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 .
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 following claimed limitations must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s):
Claim 4 – “wherein at least one of the plurality of roller elements is configured to contact the flexible tubing directly”
Claim 5 – “wherein at least one of the plurality of roller elements is configured to contact the flexible tubing indirectly through at least one intervening layer”
Claim 7 – “wherein at least one of the plurality of roller elements has a coating layer disposed thereon such that the coating layer contacts the flexible tubing directly”
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5, 7, 8, 14, 18, 20, and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liu, Foreign Patent Document, CN105239948.
Regarding independent claim 1, Liu discloses a flexible tubing guidance device (1, 2, Fig. 2) comprising: a body portion (11, Fig. 2) having a bore (bore 16, Fig. 3 where 3 passes through 11, Fig. 2) formed therein; a plurality of roller elements (12, Fig. 2) disposed within the body portion (11, Fig. 2) and at least partially extending into the bore to contact flexible tubing passing through the bore (12, contacts flexible tubing 3, Fig. 2); and a clamping mechanism (2, Fig. 2) configured to apply a clamping force to an exterior of the flexible tubing exiting the bore (Paragraph [0008], lines 6-8).
Regarding claim 2, Liu discloses wherein the plurality of roller elements is at least one of: configured to roll in a direction substantially in-line with a longitudinal axis of the bore (12 in line with longitudinal axis of bore 16 coincident with tubing 3, Fig. 2, 3); and provided in a substantially linear arrangement that extends along a longitudinal axis of the bore (12 provided in a linear arrangement that extends along axis of bore 16 coincident with tubing 3, Fig. 2, 3).
Regarding claim 5, Liu discloses wherein at least one of the plurality of roller elements is configured to contact the flexible tubing indirectly through at least one intervening layer (13, Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 7, Liu discloses wherein at least one of the plurality of roller elements has a coating layer disposed thereon such that the coating layer contacts the flexible tubing directly (13, Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 8, Liu discloses wherein the plurality of roller elements comprises at least two roller elements offset from one another around the bore at an angle in the range of about 45°-180° (rollers 12 offset within claimed range, Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 14, Liu discloses wherein at least one of: the bore is substantially linear (bore is coincident with 3, and extends linearly, Fig. 2); and at least a portion of the bore is of closed-curve cross-sectional geometry (16, Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 18, Liu discloses wherein the clamping mechanism is disposed at least one of: at an end of the body portion (clamping mechanism 2 disposed at an end of body 11, Fig. 2); and outside of the body portion (clamping mechanism 2 disposed outside of body 11, Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 20, Liu discloses wherein the clamping mechanism comprises: a plurality of jaw elements (24, Fig. 2); and a drive element configured to drive the plurality of jaw elements radially inward toward one another in applying the clamping force to the exterior of the flexible tubing (Paragraph [0080], lines 6-8).
Regarding claim 30, Liu discloses wherein: the body portion includes a collar portion extending from an end face thereof (collar 25 extends from 11, Fig. 2); and the clamping mechanism is mounted within the collar portion (clamping mechanism 2 mounted within 25, Fig. 2) .
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.
Claim(s) 4 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu, Foreign Patent Document, CN105239948 in view of McAdam et al., US20190040696A1.
Regarding claim 4, Liu discloses a flexible tubing guidance device. Liu fails to disclose wherein at least one of the plurality of roller elements is configured to contact the flexible tubing directly. However, McAdams et al., teaches a tubing guidance device wherein at least one of the plurality of roller elements (54, Fig. 6. B) is configured to contact the flexible tubing directly (54 contacts R, Fig, 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the tubing guidance device of Liu to have the rollers contact the tubing directly as taught by McAdams et al. in order to simplify the structure of the guidance device. One would have been motivated to make this modification to ensure “better engagement” with tubing, and maintain alignment of the tubing (Paragraph [0034], lines 1-16; McAdams et al.).
Regarding claim 6, Liu discloses a flexible tubing guidance device. Liu fails to disclose wherein the plurality of roller elements comprises at least one ball bearing on an axle. However, McAdams et al., teaches a tubing guidance device wherein a plurality of roller elements comprises at least one ball bearing on an axle (Paragraph [0034], lines 1-16). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the tubing guidance device of Liu to have the rollers comprised of a ball bearing on an axle as taught by McAdams et al. in order to simplify the structure of the guidance device. One would have been motivated to make this modification to ensure “better engagement” with tubing, and maintain alignment of the tubing (Paragraph [0034], lines 1-16; McAdams et al.).
Claim(s) 21-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu, Foreign Patent Document, CN105239948 in view of Fulks, US20150252633A1.
Regarding claim 21, Liu discloses a flexible tubing guidance device having a plurality of jaw elements (24, Fig. 2). Liu does not disclose at least one jaw element that is of substantially wedge-shaped prism geometry. However, Fulks teaches a tubing guidance device having at least one jaw element (106, Fig. 2) that is of substantially wedge-shaped prism geometry (106, Fig. 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the jaw elements of Liu to have the wedge-shaped prism geometry as taught by Fulks in order to optimize space. One would have been motivated to make this modification because it provides “relatively fast movement of the grippers/carriers 106 during the initial portion of the closing stroke and relatively slower movement during the final portion of the closing stroke” (Paragraph [0044], lines 5-8, Fulks).
Regarding claim 22, Liu discloses a flexible tubing guidance device having a plurality of jaw elements (24, Fig. 2). Liu does not disclose the plurality of jaw elements comprises four jaw elements of substantially wedge-shaped prism geometry and arranged adjacent one another in a common plane such that inner vertices of the four jaw elements generally point toward one another.
