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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/06/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show how the anchor access channel is in fluidic communication with the access port as described in the specification, see paragraphs [0075] and [0077], as well as claim 4. The examiner acknowledges that both the access port and anchor access channel have been identified in the drawings, however the examiner is unable to see any fluidic communication occurring between the two parts, specifically in Fig. 4 and Fig. 6. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d).
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 inflation port, as claimed in claim 5, must be shown or the feature canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to because it is difficult to tell by the quality of the images that the fluid flow section has a greater volume than the support section, as claimed in claim 7. The examiner acknowledges the asymmetrical support, fluid flow section, and support section have all been identified in the figures, but still, specifically in regards to Fig. 3, Fig. 7, and Fig. 8 which show closer perspectives of the asymmetrical support, the examiner finds it difficult to see the relationship between the two half-cylinders. The figures are not clear in the bounds of the two half-cylinders, and how they create the separate sections.
The drawings are objected to because they do not label the interior compartment and flexible wall of the anchor. Fig. 1A, Fig. 2A, and Fig. 3 all depict the anchor as having separate sections, and it is unclear to the examiner if the interior compartment and flexible wall is specific to one of the separate sections, or both.
The drawings are objected to because they do not label the main body of the pill delivery device in Fig. 15. It is unclear to the examiner if the main body encompasses the handle section or if it is separate.
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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraph [0062], the specification states “main body 26”. However, in previous paragraphs, the reference number 26 has been used to identify a “feeding tube”, and reference number 16 had been used to identify a “main body” of an intact product delivery assembly. The examiner suggests modifying “main body 26” to “main body 16” for continuity purposes.
In paragraph [0074], the specification states “outer lumen 18”. However, within the same paragraph, the reference number 18 has been used to identify an “asymmetrical support”. It is unclear to the examiner if the applicant intended to refer to the “asymmetrical support” as “outer lumen”. The examiner suggests modifying “outer lumen 18” to “asymmetrical support 18” for continuity purposes, or if the applicant intends for the asymmetrical support to also be known as the outer lumen, to modify the specification in a way that makes it clear the two are the same part.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: In the second line of claim 2, the claim states “an asymmetric support secured to the retaining member at a first end and secured to the anchor at an opposing second end”. However, in claim 1, upon which claim 2 is dependent, the claim states “the lumen secured to the retaining member at a first end and secured to the anchor at an opposing second end”. It is unclear to the examiner if “a first end” and “an opposing second end” are the same for both the lumen and asymmetric support, as both ends are positioned in the same sport for both parts. If the ends are the same, the examiner suggest modifying the articles “a” and “an” in the claim 2 recital to be “the”. If the ends are different, the examiner suggest modifying the language of claim 2 to differentiate from claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim objected to because of the following informalities: In the fourteenth line of claim 15, the claim states “the pushing surface is configured to eject the intact pill through the outlet aperture of the main body”. It is unclear to the examiner if “the main body” is in reference to “a main body” of the pill delivery device, or “a main body” of an intact consumable delivery assembly, as recited in claim 1, upon which claim 15 is dependent.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 4, 5, and 15 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 4, it is unclear to the examiner how the anchor access channel is in fluidic communication with the access port. Fig. 4 and Fig. 6 do not show a connection between the two parts, and paragraphs [0075] and [0077] add context that there is a fluidic connection that exists for air/fluid to be moved from the access port through the anchor access channel to the anchor, however that is not translated to the figures. It is unclear to the examiner how air/fluid is moved into the anchor given the discrepancies between the specification and figures. The examiner suggest modifying the drawings to better depict the “closed loop” relationship between the anchor, anchor access channel, and access port.
Regarding claim 5, the inclusion of “an inflation port” renders the claim indefinite, as this feature is not depicted in the figures, as well as only mentioned in paragraph [0024] of the specification, giving no more context to the limitation than that provided by the claim. It is unclear to the examiner if the inflation port and access port are meant to be the same feature, or entirely separate entities, as well as where on the intact consumable delivery assembly the inflation port is to exist. The examiner suggest modifying the specification and figures to discuss “an inflation port” and its contribution to the device.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the outer lumen" in the fourth and fifth lines of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 8-9, and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hershey et al. (United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2011/0152762 A1; herein, Hershey), and further in view of McMichael et al. (United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2007/0233005 A1; herein, McMichael).
