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 the claims
Claim(s) 1, 9, 19 is/are amended. Currently claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 9,19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Lagow et al (20210378487).
Regarding claim 9, Lagow, Fig. 9A-9C, Para 107, discloses valve assembly for a medical device (endoscope), comprising: a valve body having an air inlet passage (Fig 9A, air in), an air outlet passage (fig 9B, air out), a water inlet passage (water in), and a water outlet passage (water out); a valve cap 414 positioned above the valve body; a spring member 412 made entirely of a degradable material (Para 107, thermoplastic), the spring member 412 positioned between the valve cap 414 and the valve body such that, when the valve cap is pushed downward (fig 9C) relative to the valve body, the spring member applies upward force against the valve cap; and a valve stem 416 connected to the valve cap and configured to translate within the valve body between an upper position and a lower position, the valve stem comprising a side wall and a central lumen (air passage Fig 9A) extending from an air inlet in the side wall of the valve stem 416 to the air hole in the valve cap 414.
As to claim 19, the degradable material is a polymer (thermoplastic, Para 107) with a high degradation rate (compared to non-degrading alloys).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 10-18, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lagow et al (20210378487).
Lagow as modified fails to disclose valve stem and spring made of materials claimed. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made valve stem and spring in the device disclosed by Lagow as modified using the materials claimed since it has been held that selecting a particular known material is within the general skill of a worker in the art on the basis of its suitability for the intended as a material of obvious design choice use based upon particular application requirements.
Claim(s) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lagow et al (20210378487) in view of Jensrud et al (20200397229 A1).
Regarding claim(s) 1, 6, Lagow, Fig. 9A-9C, discloses a valve assembly for a medical device (endoscope), comprising: a valve body having an air inlet passage (Fig 9A, air in), an air outlet passage (fig 9B, air out), a water inlet passage (water in), and a water outlet passage (water out); a valve cap 414 positioned above the valve body; a spring member 412 positioned between the valve cap and the valve body such that, when the valve cap is pushed downward relative to the valve body, the spring member applies upward force against the valve cap; and a valve stem 416 connected to the valve cap and configured to translate within the valve body between an upper position and a lower position, the valve stem comprising a side wall and a central lumen (air passage Fig 9A) extending from an air inlet in the side wall of the valve stem 416 to the air hole in the valve cap 414, the valve stem made entirely of a degradable material (Para 107).
Lagow disclose unitary valve stem 416 but fails to disclose valve stem made of stainless steel (Fe) metal. Jensrud (Para 17) teaches a similar valve with valve stem made of steel.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the device disclosed by Lagow with valve stem made of stainless steel Ferrous metal as taught by Jensrud as an art-recognized functionally equivalent substitute vale stem material yielding predictable results of providing a relatively rigid valve stem.
As to claims 2-5, 7-8, Lagow as modified fails to disclose valve stem and spring made of materials claimed. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made valve stem and spring in the device disclosed by Lagow as modified using the materials claimed since it has been held that selecting a particular known material is within the general skill of a worker in the art on the basis of its suitability for the intended as a material of obvious design choice use based upon particular application requirements.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments that “Paragraph [0060] notes, ‘[W]e define 'degradation' as physical and/or chemical changes to a component that occur over time due to the component's exposure to an environment’ … not all thermoplastics are degradable materials ” are not persuasive since the exclusive definition of “degradation” in Para 60, “physical and/or chemical changes … due to … exposure to an environment” is so broad that it encompasses all matter earth. All thermoplastics are degradable when exposed to appropriate degrading environment.
Applicant’s arguments that “Degradable materials .. defined in paragraph [0062] as metal and non-metal materials that have a higher degradation rate” are not persuasive since Para 62 says: “Both metal and non-metal materials that have a higher degradation rate are “degradable” materials”. This is not seen as giving an exclusive definition of degradable material. Rather it gives examples of degradable materials.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Atif Chaudry at phone number 571-270-3768. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (9:30AM-6:00PM EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisors can be reached by phone. Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at 571-272-4881, or Craig Schneider can be reached at 571-272-3607. 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.
/ATIF H CHAUDRY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights