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 § 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.
Claims 1, 4-7, 16, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hwang (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2010/0195230 A1).
Regarding independent claim 1, Figures 5-7 discloses applicant’s claimed tube securing device (3, 4) comprising:
an upper clamp (13b) having an upper surface and a lower surface (Figures 5-7 illustrates upper clamp 13b having upper or external surface and lower or internal surface);
a lower clamp (13a) having an upper surface and a lower surface (Figures 5-7 illustrates lower clamp 13b having upper or internal surface and lower or external surface); and
a hinge (9) located between the upper clamp (13b) and the lower clamp (13a) to define a tube insertion region;
wherein a ratio of a length of the upper surface of the upper clamp to a length of the lower surface of the lower clamp ranges from about 1 (Figures 5-7 illustrates upper surface of upper clamp 13b and lower surface of lower clamp 13b are external surfaces thereof, abstract describes the pair of semi-barrel shaped symmetrical bodies, which symmetrical-shaped deems length ratio being 1).
Regarding claim 4, Hwang reference, presented above, discloses applicant’s claimed tube securing device discloses all features are cited in these claims, wherein the upper surface of the upper clamp (13b) and the lower surface of the lower clamp (13a) are slidably engaged (connection parts 10a, 10b slidingly engaging each other) when the upper clamp (13b) is depressed towards the lower clamp (13b) to secure a tube within the tube insertion region.
Regarding claim 5, Hwang reference, presented above, discloses applicant’s claimed tube securing device discloses all features are cited in these claims, wherein the upper surface of the upper clamp and the lower surface of the lower clamp form an angle with each other ranging from about 0° when slidably engaged (connection parts 10a, 10b are a part of upper/lower surfaces, and the engagement thereof is about 0° upon slidingly contact therebetween).
Regarding claim 6, Hwang reference, presented above, discloses applicant’s claimed tube securing device discloses all features are cited in these claims, further comprising a protrusion (18, 19) extending from a base (12a, 12b) of the tube securing device adjacent the
hinge (9).
Regarding claim 7, Hwang reference, presented above, discloses applicant’s claimed tube securing device discloses all features are cited in these claims, wherein the tube insertion region (Figure 3 illustrates tube insertion region is hemisphere-like, dome-like shaped which inherently has a curvature against tube 21, such a ratio of a radius along curvature of the tube insertion region to an outer diameter of a tube 21 inserted into the tube insertion region ranges from about 1:1 to about 1:3), where a ratio of the radius of the tube insertion region to an outer diameter of a tube inserted into the tube insertion region ranges from about 1:1 to about 1:3.
Regarding claim 16, Hwang reference, presented above, discloses applicant’s claimed tube securing device discloses all features are cited in these claims, wherein the tube securing device (21) secures a tube having a size of 6 French, 8 French, 10 French, 12 French, or 14 French (Figure 3 illustrates barrel-like structure 21 received within ball clamp 4, such barrel-like structure 21 deems having at least a size of 14 French).
Regarding claim 18, Hwang reference, presented above, discloses applicant’s claimed tube securing device discloses all features are cited in these claims, wherein the tube securing device is configured to receive a feeding tube (21).
Regarding claim 19, Hwang reference, presented above, discloses applicant’s claimed tube securing device discloses all features are cited in these claims, wherein the tube is a nasoenteric feeding tube (Hwang’s barrel-like structure 21 is sized to accommodate within nasal).
Claims 1 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Crosbie (U.S. Patent No. 6,069,206).
Regarding independent claim 1, Figures 1-5 discloses applicant’s claimed tube securing device (20) comprising:
an upper clamp (12) having an upper surface and a lower surface (Figure 4 illustrate upper clamp 12 having upper or left surface and lower or right surface);
a lower clamp (24) having an upper surface and a lower surface (Figure 4 illustrates lower clamp 13b having upper or right surface and lower or left surface); and
a hinge (36) located between the upper clamp (12) and the lower clamp (24) to define a tube insertion region (Figures 5 illustrates tube 100, the space therein is interpreted to be a tube insertion region);
wherein a ratio of a length of the upper surface of the upper clamp to a length of the lower surface of the lower clamp ranges from about 1 (Figures 1-5 illustrates upper/left surface of upper clamp 12 and lower/right surface of lower clamp 24 are circumferential surfaces thereof, which semi-circle length of clamps 12, 24 deems symmetrical length thereby length ratio being 1).
Regarding claim 16, Crosbie reference, presented above, discloses applicant’s claimed tube securing device discloses all features are cited in these claims, wherein the tube securing device (10) secures a tube (100) having a size of 6 French, 8 French, 10 French, 12 French, or 14 French (column 2 lines 48-51 discloses pediatrics tube range of 2.5 mm to 4.5 mm, which range corresponds to 7 French to 14 French).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crosbie (U.S. Patent No. 6,069,206) in view of Tindel (U.S. Patent No. 3,599,642).
Regarding claim 17, Crossbie reference, presented above, discloses applicant’s claimed tube securing device, comprising all features as recited in these claims including the tube (100, Figure 5 in Crosbie).
Crossbie is silent on the tube is formed from silicone, polyurethane, polyvinyl chloride, or a combination thereof.
However, Tindel teaches an analogous endotracheal tube (10) constructed from medically approved synthetic polymeric material such as nontoxic polyvinyl chloride (column 2 lines 67-72).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to applicant’s effective filing date to construct Crosbie’s tube (100) using polyvinyl chloride material, taught by Tindel, as such well-known material is safe and compatible for medical applications.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3 and 8-15 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAMTU TRAN NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4799. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm, Monday-Friday.
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, Rachael E Bredefeld can be reached at 571-270-5237. 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.
/CAMTU T NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3786
Prosecution Insights