DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The present application, filed on or after 3/16/2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is in reply to the Remarks and Amendments filed 04/13/2026.
Claims 2, 7, 9, 23, 26, 29 are canceled.
Claims 1 and 27 are amended.
Claims 1, 3-6, 8, 10-22, 24-25, 27-28 have been examined and are pending.
(AIA ) Examiner Note
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 at the time any inventions covered therein were effectively filed 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 at the time a later invention was effectively filed 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.
Official Notice / Admitted Prior Art
With regard to claims 3, 8, and 27 the common knowledge declared to be well-known in the art has been taken to be Applicant admitted prior art because the Applicant failed to traverse the Examiner’s assertion of Official Notice. To adequately traverse such a finding, an applicant must specifically point out the supposed errors in the Examiner’s action, which would include stating why the noticed fact is not considered to be common knowledge or well-known in the art. See 37 CFR 1.111(b). See also Chevenard, 139 F.2d at 713, 60 USPQ at 241 (“[I]n the absence of any demand by Applicant for the examiner to produce authority for his statement, we will not consider this contention.”). A general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without any reference to the Examiner’s assertion of Official Notice is inadequate. Support for the Applicant’s assertion should be included. Because Applicant failed to traverse Examiner’s Official Notice, the common knowledge or well-known in the art statement is taken to be admitted prior art. See MPEP 2144.03(C).
Note: the prior art facts taken per Official Notice regarding claim 3 in a previous Office Action and have been taken as admitted by the Applicant as Applicant Admitted Prior Art facts are as follows: “integrating a work surface and/or tool with a base to support the work surface and/or tool and/or to house equipment related to operating the tool or used on the work surface was old and well-known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. An example is a carpenter’s workbench has a base integrated with a work surface and often integral storage in the base, such as for a retractable table saw and tools necessary to change the blades of the saw and accessories for dust collection, etc.”
Note: the prior art facts taken per Official Notice regarding claim 8 in a previous Office Action and have been taken as admitted by the Applicant as Applicant Admitted Prior Art facts are as follows: “chamfers and sloping corners are old and well-known solutions and used as various circumstances necessitate, e.g. as dictated by manufacturing technique, or as form follows intended function, etc..., and often merely for aesthetic reasons.”
Note: the prior art facts taken per Official Notice regarding claim 27 in the previous Office Action and are now taken as admitted by the Applicant as Applicant Admitted Prior Art facts are as follows: “card readers were old and well known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention; e.g. card readers used to authenticate personnel such as patients and/or medical personnel and are often used to access information and/or information systems, etc.”
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.
Claims 1, 3-6, 8, 10-22, 24-25, 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or (for pre-AIA ) 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor, a joint inventor, or (for pre-AIA ) the applicant regards as the invention.
Independent claim 1 has been amended in part to recite the following: “…wherein the second recess is sized and configured to contain a volume of spilled liquid and collects and contains material spilled in the front of the upper module and directs fluid flow away from the at least one electric component …”.
However, respectfully, this feature is ambiguous and the metes and bounds are not clear. Examiner notes that the physical ability of any recess “to contain a volume of spilled liquid and collect and contain material spilled… and directs the fluid flow away from [some direction]…” is dependent upon the characteristics and dynamics of the spill and the fluid which is spilled, i.e. fluids being spilled contain energy and momentum which cannot be redirected without force; per Newton's First Law of Motion (also known as the Law of Inertia), an object in motion, which includes fluids, will stay in motion at the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced external force. For example, a spill which is in the form of a spray or jet of fluid with high energy and momentum and high volume being directed towards an electronic component, especially if the fluid itself is polarized, will require a vastly different type of “recess” which is capable of performing the intended use as claimed – i.e. to contain and collect and direct the fluid in a desired direction away from the electric component as compared to a spill which is a drop of water moving with only Van der Waals1 forces acting upon the drop of liquid water, such as might occur from a pipet or syringe of water which is accidently laid on the planar surface and drips a single drop of water. The later type of spill may be wholly contained, collected, and directed as claimed by a mere planar surface with recesses no larger than those of micron sized deformations and/or planar surfaces of material which hold such a drop of water due to surface tension effects involving Van der Waals forces responsible for cohesion of water molecules into droplet form and attraction to the planar surface thereby holding such water droplet from being directed towards any adjacent electronic components. Therefore, Examiner finds that this feature as currently recited is not clear enough such that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand what metes and bounds are intended to be imposed on the physical design of the claimed medical station and the “second recess” thereof.
For this reason, the claim is indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor, a joint inventor, or (for pre-AIA ) the applicant regards as the invention.
