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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/08/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed on 12/08/2025 has been entered. Claims 1 and 16 have been amended; claim 6 has been cancelled. Accordingly, claims 1-5 and 7-22 are pending and under consideration.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 16 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the same combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
In light of further search and consideration, claim 1 and claim 16 are hereby rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeda et al. JP 2001079083 A (newly cited), as cited in the IDS. See rejection of claims below.
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 1-11, 13-14, and 16-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeda et al. JP 2001079083 A (newly cited, hereinafter Maeda), as cited in the IDS.
Regarding claim 1, Maeda discloses a blood oxygenator (Fig. 1, and Page 3, last paragraph in the provided translation – “hollow fiber membrane oxygenator device”) comprising:
a housing 5 (Fig. 1 – chamber 5) comprising a blood inlet 21 (Fig. 1 – blood inlet 21), a blood outlet 22 (Fig. 1 – blood outlet 22), a stripping gas inlet 41 (Fig. 1 – gas inlet 41 for nitric oxide), and at least one gas outlet 32, 42 (Fig. 1 – gas outlet 32 and 42); and
an oxygenator fiber bundle 61+62 (Fig. 1 – hollow fiber bundle 61 and 62, and Par. 14 in the provided translation) disposed within the housing 5 (Fig. 1), the oxygenator fiber bundle 61+62 (Fig. 1) having a stripping region 4 (Fig. 1 – nitrogen monoxide adding region 4) receiving stripping gas from the stripping gas inlet 41 (Fig. 1, and Abstract in the provided translation – “nitrogen monoxide is made to flow in from the gas current inlet 41”), and the oxygenator fiber bundle 61+62 (Fig. 1) further having an oxygenation region 3 (Fig. 1 – oxygen adding region 3) receiving oxygenation gas from an oxygenation gas inlet 31 (Fig. 1 – gas inlet 31 for oxygen , and Abstract in the provided translation – “oxygen is made to flow in from the gas current inlet 31”).
However, Maeda does not currently disclose wherein the stripping region of the oxygenator fiber bundle is upstream of the oxygenation region of the oxygenator fiber bundle with respect to blood flow through the oxygenator fiber bundle, such that blood flowing from the blood inlet to the blood outlet sequentially encounters the stripping region before encountering the oxygenation region.
Examiner notes that the current configuration is taught such that the stripping region is downstream of the oxygenation region with respect to blood flow through the oxygenator fiber bundle 61+62 (Fig. 1, and Page 6, paragraph 7 in the provided translation – “The oxygenator according to the embodiment of the present invention shown in FIGS. 1 to 6 has a configuration in which blood flows in the order from the oxygen-added region to the nitric oxide-added region”).
Maeda, in another embodiment, teaches wherein the stripping region of the oxygenator fiber bundle is upstream of the oxygenation region of the oxygenator fiber bundle with respect to blood flow through the oxygenator fiber bundle, such that blood flowing from the blood inlet to the blood outlet sequentially encounters the stripping region before encountering the oxygenation region (Page 6, paragraph 7 – “A configuration in which the gas flows in the order of the oxygen addition region from the nitrogen addition region may be used).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified to the configuration of Maeda’s device such that the stripping region is upstream of the oxygenation with respect to blood flow such that blood sequentially encounters the stripping region before encountering the oxygenation, also as taught by Maeda, since Maeda teaches both embodiments. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143.A.).
Regarding claim 2, Maeda suggests the invention of claim 1. Maeda further discloses wherein the oxygenator fiber bundle 61+62 (Fig. 1) is cylindrical (Page 3, paragraph 4 in the provided translation – “the hollow fiber membrane is bundled in a cylindrical shape”) and at least a portion of a blood flow path (Fig. 1 – the arrows from inlet 21 to outlet 22 indicate a blood flow path) through the stripping region 4 (Fig. 1) and the oxygenation region 3 (Fig. 1) is at least one of (i) radially inward or radially outward (Fig. 1 – blood flows radially inward toward the middle of the device and radially outward toward the blood outlet) and (iii) unidirectional across the oxygenator fiber bundle 61+62 (Fig. 1 – blood flows unidirectionally across the fiber bundle 61+62).
Regarding claim 3, Maeda suggests the invention of claim 1. Maeda further discloses wherein the oxygenator fiber bundle 61+62 (Fig. 1) is cylindrical (Page 3, paragraph 4 in the provided translation – “the hollow fiber membrane is bundled in a cylindrical shape”) and an outer portion of a blood flow path follows an annular path through the stripping region 4 (Fig. 1 – blood first encounters the outermost portion of the stripping region 4 upon modification as discussed in claim 1; since hollow fiber is cylindrical, blood has to flow annularly around each fiber bundle as it comes into contact with each fiber bundle) and an inner portion follows a radially inward path (Fig. 1 – blood flows towards the center of the device) through the oxygenation region 3 (Fig. 1 – blood then flows inwardly and encounters the innermost portion of the oxygenation region 3 upon modification as discussed in claim 1).
