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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments (see response filed July 21st, 2025, pages 6-8) with respect to claims 1-6, 8-18, and 20-22 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 10 and 22 are 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.
Claims 10 and 22 recite the limitation "the plurality of additive channels" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. This is indefinite because it is unclear how many additive channels are required. Claims 1 and 11 from which claims 10 and 22 depend recite “one or more additive channels”.
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 (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 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-4 and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poli (US 5192269) in view of Shannon et al. (US 5431185).
Regarding claim 1, Poli discloses a device for dispensing one or more additives (drugs) into a base liquid (such as to form an infusion fluid, col. 1, lines 7-14) as shown below:
PNG
media_image1.png
782
961
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Poli discloses a body comprising a main channel (mixing chamber/channel 32), an input port (inlet 25a) on a first side of the body for receiving a base liquid into the main channel (channel 32), one or more additive channels (inlets 25b-25d each comprising a channel, Fig. 3) on the first side of the body, and an output port (outlet port 23) on a second side of the body opposite the first side of the body for outputting a mixture (after passing through the mixing chamber, abstract), each of the one or more additive channels comprising: a tube (Fig. 1) for providing an additive; a check disk parallel to and contained in the main channel (Fig. 3, shown aligned and parallel within the main channel); and a fulcrum (protrusions 34) to apply pressure on the check disk (diaphragm 28a has a check disk for each inlet, Fig. 6) and located in the main channel (Fig. 3); wherein the additive enters the main channel into the mixture when a pressure of the additive exceeds a flexure threshold of the check disk (col. 2, lines 20-30).
Poli does not explicitly disclose wherein each of the one or more additive channels has a diameter smaller than a diameter of the input port.
However, Shannon et al. discloses a similar device having a check disk (backcheck member 20), additive channels (inlets 14a-c), and an input port (inlet 13, Fig. 1 and Fig. 2, col. 5, lines 18-22) and Shannon et al. further taches wherein each of the one or more additive channels has a diameter smaller than a diameter of the input port (Fig. 3) as shown below:
PNG
media_image2.png
299
610
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Poli wherein each of the one or more additive channels has a diameter smaller than a diameter of the input port.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to size the input port larger than additive channels in order to deliver larger volumes of base fluid therethrough (relative to additives).
Regarding claim 2, it is well-settled that the material worked upon by an apparatus does not limit apparatus claims. See MPEP 2115. Nonetheless, the device of Poli would be fully capable of receiving an additive liquid in at least one of the one or more additive channels (inlets 25b-25d).
Regarding claim 3, it is well-settled that the material worked upon by an apparatus does not limit apparatus claims. See MPEP 2115. Nonetheless, the device of Poli would be fully capable of mixing an additive where the additive is a cleaning and disinfecting solution delivered through an additive channel (inlets 25b-25d).
Regarding claim 4, it is well-settled that the material worked upon by an apparatus does not limit apparatus claims. See MPEP 2115. Nonetheless, the device of Poli would be fully capable of dissolving a gas in a liquid where the gas is delivered through one of the additive channels (inlets 25b-25d).
Regarding claim 11, it is well-settled that the material worked upon by an apparatus does not limit apparatus claims. See MPEP 2115. Nonetheless, Poli teaches a device which is capable of dispensing one or more additives (drugs, col. 1, line 13) into water (and administering fluids into a patient, col. 1, lines 10-14, would be expected to comprise fluids consisting of mostly water) as shown above for claim 1.
Poli discloses the device comprises a body comprising a main channel (channel 32), an input port (inlet 25a) on a first side of the body (Fig. 3) for receiving water into the main channel, one or more additive channels (inlets 25b-25d) on the first side of the body (Fig. 3), and an output port (outlet port 23) on a second side of the body opposite the first side of the body (as shown above for claim 1) for outputting a mixture of water and one or more additives, each of the one or more additive channels comprising: a tube (Fig. 1) for providing an additive; a check disk (diaphragm 28a includes a check disk for each channel, Fig. 6) parallel to and contained in the main channel (Fig. 3); and a fulcrum (protrusion 34) to apply pressure on the check disk and located in the main channel; wherein the additive enters the main channel into the mixture when a pressure of the additive exceeds a flexure threshold of the check disk (col. 2, lines 20-30).
Poli does not explicitly disclose wherein each of the one or more additive channels has a diameter smaller than a diameter of the input port.
However, Shannon et al. discloses a similar device having a check disk (backcheck member 20), additive channels (inlets 14a-c), and an input port (inlet 13, Fig. 1 and Fig. 2, col. 5, lines 18-22) and Shannon et al. further taches wherein each of the one or more additive channels has a diameter smaller than a diameter of the input port (Fig. 3) as shown above for claim 1.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Poli wherein each of the one or more additive channels has a diameter smaller than a diameter of the input port.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to size the input port larger than additive channels in order to deliver larger volumes of base fluid therethrough (relative to additives).
Regarding claim 12, it is well-settled that the material worked upon by an apparatus does not limit apparatus claims. See MPEP 2115. Nonetheless, the additive channels (inlets 25b-25d) of Poli would be fully capable of delivering a liquid flavor additive.
Regarding claims 13 and 15, it is well-settled that the material worked upon by an apparatus does not limit apparatus claims. See MPEP 2115. Nonetheless, the device of Poli would be fully capable of delivering carbon dioxide gas where the gas is delivered through one of the additive channels (inlets 25b-25d).