Regarding claim 1, Hershey discloses an intact consumable delivery assembly (enteral feeding catheter assembly 20), the assembly comprising: a main body (Annotated on FIG. 2A below) spanning between a proximal end (Annotated on FIG. 2A below) and a distal end (Annotated on FIG. 2A below); a retaining member (base 36) disposed at the proximal end of the main body (Seen on annotated FIG. 2A below), the retaining member defining an inlet aperture therethrough (opening 40); an anchor (balloon 24) disposed at the distal end of the main body (Seen on annotated FIG. 2A below), the anchor defining an outlet aperture therethrough (Annotated on FIG. 2A below); a lumen (Annotated on FIG. 3 below) spanning from the retaining member to the anchor (Seen on annotated FIG. 3 below), the lumen secured to the retaining member at a first end (Seen on annotated FIG. 3 below) and secured to the anchor at an opposing second end (Seen on annotated FIG. 3 below).
Hershey does not disclose a feeding tube including a structural support coupled to a connector cap, the connector cap having an outer diameter greater than an outer diameter of the structural support, the outer diameter of the structural support being less than an inner diameter of the lumen, such that the structural support is selectively receivable within the lumen, wherein the feeding tube is configured to deliver an intact consumable to a subject via the outlet aperture.
However, McMichael teaches a feeding tube (FIG. 8 can function as a feeding tube) including a structural support (FIG. 8, outer cannula 12) coupled to a connector cap (FIG. 8 cap 38), the connector cap having an outer diameter greater than an outer diameter of the structural support (FIG. 8, outer diameter of cap 38 is larger than outer diameter of outer cannula 12), the outer diameter of the structural support being less than an inner diameter of the lumen, such that the structural support is selectively receivable within the lumen (it is commonly understood in the art that the size of the outer cannula 12 could be changed in order to fit within the lumen disclosed by Hershey to serve the purpose of the concentric tubes), wherein the feeding tube is configured to deliver an intact consumable to a subject via the outlet aperture (it is commonly understood in the art that an open cannula, like outer cannula 12, situated in the body, such as in FIG. 3, would be able to deliver an intact consumable to a subject, so as long as the intact consumable fits the dimensions of the cannula).
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 the device disclosed by Hershey to include the feeding tube and cap assembly taught by McMichael in order to support passage of elements into a subject ([0027]) as well as lock the tube into place, restricting movement during use ([0026]).
PNG
media_image1.png
774
758
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
788
729
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, in the modified assembly of Hershey, Hershey discloses the anchor includes a retracted configuration (FIG. 2B, [0051], initially collapsed or crumpled state) in which the anchor has a first outer diameter (FIG. 2B, crumpled balloon defines first outer diameter) and an expanded configuration (FIG. 2A, [0051], balloon is smooth and unfolded) in which the anchor has a second outer diameter (FIG. 2A, smooth and unfolded balloon defines second outer diameter), the second outer diameter being greater than the first outer diameter ([0051], FIG. 2A is a larger diameter than FIG. 2B).
Regarding claim 9, in the modified assembly of Hershey, Hershey discloses the anchor includes an interior compartment (Annotated on FIG. 3 below) that is defined by at least one flexible wall (Annotated on FIG. 3 below), wherein the interior compartment is configured to increase and decrease in volume based on an input or a removal of fluid from the interior compartment ([0051], FIG. 2A to FIG. 2B and vice versa).
PNG
media_image3.png
788
729
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, in the modified assembly of Hershey, Hershey does not disclose a port defined within the connector cap, the port having a central axis that is aligned with the inlet aperture. However, McMichael teaches a port (FIG. 8, central bore 90) defined within the connector cap (FIG. 8, central bore 90 goes through cap 38), the port having a central axis that is aligned with the inlet aperture ([0039], "cap 38 also has a central bore 90 through which the cannula 12 is also placed"; central bore 90 is aligned with rest of device in a manner that parts can move through central bore 90). 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 the modified assembly disclosed by Hershey to include a port within the connector cap that aligns with the inlet aperture as taught by McMichael in order to secure the feeding tube in place during use by restricting movement ([0039]).
