);
a flexible membrane web wall (43a, 43b, 43c and 43d) extending between adjacent ribs (42a, 42b, 42c and 42d) (as shown in figures 12 and 13); and
wherein the retention feature (40) comprises a relaxed condition (relaxed condition shown in figure 12) and a stretched condition (stretched condition shown in figure 5) for insertion through the distal opening (¶0041); and
wherein a maximum width of the retention feature (40) in the stretched condition is less than a maximum width of the retention feature (40) in the relaxed condition (as shown in figures 5 and 12 where the diameter in the stretched position of figure 5 is less than the diameter in the relaxed position shown in figure 12), and
wherein the retention feature (40) forms a partially open bulbous shape in the relaxed condition (see the bulbous shape as shown in figure 12).
Harada fails to disclose:
A flexible membrane web wall extending completely between all but one pair of adjacent ribs to define a single side facing opening located between the one pair of adjacent ribs configured for fluid to exit into the gastrointestinal tract.
Goldhardt teaches:
A feeding tube (figures 1 -20) that includes a hollow tube (31) with a retention feature (38). Further, the reference includes multiple embodiments that include 1 single side opening (as shown in figures 4-6) to multiple side openings (as shown in figures 7-20). The reference further teaches the number and size of apertures is dependent on the amount of nutrients flowing through the device (figure 8, second paragraph).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Harada to include a single side opening with the other ribs closed by the webbing as taught by Goldhardt depending on the amount of nutrients flowing through the feeding tube device (Goldhardt, figure 8, second paragraph).
PNG
media_image1.png
720
477
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1 – figure 12 of Harada, annotated by the examiner
PNG
media_image2.png
734
318
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 2 – figure 5 of Harada, annotated by the examiner
Regarding claim 3:
All limitations of the claim are taught by the 35 USC 103 rejection of claim 1 by Harada and Goldhardt :
The feeding catheter as claimed in claim 1,wherein the pair of adjacent ribs (42a, 42b, 42c and 42d of Harada) forming the side facing opening lacks a web wall (43a, 43b, 43c and 43d) between the ribs (42a, 42b, 42c and 42d of Harada)(see the opening between one of the adjacent ribs as taught by Goldhardt and incorporated into Harada).
Regarding claim 7:
Harada discloses:
The feeding catheter as claimed in claim 1,wherein the ribs (42a, 42b, 42c and 42d) forming the side facing opening have:
a) an angular orientation less than 180° apart (see figure 13 where the ribs are oriented at 90° apart), or
b) an angular orientation of approximately 140° apart.
Regarding claim 10:
Harada discloses:
The feeding catheter as claimed in claim 1, wherein the web wall has a wall thickness:
a)less than a wall thickness of the plurality of ribs (see figure 13 and the membrane 43d/46d which is thinner that the rib 42a), or
b) less than 20% the wall thickness of the ribs, or c) approximately 10% to 20% of the wall thickness of the ribs.
Regarding claim 17:
Harada discloses:
The feeding catheter as claimed in claim 1,wherein the tube lumen (11a) is configured to receive an introducer (31 as shown in figure 6), and wherein the introducer is configured to engage with an internal surface of the nose junction (C in figure 2 above) to force the retention member from the relaxed condition to the stretched condition (as shown in figure 5).
Regarding claim 22:
Harada discloses:
The feeding catheter as claimed claim 1,wherein the retention feature (40) comprises;
a) three to five ribs (4 ribs 42a, 42b, 42c and 42d as shown in figure 13), or
b)three ribs.
Regarding claim 24:
Harada discloses:
The feeding catheter as claimed in claim 1,wherein the hollow tube (11) comprises:
a neck portion (see neck E in figure 1 above) located towards the first end (A in figure 1 below); and
an extended diameter portion (see F in figure 1 above) located towards the second end (B in figure 1 above), and
wherein the extended diameter portion has a tube diameter greater than the neck portion (as shown in figure 1 above the diameter of F is greater than the diameter of E).
Regarding claim 26:
Harada fails to disclose:
The feeding catheter as claimed in claim 24,wherein:
a) the extended diameter portion comprises an external diameter approximately between 10mm and 20mm, or
b) the extended diameter portion comprises an external diameter approximately between 10mm and 15mm, or
c) the neck portion comprises an external diameter approximately between 4mm and 12mm, or
d) the neck portion comprises an external diameter approximately between 8mm and 10mm.
Goldhardt teaches:
A feeding catheter where the external diameter of the tube can be 6 to 9.3 mm (page 7, ¶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 modify Harada to modify the external diameter of the neck portion to 6 to 9.3mm (overlapping with 8 mm to 10mm) as taught by Goldhardt depending on the patient that the the feeding tube device used (Goldhardt, page 7, ¶3).
Regarding claim 44:
Harada discloses:
A nutrient recycling device for transferring fluid digestive contents from a proximal opening of a gastrointestinal tract to a distal opening of a gastrointestinal tract (see claim 18 and as indicated in ¶0050) comprising a feeding catheter (figure 12 and 13) as claimed in claim 1.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20100057013 A1 to Harada and WO 9427656 A1 to Goldhardt et al. (Goldhardt) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 4642092 A to Moss.
