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 Amendment
The examiner acknowledges the reply filed on 01/16/2026 in which claims 1, 4, and 15, were amended. Currently, claims 1-16 are pending for examination in this application.
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 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.
Claims 1-10, 14, and 15, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Susi (PGPub 2014/0100519), in view of Bhandar et al. (PGPub 2019/0351138).
[Claim 1] Susi teaches a medical device (figure 4; item 406; paragraph [0090]) comprising:
a housing (figure 15, items 805/807; paragraph [0090]),
a signal source (figure 17, items 804/812) arranged at a section (figure 17, item 805) of the housing (figure 15, items 805/807),
a control device (figure 12b, item 17) for controlling an emission of an optical signal (as shown in figure 12c) by the signal source (figure 17, items 804/812) in dependence of an operation of the medical device (figure 4; item 406) (figures 12b/12c; paragraphs [0069], [0081]), and
a door (figure 15, items 711/715/810; paragraph [0091]) movably connected to the housing (figure 15, items 805/807), wherein the section (figure 17, item 805) of the housing (figure 15, items 805/807) is covered by the door (figure 15, items 711/715/810) in a closed state (figures 17/18) of the door (figure 15, items 711/715/810), and exposed in an open state (figure 15) of the door (figure 15, items 711/715/810), the door (figure 15, items 711/715/810) comprising an optical device (figure 17, item 810) adapted to transmit at least partially the optical signal through the door (figure 15, items 711/715/810) when the door (figure 15, items 711/715/810) is in the closed state (figures 17/18), such that the optical signal of the signal source (figure 17, items 804/812) can be seen by an operator both when the door (figure 15, items 711/715/810) is in the closed state (figures 17/18) (figures 17/18; paragraph [0091]).
Although disclosing multiple colors for normal operation and an alarm condition (paragraph [0091]), Susi does not specifically disclose the optical signal of the signal source is seen by an operator when the door is in the open state.
However, Bhandar teaches a medical device (figure 1a, item 100) comprising a housing (figure 1a, item 110), a signal source (figure 8a, items 610/630/650/660) at a section of the housing (figure 1a, item 110) (figures 8a/8b), a control device (figure 2, items 210/270/280) for controlling an emission of an optical signal by the signal source (figure 8a, items 610/630/650/660) in dependence of an operation of the medical device (figures 8a/8b; paragraph [0064]), a door (figure 8a, item 640) movably connected to the housing (figure 1a, item 110) (figures 8a/8b; paragraph [0109]), wherein the section of the housing (figure 1a, item 110) is covered by the door (figure 8a, item 640) in a closed state (figure 8a) of the door (figure 8a, item 640), and exposed in an open state (figure 8b) of the door (figure 8a, item 640), such that the optical signal of the signal source (figure 8a, items 610/630/650/660) is seen by an operator both when the door (figure 8a, item 640) is in the closed state (figure 8a) and when the door (figure 8a, item 640) is the open state (figure 8b) (figures 8a/8b; paragraphs [0108]-[0111]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the operation of Susi, to have utilized the functionality of transmitting a visual signal representative of device operation during both an open and closed state of the door, as taught by Bhandar, in order to provide increased functionality and control, by allowing for a means by which an operator would have a visual indication of device operation and readiness while the door is both open and closed.
[Claim 2] Susi and Bhandar teach the limitations of claim 1, upon which claim 2 depends. In addition, Susi discloses the control device (figure 12b, item 17) is adapted to detect a predetermined state of operation of the medical device (figure 4; item 406), and to control the emission of an optical alarm signal (“alarm LED assembly”) by the signal source (figure 17, items 804/812) in response to the detection of the predetermined state of operation (“alarm indicators”) (figures 12b/12c; paragraph [0081]).
[Claim 3] Susi and Bhandar teach the limitations of claim 1, upon which claim 2 depends. Susi also teaches the medical device (figure 4; item 406) comprises an infusion pump (figure 10, item 712) for administering a medical fluid to a patient (paragraph [0075]), wherein a receptacle (figure 10; space between items 711 and 721) for receiving a syringe or an infusion line (figure 10, items 404/703) is arranged at the housing (figure 15, items 805/807), wherein the receptacle (figure 10; space between items 711 and 721) is at least partially covered by the door (figure 15, items 711/715/810) when the door (figure 15, items 711/715/810) is in the closed state (figures 4 and 11; paragraph [0077]).
[Claim 4] Susi and Bhandar teach the limitations of claim 1, upon which claim 2 depends. Susi further discloses wherein the closed state (figures 17/18) the door (figure 15, items 711/715/810) extends over an entire height of the housing, wherein the height of the housing is a vertical dimension (figure 15, items 805/807).
[Claims 5-9] Susi and Bhandar teach the limitations of claim 1, upon which claims 5-9 depend. In addition, Susi teaches the signal source (figure 17, items 804/812) and the optical device (figure 17, item 810) each comprise at least one light guide (810 is a “clear or translucent window”; paragraph [0091]) (812 is a “light-scattering element or light pipe”; paragraph [0091]) (the light guide, 812, of the signal source, items 804/812, is tapered; figure 17);
wherein the at least one light guide (clear or translucent window) of the optical device (figure 17, item 810) is aligned with the at least one light guide (light-scattering element or light pipe) of the signal source (figure 17, items 804/812) when the door (figure 15, items 711/715/810) is in the closed state (figure 17; paragraph [0091]);
wherein the at least one light guide (light-scattering element or light pipe) of the signal source (figure 17, items 804/812) is adapted to guide light emitted by at least one light emitting element (figure 17, item 804) to the at least one light guide (clear or translucent window) of the optical device (figure 17, item 810) when the door (figure 15, items 711/715/810) is in the closed state (figure 17; paragraph [0091]);
wherein the at least one light guide (clear or translucent window) of the optical device (figure 17, item 810) is adapted to guide light from the at least one light guide (light-scattering element or light pipe) of the signal source (figure 17, items 804/812) to an exterior of the door (figure 15, items 711/715/810) when the door (figure 15, items 711/715/810) is in the closed state (figures 17/18; paragraph [0091]).
[Claim 10] Susi and Bhandar teach the limitations of claim 5, upon which claim 10 depends. Susi further discloses at least one side of at least one light guide (light-scattering element or light pipe) of the signal source (figure 17, items 804/812) is overmolded by material of the housing (figure 15, items 805/807) in a fluid-tight manner (Susi discloses a “fluid-tight seal” between housing segments is desired) (figure 17; paragraphs [0090], [0091]).
The phrase “overmolded” is considered to be a product-by-process limitation. Although product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
In the alternative, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the structure taught by Susi, to have utilized “overmolding” between the housing and the light guide, in order to provide an alternative, yet well-known, means of assembly to result in an equivalent structure.
[Claim 14] Susi and Bhandar teach the limitations of claim 1, upon which claim 14 depends. Susi also teaches a medical system (figure 3) comprising a rack (figure 3, item 59) and at least one medical device (figure 4; item 406) being mounted or mountable on the rack (figure 3, item 59) (figure 3; paragraph [0060]).
[Claim 15] Susi and Bhandar teach the limitations of claim 14, upon which claim 15 depends. Susi further discloses the at least one medical device (figure 4; item 406) comprises at least one of a syringe pump or a volumetric pump (figure 10, item 712) (figure 10; paragraph [0075]).
Claims 11, 13, and 16, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Susi (PGPub 2014/0100519), in view of Bhandar et al. (PGPub 2019/0351138), in further view of Harada et al. (PGPub 2017/0357047).
[Claim 11] Susi and Bhandar teach the limitations of claim 5, upon which claim 11 depends. Susi does not specifically disclose the at least one light guide is made of MABS, PMMA, or polycarbonate.
However, Harada teaches a system (figure 2) for light transmission which utilizes a light guide (figure 2, items 5/7) made of polycarbonate (paragraph [0065]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the structure of the light guide taught by Susi, to have utilized polycarbonate, as taught by Harada, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select among a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
[Claims 13 and 16] Susi and Bhandar teach the limitations of claim 5, upon which claims 13 and 16 depend. Susi does not specifically disclose an average roughness value of an outer surface of the at least one light guide.
However, Harada teaches a system (figure 2) for light transmission which utilizes a light guide (figure 2, items 5/7) having an outer surface (figure 2, item 7) with an average roughness value of 4.5 micrometers (paragraph [0061]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified an outer surface of the light guide taught by Susi, to have utilized an average roughness value of 4.5 micrometers, as taught by Harada, in order to provide increased functionality and performance, by allowing for a means by which an increased quantity of light is diffused in the desired direction (Harada; paragraph [0061]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Susi (PGPub 2014/0100519), in view of Bhandar et al. (PGPub 2019/0351138), in further view of Takei et al. (PGPub 2009/0231665).
[Claim 12] Susi and Bhandar teach the limitations of claim 5, upon which claim 12 depends. Susi does not specifically disclose at least one surface of at least one light guide is mirror-polished.
However, Takei teaches a system (figure 16) for light transmission which utilizes a light guide (“stainless steel plate”) having at least one surface which is mirror-polished (figure16; paragraph [0182]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the light guide taught by Susi, to have utilized a mirror-polish, as taught by Takei, in order to provide increased functionality and performance, by allowing for a means by which a maximum amount of light might be transmitted in the intended direction while minimizing loss (Takei; paragraph [0182]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-16 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 JASON E FLICK whose telephone number is (571)270-7024. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7 a.m.-3 p.m. Eastern Time.
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, Bhisma Mehta can be reached at 571-272-3383. 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.
/JASON E FLICK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3783 04/20/2026
Prosecution Insights