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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/09/2025 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1, 11, and 15-17 are currently amended. Claim 13 is cancelled. Claim 21 is newly added. Claims 1-12 and 14-21 are currently pending. Claims 1-12 and 14-21 are currently rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not fully persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 11 as amended under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2)have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of an alternative interpretation of Dudar and Riely.
Applicant argues, for claim 1, that Raines does not teach a “portion of the hydrophilic filter is received into an infusate channel formed through the hydrophobic filter” because the “hydrophobic member 20 is wrapped…over the apertures 13”.
This is not persuasive because, regardless of the order of assembly, the infusate channel still passes through the hydrophobic filter. The hydrophobic filter closes openings which would otherwise permit liquid flow out of the channel, and thus the hydrophobic filter is necessary to form the infusate channel.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Riely discloses the hydrophobic filter forming an infusate channel (see Riely fig. 5), and Raines teaches a hydrophilic filter extending partially through a hydrophobic filter (see Raines fig. 3 and rejection of claim 1 below). Raines individually is not being relied on for both noted limitations.
Applicant argues, for claim 2, that Riley and Raines do not teach the “hydrophobic filter disposed within the fluid channel and covering an entrance of the air vent from the fluid channel, the hydrophobic filter comprising a hydrophobic filter media forming an infusate channel through the hydrophobic filter” and the “hydrophilic filter at least partially extends into the infusate channel”.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Riely discloses the first noted limitation (see Riely fig. 5), and Raines teaches the second noted limitation (see Raines fig. 3 and rejection of claim 2 below). Raines individually is not being relied on for both noted limitations.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 5-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Riely et al (US-3631654-A; hereafter Riely) in view of Raines et al (US-4615694-A; hereafter Raines).
Regarding claim 1, Riely discloses an air elimination assembly for eliminating air from a flow of infusate (figs. 1-5; col. 2, ln. 62-71 regarding an air purge device for medical applications of liquid), the air elimination assembly comprising:
a housing (tubular housing 40, fig. 5, col. 7 ln. 53-58) defining an infusate flow path (along “flow in” arrow in fig. 5) having an inlet (inlet 42, fig. 5, col. 7 ln. 53-58) and an outlet (outlet 43, fig. 5, col. 7 ln. 53-58), and an air flow path (along “air out” arrows in fig. 5) in fluid communication (as shown in fig. 5) with the infusate flow path (along flow in, fig. 5) and disposed between (as shown in fig. 5) the inlet (inlet 42) and the outlet (outlet 43) of the infusate flow path (along flow in);
a hydrophobic filter (hydrophobic filter 46, fig. 5, col. 7 ln. 71-col. 8 ln. 2) disposed in fluid communication (as shown in fig. 5) with the air flow path (along air out), wherein the hydrophobic filter (hydrophobic filter 46) is configured to permit air (at air out, fig. 5; col. 7 ln. 71-col. 8 ln. 2, gas cannot pass through the filter 48, but it does pass through hydrophobic filter 46) from the flow of infusate (at liquid out) through a hydrophobic filter media (col. 7 ln. 59-63, filter 46 is treated with silicone resin to make it water repellent) and prevent the flow of infusate (at liquid out) through the hydrophobic filter media (col. 7 ln. 59-63, filter 46 treated with silicone is water repellent); and
a hydrophilic filter (hydrophilic filter 48, fig. 5, col. 7 ln. 71-75) positioned adjacent to the hydrophobic filter (46) within the infusate flow path (col. 7 ln. 71-75, liquid enters inlet 42 and flows through hydrophilic filter 48), and an infusate channel (passage 41, fig. 5, col. 7 ln. 53-58) formed through the hydrophobic filter (see passage 41 which is formed through hydrophobic filter 46 in fig. 5).
Riely is silent to the hydrophilic filter positioned such that a portion of the hydrophilic filter is received into the infusate channel of the hydrophobic filter.
