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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 7, 8, and 9 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.
Claim 7 [and dependent claims 8 and 9] is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) as indefinite. The phrase “matches or substantially an outer diameter” omits a verb after “substantially” and leaves the comparison grammatically incomplete. A clarifying formulation would be “matches or substantially matches the outer diameter of the suction or irrigation tube.”
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) as indefinite. “One of the fenestrations” lacks a clear plural antecedent because claim 1 recites only “a fenestration,” and claims 7–8 add none. A clarifying formulation would use “the fenestration” or introduce “a plurality of fenestrations” earlier.
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.
Claims 1, 7, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blacklock (US 2023/0009147A1) in view of Renton (US 4,767,404A) and Sheldon (US 2014/0219887A1).
In relation to independent claim 1, this claim recites: a cap configured to be mounted to a medical suction or irrigation tube, comprising: a proximal end configured to be connected to the suction or irrigation tube comprising a proximal opening having a first diameter; a distal end comprising a distal opening having a second diameter that is smaller than the first diameter; and at least one sidewall extending between the proximal end and the distal end, wherein a portion of the at least one sidewall comprises at least one protrusion configured to engage a fenestration in a sidewall of the suction or irrigation tube for securing the cap to the suction or irrigation tube. Claim 1 has been rejected in the following manner:
A cap configured to be mounted to a medical suction or irrigation tube; a proximal end; a distal end; and at least one sidewall extending between them.
Blacklock discloses the primary surgical suction architecture: “The surgical cavity insertion tube 14 is connected at a proximal end thereof to the connector 12 and at a distal end thereof to the suction tip 16.” (Blacklock ¶ [0032].) Blacklock further discloses coaxial hollow tip shafts, an end wall, a distal central opening, and a lateral wall: “The suction tip 16 comprises an inner hollow shaft 18 and an outer hollow shaft 20 coaxial to each other as shown in FIG. 2. The axial through-cavity of the inner hollow shaft 18 includes a first central opening 22 at a distal end of the inner hollow shaft 18. The outer hollow shaft 20 has an end wall 24 at a distal end thereof, wherein the end wall 24 has a second central opening 26 in axial alignment with the first central opening 22 of the inner hollow shaft 18. The outer hollow shaft 20 has one or more openings 28 on a lateral wall 30 thereof.” (Blacklock ¶ [0033].)
A proximal opening having a first diameter and a distal opening having a second diameter smaller than the first diameter.
Blacklock discloses the hollow shafts and distal openings but does not expressly state the claimed open proximal end and comparative diameters. Sheldon fills that gap: “Each pipette tip generally includes a hollow pipette body 302 elongated between an open pipette tip proximal end 304 and an axially opposing open pipette tip distal end 306.” (Sheldon ¶ [0030].) “The inside diameter of the pipette tip distal end 306 is less than the inside diameter of the pipette tip proximal end 304.” (Sheldon ¶ [0030].)
A protrusion on the cap sidewall configured to engage a fenestration in the tube sidewall for securing the cap.
Blacklock discloses a coupling ridge: “In one embodiment, the inner hollow shaft 18 has at least one coupling element, such as a ridge 48, located at an end region opposite to the first central opening 22, for coupling within the surgical cavity insertion tube 14.” (Blacklock ¶ [0043].) Blacklock does not expressly disclose the claimed cap-side protrusion/tube-side fenestration orientation. Renton teaches a positive pin/slot retainer: “a retaining pin or lug could be placed on shoulder 19 or perforated end section 12 and a slot appropriately placed on sleeve 40 and shaped so that the pin is received in the slot to retain sleeve 40. If desired, the lug or pin portion of the retention device could be attached to the exterior of elongated section 11.” (Renton, col. 8, approx. ll. 17–23.) Renton expressly places the pin/lug on the underlying device and the slot on the sleeve; the claimed orientation follows only from a proposed reversal of complementary locations.
Primary-reference disclosure and specific gap.
Blacklock supplies the surgical suction tube/tip, hollow members, distal opening, lateral wall, and coupling. It does not expressly disclose the open-end diameter relationship or the claimed cap-side-protrusion/tube-side-fenestration placement.
Exact secondary disclosure filling the gap.
