DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
Note: This office action is in response to communication filed on 10/27/2025.
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 .
Status of Claims
Claim(s) 1-8 and 10-24 is/are pending in the application.
Claim(s) 1-8 and 10-24 is/are examined on the merits.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 10/27/2025 have been fully considered.
Applicant argues that Robinson does not disclose the controller configured to determine a volume of instillation fluid to deliver to the wound because the volume is not calculated by and cannot be altered by the controller 152. Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive. Robinson discloses the controller is a programable logic controller configured to receive one or more inputs and send one or more outputs in response to the one or more inputs (¶0071). Robinson also discloses the controller 152 is configured to adjust the operation of the therapy system 100 to provide a predetermined negative-pressure therapy or instillation therapy (¶0081). Thus, the controller 152 is capable of determining a volume of instillation fluid to deliver to the wound.
Applican argues that Ryu/Hartwell does not disclose the controller configured to actuate the valve to estimate a wound volume of the wound. Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive. Ryu discloses actuating valve 500 to estimate a wound volume of the wound in order to calculate the volume of wound side to be treated and thereby improve the efficiency of wound healing (Abstract; pg. 2, line 7; pg. 3, ¶1 and 4-5; pg. 6, ¶14-16 and 23). Hartwell discloses the controller 60/440 configured to execute a pressure testing procedure to estimate a wound volume of the wound (¶0036-0037, 0065, and 0070-0073). Thus, Ryu/Hartwell discloses the claimed invention.
With respect to the claim rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), applicant's amendment(s) to the claim(s) has/have overcome the claim rejection(s).
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(s) 1-2, 5-8, 10, 12-13, and 17-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Robinson (US PGPUB 20160015873) in view of Ryu (KR 101685509) and Hartwell (US PGPUB 20150032031 – of record).
Regarding claim 1, Robinson discloses a wound therapy system (a therapy system 100: ¶0018 and Fig. 1) comprising:
a negative pressure circuit (components of the therapy system 100 that provides negative pressure to a wound dressing 102; at least (104+112+113+118): ¶0018 and Fig. 1) configured to apply negative pressure to a wound (¶0018 and Fig. 1), the negative pressure circuit comprising a removed fluid canister (a canister 113: ¶0018 and Fig. 1);
a canister containing instillation fluid for delivery to the wound (a canister 112: ¶0018 and Fig. 1);
a pump operable to deliver the instillation fluid to the wound (a pressure source 104 comprising a pump 146: ¶0008, 0026, 0059; Figs. 1, and 3);
a pressure sensor configured to measure the negative pressure within the negative pressure circuit or at the wound (a pressure sensor 154: ¶0059 and Fig. 3);
a valve fluidly coupled between the removed fluid canister and an ambient environment (a valve 160 fluidly coupled between the removed fluid canister 113 and ambient environment or a vent 150: ¶0059, 0079; Figs. 1 and 3) and configured to controllably vent the negative pressure circuit through the removed fluid canister (¶0079-0080); and
a controller (a controller 152: ¶0059 and Fig. 3) communicably coupled to the pump and the pressure sensor (¶0059), the controller configured to:
determine a volume of instillation fluid to deliver to the wound based on an estimated wound volume (¶0081-0084)
after determining the volume of instillation fluid to deliver to the wound based on the estimated wound volume, operate the pump to deliver the volume of instillation fluid to the wound (¶0081-0084).
Robinson does not disclose the controller configured to actuate the valve to execute a pressure testing procedure to estimate a wound volume of the wound.
In the same field of endeavor, wound dressing, Ryu discloses an apparatus comprising a negative pressure circuit (a pressure output unit 100, a pressure transmitting unit 200, a pressure generating unit 300: pg. 4, ¶21, and Fig. 1), a controller unit 320 (pg. 4, ¶1), and an on/off valve 500 (pg. 4, ¶21, and Fig. 1). Ryu further disclose the controller unit configured to actuate the valve 500 to estimate a wound volume of the wound (open/close the valve 500: Abstract; pg. 2, line 7; pg. 3, ¶1 and 4-5; and pg. 6, ¶14-16 and 23) for the benefit of calculating the volume of wound site to be treated and thereby improving the efficiency of wound healing (Abstract).