Raines, in the field of filters for infusion systems, teaches a hydrophilic filter positioned such that a portion of the hydrophilic filter (cone filter 40 having a hydrophilic membrane 47, fig. 3 and fig. 5, col. 4 ln. 25-40) is received into an infusate channel (channel formed within the hydrophobic membrane 20 as shown in fig. 3) of the hydrophobic filter (hydrophobic membrane 20, fig. 3 and fig. 5, col. 4 ln. 25-40).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hydrophilic filter of Riely to extend within an infusate channel of the hydrophobic filter or Riely as taught by Raines since both references deal with hydrophobic and hydrophilic filters arranged with a flow path. One would have been motivated to make the modification because having the hydrophilic filter extend within the infusate channel defined by the hydrophobic filter would help to force the air to the outer edge of the channel since the hydrophilic filter would not allow air through the center of the channel, thus forcing air to the outer edge where the hydrophobic filter allows the expulsion of air, thus this arrangement may better facilitate air removal.
Regarding claim 2, Riely discloses an air elimination assembly for eliminating air from a flow of infusate (figs. 1-5; col. 2, ln. 62-71 regarding an air purge device for medical applications of liquid), the air elimination assembly comprising:
a housing (tubular housing 40, fig. 5, col. 7 ln. 53-58) defining a fluid channel (along “flow in” arrow in fig. 5) having an inlet (inlet 42, fig. 5, col. 7 ln. 53-58) and an outlet (outlet 43, fig. 5, col. 7 ln. 53-58), and an air vent (along “air out” arrows in fig. 5; col. 7 ln. 71-col. 8 ln. 2, air is vented out of holes 49 in housing 40) in fluid communication (as shown in fig. 5) with the fluid channel (along flow in, fig. 5) and disposed between (as shown in fig. 5) the inlet (inlet 42) and the outlet (outlet 43) of the fluid channel (along flow in);
and a hydrophobic filter (hydrophobic filter 46, fig. 5, col. 7 ln. 71-col. 8 ln. 2) and a hydrophilic filter (hydrophilic filter 48, fig. 5, col. 7 ln. 71-75), the hydrophobic filter disposed within the fluid channel (as shown in fig. 5, filter 46 is in the fluid channel defined by housing 40) and covering an entrance of the air vent from the fluid channel (along air out, col. 7 ln. 71-col. 8 ln. 2, fig 5 shows filter 46 covering holes 49 through which gas is vented), the hydrophobic filter (46) comprising a hydrophobic filter media (col. 7 ln. 59-63, filter 46 is treated with silicone resin to make it water repellent) forming an infusate channel (passage 41, fig. 5 shows passage 41 formed within hydrophobic filter 46, col. 7 ln. 53-58) through the hydrophobic filter (see passage 41 through hydrophobic filter 46 in fig. 5), wherein the hydrophobic filter (hydrophobic filter 46) is configured to permit air (at air out, fig. 5; col. 7 ln. 71-col. 8 ln. 2, gas cannot pass through the filter 48, but it does pass through hydrophobic filter 46) from the flow of infusate (at liquid out) through a hydrophobic filter media (col. 7 ln. 59-63, filter 46 is treated with silicone resin to make it water repellent) into the air vent and prevent the flow of infusate (at liquid out) through the hydrophobic filter media (col. 7 ln. 59-63, filter 46 treated with silicone is water repellent).
Riely is silent to the hydrophilic filter at least partially extending into the infusate channel.
Raines, in the field of filters for infusion systems, teaches a hydrophilic filter (cone filter 40 having a hydrophilic membrane 47, fig. 3 and fig. 5, col. 4 ln. 25-40) at least partially extending into the infusate channel (channel formed within the hydrophobic membrane 20 as shown in fig. 3; hydrophobic membrane 20 also shown in fig. 5, discussed in col. 4 ln. 25-40).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hydrophilic filter of Riely to extend within an infusate channel of the hydrophobic filter of Riely as taught by Raines since both references deal with hydrophobic and hydrophilic filters arranged with a flow path. One would have been motivated to make the modification because having the hydrophilic filter extend within the infusate channel defined by the hydrophobic filter would help to force the air to the outer edge of the channel since the hydrophilic filter would not allow air through the center of the channel, thus forcing air to the outer edge where the hydrophobic filter allows the expulsion of air, thus this arrangement may better facilitate air removal.