Regarding claim 13, in the modified assembly of Hershey, Hershey does not disclose a threaded extension disposed at the proximal end of the body, the threaded extension extending in a direction away from the retaining member. However, McMichael teaches a threaded extension disposed at the proximal end of the body (FIG. 8, collar or annulus 98), the threaded extension extending in a direction away from the retaining member (FIG. 8, collar or annulus 98 faces away from insertion site). 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 the modified assembly disclosed by Hershey to include a threaded extension extending away from the retention member as taught by McMichael in order to engage with the matching thread of the cap 38 a secure the device in place ([0039]).
Regarding claim 14, in the modified assembly of Hershey, Hershey does not disclose the connector cap of the feeding tube engages with and secures to the threaded extension. However, McMichael teaches the connector cap of the feeding tube engages with and secures to the threaded extension ([0039], "The cap 38 has an inner diameter or gland 92 as well as an outer flange 94 connected by a bridge 96. The flange 94 is threaded and is adapted to engage matching threads on a collar or annulus 98 which forms an exterior surface of a packing chamber 100."). 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 the modified assembly disclosed by Hershey to have the connector cap engage with the threaded extension as taught by McMichael in order that the device be secure by the matching threads of the two components ([0039]).
Claims 2-5, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hershey in view of McMichael as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Goldhardt et al. (United States Patent No. US 5,840,065 A; herein, Goldhardt).
Regarding claim 2, in the modified assembly of Hershey, Hershey discloses the fluid flow section defining an anchor access channel (inflation lumen 48) that is separate from the asymmetric support channel (FIG. 3, inflation lumen 48 is its own entity).
Hershey does not disclose an asymmetric support secured to the retaining member at a first end and secured to the anchor at an opposing second end, with the lumen being received within the asymmetric support, the asymmetric support including: a first half-cylinder and a second half-cylinder, the first half-cylinder being a support section and the second half-cylinder being a fluid flow section, the fluid flow section and the support section together defining a channel therebetween, with the lumen received within the channel.
However, Goldhardt teaches an asymmetric support (feeding tube 12) secured to the retaining member at a first end and secured to the anchor at an opposing second end (it is commonly understood in the art that a support tube may be secured at opposing ends to a device in order to provide said support along a length of a device), with the lumen being received within the asymmetric support (col. 7 lines 53-54 "Alignment member 62 is preferably configured for insertion into feeding lumen 14"; other tubes or lumen can be fit within feeding tube 12), the asymmetric support including: a first half-cylinder and a second half-cylinder (FIG. 1; it is commonly understood in the art that any cylinder can be broken into two half-cylinders at any point along the cylinder, thereby the feeding tube 12 could be broken into two half-cylinders at any point while still defining the filing lumen 16 and feeding lumen 14), the first half-cylinder being a support section (FIG. 1, section including feeding lumen 14) and the second half-cylinder being a fluid flow section (FIG. 1, section including filing lumen 16), the fluid flow section and the support section together defining a channel therebetween (FIG. 1, depending on where the feeding tube 12 is cut to make the two half-cylinders, both sections could make up feeding lumen 14), with the lumen received within the channel (col. 7 lines 53-54 "Alignment member 62 is preferably configured for insertion into feeding lumen 14"; other tubes or lumen can be fit within feeding tube 12).
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 the modified assembly disclosed by Hershey to incorporate an asymmetric support having two half-cylinders as taught by Goldhardt in order to structurally support the lumen as elements are passed through it (col. 4 lines 3-20).
Regarding claim 3, in the modified assembly of Hershey, Hershey discloses an access port (inflation valve 46) defined within the retaining member (FIG. 3), the access port being separate and spaced apart from the inlet aperture (FIG. 3, inflation valve is separate from catheter lumen 34).
Regarding claim 4, in the modified assembly of Hershey, Hershey discloses the anchor access channel is in fluidic communication with the access port defined by the retaining member (FIG. 3, inflation valve 46 is in fluid communication with inflation lumen 48).
Regarding claim 5, in the modified assembly of Hershey, Hershey discloses an inflation port defined by the anchor (Annotated on FIG. 3 below), wherein the anchor access channel is in fluidic communication with the inflation port (FIG. 3, inflation lumen 48 is in fluid communication with balloon 24), thereby creating a closed loop between the access port, the anchor access channel, and the inflation port ([0052], "The inflation valve 46 is in fluid communication with the balloon 24. This may be accomplished through an inflation lumen 48, defined by a portion of the wall 32 of the catheter 26, extending from the balloon 24 to the inflation valve 46.").
PNG
media_image4.png
788
729
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, in the modified assembly of Hershey, Hershey does not disclose the fluid flow section has a greater volume than the support section. However, Goldhardt teaches the fluid flow section has a greater volume than the support section (FIG. 1; It is commonly understood in the art that any cylinder can be broken into two half-cylinders at any point along the cylinder, thereby the feeding tube 12 could be broken into two half-cylinders at any point, making one of the half-cylinders visibly larger than the other. Specifically, the larger half-cylinder must include the entirety of filing lumen 16). 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 the modified assembly disclosed by Hershey to incorporate an asymmetric support having two inequal half-cylinders as taught by Goldhardt in order to structurally support the lumen as elements are passed through it (col. 4 lines 3-20), as well as an entire anchor access channel for the larger half-cylinder.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hershey in view of McMichael and Goldhardt as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Melsheimer (United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2008/0058730 A1).
Regarding claim 6, in the modified assembly of Hershey, Hershey does not disclose the asymmetric support is made of a first material and the lumen is made of a second material, the first material having a greater rigidity than the second material. However, Melsheimer teaches the asymmetric support is made of a first material ([0052], “Sheath 20 may be formed from a sufficiently flexible but strong material such as silicone”) and the lumen is made of a second material ([0058], “polyurethane may be used to form catheter 40”), the first material having a greater rigidity than the second material (FIG. 2, [0058], “Sheath 20 is preferably formed from a relatively stiffer material than that used to form catheter 40.”). 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 the modified assembly disclosed by Hershey to make the asymmetric support more rigid than the lumen as taught by Melsheimer in order to provide a flow path for the consumable ([0051]), while also protecting said flow path with a more rigid but flexible material (0052)].
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hershey in view of McMichael as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gonzales et al. (United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2003/0167069 A1; herein, Gonzales).
Regarding claim 10, in the modified assembly of Hershey, Hershey does not disclose a support collar surrounding at least a portion of the lumen, the support collar including a main body having an outer diameter that is less than an inner diameter of the anchor, such that the inner diameter of the anchor remains constant upon an increase or decrease in volume of the anchor. However, Gonzales teaches a support collar surrounding at least a portion of the lumen (FIG. 1, stop 23), the support collar including a main body having an outer diameter that is less than an inner diameter of the anchor (FIG. 1, body of stop 23 fits inside bulb 32, making the stop’s outer diameter less than an inner diameter of the bulb), such that the inner diameter of the anchor remains constant upon an increase or decrease in volume of the anchor (FIG. 1, whether inflated or flat, the diameter of bulb 32 does not change because it is the same amount of material). 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 the modified assembly disclosed by Hershey to include a support collar with an outer diameter smaller than the inner diameter of the anchor as taught by Gonzales in order to facilitate insertion of the assembly with the anchor in a retracted configuration ([0065]).
Regarding claim 11, in the modified assembly of Hershey, Hershey does not disclose a shelf connected to the main body, the shelf having an outer diameter that is greater than the inner diameter of the anchor, wherein the shelf prevents lateral translation of the anchor in a direction toward the retaining member. However, Gonzales teaches a shelf connected to the main body (FIG. 1, [0058], slide 27 connected to stop 23 as both are part of anchoring assembly 12), the shelf having an outer diameter that is greater than the inner diameter of the anchor (FIG. 1, outer diameter of slide 27 is greater than inner diameter of bulb 32), wherein the shelf prevents lateral translation of the anchor in a direction toward the retaining member ([0065], slide 27 does allow for some movement of bulb 32, but does reach a position in which the bulb can go no further in the proximal direction). 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 the modified assembly disclosed by Hershey to include a shelf on the support collar with an outer diameter greater than the inner diameter of the anchor as taught by Gonzales in order to facilitate insertion of the assembly between different configurations of the anchor ([0065]).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hershey in view of McMichael as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Smart (United States Patent No. US 3,757,781 A).