In the same field of endeavor, wound dressing, Hartwell discloses an apparatus comprising a negative pressure circuit (¶0063 and Fig. 2), a pump 44, a pressure sensor 46/48/420 (¶0062-0063, 0069, and Fig. 10), a controller 60/440 (¶0062, 0065, 0069, and Fig. 10). Hartwell further discloses the controller 60/440 configured to execute a pressure testing procedure to estimate a wound volume of the wound (¶0036-0037, 0065 and 0070-0073) for the benefit of monitoring a volume of a wound during treatment to be able to quantify the healing process (¶0010).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Robinson in view of Ryu and Hartwell by configuring the controller to actuate the valve to execute a pressure testing procedure to estimate a wound volume of the wound, in order to monitor a volume of a wound during treatment and thereby improve the efficiency of wound healing, as suggested in Abstract of Ryu and ¶0010 of Hartwell.
Regarding claim 2, Robinson/Ryu/Hartwell discloses all the limitations as discussed above for claim 1.
Robinson does not disclose the controller configured to determine the volume of instillation fluid to deliver to the wound by multiplying the estimated wound volume by a fluid instillation factor.
Hartwell further discloses the controller configured to determine the volume of instillation fluid to deliver to the wound by multiplying the estimated wound volume by a fluid instillation factor (a correction factor: ¶0036-0037) for the benefit of monitoring a volume of a wound during treatment to be able to quantify the healing process (¶0010).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Robinson/Ryu/Hartwell in view of Hartwell by configuring the controller to determine the volume of instillation fluid to deliver to the wound by multiplying the estimated wound volume by a fluid instillation factor, in order to monitor a volume of a wound during treatment to be able to quantify the healing process, as suggested in ¶0010 of Hartwell.
Regarding claim 5, Robinson/Ryu/Hartwell discloses all the limitations as discussed above for claim 1.
Robinson further discloses the negative pressure circuit comprises a wound dressing sealable to skin surrounding the wound (a wound dressing 102: ¶0018, 0037, and Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 6, Robinson/Ryu/Hartwell discloses all the limitations as discussed above for claim 1.
Robinson further discloses the negative pressure circuit comprises tubing fluidly connecting the canister with the wound dressing (a therapy conduit 142: ¶0020, 0057, and Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 7, Robinson/Ryu/Hartwell discloses all the limitations as discussed above for claim 1.
Robinson further discloses the controller is configured to operate the pump to establish the negative pressure within the negative pressure circuit (¶0066).
Regarding claim 8, Robinson/Ryu/Hartwell discloses all the limitations as discussed above for claim 1.
Robinson further discloses operating the pump to establish the negative pressure within the negative pressure circuit (¶0077) and applying a pressure stimulus to the negative pressure circuit after the negative pressure has been established within the negative pressure circuit (¶0083).
Regarding claim 10, Robinson/Ryu/Hartwell discloses all the limitations as discussed above for claim 1.
Robinson further discloses opening/closing the valve to allow airflow into the negative pressure circuit (¶0079-0080), but Robinson/Hartwell does not disclose opening the valve for a predetermined amount of time and closing the valve after the predetermined amount of time has elapsed.
Ryu further discloses opening the valve for a predetermined amount of time and closing the valve after the predetermined amount of time has elapsed (pg. 5, ¶8-21) for the benefit of providing enough time to allow exudate from the wound to flow out (pg. 3, ¶6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Robinson/Ryu/Hartwell in view of Ryu by providing/having a predetermined amount of time when opening or closing the valve, in order to provide enough time to allow exudate from the wound to flow out, as suggested in pg. 3, ¶6 of Ryu.