For the purpose of compact prosecution, the feature in question is interpreted as a statement of intended use of any such “second recess” but which is non-functional descriptive material and does not further limit the claimed second recess in any physical manner. Nonetheless, correction and clarification of the claim is required.
Dependent claims 3-6, 8, 10-22, 24-25, 27-28 inherit the deficiencies of their parent claim and are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or (for pre-AIA ) 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor, a joint inventor, or (for pre-AIA ) the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 (AIA )
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1, 4-6, 10-14, 16-22, 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Norman et al. (U.S. 2019/0351124 A1; hereinafter, "Norman").
Claim 1: (Currently amended)
Pertaining to claim 1, as shown, Norman teaches the following:
A medical station, comprising:
Abase (Norman, see at least Fig. 1 and associated disclosure, e.g. at least [0021], teaching: "...cycler or medical fluid delivery machine is placed on a table or other supporting structure [base]..."; and
an upper module formed of a structure positioned atop the base, the upper module comprising a raised covering component and a planar support component (Norman, see at citations noted supra, including Fig. 1, and at least [0068]-[0069], e.g. the medical fluid delivery machine [upper module], which has cycler 20 [raised covering component], sits on a “supporting structure” [atop the base]. The medical fluid delivery machine is described as having a cycler 20 which has a raised portion to which display 30 is attached and also has a housing 24 described as follows: “which holds equipment programmed via control unit 22 to prepare fresh dialysis solution” and protruding from the front of the cycler 20 is a flat box structure [planar component] in which is housed “Disposable cassette 42” as depicted in Fig. 1.
PNG
media_image1.png
613
1003
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
621
924
media_image2.png
Greyscale
), the raised covering component configured to cover a processing device (Norman, again see at least Fig. 1 and associated disclosure, the upper portion of cycler 20, i.e the portion where display 30 attaches, is disclosed as covering electronics including, e.g. per [0068]: “…a control unit 22 having at least one processor and at least one memory. …” [processing device] of the cycler),
the raised covering component comprising:
a first top surface (Norman, see at least Fig. 1 depicting a first surface of cycler 20, e.g. the surface to which display 30 attaches and depicted in Fig. 1 which is depicted as directly above and covers internal computer components, e.g. control unit 22 which is disclosed as having a processor and memory
PNG
media_image3.png
584
1089
media_image3.png
Greyscale
);
a first recess formed within at least a portion of the first top surface (Norman, per Fig. 1,and [0082] there is a “heater/mixing pan” [first recess] which accepts “heater/ mixing bag 62” and this “heater/mixing pan” [first recess] forms a channel between the housing 24 and the raised portion of cycler 20 to which display 30 attaches; note also [0079]-[0082]
PNG
media_image4.png
584
865
media_image4.png
Greyscale
) wherein the first recess is defined by a first pair of opposing walls (Norman, see again citations noted supra, teaching: “heater/mixing pan” [first recess] has at least a first set of opposing side walls to hold “heater/mixing bag 62”);
a plurality of sidewalls extending from respective edges of the first top surface towards the base, (Norman, again per Fig. 1, sidewalls, e.g. left and right sidewalls, extend down from the top surface, i.e. the top surface, e.g., to which display 30 attaches, e.g. left side of Fig. 1; this sidewall also extends down from the recess/channel of “heater/mixing pan” [first recess] towards “supporting structure” (e.g. “leveling tray 100”) [base]
PNG
media_image5.png
545
815
media_image5.png
Greyscale
)
Although Norman teaches the above features and teaches “heater/mixing pan” [first recess] has at least a first set of opposing side walls to hold “heater/mixing bag 62” which is filled with fluid implying a need to divert possible leakage of fluid from such bag away from sensitive electronics/computer components, i.e. #22 and #28 per Fig. 1, and away from other sensitive components shown on the front of cycler 20, he may not explicitly teach: wherein a top portion of each of the plurality of sidewalls comprises a curved surface for diverting liquid. However, regarding this nuance, Examiner finds that curving an interface between two planar surfaces e.g. with a chamfer, is within the skill of a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date. Furthermore, Examiner finds because Norman’s “heater/mixing pan” is designed to hold a bag of fluid “heater/mixing bag 62” and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the potential for the bag leaking from puncture, etc… there is therefore a recognized need to divert liquids down at least a sidewall which does stem from Norman’s “heater/mixing pan” [first recess] area and thus away from sensitive components within and on the front face of cycler 20. Therefore, in view of these facts, the Examiner finds there is ample motivation to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Norman’s top portion of each of the plurality of sidewalls stemming from the “heater/mixing pan” [first recess] to comprise a curved surface for diverting liquid, e.g. a chamfer to help facilitate a smooth diversion of any potential leakage or spill from “heater/mixing bag” placed within the “heater/mixing pan” and because use of curved surfaces for such use are well within the level of skill of a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and because per MPEP 2143(I) (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention is obvious. The motivation to combine may be implicit and may be found in the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, or, in some cases, from the nature of the problem to be solved. Id. at 1366, 80 USPQ2d at 1649.