However, Fulks teaches a tubing guidance device having jaw elements of substantially wedge-shaped prism geometry (106, Fig. 2) and arranged adjacent one another in a common plane (plane of Fig. 2) such that inner vertices of the jaw elements generally point toward one another (inner vertices 108, point towards one another, Fig. 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the jaw elements of Liu to have the wedge-shaped prism geometry located in a common plane as taught by Fulks in order to optimize space. One would have been motivated to make this modification because it provides “relatively fast movement of the grippers/carriers 106 during the initial portion of the closing stroke and relatively slower movement during the final portion of the closing stroke” (Paragraph [0044], lines 5-8, Fulks).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the tubing guidance device of Liu to have four jaw elements, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. One would have been motivated to make this modification in order to optimize the distribution of the gripping force over the circumference of the tubing.
Regarding claim 23, modified Liu discloses a flexible tubing guidance device having a plurality of jaw elements (24, Fig. 2). Liu does not disclose wherein the inner vertices substantially surround a longitudinal axis of the bore. However, Fulks teaches a tubing guidance device having jaw elements wherein the inner vertices substantially surround a longitudinal axis of the bore (inner vertices of 106, 108 substantially surround longitudinal axis of bore concentric with tubing 112, Fig. 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the jaw elements of Liu to have the inner vertices of the jaw elements surround the longitudinal axis of the bore as taught by Fulks in order ensure adequate gripping force on the tubing. One would have been motivated to make this modification in order to optimize the distribution of the gripping force over the circumference of the tubing.
Regarding claim 24, Liu discloses a flexible tubing guidance device having a plurality of jaw elements (24, Fig. 2). Liu does not disclose wherein the plurality of jaw elements comprises at least one jaw element having a rounded inner vertex configured to contact the exterior of the flexible tubing. However, Fulks teaches a tubing guidance device wherein the plurality of jaw elements wherein the comprises at least one jaw element having a rounded inner vertex configured to contact the exterior of the flexible tubing (106, 108, Fig. 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the jaw elements of Liu to have the inner vertices of the jaw elements contact the tubing as taught by Fulks in order ensure adequate gripping force on the tubing. One would have been motivated to make this modification in order to optimize the distribution of the gripping force over the circumference of the tubing.
Regarding claim 25, Liu discloses a flexible tubing guidance device. Liu does not disclose wherein the drive element is of substantially annular geometry. However, Fulks teaches a drive element of substantially annular geometry (104, Fig. 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the drive element of Liu to have the annular geometry as taught by Fulks in order to optimize space. One would have been motivated to make this modification because it provides “relatively fast movement of the grippers/carriers 106 during the initial portion of the closing stroke and relatively slower movement during the final portion of the closing stroke” (Paragraph [0044], lines 5-8, Fulks).
Regarding claim 26, Liu discloses a flexible tubing guidance device. Liu does not disclose wherein the drive element includes a tab portion configured to have a force applied thereto to effectuate rotation of the drive element. However, Fulks, teaches the drive element (104, Fig. 2) includes a tab portion (145, Fig. 2) configured to have a force applied thereto to effectuate rotation of the drive element (Paragraph [0042], lines 8-11). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the drive element of Liu to have the tab as taught by Fulks in order to optimize space and simplify the connection between the drive element and force element. One would have been motivated to make this modification because it provides “relatively fast movement of the grippers/carriers 106 during the initial portion of the closing stroke and relatively slower movement during the final portion of the closing stroke” (Paragraph [0044], lines 5-8, Fulks).
Regarding claim 27, Liu discloses a flexible tubing guidance device. Liu does not disclose wherein in being configured to drive the plurality of jaw elements radially inward toward one another, the drive element is configured with a camming action. However, Fulks teaches a tubing guidance device, wherein in being configured to drive the plurality of jaw elements radially inward toward one another (Fig. 2), the drive element is configured with a camming action (130, 140, Fig. 2, 4B). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the drive element of Liu with a camming mechanism as taught by Fulks in order to optimize space and simplify the connection between the drive element and force element. One would have been motivated to make this modification because it provides “relatively fast movement of the grippers/carriers 106 during the initial portion of the closing stroke and relatively slower movement during the final portion of the closing stroke” (Paragraph [0044], lines 5-8, Fulks).
Claim(s) 28 and 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu, Foreign Patent Document, CN105239948 in view of Campbell, US1844378.
Regarding claim 28, Liu discloses a flexible tubing guidance device. Liu does not disclose wherein: the drive element has at least one slot formed therein; and at least one biasing element is disposed within the at least one slot. However, Campbell, teaches a tubing guidance device, wherein the drive element (42, 14, Fig. 3) has at least one slot formed therein (40, Fig. 3); and at least one biasing element is disposed within the at least one slot (41, Fig. 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the drive element of Liu to have the slot and biasing element as taught by Campbell. One would have been motivated to make this modification to ensure the clamp is biased in the open position so that the tubing can travel unhindered through the bore when clamping is not desired.
Regarding claim 32, Liu discloses a flexible tubing guidance device. Liu does not disclose wherein: the body portion includes a groove formed adjacent the collar portion; and the drive element is disposed within the groove. However, Campbell teaches the body portion (12, Fig. 1) includes a groove formed adjacent the collar portion (groove between 12 and 14, Fig. 1); and the drive element is disposed within the groove (drive element 16, 14, Fig. 1 disposed in groove). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the drive element of Liu to have the groove as taught by Campbell. One would have been motivated to make this modification to accommodate space constraints and optimize positioning of the drive element for connection to a drive source.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATELYNNE BURRELL whose telephone number is (703)756-1344. The examiner can normally be reached 12:00pm - 6:00pm 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, Anna Momper can be reached at 571-270-5788. 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.
/K.R.B./ Examiner, Art Unit 3654
/ANNA M MOMPER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3619