Regarding claim 4, Maeda suggests the invention of claim 3. Maeda further discloses wherein the blood inlet 21 (Fig. 1) feeds the outer portion (Fig. 1 – blood first encounters the outermost portion of the stripping region 4 upon modification as discussed in claim 1) and the inner portion feeds the blood outlet 22 (Fig. 1 – blood from the innermost portion of oxygenation region 3 upon modification as discussed in claim 1 then flows towards the blood outlet 22).
Regarding claim 5, Maeda suggests the invention of claim 4. Maeda further discloses wherein the stripping region 4 (Fig. 1 – stripping region 4 upon modification) is disposed at least in part in the outer portion of the blood flow path (Fig. 1 – blood first encounters the outermost portion of the stripping region 4 upon modification as discussed in claim 1) and the oxygenation region 3 (Fig. 1 – oxygenation region 3 upon modification) is disposed at least in part in the inner portion of the blood flow path (Fig. 1 – blood then encounters the innermost portion of oxygenation region 3 upon modification as discussed in claim 1).
Regarding claim 7, Maeda suggests the invention of claim 3. Maeda further discloses wherein the stripping region 4 (Fig. 1 – stripping region 4 upon modification) is disposed at least in part in the inner portion of the blood flow path (Fig. 1 – blood flows from the outermost portion to the innermost portion of stripping region 4 upon modification as discussed in claim 1) and the oxygenation region 3 (Fig. 1 – oxygenation region 3 upon modification) is disposed at least in part in the outer portion of the blood flow path (Fig. 1 – blood then flows from the innermost portion to the outermost portion of oxygenation region 3 to exit the apparatus upon modification as discussed in claim 1).
Regarding claim 8, Maeda suggests the invention of claim 3. Maeda further discloses a cylindrical wall 81, 82 (Fig. 1 – partition wall 81 and 82, each being cylindrical) separating an outer portion and an inner portion of the oxygenator fiber bundle 61+62 (Fig. 1) to maintain the sequential flow from the stripping region 4 (Fig. 1) to the oxygenation region 3 (Fig. 1), wherein blood flows from the blood inlet 21 (Fig. 1) through an axial opening in the housing 5 (see annotated Fig. 1 below – the opening of blood inlet 21 in chamber 5) into the outer portion of the oxygenator fiber bundle 61+62 (Fig. 1) and flows annularly through the outer portion of the oxygenator fiber bundle 61+62 (Fig. 1 – blood first encounters the outermost portion of fiber bundle 62 upon modification as discussed in claim 1) to and through an axial opening in the cylindrical wall (see annotated Fig. 1 below) surrounding an inner portion of the oxygenator fiber bundle 61+62 (Fig. 1) from where the blood flows radially inwardly through the inner portion of the oxygenator fiber bundle 61+62 (Fig. 1 – blood then flows towards the annotated opening in the wall to reach the innermost portion of fiber bundle 61 upon modification) to an axial collection (see annotated Fig. 1 below) region along a center axis of the inner portion of the oxygenator fiber bundle 61+62 (see the annotated Fig. 1 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
748
839
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1 of Maeda
However, Maeda does not currently disclose an axial opening in the cylindrical wall into a distribution ring.
Maeda, in another embodiment, teaches an axial opening in the cylindrical wall 8 (Fig. 2 – partition wall 8) into a distribution ring (see annotated Fig. 2 below – distribution ring with blood circulation ports 10).
PNG
media_image2.png
518
700
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 2 of Maeda
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the wall of Maeda to further include a distribution ring, also as taught by Maeda, in order to ensure sufficient blood flow rate between the zone (Page 4, paragraph 6 in the provided translation of Maeda). It also would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the wall of Maeda to further include a distribution ring, also as taught by Maeda, as Maeda teaches both embodiments. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143.A.).