Regarding claim 3, Riely modified by Raines discloses the air elimination assembly of claim 2, as described above. Riely further discloses wherein the infusate channel (passage 41, fig. 5, col. 7 ln. 53-58) permits the flow of infusate through the fluid channel via the infusate channel (col. 7 ln. 71-75, liquid passes through passage 41).
Regarding claim 5, Riely modified by Raines discloses the air elimination assembly of claim 2, as described above. Riely further discloses wherein the hydrophilic filter (48, fig. 5) is configured to permit the flow of infusate through a hydrophilic filter media (col. 7 ln. 65-70, filter 48 comprises a disc not coated in silicone) toward the outlet (43) (see fig. 5, “liquid out” arrow) and prevent the flow of air through the hydrophilic filter media (col. 7 ln. 71-75, gas cannot pass through hydrophilic filter 48).
Regarding claim 6, Riely modified by Raines discloses the air elimination assembly of claim 2, as described above, including the hydrophilic filter (48, fig. 5).
Riely is silent to the hydrophilic filter having a tapered portion.
Raines, in the field of filters for infusion systems, teaches wherein the hydrophilic filter (hydrophilic cone filter element 40, fig. 5) comprises a tapered portion (see fig. 5, the narrower end of the cone is the tapered portion).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the filter of Riely to include a tapered portion as taught by Raines since both deal with filters for infusion systems. Rains motivates the modification by noting that the tapered cone shape allows for the filter to catch small particulates in the fluid flow (Raines col. 2 ln. 17-24).
Regarding claim 7, Riely modified by Raines discloses the air elimination assembly of claim 2, as described above, including wherein the hydrophilic filter (Riely: 48, fig. 5; Raines: cone filter 40 having a hydrophilic membrane 47, fig. 3) is disposed adjacent to the hydrophobic filter within the fluid channel (Riely: fig. 5 shows hydrophobic filter 46 adjacent to hydrophilic filter 48; Raines: fig. 3 shows cone filter 40 adjacent to hydrophobic filter 20).
Regarding claim 8, Riely modified by Raines discloses the air elimination assembly of claim 2, as described above. Riely further discloses comprising a tubing (tube 45, fig. 5) in fluid communication with the outlet of the fluid channel (col. 7 ln. 53-58, outlet 43 is bonded to a supply tube 45), wherein the tubing (45) is configured (Claim language of “configured to” implies functional language and the prior art must only be capable of performing the recited function.) to receive the flow of infusate (see fig. 5 “liquid out” arrow) from the hydrophilic filter (48).
Regarding claim 9, Riely modified by Raines discloses the air elimination assembly of claim 8, as described above, and further discloses wherein a portion of the hydrophilic filter (48, fig. 5) covers (col. 7 ln. 65-70, filter disc 48 is bonded to the walls of the housing, thus all liquid must pass through filter 48 prior to leaving the housing and entering the tube) a tubing inlet (marked below with a dotted double-sided arrow in the annotated fig. 5 of Riely, fig. shows that the filter disc 48 covers the inlet of tubing 45 since no fluid can enter the tubing 45 without passing through the filter 48) of the tubing (supply tube 45, fig. 5, col. 7 ln. 53-58 introduces the tubing
PNG
media_image1.png
231
742
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Riely modified by Raines and further in view of Haldopoulos et al (US-20030178360-A1; hereafter Haldopoulos).
Regarding claim 4, Riely modified by Raines discloses the air elimination assembly of claim 2, as described above. Riely further discloses wherein the hydrophobic filter (46, fig. 5) comprises a portion covering the entrance (entrances of air out holes 49, fig. 5) of the air vent (holes 49 in housing 40, fig. 5; col. 7 ln. 71-col. 8 ln. 2, air is vented out of holes 49 in housing 40).
Riely is silent to a flared portion of the hydrophobic filter.