Regarding claim 21:
Harada and Goldhardt fail to disclose:
The feeding catheter as claimed in claim 1, further comprising an aperture on the hollow tube towards the first end of the tube to provide a suction break.
Moss teaches:
A gastrointestinal aspirating device (figure 1) that include a catheter/lumen (12) that further includes a suction break (23/25) to prevent the patients membranes from being drawn into the catheter/lumen (column 4, lines 1-6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Harada and Goldhardt to further include an apertures on the first end of the tube as taught by Moss to prevent membranes of the patient from being drawn into the hollow tube/catheter.
Claim(s) 33 and 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20100057013 A1 to Harada and WO 9427656 A1 to Goldhardt et al. (Goldhardt) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of EP 0648512 A1 to Van Heesch.
Regarding claim 33:
Harada discloses:
A feeding catheter and elbow guide assembly comprising:
a feeding catheter as claimed in claim 1 (see the rejection of claim 1 above by Harada and Goldhardt).
Harada fails to disclose:
An at least semi-rigid elbow guide for receiving and guiding the feeding catheter in a flexible bag, the at least semi-rigid elbow guide comprising:
a guide body having a first end and a second end, and a guiding passageway extending between the first end and second end for the feeding catheter to pass through, the guide passageway having a bend for maintaining the catheter in a bent position and the guiding passageway having a first passage opening and a second passage opening; and
a flange at the first end of the guide body to engage with an exterior surface of the patient's body adapted to maintain the position of the feeding catheter; and
wherein the first passage opening is located towards an edge of the flange such that there is a substantial engaging surface area located away from the edge to engage with the exterior surface of the patient's body; and
wherein the at least semi-rigid elbow guide is positioned over the feeding catheter to maintain the catheter in a bent position.
Van Heesch teaches:
An at least semi-rigid elbow guide (see figure 3) for receiving and guiding the feeding catheter in a flexible bag (interpreted as intended use), the at least semi-rigid elbow guide comprising:
a guide body (3/5) having a first end (see the first end G in figure 3 below) and a second end (see the second end F in figure 3 below), and a guiding passageway (see the guiding passageway H in figure 3 below) extending between the first end and second end for the feeding catheter to pass through, the guide passageway having a bend (6) for maintaining the catheter in a bent position (as shown in figure 4) and the guiding passageway having a first passage opening (see the first opening at F in figure 3 below) and a second passage opening (see the second opening at G in figure 3 below); and
a flange (7) at the first end of the guide body to engage with an exterior surface (as shown in figure 4) of the patient's body adapted to maintain the position of the feeding catheter; and
wherein the first passage opening is located towards an edge (see how the first opening at F is located at the edge or bottom of flange 7) of the flange such that there is a substantial engaging surface area (bottom surface of 7 against the skin of the patient as shown in figure 7) located away from the edge to engage with the exterior surface of the patient's body (as shown in figure 4); and
wherein the at least semi-rigid elbow guide is positioned over the feeding catheter to maintain the catheter in a bent position (as shown in figure 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Harada to include the elbow guide as taught by Van Heesch to direct the catheter leaving the body of the user in order to reduce the load on the wound of the user (see the abstract of Van Heesch). This would include adding the guide body, flange and associated structures as required by the claim.
PNG
media_image3.png
437
558
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 3 – figure 3 of Van Heesch, annotated by the examiner
Regarding claim 38:
All limitations of the claim are taught by the 35 USC 103 rejection of claim 1 and by Harada, Goldhardt and Van Heesch:
The feeding catheter and elbow guide assembly as claimed in claim 33,wherein the guide body (see the guide body 3 of Van Heesch incorporated into Harada) comprises a plurality of cantilevered fingers (see the plurality of cantilevered arms 8/9/10 that are part of the guide body 3 of Van Heesch incorporated into Harada) generally encompassing the guiding passageway and configured to resiliently grip a feeding catheter (as shown in Van Heesch).
Claim(s) 46-48 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20100057013 A1 to Harada and WO 9427656 A1 to Goldhardt et al. (Goldhardt) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20200390590 A1 to O'Grady et al. (O'Grady).
Regarding claim 46:
All limitations of the claim are taught by the 35 USC 103 rejection of claim 1 by Harada and Goldhardt:
A method of using a feeding catheter to transfer fluid contents from a flexible bag to a distal opening of the gastrointestinal tract comprising:
providing a feeding catheter as claimed in claim 1 (see the feeding catheter of claim 1 in the of Harada and Goldhardt);
stretching the retention feature into its stretched condition for insertion of the feeding catheter through the distal opening of the gastrointestinal tract (as shown in figure 5 where the retention feature 20/40 is stretched to a smaller diameter);
inserting a first end of the feeding catheter through the distal opening of the gastrointestinal tract into a distal portion of the gastrointestinal tract (¶0054 describes the insertion process);
releasing the retention feature such that it returns to its relaxed condition in the gastrointestinal tract (¶0054 described this and further figure 12 shows this shape).
Harada and Goldhardt fail to disclose:
positioning the flexible bag over the distal opening of the gastrointestinal tract.
