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 statements (IDS) submitted on 10/29/24 has been considered by the examiner.
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 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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Numata (U.S. Patent Application Document 2011/0178506) and in further view of Knudtson (U.S. Patent Application Document 2006/0149292) and Howell (U.S. Patent Application Document 2015/0224285)
Regarding claim 1, Numata teaches a guide wire tip protection device [fig. 1-3, element 4], characterized in that the guide wire tip protection device comprises:
a bottom plate having a longitudinal direction, a transverse direction [fig. 3, element 40a], a hole[fig. 3, element 452; par. 91, Examiner notes the notch acts as a hole], a transverse groove [fig. 3, element 441; par. 82], and a concave portion [fig. 3, element 444; par, 90];
the hole located at a side edge of the bottom plate [fig. 3, element 452];
the transverse groove recessed in a side surface of the bottom plate and extending along the transverse direction [fig. 3, element 441];
the concave portion located at a terminal of the bottom plate and adjacent to the transverse groove [fig. 3, element 444]; an upper cover corresponding to the bottom plate in shape [fig. 3, element 40b];
a side edge of the upper cover connected to a side edge, of the bottom plate [fig. 3, element 41; par. 75], away from the hole to be integrally formed with the bottom plate as a sheet [fig. 3];
the upper cover having at least one longitudinal groove [fig. 3, element 471; par. 83];
the longitudinal groove recessed in a side surface of the upper cover and extending along the longitudinal direction [fig. 3, element 471; par. 83]; wherein when the upper cover meets the bottom plate and the upper cover is bent along said longitudinal groove, an inner space is formed and surrounded by the upper cover and the bottom plate [fig. 6, element 471; par. 83; Examiner notes the operational unit fits into the notch showing a portion of the upper cover is inserted into the bottom plate]
However, Numata does not teach a bottom plate having a snap hole and a through hole; a transverse length of the upper cover being larger than a transverse length of the bottom plate; the upper cover having a snap; the snap corresponding to the snap hole in position and located at an opposite side edge of the upper cover;
Knudtson teaches a bottom plate having a snap hole; the upper cover having a snap; the snap corresponding to the snap hole in position and located at an opposite side edge of the upper cover [fig. 2B; par. 34; Examiner notes the snap fit of Knudtson would constitute having a receiving hole and a snap that would connect to it on opposite sides]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art when the invention was filed to modify the method as taught by Namata, to incorporate a bottom plate having a snap hole; the upper cover having a snap; the snap corresponding to the snap hole in position and located at an opposite side edge of the upper cover, for allowing the device to be releasably attached, as evidence by Knudtson [par. 34].
Howell teaches a through hole [fig. 48, element 108; par. 136]; a transverse length of the upper cover [fig. 52, 53, element 618; par. 136] being larger than a transverse length of the bottom plate [fig. 52, 53, element 104];
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art when the invention was filed to modify the method as taught by Namata, to incorporate a through hole; a transverse length of the upper cover being larger than a transverse length of the bottom plate, for ensuring the dressing is secured to the patient’s skin, as evidence by Howell [par. 136].
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Numata, Knudtson and Howell and in further view of Chu (U.S. Patent Number 10823923)
Regarding claim 2, Numata, Knudtson and Howell teach a guide wire tip protection device, as disclosed above
However, Numata, Knudtson and Howell do not teach the at least one longitudinal groove includes multiple said longitudinal grooves spaced from one another
Chu teaches the at least one longitudinal groove includes multiple said longitudinal grooves spaced from one another [fig. 2, element 40; col. 6: lines 3-20].
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art when the invention was filed to modify the method as taught by Namata, to incorporate the at least one longitudinal groove includes multiple said longitudinal grooves spaced from one another, for opening into a central opening on opposing sides of central opening, as evidence by Chu [col. 6: lines 3-20].