Regarding claim 14, it is well-settled that the material worked upon by an apparatus does not limit apparatus claims. See MPEP 2115. Nonetheless, the device of Poli would be fully capable of delivering a cleaning and disinfecting solution through one of the additive channels (inlets 25b-25d).
Claims 5 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poli (US 5192269) in view of Shannon et al. (US 5431185) as applied to claim 1 or claim 11 above and in further view of Meyer et al. (US 10010663).
Regarding claims 5 and 16, Poli does not disclose push connect fittings.
However, Meyer teaches a device for dispensing additives (solution from reservoir 201, Fig. 1) into a base liquid (water from reservoir 202) and further teaches the use of push connect fittings (col. 49, line 5) for ports (ports 523 and 524).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Poli by utilizing push connect fittings wherein the device comprises a push connect fitting engaged with the input port and the base liquid (water) is provided through the push connect fitting.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use a push connect fitting to facilitate coupling with the device or otherwise would have found it obvious to substitute one coupling type (Poli, syringe coupling, col. 1, line 42) for another known type (Meyer, push to connect, col. 43, lines 32-33) and thereby achieve the predictable result of coupling the device to a source of fluid. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), supra.
Claims 6 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poli (US 5192269) in view of Shannon et al. (US 5431185) as applied to claim 1 or claim 11 above and in further view of Feith et al. (US 6364861) and Cowan et al. (US 20200171234).
Regarding claims 6 and 17, Poli discloses that the main body comprises a top piece (member 24 may be arranged such that it is on top) and bottom piece (member 22 may be arranged such that it is on the bottom), but does not expressly disclose the device is connected with one or more fasteners.
However, Feith et al. teaches a similar device (mixing manifold for I.V. solutions, col. 1, line 34)
with additive inlets (injection ports 27, 30, and 32, col. 4, line 29-30, Fig. 4) and further teaches that the
device is separable into a top piece (first housing member 41) and a bottom piece (second housing
member 43, Fig. 4) which are connected by fasteners (such as heat seals, col. 5, line 50) and Cowan et al. teaches a device which may dispense/mix one or more additives into a base liquid (via multiple syringes delivering sequentially or concurrently, para. [0085]) and Cowan et al. further teaches connecting components by welding, adhesive, interference fit, one or more fasteners, or a combination thereof (para. [0098]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Poli by utilizing one or more fasteners to connect the top and bottom pieces.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use fasteners to connect two components such as a top piece and bottom piece (Poli, member 22 and member 24).
Regarding claim 18, Poli discloses the fulcrum in each of the one or more additive channels is molded into the bottom piece (member 22, Fig. 4) as shown below:
PNG
media_image3.png
286
791
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claims 8 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poli (US 5192269) in view of Shannon et al. (US 5431185) as applied to claim 1 or claim 11 above and in further view of Bagaoisan et al. (US 20190350592).
Regarding claims 8 and 20, Poli does not explicitly disclose the body is made of polypropylene.
However, Bagaoisan et al. teaches a mixing and dispensing device (para. [0002]) where a body (elongate member 101) and other components are made of polypropylene (pars. [0023] and [0025]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Poli wherein the body is constructed of polypropylene.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select known materials for mixing and dispensing devices as it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960); Sinclair & Carroll Co., Inc. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Claims 9 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poli (US 5192269) in view of Shannon et al. (US 5431185) as applied to claim 1 or claim 11 above and in further view of Bagaoisan et al. (US 20190350592) and Halamish et al. (US 20200061284).
Regarding claims 9 and 21, Poli does not explicitly disclose wherein the tube in each of the one or more additive channels is constructed from stainless steel.
However, Bagaoisan et al. teaches a mixing and dispensing device (para. [0002]) where a body (elongate member 101) and other components are made of stainless steel (pars. [0023] and [0025]) and Halamish et al. teaches a liquid dispensing device (injection apparatus, abstract) wherein tubes are made of stainless steel (para. [0059]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Raines et al. wherein the tube in each of the one or more additive channels is constructed from stainless steel.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select known materials for liquid dispensing devices as it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See In re Leshin, supra; Sinclair & Carroll Co., Inc. v. Interchemical Corp., supra.
Claims 10 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poli (US 5192269) in view of Shannon et al. (US 5431185) as applied to claim 1 or claim 11 above and in further view of Manske (US 4141379A).
Regarding claims 10 and 22, Poli does not disclose each of the plurality of additive channels comprises a mesh between the fulcrum and the check disk.
However, Manske teaches a device which is analogous art at least because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem of controlling fluid flow with a check disk (check valve with flexible diaphragm, Abstract, having a disc 54) and Manske teaches using a mesh upstream and attached to the check disk (the diaphragm 48 comprises a flexible disc, resilient disc 54, and a screen 52, col. 3, lines 42-43, Fig. 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Poli wherein a flexible diaphragm which comprises a resilient disc and a mesh (Manske, diaphragm 48 with screen 52 and resilient disc 54) is used and in substituting the diaphragm of Poli (diaphragm 28a) with the diaphragm of Manske (diaphragm 48), each of the plurality of additive channels comprise a mesh (Manske, screen 52) between the fulcrum (Poli, protrusions 34) and the check disk (Manske, disc 54).
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use a diaphragm with a disc and an upstream mesh in order to filter particulate matter from additives (Manske, col. 4, lines 38-39).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK M MCCARTY whose telephone number is (571)272-4398. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9:00 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, Claire Wang can be reached at 571-270-1051. 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.
/P.M.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1774 /DUANE SMITH/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1759