Furthermore, Norman as shown teaches the following:
at least one channel, formed in the first top surface, and extending from the first recess between the first pair of opposing walls and along the curved surface of one the plurality of sidewalls and extending over the one of the plurality of sidewalls diverting liquid in the first recess from the first recess to along one of the plurality of sidewalls away from electronic components of the base and a second top surface (Norman, see citations noted supra and again per Fig. 1, the “heater/mixing pan” [first recess forms a channel], between the top surfaces of cycler 20, which accepts “heater/ mixing bag 62” is a channel because it is has an open-ended side and this recess does extend as a channel [at least one channel] the width of cycler 20 between a first set of opposing walls which directs fluid down along one of either left side wall of cycler 20 or a right side wall (not visible in Fig. 1); also as noted supra, the edge of this top surface may be curved to facilitate diversion of liquids away from electronic components #22 and #28 and away from a second top surface of the flat box structure [planar component] in which is contained “Disposable cassette 42” as depicted in Fig. 1.; i.e. applicant’s “second top surface” reads on the top surface of the box structure which houses “Disposable cassette 42”.); and
the planar support component shaped and positioned in front of the raised covering component (Norman, see Fig. 1, and at least [0018]-[0019] and [0074]: “…Disposable set 40 in the illustrated embodiment includes a disposable pumping cassette 42, which may include a planar rigid plastic piece…”; note that the flat box structure composed of planes [planar component] in which rests the “Disposable cassette 42” as depicted in Fig. 1, is positioned in front of cycler 20 [raised covering component]; see below diagram.
PNG
media_image2.png
621
924
media_image2.png
Greyscale
),
the planar support component comprising:
the second top surface aligned in a side by side configuration from the first top surface at a different height, (Norman, per Fig. 1, the top surface [second top surface] of the box structure [planar support component] housing “Disposable cassette 42” as depicted in Fig. 1, is aligned in a side by side configuration from the first top surface, i.e. the surface to which display 30 is attached, and this second top surface is at a different lower height than the first top surface.) the second top surface extending from a distal end of a first sidewall of the plurality of sidewalls of the raised covering component (Regarding this feature, the difference between the claims and the teachings of Norman is that Norman’s box structure [planar support component] housing “Disposable cassette 42” as depicted in Fig. 1, has a top surface [second top surface] which, as depicted per Fig. 1, may not extend fully from a distal end of left sidewall to right sidewall of cycler 20. However, Norman does not teach any particular mechanical reason for a shorter length of this box structure [planar support component] which houses “Disposable cassette 42”; instead, he teaches this structure is simply used to house “Disposable cassette 42” as noted. Therefore, Examiner finds it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the shape, or length, and/or size of Norman’s depicted box structure such that it extends from each of Norman’s sidewalls of cycler 20 either to accommodate a larger cassette or merely for aesthetic choice or if necessary to house updated and differently sized equipment depending on particular equipment specifications and/or for manufacturing reasons because per at least MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(A) and/or (IV)(B) – Change in size or shape is obvious); and
at least one electronic component positioned on or adjacent to the second top surface (Norman teaches at least one electronic component positioned adjacent to the second top surface; e.g. per at least Fig. 1 and [0068]: “…cycler 20 [adjacent to second top surface of planar support component] includes a control unit 22 having at least one processor [at least one electronic component] and at least one memory [another electronic component]. Control unit 22 further includes a wired or wireless transceiver [another electronic component] for sending information to and receiving information from a water purifier 210…”);
a second recess, fluidly connected to the first recess via the at least one channel, wherein the second recess is formed within at least a portion of the second top surface and comprises a work surface to hold or contain items wherein the second recess is defined by two sets of opposing walls comprising a second pair of opposing walls and a third pair of opposing walls (Norman, per at least Fig. 1, the box structure [planar support component] which houses Norman’s “disposable pumping cassette 42” is shown to have a rectangular delineation between the two structures indicating this represents a rectangular recess into which “disposable pumping cassette 42” fits, and therefore “holds or contains items”, and also therefore would have two sets of opposing walls.