Sheldon supplies the open proximal/distal ends and smaller distal diameter. Renton supplies a pin/lug received in a shaped slot for sleeve retention. The male/female reversal is an obvious alternative in the design of the apparatus.
Motivation to combine.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have used Sheldon’s tapered hollow-tip geometry in Blacklock to concentrate flow at the distal end and Renton’s positive retainer to resist axial dislodgement at Blacklock’s tube/tip joint. Reversing complementary pin-and-slot locations would have predictably preserved the same engagement and retention function without changing the fluid path.
In relation to claim 7, this claim recites the cap of claim 1, wherein the first diameter of the proximal opening matches or substantially an outer diameter of the suction or irrigation tube. Claim 7 has been rejected in the following manner:
Base rejection incorporated.
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein.
The first diameter of the proximal opening matches or substantially matches the tube outer diameter.
Blacklock does not state the claimed dimensional match. Renton teaches selecting the inside sleeve dimension for sliding placement: “the inside dimension of sleeve 40 can advantageously be selected so that sleeve 40 can be put in place by removing device 10 from handle 30, sliding sleeve 40 over shoulder 19 of device 10 so that one end abuts against the widest dimension of perforate end section 12, and, upon replacement of device 10 on handle 30, the other end of the sleeve abuts handle end 31.” (Renton, col. 8, approx. ll. 28–35.) Renton further states: “Appropriate selection of the dimensions of sleeve 40, shoulder 19, and perforate end section 12 allows sleeve 40 to be retained on device 10 by force or friction.” (Renton, col. 8, approx. ll. 50–53.)
Primary-reference disclosure and specific gap.
Blacklock supplies coupling but not an express cap-opening/tube-outer-diameter match.
Exact secondary disclosure filling the gap.
Renton supplies dimension selection for a sleeve sliding over and frictionally engaging the underlying device.
Motivation to combine.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have adopted Renton’s sliding-fit dimensioning to center Blacklock’s members, preserve a coaxial flow path, and provide predictable retention.
In relation to claim 13, this claim recites: a suction or irrigation tube assembly, comprising: a suction or irrigation tube comprising a proximal end, an open distal end , an annular sidewall extending there between, and at least one fenestration extending through the annular sidewall; and the cap of claim 1, wherein the at least one protrusion of the cap extends through the at least one fenestration of the suction or irrigation tube, thereby re movably securing the cap to the suction or irrigation tube. Claim 13 has been rejected in the following manner:
Base rejection incorporated.
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein.
A suction or irrigation tube with proximal end, open distal end, annular sidewall, and at least one fenestration; and the cap of claim 1.
Blacklock states: “The surgical cavity insertion tube 14 is connected at a proximal end thereof to the connector 12 and at a distal end thereof to the suction tip 16.” (Blacklock ¶ [0032].) Blacklock further discloses: “The outer hollow shaft 20 has one or more openings 28 on a lateral wall 30 thereof.” (Blacklock ¶ [0033].) Sheldon supplies express open-end terminology: “Each pipette tip generally includes a hollow pipette body 302 elongated between an open pipette tip proximal end 304 and an axially opposing open pipette tip distal end 306.” (Sheldon ¶ [0030].)
The cap protrusion extends through the tube fenestration, removably securing the cap.
Blacklock does not disclose this relationship. Renton states: “a retaining pin or lug could be placed on shoulder 19 or perforated end section 12 and a slot appropriately placed on sleeve 40 and shaped so that the pin is received in the slot to retain sleeve 40.” (Renton, col. 8, approx. ll. 17–21.) Renton provides a device-side pin and sleeve-side slot.
Primary-reference disclosure and specific gap.
Blacklock lacks a cap protrusion extending through a tube-sidewall fenestration.
Exact secondary disclosure filling the gap.
Renton supplies a pin/lug received in a sleeve slot for retention. The claimed cap-side/tube-side placement arises only from the proposed reversal.
Motivation to combine.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have applied Renton’s positive retention at Blacklock’s coaxial joint to resist axial separation. Reversing the complementary locations preserves the receiving relationship and retention function. The reversal is considered an obvious alternative in the design of the apparatus.
