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 for Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 21-28) in the reply filed on 6/3/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 21-28 read on the elected invention.
Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 6/3/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 21-24 and 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hacker (US Pub No. 2020/0038049).
Regarding claim 21, Hacker discloses (Figures 1-6A) an illumination assembly comprising:(a) a lighting element (4) configured to extend through a medical device (not positively recited in the claim and is only functionally recited) via a tube, channel or lumen in said medical device [Fully configured in doing this]; (b) an illumination assembly housing (15); and(c) a battery carriage (16) slidably disposed within the illumination assembly housing (Figures 3A-3B and 5) (Paragraph 0052) and configured to hold a battery (20).
Regarding claim 22, wherein the medical device is designed for ENT therapies and procedures (the medical device is not positively recited in the claim and is only functionally recited therefore the medical device is fully capable in being designed for ENT therapies and procedures).
Regarding claim 23, wherein the medical device is a dilation balloon device (the medical device is not positively recited in the claim and is only functionally recited therefore the medical device is fully capable in being a dilation balloon device).
Regarding claim 24, wherein the medical device is a sinuplasty balloon device (the medical device is not positively recited in the claim and is only functionally recited therefore the medical device is fully capable in being a sinuplasty balloon device).
Regarding claim 27, wherein the medical device instrument is configured to treat a frontal sinus, a sphenoid sinus, a maxillary sinus, or an ethmoid sinus of a patient, or a combination thereof (the medical device is not positively recited in the claim and is only functionally recited therefore the medical device is fully configured in treating a frontal sinus, a sphenoid sinus, a maxillary sinus, or an ethmoid sinus of a patient, or a combination thereof).
Regarding claim 28, wherein the medical device instrument is configured to treat an auditory anatomy of a patient (the medical device is not positively recited in the claim and is only functionally recited therefore the medical device is fully configured in treating an auditory anatomy of a patient).
Claims 21 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lia (US Pub No. 2015/0238070).
Regarding claim 21, Lia discloses (Figures 3A-7B) an illumination assembly comprising:(a) a lighting element (412, 416, 424) configured to extend through a medical device (not positively recited in the claim and is only functionally recited) via a tube, channel or lumen in said medical device [Fully configured in doing this]; (b) an illumination assembly housing (510) (Figure 6); and(c) a battery carriage (compartment 426 as disclosed in Paragraph 0047) slidably disposed within the illumination assembly housing (Figures 6 and 7a) (Paragraphs 0049-0051) (slidably disposed via mounting rails 554) and configured to hold a battery (420).
Regarding claim 34, wherein the lighting element is flexible (424 of the lighting element is flexible as shown in Figures 3b, 4b and 5) (Paragraph 0047).
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 of this title, 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 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hacker (US Pub No. 2020/0038049) as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Wang (US Pub No. 2019/0150721).
Regarding claim 25, Hacker discloses the invention above except for wherein the illumination assembly is configured to emit light at an intensity of from 0.08 to 1.96 candela.
Wang, in the analogous art of medical devices using a light source, teaches (Figures 1A and 6A) an illumination assembly (Figure 1) being configured to emit light at an intensity from a fraction of a cd to about 100cd [Meets the claimed range from 0.08 to 1.96 candela] (Paragraph 0005). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the illumination assembly of Hacker to have been configured to emit light at an intensity from a fraction of a cd to about 100cd as taught by Wang, in order to facilitate the surgical procedure by providing a different degree of light intensity (Wang, Paragraph 0005) and also, since it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists”. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claims 26 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hacker (US Pub No. 2020/0038049) as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Swift (US Patent No. 10,959,609).
Regarding claims 26 and 33, Hacker discloses the invention above except for wherein the illumination assembly is configured to emit light for a duration of about two to twelve hours.
Swift, in the analogous art of medical devices using a light source, teaches (Figures 1A and 6A) an illumination assembly (15) being configured to emit light for a duration from two to five hours [Meets the claimed range of about two to twelve hours] (Col. 7, lines 1-11). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the illumination assembly of Hacker to have been configured to emit light for a duration of two to five hours as taught by Swift, in order to facilitate the surgical procedure by providing a longer operational time for the lighting element (Swift, Col. 7, lines 1-11) and also, since it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists”. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAJID JAMIALAHMADI whose telephone number is (571) 270-0172. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 7am-5pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Darwin Erezo can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MAJID JAMIALAHMADI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771
Prosecution Insights