PNG
media_image6.png
607
1037
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Furthermore, per at least [0074], Norman teaches the following: “…disposable pumping cassette 42, which may include a planar rigid plastic piece covered on one or both sides by a flexible membrane… Disposable cassette 42 includes fluid pump chambers 44 that operate with the pneumatic pump chambers located at housing 24 of cycler 20 and fluid valve chambers 46 that operate with the pneumatic valve chambers located at housing 24 of cycler 20…”; i.e. the recess in the surface of Norman’s box structure [planar support component] which houses “disposable pumping cassette 42” as depicted per Fig. 1 appears to be rectangular and the “cassette 42” itself is described as having a “planar rigid plastic piece” (e.g. apparently the bottom of the cassette). Therefore, Norman’s disclosure heavily implies the recess in the box structure [planar support component] which is used or necessary to house, or otherwise contain, Norman’s “Disposable cassette 42” is a box and therefore would have two sets of opposing walls comprising a second pair of opposing walls and a third pair of opposing walls. Therefore, the Examiner finds whether explicitly stated by Norman, it would nonetheless have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have constructed Norman’s box structure [planar support component] with a box shaped recess [second recess] within the top surface [second surface] of this box structure [planar support component] to house the necessary “disposable cassette 42” which has a rigid planar plastic piece and therefore, such recess would also comprise two pairs of opposing walls – i.e. a second pair of opposing walls and a third pair of opposing walls, because per MPEP 2143(I) (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference to arrive at the claimed invention is obvious. The motivation may be implicit and may be found in the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, or, in some cases, from the nature of the problem to be solved. Id. at 1366, 80 USPQ2d at 1649.
Additionally, Regarding the portion of the aforementioned feature reciting the following: “…fluidly connected to the first recess via the at least one channel..”, Norman, per at least [0076], teaches “heater/mixing pan” [first recess], is fluidly connected, via heater/mixing line 60, to the recess [second recess] which houses “disposable pumping cassette 42”, note Norman explicitly teaches: “Disposable set 40 in the illustrated embodiment includes a heater/mixing line 60 that extends from a heater/mixing line port of cassette 42 and terminates at a heater/mixing bag 62…”)
wherein the second recess is sized and configured to contain a volume of spilled liquid and collects and contains material spilled in the front of the upper module and directs fluid flow away from the at least one electric component (Note the 25 USC 112(b) rejection given for this feature which guides claim interpretation. Examiner notes this appears to be a statement of intended use and as such it does not further provide a limitation upon the recited structure. Nonetheless, as noted supra, Norman’s second recess within his box structure [planar support component], necessary to accommodate “disposable cassette 42”, may also serve this intended use, e.g. in the event that disposable cassette ruptures, then the recess in which disposable cassette 42 resides may also collect and contain material spilled at this location, from such a leak/spill, which is in the front “cycler 20” [raised covering component] of the “medical fluid delivery machine” [upper module] and would also direct this fluid flow away from the at least one electric component. Furthermore, Examiner notes that the physical ability of any recess to contain a fluid from a spill, i.e. fluid in motion with momentum, is dependent upon the volume and action of such spill; i.e. the volume, direction, motion, momentum, and other fluid properties such as surface tension, etc… and therefore it is not possible to size and configure such recess without further stating/claiming and otherwise characterizing the expected dynamics of the spill which is desired to be contained. Therefore, note the 35 USC 112(b) rejection given for this amended feature. )
Claim 4: (Previously presented)
Norman teaches the limitations upon which this claim depends. Furthermore, Norman teaches the following: The medical station of claim 1, wherein the upper module is releasably connectable to at least one portion of the base (Norman, per at least Figs. 1 and Fig. 2 and [0084], teaches: “…FIG. 2 illustrates that surface 102 of leveling tray 100 [base] in one embodiment is formed or provided with indents 106, e.g., circular indents, for receiving [releasably connectable to] at least a portion of an object, e.g., machine or cycler 20,…”).
Claim 5: (Previously presented)
Norman teaches the limitations upon which this claim depends. Furthermore, Norman teaches the following: The medical station of claim 1, wherein the upper module forms a hinged connection with at least one portion of the base (Norman, per at least [0099] Cylindrical body 154 also includes or defines plural partial slits 164a and 164b forming plural cylindrical sections that hinge outwardly when tightening member 190 is threaded into female threads 160. FIG. 7 and in particular FIG. 8 illustrate that weakening indents 166a and 166b are provided longitudinally at the beginnings of slits 164a and 164b, and which are rotated 90° from slits 164a and 164b. Weakening indents 166a and 166b aid the outward hinging action of the plural cylindrical sections as indicated by the arrows in FIG. 8.)
Claim 6: (Previously presented)
Norman teaches the limitations upon which this claim depends. Furthermore, Norman teaches the following: The medical station of claim 1, wherein the first top surface and the second top surface are substantially perpendicular to base sidewalls of the base (Norman, per Fig. 1, surfaces which form recess/channels are perpendicular to the sidewalls).