Haldopoulos, directed to a hydrophobic filter for a suction system, teaches wherein a hydrophobic filter (filter 10) comprises a flared portion (first portion 11, fig. 5, [0045]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the filter of Riely to have the gradient in wall thickness as taught by Haldopoulos since both deal with hydrophobic filters. One would have been motivated to make the modification by Haldopoulos [0032] which notes that the gradient in wall thickness better facilitates increased air flow velocity through the filter. Additionally, adding a flared portion to the hydrophobic filter of Riely may help to better secure the filter in the correct location in the fluid channel.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Riely modified by Raines and further in view of Colman et al (US-20090312662-A1; hereafter Colman).
Alternatively, regarding claim 9, Riely modified by Raines discloses the air elimination assembly of claim 8, as described above, including the hydrophilic filter (48, fig. 5).
Riely is silent to the hydrophilic filter covering a tubing inlet.
Colman, in the art of filters for a breath sampling device, teaches wherein a portion of the hydrophilic filter (hydrophilic material 236, [0048], fig. 2) covers a tubing inlet (upper end of outlet tube 220 as shown in fig. 2) of the tubing (tube 220, fig. 2, [0047]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hydrophilic filter of Riely to be at the tubing inlet of the outlet tube (Riely 45, fig. 5; Colman 220, fig. 2) as taught be Colman. One would have been motivated to make the modification for the purpose of filtering at the outlet end and thereby ensure that filtered flow is directed into the outlet tube.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Riely modified by Raines and further in view of Kriesel (US-20050277883-A1; hereafter Kriesel).
Regarding claim 10, Riely modified by Raines discloses the air elimination assembly of claim 2, as described above.
Riely and Raines are silent to the housing comprising a clip comprising a biasing member. Riely does note, in col. 8 ln. 3-5, that the device shown in fig. 5 “can easily be strapped or otherwise attached to the limb of a patient for use in administration of some fluid medicament”.
Kriesel, in the field of fluid delivery devices including gas vents and filters (see figs. 71-73, [0221]), teaches wherein the housing (housing 444 and spring clip assembly 518, fig. 72, respectively mentioned in [0221] and [0224]) comprises a clip (spring clip assembly 518, fig. 72) comprising a biasing member (Examiner notes that the clip 518 is a spring clip assembly as noted in [0224] and thus contains a spring, which is a biasing member. Note also that the spring clip assembly 518 can attach the housing to a patient’s clothing as noted in [0224]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to include the clip with a biasing member taught by Kriesel with the housing of Riely since both deal with housings for filters for intravenous lines and since Riely col. 8 ln. 3-5 mentions attaching the device housing to the patient. One would have been motivated to make the modification because the spring clip assembly allows the housing to be reliably fixed in place relative by fixing the housing to a patient’s clothing, as noted in Kriesel [0224].
Claim(s) 11-12 and 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dudar et al (US-20120172800-A; hereafter Dudar) in view of Riely.
Regarding claim 11, Dudar discloses an air elimination assembly for eliminating air from a flow of infusate (system 410, [0079] system 410 includes an IV pumping system and method having air removal management), the air elimination assembly comprising:
PNG
media_image2.png
530
778
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a housing (pump housing 22, fig. 5, [0079]) defining a flow path (main flow tubing 18, fig. 5, [0080]) having a primary input port (see annotated fig. 5 above, point where tubing enters housing 22), a secondary input port ([0081] port of centripetal air/fluid separation device 460), and an output port (see annotated fig. 5 above, point where tubing exits housing 22),
a pump (pump actuator 20, fig. 5, [0082]) in fluid communication with the flow path (18) between the primary input port and the output port (valve portion 18c, see fig. 5 above which shows fluid communication between pump and flow path at 18c, between the primary input port and the output port), and
an air trap path (bypass line 18by, see fig. 5) in fluid communication with the flow path (main flow tubing 18, fig. 5) between the primary input port and the output port (see intersection of air trap path 18by and flow path 18 directly above noted hydrophobic filter in fig. 5 above), and extending between the secondary input port ([0081] port of centripetal air/fluid separation device 460) and the flow path between the primary input port and the output port (see fig. 5 above); and
a hydrophobic filter (hydrophobic filter 74, [0081]) disposed over the secondary input port ([0081] port of centripetal air/fluid separation device 460) and in fluid communication with the air trap path (18by, fig. 5) wherein the hydrophobic filter (74) is configured (Claim language of “configured to” implies functional language and the prior art must only be capable of performing the recited function.) to permit air from the flow of infusate (from supply 30) through a hydrophobic filter media (Examiner notes that since the filter is hydrophobic but allows gas passage, it must be made from some sort of hydrophobic filter media.) from the air trap path and prevent the flow of infusate through the hydrophobic filter media ([0081] air exists through port of fluid separation device 460 via the liquid retaining filter 74, which retains liquid and allows air out).