Regarding claim 15, in the modified assembly of Hershey, Hershey does not disclose the feeding tube is removable from the lumen, further comprising a pill delivery device including: a main body having a first outer diameter that is less than the inner diameter of the outer lumen, such that the main body of the pill delivery device is receivable within the outer lumen; and a pushing surface disposed at a distal end of the main body, the pushing surface having: a biased configuration with a second outer diameter that is greater than the inner diameter of the lumen; and an inserted configuration with a third outer diameter that is less than the inner diameter of the lumen; the pushing surface configured to receive an intact pill, wherein the pushing surface is configured to eject the intact pill through the outlet aperture of the main body upon transformation from the inserted configuration to the biased configuration.
However, McMichael teaches the feeding tube is removable from the lumen (it is commonly understood in the art that a cannula that goes into the body/another cannula in a concentric manner can be removed if the two cannulas are not fused together in anyway (i.e. by an adhesive or melting plastic together), which the present application does not teach). 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 the modified assembly disclosed by Hershey to specify the feeding tube is removable from the lumen as taught by McMichael in order to protect the patient.
Hershey in view of McMichael still does not disclose a pill delivery device including: a main body having a first outer diameter that is less than the inner diameter of the outer lumen, such that the main body of the pill delivery device is receivable within the outer lumen; and a pushing surface disposed at a distal end of the main body, the pushing surface having: a biased configuration with a second outer diameter that is greater than the inner diameter of the lumen; and an inserted configuration with a third outer diameter that is less than the inner diameter of the lumen; the pushing surface configured to receive an intact pill, wherein the pushing surface is configured to eject the intact pill through the outlet aperture of the main body upon transformation from the inserted configuration to the biased configuration.
However, Smart teaches a pill delivery device (animal pill administering tool 10) including: a main body (elongated tubular body 12) having a first outer diameter that is less than the inner diameter of the outer lumen (Fig. 1, col. 2 lines 12-15 "The bore 18 extends through the body 12 and is of substantially constant diameter, except in the first end 14 of the body 12 wherein the bore is slightly tapered"; since bore 18 of body 12 has constant diameter, examiner interprets body 12 to share in the constant diameter from the outer edge, which could be modified to fit within the lumen disclosed by Hershey to serve the purpose of the concentric tubes), such that the main body of the pill delivery device is receivable within the outer lumen (it is commonly understood in the art that that the size of the elongated tubular body 12 could be changed in order to fit within the lumen disclosed by Hershey to serve the purpose of the concentric tubes); and a pushing surface (expandable sleeve 34) disposed at a distal end of the main body (Fig. 2, expandable sleeve 34 at distal end of body 12), the pushing surface having: a biased configuration (Fig. 3, resilient fingers 44 of expandable sleeve 34 are expanded) with a second outer diameter that is greater than the inner diameter of the lumen (Fig. 3, resilient fingers 44 of expandable sleeve 34 are expanded making for a larger diameter); and an inserted configuration (Fig. 2, resilient fingers 44 of expandable sleeve 34 are not expanded) with a third outer diameter that is less than the inner diameter of the lumen (Fig. 2, resilient fingers 44 of expandable sleeve 34 are not expanded, making for a smaller diameter); the pushing surface configured to receive an intact pill (Fig. 3, pill or capsule 42 may be frictionally seated between the resilient fingers 44), wherein the pushing surface is configured to eject the intact pill through the outlet aperture of the main body upon transformation from the inserted configuration to the biased configuration (col. 2 lines 57-62, pill is ejected from device following a change in configuration).
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 the modified assembly disclosed by Hershey to include a pill delivery device which undergoes a change in configuration while delivering a pill as taught by Smart in order to deliver a pill to a distant location inside an orifice (col. 2 lines 46-53).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Itrich (United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2008/0097348 A1) is considered relevant prior art with regards to an enteral feeding tube having a connection piece with a sealing cap.
Broberg, JR. (United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2009/0255522 A1) is considered relevant prior art with regards to a pellet gun to be discharged to deliver pellets to an end location.
Bagwell et al. (United States Patent US 8,177,742 B2) is considered relevant prior art with regards to an enteral feeding device sharing a similar shape to that of the instant application.
Griffith et al. (United States Patent US 9,033,930 B2) is considered relevant prior art with regards to an enteral feeding device sharing a similar shape to that of the instant application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Evelyn A Thoman whose telephone number is (571)272-8496. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 a.m-4:30 p.m..
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 at 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.
/EVELYN A THOMAN/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3783
/MICHAEL J TSAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3783
Prosecution Insights