In relation to claim 14, this claim recites: a kit of parts comprising: a suction or irrigation tube comprising a proximal end configured to be connected to a suction and/or irrigation source , a distal end opposite the proximal end, a sidewall extending between the proximal end and the distal end, and at least one fenestration extending through the sidewall; and a plurality of the caps of claim 1 configured to be re movably mounted to the distal end of the suction or irrigation tube, wherein the first diameter of the plurality of caps varies , so that the plurality of caps can be connected to different sizes of suction tubes. Claim 14 has been rejected in the following manner:
Base rejection incorporated.
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein.
A tube connectable to a suction/irrigation source and having the inherited cap/fenestration relationship.
Blacklock states: “The proximal portion 32 of the connector 12 is configured for coupling to a tubing, for example a ¼ inch internal diameter tubing (not shown), of a vacuum pump which suctions the fluids from the surgical theatre, or suctions the fluids to a cardiotomy or cell saver reservoir.” (Blacklock ¶ [0036].) The cap/fenestration relationship remains the expressly identified reversal in claim 1.
A plurality of removably mountable caps with varying first diameters for different tube sizes.
Sheldon states: “According to another embodiment, a kit for a pipettor includes: a plurality of hollow adaptors including one or more first adaptors and one or more second adaptors.” (Sheldon ¶ [0007].) “The distal end of the first adaptor 432 is the smallest and is matched with the smallest pipette tip, the distal end of the second adaptor 438 is larger and is matched with a larger pipette tip, and the distal end of the third adaptor 440 is the largest and is matched with the largest pipette tip.” (Sheldon ¶ [0035].) “Hence, the adaptor provides differently sized pipette tips with the same coupling interface to the pipettor, thereby enabling differently sized pipette tips to be readily exchanged without needing to manually modify or replace the pipettor.” (Sheldon ¶ [0036].)
Primary-reference disclosure and specific gap.
Blacklock does not disclose a plural kit of claim-1 caps having different proximal diameters.
Exact secondary disclosure filling the gap.
Sheldon supplies a kit, size-matched interfaces, and readily exchangeable different-size fluid tips.
Motivation to combine.
An artisan skilled in the art would have packaged different-size versions of the Blacklock/Renton cap for common suction-tube gauges, using Sheldon’s known matched-tip inventory approach to reduce setup time and preserve fit.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blacklock (US 2023/0009147A1) in view of Renton (US 4,767,404A) and Sheldon (US 2014/0219887A1), as discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and in further view of Smith (US 2008/0300617A1).
In relation to claim 2, this claim recites: the cap of claim 1, comprising at least one of stainless steel, tempered steel, hardened steel, high carbon steel, titanium, or aluminum. Claim 2 is rejected in the following manner:
Base rejection incorporated.
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein.
The cap comprises at least one listed material, including stainless steel.
Blacklock itself discloses: “In one embodiment, the outer hollow shaft 20 and the inner hollow shaft 18 are made of a rigid material, preferably surgical steel.” (Blacklock ¶ [0062].) Smith cumulatively confirms: “Dilating member 110 may be formed of any suitable biocompatible material, including but not limited to stainless steel, a biocompatible polymeric material or the like, and may be either a solid member or at least partially hollow.” (Smith ¶ [0049].)
Primary-reference disclosure and specific gap.
Blacklock supplies surgical steel, satisfying one claimed alternative; its only remaining gaps are inherited from claim 1.
Exact secondary disclosure filling the gap.
Sheldon and Renton fill the inherited claim-1 gaps. Smith confirms stainless steel as a known biocompatible surgical-member material.
Motivation to combine.
A person of ordinary skill would have selected stainless or surgical steel for rigidity, biocompatibility, and sterilizability, using materials expressly identified by Blacklock and Smith.
In relation to claim 3, this claim recites: the cap of claim 1, wherein a portion of the sidewall of the cap defines a conical or partially conical annular surface configured for contacting soft tissue. Claim 3 has been rejected in the following manner:
Base rejection incorporated.
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein.
A portion of the cap sidewall defines a conical or partially conical annular surface configured for contacting soft tissue.