Alternatively, Dudar is silent to the hydrophobic filter having a hydrophobic filter media.
Riely, directed to an air elimination assembly, teaches a hydrophobic filter (hydrophobic filter 46, fig. 5) in fluid communication with the air trap path (along “air out” arrows in fig. 5) wherein the hydrophobic filter (46) is configured to permit air (at air out, fig. 5; col. 7 ln. 71-col. 8 ln. 2, gas cannot pass through the filter 48, but it does pass through hydrophobic filter 46) from the flow of infusate through a hydrophobic filter media (col. 7 ln. 59-63, filter 46 is treated with silicone resin to make it water repellent) from the air trap path and prevent the flow of infusate (at liquid out) through the hydrophobic filter media (col. 7 ln. 59-63, filter 46 treated with silicone is water repellent).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to include a filter media as taught by Riely since both references deal with filtering air out of infusate. One would have been motivated to make the modification because including silicone in the hydrophobic filter ensures that gas can pass through the filter while better preventing liquid from doing so since silicone is water repellent.
Regarding claim 12, Dudar modified by Riely discloses the air elimination assembly of claim 11, as described above, including wherein the hydrophobic filter comprises silicone (Riely: col. 7 ln. 59-63, hydrophobic filter 46 is treated with silicone resin to make it water repellent).
Regarding claim 14, Dudar modified by Riely discloses the air elimination assembly of claim 11, as described above. Dudar discloses further wherein the pump (pump actuator 20, fig. 5) in configured to (Claim language of “configured to” implies functional language and the prior art must only be capable of performing the recited function.) apply positive pressure within the air trap path (18by, fig. 5) ([0082] action of pump actuator 20 circulates air entraining medical fluid through main flow tubing 18 and bypass line 18by to remove air through air removal device 460.).
Regarding claim 15, Dudar modified by Riely discloses the air elimination assembly of claim 11, as described above. Dudar discloses further comprising an air trap valve (bypass valve actuator 16by, fig. 5, [0082]) disposed within the air trap path (bypass 18by, fig. 5) and between the pump (20, fig. 5) and the secondary input port ([0081] port of centripetal air/fluid separation device 460), the air trap valve (16by) configured (Claim language of “configured to” implies functional language and the prior art must only be capable of performing the recited function.) to prevent the flow of infusate to the hydrophobic filter (74, fig. 5) in a closed position ([0082] when air is not sensed, bypass valve actuator 16by is in a closed state during normal pumping operation; when valve 16by is open then medical fluid flows through bypass line 18by).
Regarding claim 16, Dudar modified by Riely discloses the air elimination assembly of claim 11, as described above. Dudar discloses further comprising an upstream valve (upstream valve portion 18a, fig. 5) disposed within the flow path (along tube 18) between the primary input port and the output port (see fig. 5 above) and configured (Claim language of “configured to” implies functional language and the prior art must only be capable of performing the recited function.) to prevent the flow of air toward the primary input port (see annotated fig. 5 above) in a closed position ([0043] control unit 12 causes valve or occluder 16a to pinch or compress an upstream valve portion 18a of tubing 18 upstream of pump actuator 20; see fig. 5, note that when valve 18a is closed then air cannot flow back through tubing 18 to the primary input port).
Regarding claim 17, Dudar modified by Riely discloses the air elimination assembly of claim 11, as described above. Dudar further discloses a downstream valve (downstream valve portion 18b, fig. 5) disposed within the flow path (along tube 18) between the primary input port and the output port (see fig. 5 above) and configured (Claim language of “configured to” implies functional language and the prior art must only be capable of performing the recited function.) to prevent the flow of air toward the output port (see annotated fig. 5 above) in a closed position ([0044] control unit 12 causes downstream valve or occlude 16b to close downstream valve portion 18b).
