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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 2, 4-7, 16, 18, and 21-29 are pending, claims 16, 18, 21, and 22 have been withdrawn from consideration, and claims 1, 2, 4-7, and 23-29 are currently under consideration for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104.
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, 2, 4, and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crowley (U.S. 2006/0173438).
With respect to claim 1, Crowey teaches a coupling device for a medical system, comprising:
a first portion, wherein the first portion includes a first body (10) and a first strap (40), wherein the first strap extends outwardly from the first body and is configured to couple a first medical device to the first portion (para [0021]); and
a second portion, wherein the second portion includes a second body (30) and a second strap (para [0023]), wherein the second strap extends outwardly from the second body and is configured to couple a second medical device to the second portion (para [0023]),
wherein the first portion and the second portion are removably couplable (para [0020]).
While Crowley does not explicitly teach that when coupled, the second portion is rotatable relative to the first portion, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the peg and hole configuration depicted in FIG. 1 would allow for the second portion to rotate relative to the first portion.
With respect to claim 2, Crowley teaches the first body includes a first coupling projection (20), and wherein the second body includes a second coupling projection (31) configured to be coupled to the first coupling projection (FIG. 1).
With respect to claim 4, Crowley teaches the first body includes a first magnet and wherein the second body includes a second magnet of opposite polarity to the first magnet (para [0020]).
With respect to claim 26, Crowley teaches the first strap is configured to wrap around a handle of the first medical device, and wherein the second strap is configured to wrap around a handle of the second medical device (para [0021],[0023]).
Claim(s) 5-7, 24, 25, and 27-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crowley (U.S. 2006/0173438) in view of Gu (U.S. 2023/0109955).
Crowley teaches a coupling device as set forth above. However, Crowley does not teach a plurality of protrusions.
With respect to claim 5, Gu teaches the first body includes a plurality of first protrusions arranged circumferentially around the first magnet (16), and wherein the second body includes a plurality of second protrusions arranged circumferentially around the second magnet, wherein the second protrusions are (24) configured to abut and rotate relative to the first protrusions (para [0033]-[0035]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the coupling projections of Crowley to utilize the protrusions surrounding the magnet as taught by Gu in order to increase the frictional force required to rotate the first body with respect to the second body, thereby reducing accidental or unintended rotation between the two.
With respect to claim 6, Gu does not expressly teach the protrusions are trapezoidal with angled side surfaces. However, such a modification would only require a change of shape of the protrusions disclosed in Gu. A change of shape has generally held to be within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to claim 7, Gu teaches the first body further includes a circular depression, wherein the first protrusions are positioned within the circular depression (FIG. 2).
With respect to claim 24, Gu teaches the angled side surfaces of the first protrusions and the second protrusions are configured to guide the second portion away from the first portion during rotation of the second portion relative to the first portion (FIG. 2 for example).
With respect to claim 25, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Gu so that the circular depression surrounds the first magnet, and wherein the first protrusions are positioned within the circular depression around the first magnet because doing so would require a simple rearrangement of parts; rearrangement of parts has been held to be within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to claim 27, Crowley teaches a coupling device for a medical system, comprising:
a first portion including a first body (10) and a first strap (40), wherein the first strap is configured to wrap around a handle of a first medical device to couple the first medical device to the first portion (para [0021]);
a second portion including a second body (30) and a second strap (para [0023]), wherein the second strap is configured to wrap around a handle of a second medical device to couple the second medical device to the second portion (para [0023]);
wherein the first body includes a first magnet and the second body includes a second magnet of opposite polarity to the first magnet (para [0020]).
However, Crowley does not teach a plurality of protrusions.
With respect to claim 27, Gu teaches wherein the first body includes a plurality of first protrusions arranged circumferentially around the first magnet and the second body includes a plurality of second protrusions arranged circumferentially around the second magnet, wherein the second protrusions are configured to abut and rotate relative to the first protrusions (16, 24, para [0033]-[0035]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the coupling projections of Crowley to utilize the protrusions surrounding the magnet as taught by Gu in order to increase the frictional force required to rotate the first body with respect to the second body, thereby reducing accidental or unintended rotation between the two.
With respect to claim 28, Crowley does not explicitly teach that when coupled, the second portion is rotatable relative to the first portion. However it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the peg and hole configuration depicted in FIG. 1 would allow for the second portion to rotate relative to the first portion.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 23 and 29 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 Alexandra Newton Surgan whose telephone number is (571)270-1618. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-4pm EST.
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 Carey can be reached at (571) 270-7235. 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.
/ALEXANDRA L NEWTON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799
Prosecution Insights