Blacklock does not expressly disclose that surface. Smith teaches tissue contact: “Edge member or members 118 serve to lift the surrounding tissue (not shown) away from the at least one recessed portion 120 of the outer surface 116, thereby decreasing the surface area of the dilating member 110 that is in contact with the patient’s tissue (not shown).” (Smith ¶ [0051].) Smith separately teaches conical geometry: “In an alternate embodiment, the diameter of dilating member 110 may be constantly or consistently varied over its length such that dilating member 110 may exhibit a substantially conical profile.” (Smith ¶ [0058].)
Primary-reference disclosure and specific gap.
Blacklock supplies the distal suction tip but not the claimed conical tissue-contacting cap surface.
Exact secondary disclosure filling the gap.
Smith supplies a substantially conical profile and a tissue-contacting distal member.
Motivation to combine.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have applied Smith’s conical, tissue-contacting exterior to Blacklock’s distal tip to obtain a gradual, atraumatic transition and controlled tissue engagement while preserving suction.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blacklock (US 2023/0009147A1) in view of Renton (US 4,767,404A) and Sheldon (US 2014/0219887A1), as discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and in further view of Harrel (US 5,122,153A1).
In relation to claim 4, this claim recites: the cap of claim 1, wherein the distal end of the cap comprises a sharpened tip at least partially enclosing the distal opening. Claim 4 has been rejected in the following manner:
Base rejection incorporated.
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein.
Primary-reference disclosure and specific gap.
Blacklock supplies the removable distal suction-tip architecture and an opening/end-wall arrangement, but it does not disclose a sharpened tip at the distal end of that cap which at least partially encloses the distal opening.
Supplemental and residual gap.
Harrel supplies a sharpened annular suction-tube entrance edge [see abstract] to facilitate cutting and the separating of tissue (Harrel, col. 2, approx. ll. 15–17.)
Motivation to combine.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have applied Harrel’s sharpened tip to Blacklock’s distal tip to facilitate cutting and the separating of tissue.
Claim 5, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blacklock (US 2023/0009147A1) in view of Renton (US 4,767,404A) and Sheldon (US 2014/0219887A1), as discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and in further view of Racenet et al. (US 2010/0256662A1; hereinafter “Racenet”).
In relation to claim 5, this claim recites: the cap of claim 1, wherein the distal end of the cap comprises a chisel or blade for dissecting soft tissue. Claim 5 has been rejected in the following manner:
Base rejection incorporated.
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein.
The distal end comprises a chisel or blade for dissecting soft tissue.
Blacklock lacks a distal tissue-dissection blade. Racenet discloses: “A cutting blade 320 with an outer cutting edge is supported within cavity 314 and is rotatable across the cavity to various positions with respect to the opening of cavity 314 to sever tissue.” (Racenet ¶ [0038].) Racenet also states: “Full rotation to the opposite wall of the cavity 314 (in an arc of about 180 degrees) severs the specimen S from surrounding tissue and the vacuum force suctions it into the cavity 314 where it is securely held.” (Racenet ¶ [0041].)
Primary-reference disclosure and specific gap.
Blacklock supplies a distal suction tip but not a blade for tissue dissection.
Exact secondary disclosure filling the gap.
Racenet supplies a cutting blade associated with a suction-tip opening and tissue severing.
Motivation to combine.
An artisan skilled in the art would have incorporated Racenet’s cutting function into Blacklock’s distal suction member to permit dissection and aspiration through one access path, reducing instrument exchanges.
In relation to claim 18, this claim recites: a method of using a surgical tool during a surgical procedure, comprising attaching the cap of claim 1 to a distal end of a suction tube; connecting a proximal end of the suction tube to a suction source; contacting tissue with the cap for cutting, dissecting, or impinging the tissue; and activating the suction source to draw the tissue and fluids into a lumen of the suction tube through the distal opening of the cap. Claim 18 has been rejected in the following manner:
Base rejection incorporated.
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein.
Attaching the cap to a distal end of a suction tube.
Blacklock states: “The surgical cavity insertion tube 14 is connected at a proximal end thereof to the connector 12 and at a distal end thereof to the suction tip 16.” (Blacklock ¶ [0032].) The cap identity and positive-retention arrangement come from the incorporated claim-1 combination.
Connecting the tube proximal end to a suction source and drawing fluids.