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Numata, Knudtson and Howell and in further view of Suzuki (U.S. Patent Application Document 2015/0094693)
Regarding claim 3, Numata, Knudtson and Howell teach a guide wire tip protection device, as disclosed above
Numata further teaches an upper side edge is defined at one of two opposite ends of the bottom plate [fig. 3, element 40a]; a lower side edge is defined at the other one of the two opposite ends of the bottom plate [fig. 3, element 40a];
Knudtson teaches a length of the upper side edge is greater than a length of the lower side edge [fig. 3, elements 14, 12; par. 29]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art when the invention was filed to modify the method as taught by Namata, to incorporate a length of the upper side edge is greater than a length of the lower side edge, for allowing a person using device 10 to more easily tell end 12 from end 14, as evidence by Knudtson [par. 30].
However, Numata, Knudtson and Howell do not teach the through hole is located between the transverse groove and the lower side edge
Suzuki teaches the through hole is located between the transverse groove and the lower side edge [fig. 7, elements 103, 105; par. 54]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art when the invention was filed to modify the method as taught by Numata, Knudtson and Howell, to incorporate the through hole is located between the transverse groove and the lower side edge, so that the fastening member 40 held by the hole portion 103 is released from the hole portion, as evidence by Suzuki [par. 54].
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Numata, Knudtson and Howell and in further view of Braginsky (U.S. Patent Application Document 2004/0020795)
Regarding claim 4, Numata, Knudtson and Howell teach a guide wire tip protection device, as disclosed above
However, Numata, Knudtson and Howell do not teach two cutting lines are transversally cut through the bottom plate apart and parallel to each other; and the through hole communicates with each cutting line
Braginsky teaches two cutting lines are transversally cut through the bottom plate apart and parallel to each other [fig. 1, elements 26, 24; col. 3: lines 39-54]; and the through hole communicates with each cutting line [fig. 1, element 19; col. 3: lines 21-38]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art when the invention was filed to modify the method as taught by Numata, Knudtson and Howell, to incorporate two cutting lines are transversally cut through the bottom plate apart and parallel to each other; and the through hole communicates with each cutting line, for inserting a device, as evidence by Braginsky [col. 3: lines 39-54].
Claims 5 and 6 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Numata, Knudtson and Howell and in further view of Braginsky (U.S. Patent Application Document 2004/0020795), herein after Braginsky ‘795
Regarding claim 5, Numata, Knudtson and Howell teach a guide wire tip protection device, as disclosed above
Knudtson teaches a snap closure and the snap is selectively inserted into or separated from the snap hole [par. 34]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art when the invention was filed to modify the method as taught by Namata, to incorporate a snap closure and the snap is selectively inserted into or separated from the snap hole, for allowing the device to be releasably attached, as evidence by Knudtson [par. 34].
However Numata, Knudtson and Howell do not teach the tab is an L-shaped sheet extending outwardly from the opposite side edge of the upper cover and extending along the longitudinal direction; the tab hole is an elongated hole extending along the longitudinal direction
Braginsky ‘795 teaches the tab is an L-shaped sheet extending outwardly from the opposite side edge of the upper cover and extending along the longitudinal direction [fig. 1A, 36]; the tab hole is an elongated hole extending along the longitudinal direction [fig. 1A, element 46; par. 60]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art when the invention was filed to modify the method as taught by Numata, Knudtson and Howell, to incorporate the tab is an L-shaped sheet extending outwardly from the opposite side edge of the upper cover and extending along the longitudinal direction; the tab hole is an elongated hole extending along the longitudinal direction, for securing the tab, as evidence by Braginsky ‘795 [par. 60].
Regarding claim 6, Braginsky ‘795 further teaches the bottom plate and the upper cover are made of paper materials [par. 45]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art when the invention was filed to modify the method as taught by Numata, Knudtson and Howell, to incorporate the bottom plate and the upper cover are made of paper materials, as paper has the rigidity and stiffness for the application and use and is inexpensive, as evidence by Braginsky ‘795 [par. 45].