O'Grady teaches:
A method (figure 10a) for using a feeding catheter (45’ and 45’’) including positioning the flexible bag (1/10) over the distal opening (3) of the gastrointestinal tract (7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Harada and Goldhardt to further include a flexible bag over the distal opening of the gastrointestinal tract as taught by O'Grady in order to capture and supply/recycle nutrients to a patient (O'Grady, ¶0205).
Regarding claim 47:
Harada discloses:
The method of using a feeding catheter as claimed in claim 46, wherein the retention feature is stretched (as shown in figure 5) using an introducer (31 as shown in figure 6).
Regarding claim 48:
Harada and Goldhardt fail to disclose:
The method of using a feeding catheter as claimed in claim 46, further comprising connecting a pump to the second end of the hollow tube before positioning the flexible bag.
O'Grady teaches:
A feeding catheter that further includes a pump (100) at the end of the catheter that is positioned within the bag (1/10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Harada and Goldhardt to include a pump within the bag as taught by O'Grady to pump the nutrients from the bag into the user (O'Grady, ¶0220).
Claim(s) 50-52 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20100057013 A1 to Harada, WO 9427656 A1 to Goldhardt et al. (Goldhardt) and O'Grady et al. (O'Grady) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of EP 0648512 A1 to Van Heesch.
Regarding claim 50:
Harada and Goldhardt fail to disclose:
The method of using a feeding catheter as claimed in claim 46, further comprising positioning an at least semi-rigid elbow guide over the feeding catheter to provide a catheter bend.
Van Heesch teaches:
An at least semi-rigid elbow guide (see figure 3) for receiving and guiding the feeding catheter in a flexible bag (interpreted as intended use), the at least semi-rigid elbow guide comprising:
a guide body (3/5) having a first end (see the first end G in figure 3 below) and a second end (see the second end F in figure 3 below), and a guiding passageway (see the guiding passageway H in figure 3 below) extending between the first end and second end for the feeding catheter to pass through, the guide passageway having a bend (6) for maintaining the catheter in a bent position (as shown in figure 4) and the guiding passageway having a first passage opening (see the first opening at F in figure 3 below) and a second passage opening (see the second opening at G in figure 3 below); and
a flange (7) at the first end of the guide body to engage with an exterior surface (as shown in figure 4) of the patient's body adapted to maintain the position of the feeding catheter; and
wherein the first passage opening is located towards an edge (see how the first opening at F is located at the edge or bottom of flange 7) of the flange such that there is a substantial engaging surface area (bottom surface of 7 against the skin of the patient as shown in figure 7) located away from the edge to engage with the exterior surface of the patient's body (as shown in figure 4); and
wherein the at least semi-rigid elbow guide is positioned over the feeding catheter to maintain the catheter in a bent position (as shown in figure 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Harada, Goldhardt and O'Grady to further include an at least semi-rigid elbow guide over the feeding catheter to provide a catheter bend as taught by Van Heesch to direct the catheter leaving the body of the user in order to reduce the load on the wound of the user (see the abstract of Van Heesch).
Regarding claim 51:
All limitations of the claim are taught by the 35 USC 103 rejection of claim 50 by Harada, Goldhardt, O'Grady and Van Heesch:
The method of using a feeding catheter as claimed in claim 50 wherein the at least semi-rigid elbow guide is positioned such that the feeding catheter is guided downwards such that the second end is located towards a bottom region of the flexible bag (the elbow guide of Van Heesch performs this function of directing the catheter downward which is incorporated into Harada and O'Grady incorporates the structure of the bad and the catheter being arranged downward as well which would be incorporated into Harada accordingly).
Regarding claim 52:
All limitations of the claim are taught by the 35 USC 103 rejection of claim 50 by Harada, Goldhardt, O'Grady and Van Heesch:
The method of using a feeding catheter as claimed in claim 50, further comprising sliding the at least semi-rigid elbow guide to position the catheter bend along the length of the catheter (O'Grady teaches an elbow guide 5 arranged over the catheter in the bag and Van Heesch teaches an elbow guide arranged in the same manner other the catheter which would be incorporated into Harada accordingly).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following is pertinent prior art:
US-20080058730-A1
MELSHEIMER
See the ribs 28
US-20120238959-A1
Thorne
See the ribs 36
US-20100185155-A1
McMichael
See the ribs 26
US-5248302-A
Patrick
See the ribs 26
US-5273529-A
Idowu
See the ribs 16
US-5749826-A
Faulkner
See the ribs 26
US-5267969-A
Hirsch
See the elbow 30
WO-2011018682-A2
DE LUTIO
See the ribs 4
WO-2019073365-A1
O'GRADY
See the bag 1
WO-2011069505-A1
PEDERSEN
See the ribs 10
DE-3432937-A
WEEKS
See the elbow 10
WO-2006111416-A1
MABUCHI
See the ribs 22b
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WESLEY HARRIS whose telephone number is (571)272-3665. The examiner can normally be reached M to 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, Michael Tsai can be reached on (571) 270-5246. 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.
/WESLEY G HARRIS/Examiner, Art Unit 3783