Regarding claim 12, Robinson/Ryu/Hartwell discloses all the limitations as discussed above for claim 10.
Robinson/Ryu does not disclose operating the pump while the valve is closed to mitigate air leakage into the negative pressure circuit.
Hartwell further discloses operating the pump while the valve is closed to mitigate air leakage into the negative pressure circuit (¶0037: software contains appropriate data relating to the vacuum pump operating regime to calculate the steady state leak rate and to enable the control and monitoring system to apply a suitable correction factor to allow for a steady state leak rate).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Robinson/Ryu/Hartwell in view of Hartwell by configuring the controller to execute the pressure testing procedure to operate the pump while the valve is closed to mitigate air leakage into the negative pressure circuit, in order to achieve a desired vacuum level at a steady state to calculate the wound volume, as suggested in ¶0037 of Hartwell.
Regarding claim 13, Robinson/Ryu/Hartwell discloses all the limitations as discussed above for claim 10.
Robinson/Ryu does not disclose the pressure testing procedure further comprises: applying a pressure stimulus to the negative pressure circuit; observing a dynamic pressure response of the negative pressure circuit to the pressure stimulus using pressure measurements recorded by the pressure sensor; and estimating the wound volume of the wound based on the dynamic pressure response.
Hartwell further discloses the pressure testing procedure further comprises: applying a pressure stimulus to the negative pressure circuit (¶0037: “The software may contain appropriate data relating to the vacuum pump operating regime to calculate the steady state leak rate and to enable the control and monitoring system to apply a suitable correction factor to allow for a steady state leak rate. Thus, when the wound cavity has achieved a steady state when the vacuum level pressure is at the desired value, what the flow sensor is reading is the actual leak rate which may be used by the software to compute the correction factor applicable.”); observing a dynamic pressure response of the negative pressure circuit to the pressure stimulus using pressure measurements recorded by the pressure sensor (¶0071-0075 and Figs. 11-12); and estimating the wound volume of the wound based on the dynamic pressure response (¶0073).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Robinson/Ryu/Hartwell in view of Hartwell by configuring the controller to execute the pressure testing procedure as claimed, in order to estimate the wound volume, as suggested in ¶0073 of Hartwell.
Regarding claim 17, Robinson/Ryu/Hartwell discloses all the limitations as discussed above for claim 13.
Robinson/Ryu does not disclose the dynamic pressure response of the negative pressure circuit is characterized by a leak rate parameter defined as a rate at which the negative pressure changes while the valve is closed.
Hartwell further discloses the dynamic pressure response of the negative pressure circuit is characterized by a leak rate parameter defined as a rate at which the negative pressure changes while the valve is closed (¶0037).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Robinson/Ryu/Hartwell in view of Hartwell by characterizing the dynamic pressure response of the negative pressure circuit by a leak rate parameter defined as a rate at which the negative pressure changes while the valve is closed, in order to achieve a desired vacuum level at a steady state to calculate the wound volume, as suggested in ¶0037 of Hartwell.
Regarding claim 18, Robinson/Ryu/Hartwell discloses all the limitations as discussed above for claim 13.
Robinson/Ryu does not disclose estimating the wound volume based on the dynamic pressure response comprises: determining values for one or more parameters that characterize the dynamic pressure response; and applying the values of the one or more parameters as inputs to a model that defines a relationship between the one or more parameters and the wound volume.
Hartwell further discloses estimating the wound volume based on the dynamic pressure response comprises: determining values for one or more parameters that characterize the dynamic pressure response; and applying the values of the one or more parameters as inputs to a model that defines a relationship between the one or more parameters and the wound volume (¶0071-0075: determining multiple parameters comprising flow rate, set pressure, correction factors, and inputting the information into a model to determine wound volume).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Robinson/Ryu/Hartwell in view of Hartwell by estimating the wound volume based on the dynamic pressure response comprises: determining values for one or more parameters that characterize the dynamic pressure response; and applying the values of the one or more parameters as inputs to a model that defines a relationship between the one or more parameters and the wound volume, in order to calculate the wound volume, as suggested in ¶0073 of Hartwell.