Claim 10: (Previously presented)
Norman teaches the limitations upon which this claim depends. Furthermore, Norman teaches the following: The medical station of claim 1, wherein the first top surface comprises two channels, a first channel extending from the first recess and along a first of the plurality of sidewalls, a second channel extending from the first recess and along a second of the plurality of sidewalls, the first of the plurality of sidewalls opposite the second of the plurality of sidewalls (Norman, per at least Fig. 1, there is a recess in the surface of cycler 20 which accepts “heater/ mixing bag 62” and a channel extends in both directions from this recess across this surface to opposite sidewalls – i.e. applicant’s 2x channels is really a single channel running the width of his surface as per his Drawing Fig. 1 and Specification at [0020]).
Claim 11: (previously presented)
Norman teaches the limitations upon which this claim depends. Furthermore, Norman teaches the following: The medical station of claim 1, wherein the second pair of opposing walls in the second recess are oriented perpendicular to the third pair of opposing walls in the second recess (Norman, as shown supra, and per Figs. 1, the recess necessary to contain Norman’s “Disposable cassette 42” is depicted as a box and therefore whether explicitly stated, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have constructed a box shaped recess to house the necessary “disposable cassette 42” and thereby construct such box shaped recess comprising two pairs of perpendicular opposing walls – i.e. wherein the second pair of opposing walls in the second recess are oriented perpendicular to the third pair of opposing walls in the second recess, because per MPEP 2143(I) (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference to arrive at the claimed invention is obvious. The motivation may be implicit and may be found in the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, or, in some cases, from the nature of the problem to be solved. Id. at 1366, 80 USPQ2d at 1649..)
Claim 12: (previously presented)
Norman teaches the limitations upon which this claim depends. Furthermore, Norman teaches the following: The medical station of claim 11, wherein one or more of the first pair of opposing walls are in a sloped orientation with respect to a bottom surface of the second recess (Norman, see citations noted supra, including Fig. 3, the walls of cavity 110 are in a sloped orientations with respect to the bottom surface of cavity 110 [the second recess] and therefore such sloping of walls is a known technique and taught by Norman. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have either applied this technique to Norman’s recess necessary to contain his “Disposable cassette 42”, which is depicted as a box, to also have opposing walls in a sloped orientation with respect to a bottom surface of the this [second] recess because per according to MPEP 2143(I) (C) and/or (D), the use of known technique to improve a known device, methods, or products in the same way (or which is ready for improvement) is obvious and/or because per MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(A) – Change in size is obvious and/or because per MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(B) – Change in shape is obvious).
Claim 13: (Previously presented)
Norman teaches the limitations upon which this claim depends. Furthermore, regarding the following limitations, Norman teaches the following: The medical station of claim 1, wherein the first recess comprises a concave configuration in which a middle portion of the first recess is lower than surrounding portions (Norman per [0025] teaches: “…Another additional tray feature includes the provision of indents on the tray surface for receiving at least a portion of an object placed upon the receiving tray such that the object is urged against sliding along the tray surface…”; and per [0092]: “…member 126 as illustrated may be formed with a curved or "J" shape to help prevent the bag or container from slipping…”; Therefore, because Norman teaches these techniques for preventing slippage and sliding of an object, albeit for his surface 102 or member 126, it nonetheless is a technique which would be obvious to try using for the surface of the recessed channel which Norman uses to accept his “heater/ mixing bag 62” to help prevent the “heater/ mixing bag 62” from sliding around because per MPEP 2143(I) (C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way is obvious).
Claim 14: (Previously presented)
Norman teaches the limitations upon which this claim depends. Furthermore, Norman teaches the following: The medical station of claim 1, wherein the second recess comprises a concave configuration in which a middle portion of the second recess is lower than surrounding portions (Norman per [0025] teaches: “…Another additional tray feature includes the provision of indents on the tray surface for receiving at least a portion of an object placed upon the receiving tray such that the object is urged against sliding along the tray surface…”; and per [0092]: “…member 126 as illustrated may be formed with a curved or "J" shape to help prevent the bag or container from slipping…”; Therefore, because Norman teaches these techniques for preventing slippage and sliding of an object, albeit for his surface 102 or member 126, it nonetheless is a technique which would be obvious to try using for the surface of the second recess which Norman uses to house “cassette 42” to help prevent the “cassette 42” from sliding around because per MPEP 2143(I) (C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way is obvious).
Claim 16: (Previously presented)
Norman teaches the limitations upon which this claim depends. Furthermore, Norman teaches the following: The medical station of claim 1, wherein the second top surface further comprises a grated plate fitted within at least a portion of the second recess (Norman, see at least Fig. 2 and associated disclosure. Surface 102 has holes in a spaced pattern [a grating]; Applicant does not specify any particular spacing by which to differentiate his grated plate from the grating which is integral in Norman’s surface 102. Therefore, because Norman teaches for a surface, albeit for his surface 102, it nonetheless is a technique which would be obvious to try using for the surface of the second recess which Norman uses to house “cassette 42” for a variety of reasons and or aesthetic design choices because per MPEP 2143(I) (C) and/or (D), Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way is obvious.
