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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 09/22/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 09/22/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-4 and 6-7 have been amended. Claim 5 is cancelled. Claims 1-4, 6-8 remain pending in this application.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, ln. 5-6 should read ---press [[an]] the infusion bag---
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 2 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.
Claim 2 recites “wherein each of the interval maintaining members comprises a flexible member that cannot substantially resist a shearing force.” It is unclear what is meant by this limitation. The limitation of the interval maintaining member being unable to “substantially resist a shearing force” could mean that the interval maintaining member delaminates when a shearing force is applied or that the interval maintaining member is flexible and not rigid and able to bend when shearing force is applied. For the purposes of compact prosecution, claim 2 will be interpreted as the interval maintaining member comprising a flexible material, the flexible material being inherently unable to resist a shearing force as the flexible material is able to bend when shearing force is applied.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 6 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reichert et al. (Pub. No.: US 2009/0140005 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Reichert discloses (fig. 1, 4; annotated fig. 4) an infusion bag pressing device (pressurizable fluid delivery system 10) capable of pressing an infusion bag (fluid bladder portion 25) that accommodates an infusion solution (¶ 0026) comprising:
A pressing bag formed of a first sheet (annotated fig. 4) and a second sheet (interior membrane 27) disposed opposite the first sheet (¶ 0030) forming an air storage space (pressurizable portion 20), wherein the pressing bag is configured to be expanded and press the infusion bag (fluid bladder portion 25) by flowing air into the air storage space (¶ 0037); and
Two or more interval maintaining members (reinforcing material portions 101e, 101c, 101b disposed at seams 32 and seam component 40, ¶ 0039) disposed inside the pressing bag (fig. 4), each of the interval maintaining members having a predetermined length (fig. 1) and a predetermined width (fig. 4);
Wherein the interval maintaining members are arranged and spaced apart from each other at a predetermined interval along an imaginary first central axis intersecting the predetermined length (annotated fig. 4), and the air storage space is divided into two or more unit space portions by the interval maintaining members (fig. 4), and
Wherein one width-direction end of each of the interval maintaining members is coupled to the first sheet and the other width-direction end thereof is coupled to the second sheet (annotated fig. 4) such that, when air flows into the air storage space, each of the interval maintaining members is extended along an imaginary second central axis corresponding to a direction of the predetermined width and the pressing bag is inhibited from being excessively expanded (the seam element is capable of controlling the shape of the air storage space ¶ 0012).
PNG
media_image1.png
382
1004
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Reichert annotated fig. 4
Reichert fails to disclose in the embodiment of fig. 4 the air storage space being divided into three or more unit space portions by the interval maintaining members.
However, Reichert discloses that the device can comprise a plurality of seam components 40 (¶ 0047), thus resulting in three or more unit space portions.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of fig. 4 of Reichert such that it comprises two seam components 40, thus resulting in three or more unit space portions, as such configuration is suitable for delivering fluid.
Regarding claim 3, Reichert discloses wherein each of the interval maintaining members has a predetermined thickness (see thickness in the first central axis direction, annotated fig. 4). Regarding claim 4, the limitation “wherein the three or more unit space portions are configured to expand at a substantially equal expansion speed” relates to the function of the system. Since Reichert discloses that that each unit space portion is in fluid communication with each other (see fig. 1, seam component 40 allows for communication between unit space portions), which is identical to the unit space portions of the claimed invention, such limitation of “the three or more unit space portions are configured to expand at a substantially equal expansion speed” is inherent to the device of Reichert.
Features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See also MPEP § 2173.05(g). If an examiner concludes that a functional limitation is an inherent characteristic of the prior art, then to establish a prima case of anticipation or obviousness, the examiner should explain that the prior art structure inherently possesses the functionally defined limitations of the claimed apparatus. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432.
Regarding claim 6, Reichert discloses wherein two neighboring unit space portions in the three or more unit space portions communicate with each other (see fig. 1, seam component 40 allows for communication between unit space portions).
Regarding claim 8, Reichert discloses wherein the infusion bag (fluid bladder portion 25) is integrally coupled to the pressing bag (fig. 4, ¶ 0030).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reichert, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lo (US Pat. No.: 4,048,994).
Regarding claim 2, Reichert fails to disclose wherein each of the interval maintaining members comprises a flexible member that cannot substantially resist a shearing force.
However, Reichard discloses that the infusion bag pressing device is flexible (abstract).
Further, Lo teaches (fig. 1) an infusion bag pressing device (self-inflating liquid container 10) for pressing an infusion bag (inner receptacle 12) (abstract) and thus in the same field of endeavor, comprising two or more interval maintaining members (peripheral terminal wall portion 44), wherein each of the interval maintaining members comprises a flexible member (col. 2, ln. 53-59). Since Lo teaches the interval maintaining members comprising a flexible material, it is inherent to the interval maintain member of Lo that it cannot substantially resist a shearing force as the interval maintaining member is flexible (col. 2, ln. 53-59) and therefore bends when shearing force is applied.
It is further noted: “where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705,709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. In re Best, 562 F.2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433. See also Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775,227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985)”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify each of the interval maintaining members of Reichert such that they comprises a flexible member than cannot substantially resist a shearing force, as taught by Lo, in order to make the entire infusion bag pressing device flexible.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reichert, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nakano et al. (Pub. No.: US 2020/0095056 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Reichert fails to disclose an infusion bag accommodation portion formed of the second sheet and a third sheet disposed opposite to the second sheet and configured to accommodate the infusion bag.
Nakano discloses (fig. 1-2, annotated fig. 2) an infusion bag pressing device capable of pressing an infusion bag (bag-shaped container 50) that accommodates an infusion solution (abstract, ¶ 0002) and thus in the same field of endeavor, comprising: a pressing bag (pressure bag 1) formed of a first sheet and a second sheet disposed opposite the first sheet (annotated fig. 2, ¶ 0038) and forming an air storage space (pressure chamber 15) (¶ 0039), wherein the pressing bag is configured to be expanded and press the infusion bag by flowing air into the air storage space (¶ 0042);
An infusion bag accommodation portion (housing chamber 10) formed of the second sheet and a third sheet disposed opposite the second sheet (annotated fig. 2) and configured to accommodate the infusion bag (¶ 0037).
PNG
media_image2.png
406
700
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Nakano annotated fig. 2
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the bag pressing device of Reichert such that it comprises an infusion bag accommodation portion formed of the second sheet and a third sheet disposed opposite to the second sheet and configured to accommodate the infusion bag, as taught by Reichert, in order to allow the infusion bag pressing device to be reused.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-4, 6-7 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. A new grounds of rejection is made over Reichert. McGonnell is no longer relied upon.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Sanchez, JR. (Pub. No.: US 2017/0274143 A1) discloses a pressing device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MEAGAN NGO whose telephone number is (571)270-1586. The examiner can normally be reached M - TH 8:00 - 4:00 PT.
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 on (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.
/MEAGAN NGO/Examiner, Art Unit 3781
/JESSICA ARBLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781