Regarding claim 19, Robinson/Ryu/Hartwell discloses all the limitations as discussed above for claim 18.
Robinson/Ryu does not disclose the model that defines the relationship between the one or more parameters and the wound volume is a polynomial approximation model.
Hartwell further discloses the model that defines the relationship between the one or more parameters and the wound volume is a polynomial approximation model (¶0071-0075 and Figs. 11-12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Robinson/Ryu/Hartwell in view of Hartwell by having the model that defines the relationship between the one or more parameters and the wound volume is a polynomial approximation model, in order to calculate the wound volume, as suggested in ¶0073 of Hartwell.
Regarding claim 20, Robinson/Ryu/Hartwell discloses all the limitations as discussed above for claim 18.
Robinson/Ryu does not disclose the model that defines the relationship between the one or more parameters and the wound volume is a neural network.
Hartwell further discloses the model that defines the relationship between the one or more parameters and the wound volume is a neural network (¶0071-0075 and Figs. 11-12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Robinson/Ryu/Hartwell in view of Hartwell by having the model that defines the relationship between the one or more parameters and the wound volume is a neural network, in order to calculate the wound volume, as suggested in ¶0073 of Hartwell.
Regarding claim 21, Robinson/Ryu/Hartwell discloses all the limitations as discussed above for claim 18.
Robinson/Ryu does not disclose the controller is configured to generate the model that defines the relationship between the one or more parameters and the wound volume by: executing a training procedure comprising applying the pressure stimulus to training circuit having a known volume; observing a dynamic pressure response of the training circuit to the pressure stimulus using pressure measurements recorded by the pressure sensor; and associating the known volume with the dynamic pressure response of the training circuit.
Hartwell further discloses the controller (¶0062, 0065, 0069, and Fig. 10: the control system 60/440) is configured to generate the model that defines the relationship between the one or more parameters and the wound volume by: executing a training procedure comprising applying the pressure stimulus to training circuit having a known volume; observing a dynamic pressure response of the training circuit to the pressure stimulus using pressure measurements recorded by the pressure sensor; and associating the known volume with the dynamic pressure response of the training circuit (¶0069 and 0071-0075).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Robinson/Ryu/Hartwell in view of Hartwell by configuring the controller to generate the model that defines the relationship between the one or more parameters and the wound volume by: executing a training procedure comprising applying the pressure stimulus to training circuit having a known volume; observing a dynamic pressure response of the training circuit to the pressure stimulus using pressure measurements recorded by the pressure sensor; and associating the known volume with the dynamic pressure response of the training circuit, in order to calculate the wound volume, as suggested in ¶0073 of Hartwell.
Regarding claim 22, Robinson/Ryu/Hartwell discloses all the limitations as discussed above for claim 21.
Robinson/Ryu does not disclose generating the model further comprises: repeating the training procedure for a plurality of known volumes; observing the dynamic pressure response of the training circuit for each of the plurality of known volumes; and generating a correlation between the plurality of known volumes and the dynamic pressure response of the training circuit.
Hartwell further discloses generating the model further comprises: repeating the training procedure for a plurality of known volumes; observing the dynamic pressure response of the training circuit for each of the plurality of known volumes; and generating a correlation between the plurality of known volumes and the dynamic pressure response of the training circuit (¶0036-0037).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Robinson/Ryu/Hartwell in view of Hartwell by generating the model as claimed, in order to calculate the wound volume, as suggested in ¶0037 of Hartwell.
Regarding claim 23, Robinson/Ryu/Hartwell discloses all the limitations as discussed above for claim 21.
Robinson/Ryu does not disclose the controller is configured to: execute the pressure testing procedure to estimate the wound volume at a plurality of times during wound treatment; and determine healing progression based on changes in the wound volume during wound treatment.