PNG
media_image7.png
775
1203
media_image7.png
Greyscale
).
Claim 17: (Previously presented)
Norman teaches the limitations upon which this claim depends. Furthermore, Norman teaches the following: The medical station of claim 1, wherein the first top surface comprises a substantially flat area adjacent at least a portion of the first recess (Norman, see citations noted supra including at least Fig. 1 depicting the top surface where user interface display 30 attaches is substantially flat and adjacent a portion of the first recess channel which Norman uses to accept his “heater/ mixing bag 62” ).
Claim 18: (Previously presented)
Norman teaches the limitations upon which this claim depends. Furthermore, Norman teaches the following: The medical station of claim 1, wherein the second top surface comprises a substantially flat area adjacent at least a portion of the second recess (Norman, see again citations noted supra including at least Fig. 1).
Claim 19: (Previously presented)
Norman teaches the limitations upon which this claim depends. Furthermore, Norman teaches the following: The medical station of claim 1, further comprising an attachment component affixed to the upper module, the attachment component configured to securely hold a display unit (Norman, see citations noted supra including at least Fig. 1 depicting the top surface where user interface display 30 attaches to upper portion of cycler 20; the display interface is securely held in place by this attachment represented as a cylindrical connection to cycler 20)
Claim 20: (Previously presented)
Norman teaches the limitations upon which this claim depends. Furthermore, Norman teaches the following: The medical station of claim 1, wherein the first recess and/or the second recess comprises a hydrophobic material (Norman, see at least [0083] the channel and cavity may be made of metal or plastic [hydrophobic materials], etc… ).
Claim 21: (Previously presented)
Norman teaches the limitations upon which this claim depends. Furthermore, Norman teaches the following: The medical station of claim 1, wherein the medical station is part of a modular system (Norman, per Fig. 1 and associated disclosure, system 10 contains components [modules] which may be replaced and moved).
Claim 22: (Previously presented)
Norman teaches the limitations upon which this claim depends. Furthermore, Norman teaches the following: The medical station of claim 1, wherein the medical station is a standalone module (Norman, per Fig. 1 and associated disclosure, system 10 contains components [modules] which may be replaced and moved but do not need another system to operate [standalone]).
Claim 24: (previously presented)
Norman teaches the limitations upon which this claim depends. Furthermore, regarding the following limitations, Norman teaches the following: The medical station of claim 1, further comprising a back plate attached to one of the plurality of sidewalls, the back plate providing access to the processing device (Norman per Fig. 1 and [0069]-[0071] teaches, e.g.: “…Cycler 20 includes a housing 24, which holds equipment programmed via control unit 22…”; control unit 22 is accessible at least via one face of housing 24 of cycler 20. Examiner notes that front vs back face is a matter of design choice and therefore rearranging the placement of Norman’s control unit access to a back face would be obvious because per MPEP 2144.04 (VI)(C) – Rearrangement is obvious).
Claim 25: (previously presented)
Norman teaches the limitations upon which this claim depends. Furthermore, Norman teaches the following: The medical station of claim 24, wherein the at least one channel diverts a material contained in the first recess from the back plate (Norman, see citations noted supra including at least Fig. 1, the recess channel of cycler 20 which accept “heater/ mixing bag 62” forms a channel to the sides of the cycler which would divert fluid, if fluid was poured into the channel, to the sides and away from the back plate of the cycler.)
Claims 3, 8, 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Norman in view of Applicant Admitted Prior Art.
Claim 3: (Previously presented)
Norman teaches the limitations upon which this claim depends. Furthermore, regarding the following limitation, Norman teaches the following:
The medical station of claim 1, wherein the base and the upper module comprise a single molded component (Norman, per at least [0083], “…Leveling tray [base] may be made of metal or plastic. If metal, leveling tray 100 may be aluminum, steel or stainless steel. If plastic, leveling tray 100 may be any moldable or 3D printable plastic, such as, acrylonitrile butadiene styrene ("ABS"), polypropylene ("PP"), polyethylene ("PE), polyvinyl chloride ("PVC') or polyurethane ("PU"). Certain views below show surface 102 of leveling tray 100 as a thickened block…”; the difference between limitation in question and the prior art is only that Norman does not teach his table [base] or whatever leveling tray 100 rests upon is a single molded component integral with his leveling tray 100.)