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Numata, Knudtson, Howell and Chu and in further view of Suzuki (U.S. Patent Application Document 2015/0094693)
Regarding claim 3, Numata, Knudtson, Howell and Chu teach a guide wire tip protection device, as disclosed above
Numata further teaches an upper side edge is defined at one of two opposite ends of the bottom plate [fig. 3, element 40a]; a lower side edge is defined at the other one of the two opposite ends of the bottom plate [fig. 3, element 40a];
Knudtson teaches a length of the upper side edge is greater than a length of the lower side edge [fig. 3, elements 14, 12; par. 29]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art when the invention was filed to modify the method as taught by Namata, to incorporate a length of the upper side edge is greater than a length of the lower side edge, for allowing a person using device 10 to more easily tell end 12 from end 14, as evidence by Knudtson [par. 30].
However, Numata, Knudtson, Howell and Chu do not teach the through hole is located between the transverse groove and the lower side edge
Suzuki teaches the through hole is located between the transverse groove and the lower side edge [fig. 7, elements 103, 105; par. 54]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art when the invention was filed to modify the method as taught by Numata, Knudtson, Howell and Chu, to incorporate the through hole is located between the transverse groove and the lower side edge, so that the fastening member 40 held by the hole portion 103 is released from the hole portion, as evidence by Suzuki [par. 54].
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Numata, Knudtson, Howell and Chu and in further view of Braginsky (U.S. Patent Application Document 2004/0020795)
Regarding claim 4, Numata, Knudtson, Howell and Chu teach a guide wire tip protection device, as disclosed above
However, Numata, Knudtson, Howell and Chu do not teach two cutting lines are transversally cut through the bottom plate apart and parallel to each other; and the through hole communicates with each cutting line
Braginsky teaches two cutting lines are transversally cut through the bottom plate apart and parallel to each other [fig. 1, elements 26, 24; col. 3: lines 39-54]; and the through hole communicates with each cutting line [fig. 1, element 19; col. 3: lines 21-38]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art when the invention was filed to modify the method as taught by Numata, Knudtson, Howell and Chu, to incorporate two cutting lines are transversally cut through the bottom plate apart and parallel to each other; and the through hole communicates with each cutting line, for inserting a device, as evidence by Braginsky [col. 3: lines 39-54].
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Numata, Knudtson, Howell and Chu and in further view of Braginsky (U.S. Patent Application Document 2004/0020795), herein after Braginsky ‘795
Regarding claim 5, Numata, Knudtson, Howell and Chu teach a guide wire tip protection device, as disclosed above
Knudtson teaches a snap closure and the snap is selectively inserted into or separated from the snap hole [par. 34]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art when the invention was filed to modify the method as taught by Namata, to incorporate a snap closure and the snap is selectively inserted into or separated from the snap hole, for allowing the device to be releasably attached, as evidence by Knudtson [par. 34].
However Numata, Knudtson and Howell do not teach the tab is an L-shaped sheet extending outwardly from the opposite side edge of the upper cover and extending along the longitudinal direction; the tab hole is an elongated hole extending along the longitudinal direction
Braginsky ‘795 teaches the tab is an L-shaped sheet extending outwardly from the opposite side edge of the upper cover and extending along the longitudinal direction [fig. 1A, 36]; the tab hole is an elongated hole extending along the longitudinal direction [fig. 1A, element 46; par. 60]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art when the invention was filed to modify the method as taught by Numata, Knudtson, Howell and Chu, to incorporate the tab is an L-shaped sheet extending outwardly from the opposite side edge of the upper cover and extending along the longitudinal direction; the tab hole is an elongated hole extending along the longitudinal direction, for securing the tab, as evidence by Braginsky ‘795 [par. 60].
Regarding claim 6, Braginsky ‘795 further teaches the bottom plate and the upper cover are made of paper materials [par. 45]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art when the invention was filed to modify the method as taught by Numata, Knudtson, Howell and Chu, to incorporate the bottom plate and the upper cover are made of paper materials, as paper has the rigidity and stiffness for the application and use and is inexpensive, as evidence by Braginsky ‘795 [par. 45].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GRACE L ROZANSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-7067. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am-5pm, alt F 8:30am-5pm.
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, Alexander Valvis can be reached on (571)272-4233. 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
/GRACE L ROZANSKI/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/ALEX M VALVIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights