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 § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Specifically, Claim 14 recites the limitation "the irrigation feed" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Appropriate correction by Applicant is required.
For purposes of examination, Examiner interprets “the irrigation feed” as “an irrigation pump”.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Raines (US Patent 4,556,086 – “Raines”).
With regard to Claim 1, Raines discloses:
A water connector (Raines FIG. 1 check valve 10) for a fluid supply system (Examiner notes that Raines col. 1 lines 7-10 states that Raines’ valve permits pressurized fluid flow in only one direction, and is particularly suitable for medical use), comprising:
a water source component (Raines FIG. 1, upper body element 11, shown in Raines FIG. 2 as receiving a primary flow of liquid) comprising a valve seat (Raines FIG. 2, valve seat 18);
a water delivery component (Raines FIG. 1, lower body element 20) comprising an internal projection (Raines FIG. 2, support pin 30 supporting disc 42); and
a disk seal (Raines FIG. 2, disc 42) positioned between the valve seat and the internal projection, the disk seal moving between:
a closed position in which water flowing from the water delivery component towards the water source component presses the disk seal into the valve seat, obstructing water flow into the water source component (Raines FIG. 2, showing check valve 10 in a closed position, where support pin(s) 30 press disc 42 is pressing against valve seat 18 to block passage of the primary flow A; see also Raines col. 3 lines 25-28, “As shown in FIG. 2, the normal position of the device is with the valve member in closed position. Thus, no flow of liquid normally occurs through the valve.”), and
an open position in which water flowing from the water source component towards the water delivery component presses the disk deal into the internal projection, permitting water flow into the water delivery component (Raines FIG. 3, showing check valve 10 in an open position, where low pressure in the primary flow A forces the disc 42 away from the valve seat to allow the primary flow A to flow through the central aperture 25 of lower body element 20; see also Raines col. 3 lines 41-43, ”FIG. 3 shows the dual valve disc construction in the open, full flow position”).
With regard to Claim 3, Raines discloses the features of Claim 1, as described above.
Raines further discloses the water delivery component (Raines FIG. 1, lower body element 20) having a nozzle (Raines FIG. 2, projection 24) at its upper end opposite the disk seal (Raines FIG. 2, disc 42), the nozzle receiving water from the water source component to deliver to elements of the fluid supply system downstream from the water connector (Raines FIG. 3 showing check valve 10 in an open position, such that primary flow A shown in Raines FIG. 2 flows from upper body element 11 to lower body element 20).
With regard to Claim 9, Raines discloses the features of Claim 1, as described above.
Raines further discloses wherein the disc seal (Raines FIG. 2, disc 42) is a single piece of TPU, TPE, or silicone (Raines col. 3 lines 39-41, “disc 40 also can be made of rubber-like material and silicone material has been found to work quite well”).
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raines (US Patent 4,556,086 – “Raines”) in view of Christopher (US PGPUB 2001/0012923 – “Christopher”).
With regard to Claim 2, Raines discloses the features of Claim 1, as described above.
Raines does not explicitly disclose the water source component having a luer lock connector at its lower end opposite the disk seal.
Christopher is analogous art in the field of fluid control that teaches the water source component (Christopher FIG. 3, guide 25) having a luer lock connector (Christopher FIG. 15, luer connector 192) at its lower end opposite the disk seal (Christopher FIG. 15, duck-bill one-way valve 193).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute Christopher’s luer connector 192 for Raines’ disc 42. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make this simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain the predictable result of a quick-connector to a one-way valve that that prevents backflow from a patient (Christopher paragraph [0104], “luer connector 192 with a one-way valve 193 (e.g., a duck-bill valve) is permanently attached to the guide cap 191 so that air or fluid can only flow down the passageway of the guide cap 191, but not up”).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raines (US Patent 4,556,086 – “Raines”) in view of McCrory et al. (US Patent 5,190,529 – “McCrory”).
With regard to Claim 4, Raines discloses the features of Claim 3, as described above.
Raines does not explicitly disclose the water delivery component further having a hooded thread surrounding the nozzle.
McCrory is analogous art in the field of fluid control that teaches the water delivery component (McCrory FIG. 12, connector 120 connected to fluid port 220) further having a hooded thread (McCrory FIG. 12, internal threads 300 within connector 120) surrounding the nozzle (McCrory FIG. 12, compression collar 340 having a liquid opening 360).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine McCrory’s hooded thread connector with Raines’ lower body element 20 in the water connector disclosed by Raines. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of a fluid connector having fluid-tight connection between the connector and a catheter that connects to the connector (see McCrory col. 6 lines 18-25), in order to prevent contamination of the connection.
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raines (US Patent 4,556,086 – “Raines”) in view of Carmody et al. (US PGPUB 2010/0300556 – “Carmody”).
With regard to Claim 5, Raines discloses the features of Claim 1, as described above.
Raines does not explicitly disclose wherein the water source component is a single piece of injection-molded thermoplastic.
Carmody is analogous art in the field of fluid control devices that teaches wherein the water source component (Carmody FIG. 1, casing 2) is a single piece of injection-molded thermoplastic (Carmody paragraph [0023], “hose connecting casings 2…are made from a plastic for instance by injection molding’).
It would have been obvious to manufacture Raines’ upper body element 11 using the thermoplastic injection-molding taught by Carmody. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize Carmody’s known manufacturing technique of thermoplastic injection-molding to create Raine’s upper body element 11 to yield the predictable result of water source components that are uniform in structure and inexpensive (compared to labor-intensive manual shaping) to manufacture.
With regard to Claim 6, Raines discloses the features of Claim 1, as described above.
Raines does not explicitly disclose wherein the water delivery component is a single piece of injection-molded thermoplastic.
Carmody is analogous art in the field of fluid control devices that teaches wherein the water delivery component is a single piece of injection-molded thermoplastic (Carmody paragraph [0023], “casings…4 are made from a plastic for instance by injection molding’).
It would have been obvious to manufacture Raines’ lower body element 20 using the thermoplastic injection-molding taught by Carmody. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize Carmody’s known manufacturing technique of thermoplastic injection-molding to create Raine’s lower body element 20 to yield the predictable result of water delivery components that are uniform in structure and inexpensive (compared to labor-intensive manual shaping) to manufacture.
With regard to Claim 7, Raines discloses the features of Claim 1, as described above.
Raines does not explicitly disclose wherein the water source component and the water delivery component are formed of the same material using the same manufacturing process.
Carmody is analogous art in the field of fluid control devices that teaches wherein the water source component and the water delivery component are formed of the same material using the same manufacturing process (Carmody paragraph [0023], “hose connecting casings 2 and 4 are made from a plastic for instance by injection molding”).
It would have been obvious to manufacture Raines’ upper body element and lower body element 20 using the thermoplastic injection-molding taught by Carmody. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize Carmody’s known manufacturing technique of thermoplastic injection-molding to create Raine’s upper body element 11 and lower body element 20 to yield the predictable result of water delivery components that are uniform in structure and inexpensive (compared to labor-intensive manual shaping) to manufacture.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raines (US Patent 4,556,086 – “Raines”) in view of Gomringer (US Patent 5,062,648 – “Gomringer”).
With regard to Claim 8, Raines discloses the features of Claim 1, as described above.
Raines col. 3 line 57 discloses the rubber disc 42 is very flexible (Durometer 40
±
5), and thus it would be assumed that the housing (i.e., Raines upper body element and lower body element 20) of Raine’s check valve 10 is more rigid/harder than the rubber disc 42, in order to seat/support the disc 42. For purposes of compact prosecution, Examiner further cites Gomringer for teaching wherein the disc seal (Gomringer FIG. 4A, seat valve 64 with flexible flaps 72) is a flexible seal formed of a material with a durometer less than the durometer of a material forming at least one of the water source component or the water delivery component (Gomringer FIG. 4A, housing 20; Gomringer col. 5 lines 1-2, “housing 20 is made of a rigid material such as a plastic or a metal”.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize Gomringer’s flexible flaps 72 and rigid housing 60 in the water connector disclosed by Raines. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize Gomringer’s rigid housing 60 to support the flexible flaps 72 while opening and closing, thus ensuring that they open and close when allowing passage of a catheter, fluids, etc. (see Gomringer col. 2 lines 39-41, “The device also includes a seal valve mounted in the housing which automatically closes to prevent loss of fluid when the shaft is removed from the housing.”).
Claims 10-15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harris et al. (US PGPUB 2022/0192479 – “Harris”) in view of Raines (US Patent 4,556,086 – “Raines”).
Regarding Claim 10, Harris discloses:
An endoscopic medical device (Harris FIG. 1, endoscope 100), comprising:
an endoscopic probe (Harris FIG. 1, elongated shaft 100a) having a lens (Harris paragraph [0048], “On an end face 100d of the distal tip of the endoscope 100 is a gas/lens wash nozzle 220…for supplying water to wash a lens covering the imager.”);
a lens wash feed line (Harris FIG. 2, lens wash supply line 245c and lens wash tubing 245c) connected to the endoscopic probe to supply water for washing the lens during an endoscopic procedure (Harris FIG. 2, lens wash nozzle 220; Harris paragraph [0053], “Pressurizing the water source forces water out of the lens wash tubing 245c, through the connector portion 265, umbilicus 260, through the gas/water valve 140 and down the lens wash supply line 245a, converging with the gas supply line 240a prior to exiting the distal tip 100c of the endoscope 100 via the gas/lens wash nozzle 220”);
an irrigation feed line (Harris FIG. 2, irrigation feed line 255b exiting at irrigation opening 225) connected to the endoscopic probe to supply water for irrigation during the endoscopic procedure (Harris paragraph [0048], “An irrigation opening 225 in the end face 100d supplies irrigation fluid to the treatment area of the patient.”);
a fluid supply system (Harris FIG. 2, water reservoir 270) supplying water to the irrigation feed line (Harris paragraph [0051], “water reservoir 270.the irrigation supply tubing and lens wash tubing 245c may source water from the same fluid reservoir”); and
a water connector (Harris FIG. 2, lens wash connection 290) connecting the fluid supply system to the irrigation feed line (Harris paragraph [0051], “fluid reservoir 270 (e.g., water bottle) is fluidly connected to the endoscope 100 through the connector portion 265”).
Harris does not explicitly disclose:
the water connector comprising:
a water source component comprising a valve seat;
a water delivery component comprising an internal projection; and
a disk seal positioned between the valve seat and the internal projection, the disk seal moving between:
a closed position in which water flowing from the water delivery component towards the water source component presses the disk seal into the valve seat, obstructing water flow into the water source component, and
an open position in which water flowing from the water source component towards the water delivery component presses the disk deal into the internal projection, permitting water flow into the water delivery component.
Raines is analogous art in the field of endoscopic devices and fluid control therein that teaches:
the water connector (Raines FIG. 1 check valve 10) comprising:
a water source component (Raines FIG. 1, upper body element 11, shown in Raines FIG. 2 as receiving a primary flow of liquid) comprising a valve seat (Raines FIG. 2, valve seat 18);
a water delivery component (Raines FIG. 1, lower body element 20) comprising an internal projection (Raines FIG. 2, support pin 30 supporting disc 42); and
a disk seal (Raines FIG. 2, disc 42) positioned between the valve seat and the internal projection, the disk seal moving between:
a closed position in which water flowing from the water delivery component towards the water source component presses the disk seal into the valve seat, obstructing water flow into the water source component (Raines FIG. 2, showing check valve 10 in a closed position, where support pin(s) 30 press disc 42 is pressing against valve seat 18 to block passage of the primary flow A; see also Raines col. 3 lines 25-28, “As shown in FIG. 2, the normal position of the device is with the valve member in closed position. Thus, no flow of liquid normally occurs through the valve.”), and
an open position in which water flowing from the water source component towards the water delivery component presses the disk deal into the internal projection, permitting water flow into the water delivery component (Raines FIG. 3, showing check valve 10 in an open position, where low pressure in the primary flow A forces the disc 42 away from the valve seat to allow the primary flow A to flow through the central aperture 25 of lower body element 20; see also Raines col. 3 lines 41-43, ”FIG. 3 shows the dual valve disc construction in the open, full flow position”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Raines’ check valve with the endoscopic medical device disclosed by Harris. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of an endoscope that prevents low-pressure back-flow from a patient’s organ in order to prevent contamination of a fluid supply (see Raines col. 2 lines 22-25).
Regarding Claim 11, Harris in view of Raines teaches the features of Claim 10, as described above.
Harris further discloses:
an umbilicus (Harris FIG. 2, umbilicus 260) containing the lens wash feed line (Harris FIG. 2, lens wash feed line 245b) and the irrigation feed line (Harris FIG. 2, irrigation feed line 255b); and
an umbilicus connector interfacing with the fluid supply system and the umbilicus; wherein the water connector is directly connected to the umbilicus connector (Harris paragraph [0051], “connector portion 265 also has a detachable irrigation connection 293 for irrigation supply tubing (not shown) running from a source of irrigation fluid (not shown) to the irrigation feed line 255b in the umbilicus 260”).
Regarding Claim 12, Harris in view of Raines teaches the features of Claim 11, as described above.
Harris further discloses an endoscopic handle (Harris FIG. 1, operating handle 115), wherein the umbilicus is directly coupled to the endoscopic handle (Harris FIG. 2, showing umbilicus 260 directed coupled to operating handle 115 shown in Harris FIG. 1).
Regarding Claim 13, Harris in view of Raines teaches the features of Claim 10, as described above.
Harris further discloses wherein the fluid supply system further includes a peristaltic pump, and wherein the water connector connects to the fluid supply system downstream of the peristaltic pump to deliver water pressurized by the peristaltic pump (Harris paragraph [0051], “The connector portion 265 also has a detachable irrigation connection 293 for irrigation supply tubing (not shown) running from a source of irrigation fluid (not shown) to the irrigation feed line 255b in the umbilicus 260. In some embodiments, irrigation water is supplied via a pump (e.g., peristaltic pump) from a water source independent (not shown) from the water reservoir 270.).
Regarding Claim 14, Harris in view of Raines teaches the features of Claim 10, as described above.
Harris further discloses an exterior interface for activating the irrigation feed (Harris paragraph [0055], “When irrigation water is required, fluid is pumped from the water source by operating the irrigation pump, such as by depressing a footswitch (not shown)”).
Regarding Claim 15, Harris in view of Raines teaches the features of Claim 14, as described above.
Harris further discloses wherein the exterior interface is a foot pedal (Harris paragraph [0055], “When irrigation water is required, fluid is pumped from the water source by operating the irrigation pump, such as by depressing a footswitch (not shown)”).
Regarding Claim 17, Harris in view of Raines teaches the features of Claim 10, as described above.
Raines further teaches wherein the water delivery component (Raines FIG. 1, lower body element 20) of the water connector has a nozzle (Raines FIG. 2, projection 24) at its upper end opposite the disk seal (Raines FIG. 2, disc 42), the nozzle receiving water from the water source component to deliver to elements of the fluid supply system downstream from the water connector (Raines FIG. 3 showing check valve 10 in an open position, such that primary flow A shown in Raines FIG. 2 flows from upper body element 11 to lower body element 20).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harris et al. (US PGPUB 2022/0192479 – “Harris”) in view of Raines (US Patent 4,556,086 – “Raines”) and Christopher (US PGPUB 2001/0012923 – “Christopher”).
Regarding Claim 16, Harris in view of Raines teaches the features of Claim 10, as described above.
Harris in view of Raines does not explicitly teach wherein the water source component of the water connector has a luer lock connector at its lower end opposite the disk seal.
Christopher is analogous art in the field of fluid supply for an endoscopic device that teaches the water source component (Christopher FIG. 3, guide 25) of the water connector has a luer lock connector (Christopher FIG. 15, luer connector 192) at its lower end opposite the disk sea. (Christopher FIG. 15, duck-bill one-way valve 193).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute Christopher’s luer connector 192 for Raines’ disc 42 in the endoscopic medical device taught by Harris in view of Raines. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make this simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain the predictable result of a quick-connector to a one-way valve that that prevents backflow from a patient (see Christopher paragraph [0104], “luer connector 192 with a one-way valve 193 (e.g., a duck-bill valve) is permanently attached to the guide cap 191 so that air or fluid can only flow down the passageway of the guide cap 191, but not up”).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harris et al. (US PGPUB 2022/0192479 – “Harris”) in view of Raines (US Patent 4,556,086 – “Raines”) and McCrory et al. (US Patent 5,190,529 – “McCrory”).
Regarding Claim 18, Harris in view of Raines teaches the features of Claim 17, as described above.
Harris in view of Raines does not explicitly teach the water delivery component further having a hooded thread surrounding the nozzle.
