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 .
Applicant’s election traverse of Group II, claims 15-19 in the reply filed on 11/25/2025 is acknowledged.
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.
Claim(s) 15, and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moreau (US2015/0165496A1) in view of Morejon (US5709691).
Re claim 15, Moreau teaches a method of clearing a blockage in a G-tube (paragraph 4, fig. 1, element 110) comprising inserting ana elongated shaft 160 into the G-tube having a blockage, wherein the elongated shaft extends from a proximal end (element 105) to a distal end (element 190 of Fig. 1), and the shaft defines a second lumen (i.e. lumen within conduit 160), moving the shaft distally into the tube until the distal end reaches the blockage (300 of Fig. 1) and injecting a second fluid (i.e. saline, paragraph 58) so as to contact and clear the blockage from the G-tube.
Re claim 15, Moreau teaches the invention substantially as claimed with the exception of the shaft further comprising a first lumen extending from a proximal end to a position removed from a tip of the distal end, and injecting a first fluid into the first lumen so as to inflate a balloon attached to the elongated shaft. Morejon teaches an endotracheal tube cleaning device (Fig. 5, element 20) comprising inserting a shaft into a tube 80 (Fig. 6), wherein the shaft 20 comprises a plurality of lumens (30, 50 70, Fig. 5), wherein a first lumen 30 extends from a proximal end 34 to a position 32 removed from a tip 52 at the distal end, and injecting a first fluid, such as air to inflate the bladder 40 (col. 5, lines 40-50, col. 7, lines 10-15) by use of a hypodermic syringe, wherein the expandable bladder having an exterior sheath cleans the interior wall of the endotracheal tube (col. 3, lines 15-35). 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 method of Moreau, to include a first lumen extending from a proximal end to a position removed from the tip of the distal end and injecting a fluid into the first lumen to inflate a balloon, as taught by Morejon, for purposes of performing the same function of effectively removing obstructions/blockage, thereby cleaning the interior wall of the medical tubing. Re claim 17, refer to col. 7, lines 10-15 of Morejon. Re claim 18, refer to Fig. 1 and paragraph 58 of Moreau. Re claim 19, refer to col. 7, lines 10-15 of Morejon and Fig.1, paragraph 58 of Moreau.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moreau (US2015/0165496A1) in view of Morejon (US5709691) and further in view of Kolobow et al. (US2005/0172971).
It is noted that Moreau teaches using saline (paragraph 58) as the second fluid as previously discussed above. Additionally, Morejon teaches using air (col. 5, lines 40-45) as the first fluid to inflate the bladder 40.
Moreau in view of Morejon teach the invention substantially as claimed with the exception of using water or saline as a first fluid to inflate the balloon. Kolobow et al. teach a cleaning apparatus for cleaning endotracheal tubes wherein the cleaning apparatus comprises an inflatable balloon 40 for removing deposits from the interior of the endotracheal tube (abstract), wherein air or water are used commonly to inflate the balloon (paragraph 28). 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 modified method of Moreau to include equivalent fluids, such as water, as taught by Kolobow et al., for purposes of performing the same function of inflating the balloon used for cleaning and removing deposits from the interior of medical tubings.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Goelz teaches a feeding and medicating device. Morejon teaches cleaning with an abrasive bladder. Bracken et al. teach cleaning endotracheal tubings.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sharidan Carrillo whose telephone number is (571)272-1297. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7:00am-4:00pm.
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 Barr can be reached at 571-272-1414. 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.
Sharidan Carrillo
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1711
/Sharidan Carrillo/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711 bsc