Blacklock states: “The proximal portion 32 of the connector 12 is configured for coupling to a tubing, for example a ¼ inch internal diameter tubing (not shown), of a vacuum pump which suctions the fluids from the surgical theatre, or suctions the fluids to a cardiotomy or cell saver reservoir.” (Blacklock ¶ [0036].)
Contacting tissue for cutting/dissecting and drawing tissue through the distal suction region.
Racenet discloses the cutting blade and tissue severing in ¶ [0038] and states: “The specimen can be held in cavity 314 for removal or suctioned into the device through the vacuum tube 307.” (Racenet ¶ [0040].)
Primary-reference disclosure and specific gap.
Blacklock supplies attachment, vacuum connection, and fluid suction but not tissue cutting/dissection with the distal member and tissue transport through that region.
Exact secondary disclosure filling the gap.
Racenet supplies tissue severing at a suction-tip cavity and vacuum transport of the specimen.
Motivation to combine.
An artisan skilled in the art would have added Racenet’s distal cutting function to Blacklock’s suction member to perform cutting and evacuation through one path and reduce instrument exchanges.
In relation to claim 20, this claim recites: the method of claim 18, further comprising selecting the cap to be used for the surgical procedure from a kit comprising a plurality of the caps of claim 1. Claim 20 has been rejected in the following manner:
Base rejection incorporated.
The rejection of claim 18 is incorporated herein.
Selecting the cap from a kit comprising a plurality of claim-1 caps.
Sheldon states: “According to one embodiment, a method for operating a pipettor includes: selecting a first pipette tip from a plurality of pipette tips, the plurality of pipette tips including one or more of the first pipette tips and one or more second pipette tips.” (Sheldon ¶ [0006].) It further states: “moving the pipettor with the first adaptor to the selected first pipette tip; and fluidly coupling the first adaptor with the first pipette tip.” (Sheldon ¶ [0006].)
Primary-reference disclosure and specific gap.
Blacklock and Racenet do not disclose selecting a claim-1 surgical cap from a plural kit.
Exact secondary disclosure filling the gap.
Sheldon supplies selection from a plurality, coupling of the selected fluid tip, and exchange of differently sized tips.
Motivation to combine.
An artisan skilled in the art would have provided and selected among sterile positively retained caps to match tube size and distal function before the procedure, applying Sheldon’s interchangeability practice to reduce setup error and instrument-change time.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blacklock (US 2023/0009147A1) in view of Renton (US 4,767,404A) and Sheldon (US 2014/0219887A1), as discussed above, and in further view of Stiehl et al. (US 2013/0304003A1; hereinafter “Stiehl”).
In relation to claim 11, this claim recites: the cap of claim 1, wherein the distal opening comprises a slit. Claim 11 has been rejected in the following manner:
Base rejection incorporated.
The proposed rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein.
The distal opening comprises a slit.
Blacklock discloses a central opening but not a slit. Stiehl expressly states: “In another embodiment, the opening at the suction tip constitutes a single slit or other-shaped opening.” (Stiehl ¶ [0033].)
Primary-reference disclosure and specific gap.
Blacklock lacks a slit-shaped distal opening.
Exact secondary disclosure filling the gap.
Stiehl supplies a single slit at a suction tip.
Motivation to combine.
An artisan skilled in the art would have utilized Stiehl’s slit geometry at Blacklock’s distal opening to preserve suction while limiting oversized debris and facilitating obstruction management.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blacklock (US 2023/0009147A1) in view of Renton (US 4,767,404A), Sheldon (US 2014/0219887A1) and Racenet et al. (US 20100256662A1; hereinafter “Racenet”), as discussed above, and in further view of Bales et al. (US 5,312,332A; hereinafter “Bales”).
In relation to claim 19, this claim recites: the method of claim 18, wherein the surgical procedure comprises a minimally invasive laparoscopic procedure. Claim 19 has been rejected in the following manner:
Base rejection incorporated.
The proposed rejection of claim 18 is incorporated herein.
The procedure is minimally invasive and laparoscopic.
Racenet supplies minimally invasive access-port context but is thoracic: “This embodiment enables a surgeon to intercostally enter the thoracic region through an access port such as a thoracoport used in minimally invasive thoracic surgery.” (Racenet ¶ [0032].) Bales supplies laparoscopy: “Besides the ability to insert probes through the slit valve, endoscopic and laparoscopic type instruments with end effectors for grasping, cutting, dissecting, biopsy sampling, etc. may also be inserted therethrough and through the fluid chamber.” (Bales, col. 4, approx. ll. 60–64.)