However, per Applicant Admitted Prior Art: integrating a work surface and/or tool with a base to support the work surface and/or tool and/or to house equipment related to operating the tool or used on the work surface was old and well-known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. An example is a carpenter’s workbench has a base integrated with a work surface and often integral storage in the base, such as for a retractable table saw and tools necessary to change the blades of the saw and accessories for dust collection, etc… Therefore, in view of these findings, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided Norman’s leveling tray 100, which he teaches may be moldable, as an integral component with a base in lieu of resting the moldable leveling tray on a table or other surface because per MPEP 2144.04 (V)(B) – Making integral is obvious and/or because per MPEP 2143(I) (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention is obvious. The motivation to combine may be implicit and may be found in the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, or, in some cases, from the nature of the problem to be solved. Id. at 1366, 80 USPQ2d at 1649.
Claim 8: (Previously presented)
Although Norman teaches the limitations upon which this claim depends, he may not explicitly teach, in a single embodiment, the nuance as recited below. However, regarding this feature Norman in view of Applicant Admitted Prior Art teaches the following: The medical station of claim 1, wherein the first pair of opposing walls of the first recess are in a sloped orientation with respect to a bottom surface of the first recess (Applicant Admitted Prior Art: chamfers and sloping corners are old and well-known solutions and used as various circumstances necessitate, e.g. as dictated by manufacturing technique, or as form follows intended function, etc..., and often merely for aesthetic reasons. Furthermore, because Norman’s recessed channel of “heater/mixing pan” which has opposing walls is used to accept “heater/ mixing bag 62” which has rounded edges conforming to the fluid in the bag, and Norman’s cavity 110 already makes use of chamfers, the Examiner finds that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have tried manufacturing Norman’s recess, which is used to accept “heater/ mixing bag 62” and has opposing walls, with parallel opposing walls having a sloped orientation, e.g. to better support the “heater/ mixing bag 62” and/or for cleaning reasons as it is less difficult to clean a sloped or chamfered corner surface than a tight corner and because per MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(B) – Change in shape is obvious and/or because per MPEP 2143(I) (E) choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success is “Obvious to try ”).
Claim 27: (currently amended)
Although Norman teaches the limitations upon which this claim depends including a planar component with second top surface, he may not explicitly teach the nuance as recited below. However, regarding this feature Norman in view of Applicant Admitted Prior Art teaches the following:
The medical station of claim 1, wherein the at least one electronic component comprises a card reader, and wherein the at least one electronic component is positioned adjacent to the second top surface (Applicant Admitted Prior Art: card readers were old and well known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention; e.g. card readers used to authenticate personnel such as patients and/or medical personnel and are often used to access information and/or information systems, etc… )
Furthermore, the Examiner notes that location of a card reader to be adjacent to another piece of equipment is a matter choice regarding utility. Therefore, the Examiner understands the feature in question is merely combining known prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results; i.e. it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Norman’s system with a known card reader and as a matter of choice, e.g. for ease of access, to have arranged the card reader adjacent to other equipment for the purpose perhaps easily allowing access to the device by way of the card reader for intended and authorized personnel, etc… because per MPEP 2143(I)(A) - Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is obvious and/or because per MPEP 2144.04 (V)(B) – Making integral is obvious.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Norman in view of Riley et al. (U.S. 6,048,503; hereinafter, "Riley")
Claim 15: (Previously presented)
Although Norman teaches the limitations upon which this claim depends including a top surface with a first recessed channel shown per at least Fig. 1 as noted per citations provided supra, he may not explicitly, in a single embodiment, teach the nuance as recited below. However, regarding this feature Norman in view of Riley teaches the following:
The medical station of claim 1, wherein the first top surface further comprises a grated plate fitted within at least a portion of the first recess (Riley, see at least Figs. 1-2 and at least [6:25-35], teaches a medical trays to hold medical instruments, e.g. trays 92 and 110, with grates, where “…In order to fix the positions of medical instruments on trays 92 and 110, part or all of the grates of either or both trays may be covered by a finger mat 122, a fragment of which is shown on tray 110 in FIG. 3. Preferably, the mat has openings 123 which register with the openings in the underlying grate. Finger mats are well known from U.S. Pat. No. 5,540,901, for example. The mat may have fingers of various heights so the mat can hold instruments of various sizes. For example, the fingers may be shorter near the edges of the mat…”)
Therefore, the Examiner understands that the limitation in question is merely applying a known technique of Riley (directed towards medical tray containing grates and mats useful for the purpose of holding medical devices off of the surface of such medical tray for various reasons) which is applicable to a known base device/method of Norman (who already provides a recessed channel acting as a medical tray which accepts a medical device such as “heater/ mixing bag 62”) to yield predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the techniques of Riley to the device/method of Norman in order to provide Norman’s recessed channel with a grated plate fitted within at least a portion of the channel [first recess] because Norman and Riley are analogous art in the same field of endeavor (at least carts specially adapted for surgery or diagnosis A61B50/13; and/or hand carts B62B3/00) and because according to MPEP 2143(I) (C) and/or (D), the use of known technique to improve a known device, methods, or products in the same way (or which is ready for improvement) is obvious.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Norman in view of Brown et al. (US 20130331790 A1; hereinafter, “Brown”)
Claim 28: (previously presented)
Norman teaches the limitations upon which this claim depends. Furthermore, Norman teaches the following:
The medical station of claim 1, […] wherein the channel diverts liquid away from the back plate (Norman, see citations noted supra, including again at least Fig. 1. Norman’s sidewalls each with a channel wherein the channel diverts liquid, e.g. if spilled from heater/mixer bag” down a sidewall, each of which are perpendicular to the back, and fluid running down a sidewall therefore does not flow towards the back of the device but instead down the side).