Regarding claim 9, Maeda suggests the invention of claim 1. Maeda further discloses wherein the oxygenator fiber bundle 61+62 (Fig. 1) has a cross-sectional area (Fig. 1 is showing the front view of a cross-sectional view; bundles 61 and 62 has a side-view cross-sectional area) and the stripping region 4 (Fig. 1) that receives the stripping gas from the stripping gas inlet 41 (Fig. 1) has an inlet area 4a (Fig. 1 – gas space 4a) that comprises from 20% to 80% of the cross-sectional area (Fig. 1 – gas space 4a covers bundle 62, which is half of the cross-sectional area of bundles 61+62) and the oxygenation region 3 (Fig. 1) that receives the oxygenation gas from the oxygenation gas inlet 31 (Fig. 1) has an inlet area 3a (Fig. 1 – gas space 3a) that comprises from 80% to 20% of the cross-sectional area (Fig. 1 – gas space 4a covers bundle 61, which is the other half of the cross-sectional area of bundles 61+62).
Regarding claim 10, Maeda suggests the invention of claim 9. Maeda further discloses a manifold divider 81, 82 (Fig. 1) which directs the stripping gas from the stripping gas inlet 41 (Fig. 1) to the stripping region 4 (Fig. 1) of the oxygenator fiber bundle 61+62 (Fig. 1) and directs the oxygenation gas from the oxygenation gas inlet 31 (Fig. 1) to the oxygenation region 3 (Fig. 1) of the oxygenator fiber bundle 61+62 (Fig. 1, and Page 4, paragraph 3 in the provided translation – “Partitions 81 and 82 are provided to partition airtightly from each other. This is because in a gas, diffusion of the gas is extremely fast, and oxygen and nitric oxide are easily mixed”).
Regarding claim 11, Maeda suggests the invention of claim 10. Maeda further discloses wherein the manifold divider 81, 82 (Fig. 1) is disposed in a manifold (see annotated Fig. 1 above) which receives the stripping gas from the stripping gas inlet 41 (Fig. 1) and the oxygenation gas from the oxygenation gas inlet 31 (Fig. 1), wherein the manifold (see annotated Fig. 1 above) is open to an entire gas inlet side 3a, 4a (see annotated Fig. 1 above the left side) of the oxygenator fiber bundle 61+62 (Fig. 1) and placement of the manifold divider 81, 82 (Fig. 1) controls an inlet area 4a (Fig. 1) of the stripping region 4 (Fig. 1) that receives the stripping gas from the stripping gas inlet 41 (Fig. 1) and an inlet area 3a (Fig. 1) of the oxygenation region that receives the oxygenation gas from the oxygenation gas inlet 31 (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 13, Maeda suggests the invention of claim 11. Maeda further discloses wherein the manifold divider 81, 82 (Fig. 1) is fixed (Fig. 1 – fixed by fixing members 7).
Regarding claim 14, Maeda suggests the invention of claim 12. Maeda further discloses wherein the oxygenator fiber bundle 61+62 (Fig. 1) further comprises an upper potting 7 (Fig. 1) and a lower potting 7 (Fig. 1 – fixing members 7, and Page 4, paragraph 3 – “Both ends of the hollow fiber bundles 61 and 62 are fixed by fixing members 7 to both ends”), wherein the manifold (see annotated Fig. 1 above) is located within the housing 5 (Fig. 1) adjacent to one of the pottings 7 (Fig. 1) to direct gas flow sequentially through the stripping region 4 (Fig. 1) and the oxygenation region 3 (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 16, Maeda discloses a method for oxygenating blood (Par. 2 and Par. 13 in the provided translation) comprising:
providing a blood oxygenator (Fig. 1, and Page 3, last paragraph in the provided translation – “hollow fiber membrane oxygenator device”) having (1) a housing 5 (Fig. 1 – chamber 5) with a blood inlet 21 (Fig. 1 – blood inlet 21), a blood outlet 22 (Fig. 1 – blood outlet 22), a stripping gas inlet 41 (Fig. 1 – gas inlet 41 for nitric oxide), an oxygenation gas inlet 31 (Fig. 1 – gas inlet 32 for oxygen), and at least one gas outlet 32, 42 (Fig. 1 – gas outlet 32 and 42) and (2) an oxygenator fiber bundle 61+62 (Fig. 1 – hollow fiber bundle 61 and 62, and Par. 14 in the provided translation) disposed within the housing 5 (Fig. 1);
flowing blood through the blood inlet 21 (Fig. 1 has an arrow at blood inlet 21), through the oxygenator fiber bundle 61+62 (Fig. 1), and out through the blood outlet 22 (Fig. 1); and
flowing a stripping gas through the stripping gas inlet 41 (Fig. 1, and Abstract in the provided translation – “nitrogen monoxide is made to flow in from the gas current inlet 41”) and an oxygenation gas through the oxygenation gas inlet 31 (Fig. 1, and Abstract in the provided translation – “oxygen is made to flow in from the gas current inlet 31”), wherein the stripping gas flows through a stripping region 4 (Fig. 1 – nitrogen monoxide adding region 4) of the oxygenator fiber bundle 61+62 (Fig. 1) and the oxygenation gas through an oxygenation region 3 (Fig. 1 – oxygen adding region 3) of the oxygenator fiber bundle 61+62 (Fig. 1)
However, Maeda does not currently disclose wherein the blood sequentially flows through the stripping region and then through the oxygenation region; wherein the stripping gas region of the oxygenator fiber bundle is upstream of the oxygenation region of the oxygenator fiber bundle.
