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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 13-23 and 25 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Since no arguments regarding the requirement were submitted, the election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 26 January 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pre-Grant Publication 2012/0310162 to Rochat (Rochat hereinafter) in view of U.S. Patent 5,568,912 to Minami et al. (Minami).
Regarding claim 1, Rochat teaches an infusion cassette (see Fig. 4) of an infusion set, the infusion cassette being provided with a flow channel (2, 3, 4), and comprising: a rigid assembly (1, 9) comprising a plurality of components stacked onto one another, wherein at least one of the plurality of components is provided with a groove (2); an elastic membrane (13) arranged between two adjacent components of the plurality of components to cover the groove in a sealing manner, wherein the elastic membrane and the groove together form at least a portion of the flow channel. Rochat does not teach a locking mechanism or any details thereof.
Minami teaches another infusion pumping assembly generally and particular teaches a locking mechanism (10), the locking mechanism comprises a mounting frame (18) and a liquid stop plug (20) fixedly arranged on the mounting frame, the liquid stop plug is configured to press an elastic membrane (12) to close a flow channel, the locking mechanism closes or opens the flow channel by means of the liquid stop plug, wherein the mounting frame is movably connected with a rigid assembly to allow the locking mechanism to switch between a closed state (at 310, Fig. 6) in which the flow channel is closed and an open state (at 312) in which the flow channel is opened. Minami teaches that this allows a flow path to be manually closed and/or adjusted by a user (col. 8, ln. 21-29). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the application to provide the locking mechanism of Minami to the cassette of Rochat to allow for manual modulation of maximum flow rate. Such provision could include at least either incorporation of the elastic membrane (12), frame (18) and plug (20) of Minami into the cassette of Rochat or their provision downstream thereof.
Thus combined, the plurality of components would comprises a first component (9 of Rochat), a second component (1 of Rochat and 14 of Minami) and a third component (16 of Minami); the groove comprises a first groove (2 of Rochat) and a second groove (22 of Minami); the elastic membrane comprises a first elastic membrane (13 of Rochat) and a second elastic membrane (12 of Minami); the second component is arranged between the first component and the third component in at least a flow direction; the first groove is formed on a side of the second component facing toward the first component, and the first elastic membrane is arranged between the first component and the second component to cover the first groove in a sealinq manner (see Rochat Fig. 4); the second groove is formed on a side of the second component away from the first component (so as to be manually accessible as required by Minami); the second groove communicates with the first groove and is located downstream of the first groove; the second elastic membrane is arranged between the second component and the third component to cover the second groove in a sealing manner; the liquid stop pluq is arranged on a side of the third component away from the second component, and the liquid stop plug is configured to press the second elastic membrane to close the flow channel (see Fig. 7 of Minami).
Regarding claim 3, Minami teaches that the center of the frame member (316) has sufficient elasticity to exert a closing force on the mounting frame.
Regarding claim 4, Minami teaches that the open state comprises a first open state, and the locking mechanism keeps in the first open state under an action of an external force (applied via 72); wherein when the external force is absent (and when the slider is in a closed position) the elastic member drives the locking mechanism to automatically switch from the first open state to the closed state.
Regarding claim 5, Minami teaches a second open state (i.e. reduced flow at 312) and a latch structure (72) arranged on the mounting frame which may be manually lock fitted with the rigid assembly to the rigid assembly (e.g. at 69).
Regarding claim 10, Rochat and Minami teach straight passages in projection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 6 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rochat in view of Monami as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent 3,719,087 to Thiers (Thiers).
Regarding claim 6, Rochat as modified in view of Monami teaches the invention of claim 5 as discussed above, but does not teach a rigid assembly with two through holes, slidable bars, connecting bar and other structure of claim 6. Thiers teaches a valve latching assembly comprising two holes (for 138, 139), a flow channel (50), a cross bar (126), slidable bars (136, 137), in the through hole (as viewed from above the assembly), and a liquid stop plug (e.g. 128, 129) arranged on the cross bar (125). Thiers teaches that this provides a manually lockable valve structure (via 38). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the application to provide a latching assembly as taught by Thiers to the assembly of Rochat in order to provide further manual latching capability.
Regarding claim 9, as combined above, Thiers teaches a latch structure (172) protrudes from the sliding bars (136, 137). Furthermore, Thiers teaches a locking mechanism using a stopper (174) extending through a chute (178) so as to positively lock (i.e. an interference) the valve into position (col. 17, ln. 32-46) to prevent inadvertent flow states. While Thiers does not explicitly teach the use of multiple stoppers, the provision of a second stopper would constitute merely the duplication of a known part (MPEP 2144.04 VI. B). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the application to provide a positively locking latch system as taught by Thiers to the pump of Rochat in order to prevent inadvertent flow states.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHILIP E STIMPERT whose telephone number is (571)270-1890. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8a-4p.
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, Chelsea Stinson can be reached at 571-270-1744. 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.
/PHILIP E STIMPERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3783 6 March 2026
Prosecution Insights