Although Norman teaches the above features he may not explicitly teach a backplate attached to a sidewall as recited below. However, regarding this feature Norman in view of Brown teaches the following:
[The medical station of claim 1], further comprising a back plate connected to at least one
sidewall of the of the plurality of sidewalls, and the back plate comprises one or more connections and openings to the processing device. (Brown, see at least [0076], teaching: “…a backplate 1603, which sits adjacent to the side wall of the portable medical device (e.g., element 1304 in FIG. 13). The backplate 1603 can be made of a hard polymer in order to prevent any voltage leakage from the device during user interaction. Additionally, the backplate can form a protective barrier as a portion of the side wall of the housing of the portable medical device…”; the backplate is connected to and has openings to the medical device [processing device] as depicted at least per Fig. 16B
PNG
media_image8.png
296
484
media_image8.png
Greyscale
)
Therefore, the Examiner understands that the limitation in question is merely applying a known technique of Brown which is applicable to a known base device/method of Norman to yield predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the technique of Brown to the device/method of Norman in order to perform the limitation in question, i.e. to attach a backplate 1603, such that it forms a portion of the side wall of the housing of Norman’s Portable medical device, and sits adjacent to the side wall of Norman’s portable medical device, because Norman and Brown are analogous art in the same field of endeavor (at least A61M 1/288) and because according to MPEP 2143(I) (C) and/or (D), the use of known technique to improve a known device, methods, or products in the same way (or which is ready for improvement) is obvious.
Response to Arguments
Applicant has canceled claims 2, 7, 9, 23, 26, 29, and amended claim 1 and 27 on 4/13/2026. Applicant's arguments (hereinafter “Remarks”) also filed 4/13/2026, regarding the new features have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by applicant’s amendments. Note the new 35 USC 112(b) rejections of the claims and the updated citations to Norman teaches applicant’s new and amended features of independent claim 1.
Examiner also notes, applicant’s arguments, regarding features which allegedly Norman fails to teach, are primarily directed towards statements of intended use of various components; i.e. applicant argues Norman doesn’t teach intended use ideas which are noted in the specification as exemplary. For example, Applicant argues (Remarks, pg. 9) the following: “…the Examiner is respectfully directed towards at least para. [0022] of the Applicant’s specification, which, for example, describes the planar support component 120 as “shaped and positioned in front of the raised covering component 110 to provide a work surface for healthcare workers.” The planar support component has “a recessed surface to hold or contain items (such as medications, pens, papers, or other items)” and is “sized and shaped to contain or capture a volume of fluid (such as to contain 1 liter of liquid) should a spill occur.”…” However, respectfully, in this regard, Examiner notes that applicant is not actually arguing against the claim language but instead is asserting that features which are described in the specification which may be an intended use of a component recited in the claims are not taught by Norman. This type of argument is not convincing; i.e. although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057. Also note: Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices, Inc., 848 F.2d 1560, 1571-72, 7 USPQ2d 1057, 1064-1065 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 892 (1988) (Various limitations on which Applicant relied were not stated in the claims; the specification did not provide evidence indicating these limitations must be read into the claims to give meaning to the disputed terms. Additionally, the feature argued by the applicant, as actually recited in the claims, raises an indefiniteness rejection under 35 USC 112(b). For each of these reasons, the applicant’s assertions and arguments are not convincing and the rejections are maintained.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J SITTNER whose telephone number is (571)270-3984. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; ~9:30-6:30. 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, Waseem Ashraf can be reached on (571) 270-3948. 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.
/Michael J Sittner/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621
1 Examiner note: Van der Waals forces are the relatively weak, short-range electrostatic attractions that exist between neutral atoms and molecules.
Prosecution Insights