McCrory is analogous art in the field of fluid control for an endoscopic medical device that teaches the water delivery component (McCrory FIG. 12, connector 120 connected to fluid port 220) further having a hooded thread (McCrory FIG. 12, internal threads 300 within connector 120) surrounding the nozzle (McCrory FIG. 12, compression collar 340 having a liquid opening 360).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine McCrory’s hooded thread connector with Raines’ lower body element 20 in the water connector taught by Raines in the endoscopic medical device taught by Harris in view of Raines. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of a fluid connector having fluid-tight connection between the connector and a catheter that connects to the connector (see McCrory col. 6 lines 18-25).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harris et al. (US PGPUB 2022/0192479 – “Harris”) in view of Raines (US Patent 4,556,086 – “Raines”) and Carmody et al. (US PGPUB 2010/0300556 – “Carmody”).
Regarding Claim 19, Harris in view of Raines teaches the features of Claim 10, as described above.
Harris in view of Raines does not explicitly teach wherein the water source component and the water delivery component of the water connector are formed of the same material using the same manufacturing process.
Carmody is analogous art in the field of manufacturing endoscopic medical devices that teaches wherein the water source component and the water delivery component are formed of the same material using the same manufacturing process (Carmody paragraph [0023], “hose connecting casings 2 and 4 are made from a plastic for instance by injection molding”).
It would have been obvious to manufacture Raines’ upper body element and lower body element 20 using the thermoplastic injection-molding taught by Carmody when manufacturing the endoscopic medical device taught by Harris in view of Raines. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize Carmody’s known manufacturing technique of thermoplastic injection-molding to create Raine’s upper body element 11 and lower body element 20 to yield the predictable result of water delivery components that are uniform in structure and inexpensive (compared to labor-intensive manual shaping) to manufacture.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harris et al. (US PGPUB 2022/0192479 – “Harris”) in view of Raines (US Patent 4,556,086 – “Raines”) and Gomringer (US Patent 5,062,648 – “Gomringer”).
Regarding Claim 20, Harris in view of Raines teaches the features of Claim 10, as described above.
Raines col. 3 line 57 discloses the rubber disc 42 is very flexible (Durometer 40
±
5), and thus it would be assumed that the housing (i.e., Raines upper body element and lower body element 20) of Raine’s check valve 10 is more rigid/harder than the rubber disc 42, in order to seat/support the disc 42. For purposes of compact prosecution, Examiner further cites Gomringer, which is analogous art in the field of endoscopic medical devices and the manufacturing thereof, for teaching wherein the disc seal (Gomringer FIG. 4A, seat valve 64 with flexible flaps 72) of the water connector is a flexible seal formed of a material with a durometer less than the durometer of a material forming at least one of the water source component or the water delivery component (Gomringer FIG. 4A, housing 20; Gomringer col. 5 lines 1-2, “housing 20 is made of a rigid material such as a plastic or a metal”.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize Gomringer’s flexible flaps 72 and rigid housing 60 in the water connector taught by Raines in the endoscopic medical device taught by Harris in view of Raines. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize Gomringer’s rigid housing 60 to support the flexible flaps 72 while opening and closing, thus ensuring that they open and close when allowing passage of a catheter, fluids, etc. (see Gomringer col. 2 lines 39-41, “The device also includes a seal valve mounted in the housing which automatically closes to prevent loss of fluid when the shaft is removed from the housing.”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, includes but is not limited to:
Wilson et al. (US PGPUB 2003/0122095 – “Wilson”), which teaches in Wilson FIG. 2 a valve body 203 that supports an elastomeric valve disk 202 pressed against a disk holder 201;
Mijers et al. (US PGPUB 2016/0129181 – “Mijers”), which teaches in Mijers FIG. 5 a bidirectional valve 10 that directs fluid control by using a circular disk 37; and
Richmond (US Patent 5,645,538 – “Richmond”), which teaches in Richmond FIGs. 2A-2B a valve 30 that utilizes a flexible silicon rubber disc 54 that is disposed in a fluid passageway 52.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIM BOICE whose telephone number is (571)272-6565. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am - 5:00pm Eastern.
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, Anhtuan Nguyen can be reached at (571)272-4963. 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.
JIM BOICE
Examiner
Art Unit 3795
/JAMES EDWARD BOICE/Examiner, Art Unit 3795
Prosecution Insights