Primary-reference disclosure and specific gap.
The claim-18 combination lacks express laparoscopic performance; Racenet is minimally invasive but thoracic.
Exact secondary disclosure filling the gap.
Bales expressly supplies laparoscopic cutting and dissecting instruments through the suction/irrigation platform.
Motivation to combine.
An artisan skilled in the art would have performed the claim-18 suction/dissection method through Bales’s laparoscopic trocar arrangement to reduce access incisions and instrument exchanges while retaining suction and tissue treatment.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blacklock (US 2023/0009147A1) in view of Renton (US 4,767,404A) and Sheldon (US 2014/0219887A1), as discussed above with respect to claims 1 and 7, and in further view of Gardner et al. (US 2013/0030414A1; hereinafter “Gardner”).
In relation to claim 8, this claim recites: the cap of claim 7, wherein the at least one protrusion extends inward from an inner surface of the at least one sidewall. Claim 8 has been rejected in the following manner:
Base rejection incorporated.
The rejections of claims 1 and 7 are incorporated herein.
The protrusion extends inward from an inner surface of the cap sidewall.
Gardner directly teaches an inward cap-sidewall protrusion: “an antiseptic cap for a cannula access device includes a sidewall defining a chamber, an undercut defining a channel formed in the sidewall, and a retention protrusion extending radially inwardly from an internal surface of the sidewall.” (Gardner ¶ [0006].)
Motivation to combine.
Based on Gardner’s teachings and the demonstrated conventionality of this enhancement, for an artisan skilled in the art, the modification of Blacklock’s suction tip with a protrusion extending radially inwardly would have been considered an obvious alternative in the design process of the cap.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 9, 10, 12, 15, 16, and 17 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. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
In relation to claim 6, the prior art of record does not disclose or suggest, inter alia, the limitation: “wherein the at least one protrusion extends outward from an outer surface of the at least one sidewall of the cap, and wherein the at least one sidewall is outwardly biased, thereby pressing the at least one protrusion through the fenestration of the suction or irrigation tube.”
In relation to claim 9, the prior art of record does not disclose or suggest, inter alia, the limitation: “wherein the at least one sidewall is inwardly biased, thereby pressing the at least one protrusion through one of the fenestrations of the suction or irrigation tube.”
In relation to claim 10, the prior art of record does not disclose or suggest, inter alia, the limitation: “wherein the at least one protrusion comprises a post having a first end connected to the at least one sidewall and an opposing second end, and wherein a shape of a cross-section of the post matches a shape of the fenestration of the suction or irrigation tube.”
In relation to claim 12, the prior art of record does not disclose or suggest, inter alia, the limitation: “wherein the at least one sidewall comprises a first longitudinal edge and a second longitudinal edge, and wherein the cap is formed by folding or rolling the first longitudinal edge over the second longitudinal edge.”
In relation to claim 15, the prior art of record does not disclose or suggest, inter alia, the limitation: “wherein, for some of the plurality of caps, the at least one protrusion extends inwardly from an inner surface of the sidewall and , for others of the plurality of caps, the at least one protrusion extends outward from an outer surface of the sidewall.”
In relation to claim 16, the prior art of record does not disclose or suggest, inter alia, the limitation: “wherein the plurality of caps comprises at least one cap with the distal opening comprising a slot, another at least one cap with a plurality of the distal openings, and another at least one cap comprising a circular distal opening that is concentric with the proximal opening.”
In relation to claim 17, the prior art of record does not disclose or suggest, inter alia, the limitation: “wherein at least one of the plurality of caps comprises a conical annular surface enclosing the distal opening with the distal opening being a circle enclosed by the conical annular surface, and another of the plurality of caps comprises opposing longitudinal edges that are folded together to form the cap.”
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANUEL A MENDEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-4962. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:00 AM-5:00 PM.
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, Bhisma Mehta can be reached at 571-272-3383. 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.
Respectfully submitted,
/MANUEL A MENDEZ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3783
Prosecution Insights