Examiner notes that the current configuration is taught such that the blood sequentially flows through the oxygenation region and then through the stripping region, wherein the stripping region is downstream of the oxygenation region with respect to blood flow through the oxygenator fiber bundle 61+62 (Fig. 1, and Page 6, paragraph 7 in the provided translation – “The oxygenator according to the embodiment of the present invention shown in FIGS. 1 to 6 has a configuration in which blood flows in the order from the oxygen-added region to the nitric oxide-added region”).
Maeda, in another embodiment, teaches wherein the blood sequentially flows through the stripping region and then through the oxygenation region; wherein the stripping gas region of the oxygenator fiber bundle is upstream of the oxygenation region of the oxygenator fiber bundle (Page 6, paragraph 7 – “A configuration in which the gas flows in the order of the oxygen addition region from the nitrogen addition region may be used).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified to the method of Maeda such that the stripping region is upstream of the oxygenation with respect to blood flow such that blood sequentially flows through the stripping region and then through the oxygenation, also as taught by Maeda, since Maeda teaches both embodiments. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143.A.).
Regarding claim 17, Maeda suggests the invention of claim 16. Maeda further discloses wherein the blood travels through the stripping region 4 (Fig. 1) of the oxygenator fiber bundle 61+62 (Fig. 1) in an annular flow path (Fig. 1 – since hollow fiber of bundle 61+62 is cylindrical as discussed in Page 3, paragraph 4 in the provided translation – “the hollow fiber membrane is bundled in a cylindrical shape”, blood has to flow annularly around each fiber bundle as it comes into contact with each fiber bundle of the stripping region 4).
Regarding claim 18, Maeda suggests the invention of claim 16. Maeda further discloses wherein the blood travels through the oxygenation region 3 (Fig. 1) of the oxygenator fiber bundle 61+62 (Fig. 1) in a radially inward flow path (Fig. 1 – blood flows radially inward toward the middle of the device and the oxygenation region 3 upon modification as discussed in claim 16).
Regarding claim 19, Maeda suggests the invention of claim 16. Maeda further discloses wherein the blood travels through the stripping region 4 (Fig. 1) and the oxygenation region 3 (Fig. 1) of the oxygenator fiber bundle 61+62 (Fig. 1) in a straight direction 61+62 (Fig. 1 – blood flows unidirectionally across the fiber bundle 61+62).
Regarding claim 20, Maeda suggests the invention of claim 16. Maeda further discloses wherein the blood travels through the oxygenator fiber bundle 61+62 (Fig. 1) in a substantially uniform blood flow distribution (Page 4, paragraph 5-6 in the provided translation – “a partition having a blood flow passage between the regions“, “the partition may be provided with one blood flow opening for ensuring a sufficient flow rate”).
Regarding claim 21, Maeda suggests the invention of claim 16. Maeda further discloses wherein the fiber bundle 61+62 (Fig. 1) has a cross-sectional area (Fig. 1 is showing the front view of a cross-sectional view; bundles 61 and 62 has a side-view cross-sectional area) and the stripping region 4 (Fig. 1) that receives the stripping gas from the stripping gas inlet 41 (Fig. 1) has an inlet area 4a (Fig. 1 – gas space 4a) that comprises from 20% to 80% of the cross-sectional area (Fig. 1 – gas space 4a covers bundle 62, which is half of the cross-sectional area of bundles 61+62) and the oxygenation region 3 (Fig. 1) that receives the oxygenation gas from the oxygenation gas inlet 31 (Fig. 1) has an inlet area 3a (Fig. 1 – gas space 3a) that comprises from 80% to 20% of the cross-sectional area (Fig. 1 – gas space 4a covers bundle 61, which is the other half of the cross-sectional area of bundles 61+62).
Claims 12 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeda as applied to claim 11 and claim 21 above, respectively, and further in view of Mazzoli et al. WO 2016181189 A1 (previously cited, hereinafter Mazzoli), as cited in the IDS of the parent application No. 16/791,117.
Regarding claim 12, Maeda suggests the invention of claim 11. However, Maeda does not disclose that wherein the manifold divider is moveable.
