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 .
Response to Amendment
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on 06/12/2026. As directed by the amendment: claims 10-12, 14-16, 18-20, and 26-34 have been cancelled and claims 35-37 have been added. Thus, claims 1-9, 13, 17, 21-25, and 35-37 are presently pending in this application.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 1-9, 17, and 21-25 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 06/12/2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II (drawn to an extraction sack) in the reply filed on 06/12/2026 is acknowledged.
Drawings
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 “a conduit coupled to and in fluid communication with the inflation port” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Section 33(a) of the America Invents Act reads as follows:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no patent may issue on a claim directed to or encompassing a human organism.
Claims 13 and 35-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and section 33(a) of the America Invents Act as being directed to or encompassing a human organism. See also Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (indicating that human organisms are excluded from the scope of patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101).
In claim 13, the claim limitation “a toroidal ring disposed within an inner cavity of a body of a person” positively claims the human organism, as structurally relating the toroidal ring to an inner cavity of a body of a person, which is a human organism.
Claims 35-37 are rejected as being dependent on claim 13. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 35-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 35 recites “wherein the toroidal ring comprises a semi rigid material” which is already claimed in claim 13, hence claim 35 does not further limit from claim 13.
Claim 36 recites “further comprising a drawstring for constricting a portion of the flexible wall” which is already claimed in claim 13, hence claim 36 does not further limit from claim 13.
Claim 37 recites “further comprising a conduit coupled to and in fluid communication with the inflation port” which is already claimed in claim 13, hence claim 37 does not further limit from claim 13.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 13 and 35-37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bureau et al (US 20220061830 A1), herein referenced to as “Bureau” in view of Wachli et al (US 20160100857 A1), herein referenced to as “Wachli”.
Claim 13
Bureau discloses: A tissue extraction sack 1 (see Figs. 1-3G, [0071]-[0072]) comprising: a flexible wall 2 (see Figs. 1-3G, [0072], TPU sheet that is flexible as seen in Figs. 3A-3G) defining an inner chamber the inner chamber of 1 (see Figs. 1-3G), wherein the flexible wall 2 defines an inflation port 7 (see Figs. 1-3G, [0079], [0085], and [0098]-[0100], an optical device can be inserted through 7 to inflate the bag with CO2 with 120a/b/c, which as shown in Figs. 3D-3F, is inserted through 7) in fluid communication (see Fig. 3E) with the inner chamber the inner chamber of 1; and a toroidal ring 6 (see Figs. 1-6, [0074]) disposed within an inner cavity of a body of a person (see Fig. 3C, the ring 6, being inserted into the body of the person before being withdrawn out in Fig. 3D), the toroidal ring 6 being separate (see [0074], is a separate metal element) from the flexible wall 2, a drawstring 4 (see Figs. 1-3G, [0074]) for constricting a portion 3b (see Fig. 1, [0074], facilitate correct handling of 1, a drawstring, which 4 is explicitly disclosed as per common definition in field of invention, according to the online Merriam-Webster dictionary is “a string, cord, or tape inserted into hems or casings or laced through eyelets for use in closing a bag or controlling fullness in garments or curtains”, hence the drawstring closes the bag/tightens the open end 3b) of the flexible wall 2; and a conduit 120c (see Figs. 1-3G, [0098]-[0100], 120c is in fluid communication with 7 in order to inflate 1 with CO2) coupled to and in fluid communication with the inflation port 7.
Bureau does not explicitly disclose: wherein the toroidal ring comprises a semi rigid material.
However, Wachli in a similar field of invention teaches a tissue extraction sack 310 (see Figs. 56A-59B) with a toroidal ring 314 (see Figs. 56A-59B) and a drawing string 316 (see Figs. 56A-59B). Wachli further teaches: wherein the toroidal ring 314 comprises a semi rigid material (see [0084] and [0307], semi-rigid).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bureau to incorporate the teachings of Wachli and have a tissue extraction sack with the toroidal ring with a semi rigid material. This is due to semi rigid materials for toroidal rings in tissue extraction sacks (see [0307]) are common in the art, thus it would be obvious to combine. See in re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (2100). In this case it is known to a person of ordinary skill in the field of art that semi rigid materials are useful option of rings of flexible bags in order to assist in keeping the bag open while inserted into the body of the patient for tissue extraction without collapsing at the insertion site (see [0307]).
Claim 35
The combination of Bureau and Wachli teaches: The tissue extraction sack of claim 13, see 103 rejection above. Wachli further teaches: wherein the toroidal ring 314 comprises a semi rigid material (see [0084] and [0307], semi-rigid).
Claim 36
The combination of Bureau and Wachli teaches: The tissue extraction sack of claim 35, see 103 rejection above. Bureau further discloses: further comprising a drawstring 4 (see Figs. 1-3G, [0074]) for constricting a portion 3b (see Fig. 1, [0074], facilitate correct handling of 1, a drawstring, which 4 is explicitly disclosed as per common definition in field of invention, according to the online Merriam-Webster dictionary is “a string, cord, or tape inserted into hems or casings or laced through eyelets for use in closing a bag or controlling fullness in garments or curtains”, hence the drawstring closes the bag/tightens the open end 3b) of the flexible wall 2.
Claim 37
The combination of Bureau and Wachli teaches: The tissue extraction sack of claim 13, see 103 rejection above. Bureau further discloses: further comprising a conduit 120c (see Figs. 1-3G, [0098]-[0100], 120c is in fluid communication with 7 in order to inflate 1 with CO2) coupled to and in fluid communication with the inflation port 7.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Rieber et al (US 20080033451 A1) teaches a tissue extraction sack with a drawstring and a conduit and an inflation port (see Fig. 5)
Gupta et al (US 20170252026 A1) teaches a tissue extraction sack with a toroidal ring and an inflation port (see Fig. 8)
Q. Vu (US 20030216611 A1) teaches a tissue extraction sack with a toroidal ring, a drawstring, and an inflation port (see Fig. 1A)
Chin et al (US 20120109144 A1) teaches a tissue extraction sack with a toroidal ring and an inflation port and a conduit (see Fig. 1b)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAIHAN R KHANDKER whose telephone number is (571)272-6174. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 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, Darwin Erezo can be reached at 571-272-4695. 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.
RAIHAN R. KHANDKER
Examiner
Art Unit 3771
/RAIHAN R KHANDKER/ Examiner, Art Unit 3771
Prosecution Insights