Claim(s) 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dudar modified by Riely in view of Singh et al (US-20130106609-A1; hereafter Singh).
Regarding claim 18, Dudar modified by Riely discloses the air elimination assembly of claim 11, as described above.
Dudar modified by Riely is silent to the pump being a piston pump.
Singh, directed to a dialysis machine which includes a medical pump, teaches wherein the pump comprises a piston pump ([0072] pump of the PD cycler 100 is activated to cause the pistons 133A, 133B to reciprocate).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Dudar modified by Riely to include the piston pump taught by Singh since both deal with medical pumps. One would have been motivated to make the modification because, as noted by Singh, the piston may be used to fully deliver all fluid to the patient through the tubing (Singh [0069]).
Regarding claim 19, Dudar modified by Riely discloses the air elimination assembly of claim 11, as described above.
Dudar modified by Riely is silent to the pump including a silicon pumping segment.
Singh, directed to a dialysis machine which includes a medical pump, teaches wherein the pump comprises a silicon pumping segment (sensor 131, [0079] solid state silicon diaphragm infusion pump force/pressure transducers are included to monitor the pressure in the system, pressure sensors 131 shown in fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Dudar modified by Riely to include the silicon pumping segment taught by Singh since both deal with medical pumps for infusion. One would have been motivated to make the modification by Singh [0078] which notes that it is advantages to be able to accurately monitor the pressure in the line, since too high of a pressure may cause harm to the patient.
Regarding claim 20, Dudar modified by Riely discloses the air elimination assembly of claim 11, as described above.
Dudar modified by Riely is silent to a pressure dome in the flow path.
Singh teaches wherein the flow path includes a pressure dome (dome-shaped fastening members 161A/161B, fig. 5; [0060] movement of dome-shaped members 161A/161B causes flexible membrane 140 to be similarly moved and forces fluid movement).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Dudar modified by Riely to include the pressure domes taught by Singh since both deal with medical pumps for infusion. One would have been motivated to make the modification because the addition of the pressure dome diaphragms may facilitate complete voiding of the solution in the line (Singh [0069]) thus allowing for more accurate dosing and reducing waste.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dudar modified by Riely in view of Miyasaka (US 20130274702 A1; hereafter Miyasaka).
Regarding claim 21, Dudar modified by Riely discloses the air elimination assembly of claim 11, as described above.
Dudar modified by Riely is silent to wherein the hydrophobic filter is removably coupled to the secondary input port.
Miyasaka, in the field of treatment of medical fluids, teaches wherein the hydrophobic filter ([0045] The filter 31 is constructed of a hydrophobic filter through which air can pass but liquid cannot. The filter 31 is held on a filter attachment part 32, and is attached to the second opening 15 of the housing 11 via the filter attachment part 32.) is removably coupled to the secondary input port ([0058] a filter attachment part 32, which removably attaches the filter 31 to the second opening 15 of the reservoir filter 31. Since the filter 31 can be attached and detached by means of the filter attachment part 32, in the event that the hydrophobic filter becomes hydrophilic due to contact with a surfactant such as alcohol, priming can be performed after replacing only the filter. Also, a filter compatible with the characteristics of the circulated liquid, for example, can be attached to the reservoir 13, further suppressing leakage of fluid via the filter 31.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the filter of Dudar modified by Riely to be replaceable as taught by Miyasaka since all three references deal with filtering out air during medical fluid delivery. One would have been motivated to make the modification because, as noted by Miyasaka [0058], hydrophobic filters may become hydrophilic under certain conditions, and replacing the filter with a specific type for specific fluids may improve functionality of the device.
Conclusion
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 11/13/2025 has been entered.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISABELLA NORTH whose telephone number is (703)756-5942. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00.
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, Michael Tsai can be reached at (571) 270-5246. 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.
/I.S.N./Examiner, Art Unit 3783
/JASON E FLICK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3783 01/30/2026