Mazzoli, in the same field of endeavor of blood gas exchanger (Title), teaches a manifold divider 32+34 (Fig. 2-3 – restriction element 32 and 34) is moveable (Par. 53 of Mazzoli – “In order to activate the restriction elements 32, 34, the levers 36, 38 may be pushed, which moves the restriction elements 32, 34 inward through the gas inlet compartment 44”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the manifold divider of Maeda to have it be movable as taught by Mazzoli, in order to reduce gas exchange as desired to avoid hypo-capnia and hyper-oxygenation in small patients (Abstract of Mazzoli).
Regarding claim 22, Maeda suggests the invention of claim 21. However, Maeda does not disclose moving a manifold divider which directs the stripping gas from the stripping gas inlet to the stripping region of the oxygenator fiber bundle and directs the oxygenation gas from the oxygenation gas inlet to the oxygenation region of the oxygenator fiber bundle to adjust relative areas of the stripping region and the oxygenation region of the oxygenator fiber bundle.
Mazzoli, in the same field of endeavor of blood gas exchanger (Title), teaches moving a manifold divider 32+34 (Fig. 2-3 – restriction element 32 and 34, and Par. 53 – “the levers 36, 38 may be pushed, which moves the restriction elements 32, 34…”) which directs the oxygenation gas from the oxygenation gas inlet 22 (Fig. 3-5 – gas inlet 22, and Par. 44 – “Oxygen, or a mixture of oxygen and air, known as an oxygen supply, enters through gas inlet 22, passes through the microporous hollow fibers within the fiber bundle…”) to the oxygenation region 60 (Fig. 6 – active fibers 60 when restriction elements are engaged) of the oxygenator fiber bundle 40 (Fig. 3-5 – fiber bundle 40) to adjust relative areas of the oxygenation region 60 (Fig. 6, and Par. 53 – “Figure 5 shows restriction element 34 in an activated configuration. Compared to Figure 4, where restriction element 32 is activated, a greater number of hollow fibers would be able to receive oxygen supply in the fiber bundle in Figure 5; however it would still only be only a portion of the hollow fibers in the whole fiber bundle 40”, which discusses how element 32 and 34 can restrict an area of fiber bundles that receive oxygenation) of the oxygenator fiber bundle 40 (Fig. 3-5 – fiber bundle 40).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Maeda to further include a manifold divider as taught by Mazzoli, in order to reduce gas exchange as desired to avoid hypo-capnia and hyper-oxygenation in small patients (Abstract of Mazzoli).
Once the combination is made as discussed, the manifold divider 34 and 32 of Mazzoli will be disposed on the manifold containing the gas inlets, divider 34 and 32 would restrict flow in stripping region, and oxygenation region. Thus, the limitation of “which directs the stripping gas from the stripping gas inlet to the stripping region of the oxygenator fiber bundle” and “just relative areas of the stripping region” are met since the manifold divider will determine the amount of fiber bundle receiving the treatment gas.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeda as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Wu et al. WO 2015100288 A1 (previously cited, hereinafter Wu).
Regarding claim 15, Maeda suggests the invention of claim 1. Maeda further discloses an oxygenation gas source (Par. 30 in the provided translation – “the supplied oxygen”) connected to the oxygenation gas inlet 31 (Fig. 1, and Par. 30 in the provided translation – “the supplied oxygen… flow from the gas inlets”) and a stripping gas source (Par. 30 in the provided translation – “the provided… nitric oxide”) connected to the stripping gas inlet 41 (Fig. 1, and Par. 30 in the provided translation – “the supplied… nitric oxide flow from the gas inlets”).
However, Maeda does not explicitly disclose a blood pump connected to said blood inlet.
Wu, in the same field of endeavor of blood oxygenator (Abstract in the provided translation), teaches a blood pump 230 (Fig. 11 – blood pump 230) connected to said blood inlet 190 (Fig. 11 and Page 13, line 10-12 – “the blood oxygenator 100 may be connected to a blood pump 230. Pump 230 is connected to the blood inlet of blood oxygenator 100, such as through a quick connector 190…”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Maeda to further include a blood pump connected to the blood inlet as taught by Wu, as it is well-known in the art that a blood pump is required to pump blood extracorporeally as discussed in page 13, second paragraph of Wu.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wu et al. US 2007/0249888 A1 teaches an oxygenation system for removing CO2
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QUYNH DAO LE whose telephone number is (571)272-7198. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 5:30 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, 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.
/QUYNH DAO LE/Examiner, Art Unit 3781
/LESLIE R DEAK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799 24 April 2026
Prosecution Insights