Hartwell further discloses the controller is configured to: execute the pressure testing procedure to estimate the wound volume at a plurality of times during wound treatment; and determine healing progression based on changes in the wound volume during wound treatment (¶0036-0037 and 0040).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Robinson/Ryu/Hartwell in view of Hartwell by configuring the controller to execute the pressure testing procedure to estimate the wound volume at a plurality of times during wound treatment; and determine healing progression based on changes in the wound volume during wound treatment, in order to record the progress of wound healing, as suggested in ¶0040 of Hartwell.
Regarding claim 24, Robinson/Ryu/Hartwell discloses all the limitations as discussed above for claim 1.
Robinson further discloses a fluid path for controllably venting the negative pressure circuit through the removed fluid canister comprises fluid movement from the ambient environment through the removed fluid canister and into the negative pressure circuit (¶0059; Figs. 1 and 3); and the pressure sensor is fluidly coupled through a tubing independent of the fluid path (¶0059 and Fig. 3).
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Robinson (US PGPUB 20160015873) in view of Ryu (KR 101685509) and Hartwell (US PGPUB 20150032031 – of record), as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Ryu (US PGPUB 20180050137).
Regarding claim 3, Robinson/Ryu/Hartwell discloses all the limitations as discussed above for claim 2.
Robinson/Ryu/Hartwell does not disclose the fluid instillation factor is less than one such that less than the total wound volume is filled with the instillation fluid.
In the same field of endeavor, wound dressing, Ryu’137 discloses a wound therapy system 10 comprising a negative pressure output unit 100, a negative pressure delivery unit 200, a negative pressure generation unit 300 comprising a controller 320 and a pressure sensor 330, a canister 400, and a medication feeding unit 500 comprising an irrigator 510 (¶0044, 0062, and Fig. 1). Ryu’137 further discloses less than the total wound volume is filled with the instillation fluid (¶0024). While Ryu’137 does not disclose the fluid instillation factor is less than one, Ryu’137 teaches the controller automatically controls the irrigator 510 to inject the medication at a volume less than the volume of the wound site W (¶0116). Thus, Ryu’137 implicitly discloses that calculations are performed such that less than the total wound volume is filled with the instillation fluid.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Robinson/Ryu/Hartwell in view of Ryu’137 by filling less than the total wound volume with the instillation fluid and having the fluid instillation factor less than one, motivated by the desires to provide an appropriate amount of instillation fluid for a particular sized wound and provide an appropriate calculation that provides less than the total wound volume filled with the instillation fluid.
Regarding claim 4, Robinson/Ryu/Hartwell discloses all the limitations as discussed above for claim 2.
Robinson/Ryu/Hartwell does not disclose the fluid instillation factor is between approximately 0.2 and approximately 0.8.
Ryu’137 further discloses less than the total wound volume is filled with the instillation fluid (¶0024). While Ryu’137 does not disclose the fluid instillation factor is between 0.2 and 0.8, Ryu’137 teaches the controller automatically controls the irrigator 510 to inject the medication at a volume less than the volume of the wound site W (¶0116). Thus, Ryu’137 implicitly discloses that calculations are performed such that less than the total wound volume is filled with the instillation fluid.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Robinson/Ryu/Hartwell in view of Ryu’137 by having the fluid instillation factor between 0.2 and 0.8, motivated by the desires to provide an appropriate calculation that provides less than the total wound volume filled with the instillation fluid.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Robinson (US PGPUB 20160015873) in view of Ryu (KR 101685509) and Hartwell (US PGPUB 20150032031 – of record), as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Heaton (US PGPUB 20160361475).
Regarding claim 11, Robinson/Ryu/Hartwell discloses all the limitations as discussed above for claim 10.
Robinson/Ryu/Hartwell does not disclose waiting for another predetermined amount of time after closing the valve; and repeating the opening, closing, and waiting steps until the negative pressure reaches a threshold pressure value.
In the same field of endeavor, wound dressings, Heaton discloses a system for applying reduced pressure to tissue comprising a controller 90 programmed to monitor wound pressure (¶0070). Heaton further discloses the system will try to clear liquid from the blocked lumen by opening a valve to atmosphere and the programming will try to clear the blockage several times (¶0070) for the benefit of maximizing the chances of having at least one clear measurement lumen at any given time (¶0070).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Robinson/Ryu/Hartwell in view Heaton by configuring the controller to execute the pressure testing procedure comprises waiting for another predetermined amount of time after closing the valve; and repeating the opening, closing, and waiting steps until the negative pressure reaches a threshold pressure value, in order to clear the blockage, as suggested in ¶0070 of Heaton.
Claim(s) 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Robinson (US PGPUB 20160015873) in view of Ryu (KR 101685509) and Hartwell (US PGPUB 20150032031 – of record), as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Heaton (US PGPUB 20160361475).
Regarding claim 14, Robinson/Ryu/Hartwell discloses all the limitations as discussed above for claim 13.
Robinson/Ryu/Hartwell does not disclose the dynamic pressure response of the negative pressure circuit is characterized by a depth of purge parameter defined as a difference between: a measured value of the negative pressure before the valve is opened; and a measured value of the negative pressure while the valve is open.
Heaton further discloses the pressure sensors are measuring the depth of purge parameter defined as a difference between: a measured value of the negative pressure before the valve is opened; and a measured value of the negative pressure while the valve is open (¶0070: “each of the ancillary measurement lumen conduits is fitted with a solenoid valve 92 and 94 which will relieve pressure to the wound at the end of therapy, during intermittent therapy, or if required to clear blockages”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Robinson/Ryu/Hartwell in view of Heaton by characterizing the dynamic pressure response of the negative pressure circuit by a depth of purge parameter, in order to clear the blockage, as suggested in ¶0070 of Heaton.
Regarding claim 15, Robinson/Ryu/Hartwell discloses all the limitations as discussed above for claim 13.
Robinson/Ryu/Hartwell does not disclose the dynamic pressure response of the negative pressure circuit is characterized by a rebound parameter defined as a difference between: a measured value of the negative pressure after the valve is closed; and a measured value of the negative pressure while the valve is open.
Heaton further discloses the dynamic pressure response of the negative pressure circuit is characterized by a rebound parameter defined as a difference between: a measured value of the negative pressure after the valve is closed; and a measured value of the negative pressure while the valve is open (¶0070 and Fig. 12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Robinson/Ryu/Hartwell in view of Heaton by characterizing the dynamic pressure response of the negative pressure circuit by a rebound parameter defined as a difference between: a measured value of the negative pressure after the valve is closed; and a measured value of the negative pressure while the valve is open, in order to clear the blockage, as suggested in ¶0070 of Heaton.
Regarding claim 16, Robinson/Ryu/Hartwell discloses all the limitations as discussed above for claim 13.
Robinson/Ryu/Hartwell does not disclose the dynamic pressure response of the negative pressure circuit is characterized by a delta parameter defined as a difference between: a measured value of the negative pressure before the valve is opened; and a measured value of the negative pressure after the valve is closed.
Heaton further discloses the dynamic pressure response of the negative pressure circuit is characterized by a delta parameter defined as a difference between: a measured value of the negative pressure before the valve is opened; and a measured value of the negative pressure after the valve is closed (¶0070 and Fig. 12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Robinson/Ryu/Hartwell in view of Heaton by characterizing the dynamic pressure response of the negative pressure circuit by a delta parameter defined as a difference between: a measured value of the negative pressure before the valve is opened; and a measured value of the negative pressure after the valve is closed, in order to clear the blockage, as suggested in ¶0070 of Heaton.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 NHU Q TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2032. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00-5:00 (PST).
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, SARAH AL-HASHIMI can be reached at (571) 272-7159. 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.
/NHU Q. TRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3781
/SARAH AL HASHIMI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3781