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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The references listed in the Information Disclosure Statements filed on 10/03/2022 and 03/12/2024 have been considered by the examiner (see attached PTO-1449 forms).
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 8 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 8 and 19 recite the limitation “approximately 20 kHz”. The term “approximately” renders the claims indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed or clearly defined in the specification and it is a broad term, thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by RYU et al. [US 2018/0050137 A1; hereinafter “RYU”].
Regarding claim 1, RYU teaches a waste fluid storage control device comprising:
a suction device (310 negative pressure generator - 0122) configured to communicate with a waste fluid storage container that stores a waste fluid (canister 400 – figure 1, 0060), the suction device (via negative pressure generator 310 - 0122) further configured to generate a negative pressure to draw the waste fluid into the waste fluid storage container (via drain tube - 0060);
a sensor configured to measure the negative pressure (senses the pressure in the sealed space S using the pressure sensor 330 - 0123);
a driver configured to drive the suction device in accordance with the measured negative pressure (via controller 320 may repeatedly drive and stop driving - 0129); and
a processor configured to detect waste fluid drawing related information from a change in the negative pressure, wherein the driver is further configured to drive the suction device during an ON period in which the suction device operates and an OFF period in which the suction device stops (repeatedly turning on or off the negative pressure generator 310 in the first setting period – 0128), and wherein the processor is further configured to detect the waste fluid drawing related information based on a first change in the negative pressure in the OFF period or a second change in the negative pressure in the ON period (detect the maintained pressure in the sealed space S - 0129).
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 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 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 2-7, and 9-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RYU in view of Vernon-Harcourt et al. [US 2018/0177926 A1; hereinafter “Vernon-Harcourt”].
Regarding claim 2, while RYU teaches the above limitations, RYU does not specifically disclose the waste fluid drawing related information indicates an air leak in the waste fluid storage container, and wherein the processor is further configured to detect the air leak in the waste fluid storage container based on a rate of the first change.
However Vernon-Harcourt teaches waste fluid drawing related information indicates an air leak in the waste fluid storage container, and wherein the processor is further configured to detect the air leak in the waste fluid storage container based on a rate of the first change (If the pressure control measures that the pressure at the pump head is greater than a target pressure (closer to atmospheric pressure) for a period of time, the device sends an alarm and displays a message alerting the user to a potential problem such as a leak – 0075) (determine status of at least one parameter such as fullness or leakiness associated with a canister of a TNP system – 0082).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of RYU to further include detecting air leak as taught by Vernon-Harcourt for the benefits of alerting a user of potential improper operation of the treatment apparatus components such as the pump.
Regarding claim 3, while RYU in combination with Vernon-Harcourt teach the above limitations Vernon-Harcourt further teaches the waste fluid drawing related information further indicates a state of a waste fluid drawing target part or a blockage of a tube into which the waste fluid is drawn, and wherein the processor is further configured to detect the state of the waste fluid drawing target part or the blockage of the tube into which the waste fluid is drawn based on a change in the air leak over time (tube has become blocked – 0076, 0081).
Regarding claim 4, while RYU in combination with Vernon-Harcourt teach the above limitations Vernon-Harcourt further teaches the waste fluid drawing related information further indicates an amount of the waste fluid in the waste fluid storage container, and wherein the processor is further configured to detect the amount of the waste fluid in the waste fluid storage container based on a rate of the first change and a rate of the second change (percentage fullness – 0083).
Regarding claim 5, while RYU in combination with Vernon-Harcourt teach the above limitations Vernon-Harcourt further teaches the waste fluid drawing related information further indicates a pulsation of a target living body for which drawing of the waste fluid is performed, and wherein the processor is further configured to detect the pulsation based on a periodic change included in the first change or the second change (pulsatile elements - 0079, 0081, 0082).
Regarding claim 6, while RYU in combination with Vernon-Harcourt teach the above limitations Vernon-Harcourt further teaches the waste fluid drawing related information further indicates a blockage of a tube into which the waste fluid is drawn, and wherein the processor is further configured to detect the blockage of the tube based on the first change (tube has become blocked – 0076, 0081).
Regarding claim 7, while RYU in combination with Vernon-Harcourt teach the above limitations RYU further teaches to store an upper limit and a lower limit of an absolute value of the negative pressure, wherein the driver is further configured to switch drive of the suction device such from the ON period to the OFF period when the absolute value of the negative pressure exceeds the upper limit, and wherein the driver is further configured to switch drive of the suction device from the OFF period to the ON period when the absolute value of the negative pressure falls below the lower limit (target negative pressure level - figure 7, 0115, 0140, 0141-0143).
Regarding claim 9, while RYU in combination with Vernon-Harcourt teach the above limitations Vernon-Harcourt further teaches the waste fluid drawing related information further indicates an amount of the waste fluid in the waste fluid storage container, and wherein the processor is further configured to detect the amount of the waste fluid in the waste fluid storage container based on a rate of the first change and a rate of the second change (percentage fullness – 0083).
Regarding claim 10, while RYU in combination with Vernon-Harcourt teach the above limitations Vernon-Harcourt further teaches the waste fluid drawing related information further indicates an amount of the waste fluid in the waste fluid storage container, and wherein the processor is further configured to detect the amount of the waste fluid in the waste fluid storage container based on a rate of the first change and a rate of the second change (percentage fullness – 0083).
Regarding claim 11, while RYU in combination with Vernon-Harcourt teach the above limitations Vernon-Harcourt further teaches the waste fluid drawing related information further indicates a pulsation of a target living body for which drawing of the waste fluid is performed, and wherein the processor is further configured to detect the pulsation based on a periodic change included in the first change or the second change (pulsatile elements - 0079, 0081, 0082).
Regarding claim 12, while RYU in combination with Vernon-Harcourt teach the above limitations Vernon-Harcourt further teaches the waste fluid drawing related information further indicates a pulsation of a target living body for which drawing of the waste fluid is performed, and wherein the processor is further configured to detect the pulsation based on a periodic change included in the first change or the second change (pulsatile elements - 0079, 0081, 0082).
Regarding claim 13, while RYU in combination with Vernon-Harcourt teach the above limitations Vernon-Harcourt further teaches the waste fluid drawing related information further indicates a pulsation of a target living body for which drawing of the waste fluid is performed, and wherein the processor is further configured to detect the pulsation based on a periodic change included in the first change or the second change (pulsatile elements - 0079, 0081, 0082).
Regarding claim 14, while RYU in combination with Vernon-Harcourt teach the above limitations Vernon-Harcourt further teaches the waste fluid drawing related information further indicates a blockage of a tube into which the waste fluid is drawn, and wherein the processor is further configured to detect the blockage of the tube based on the first change (tube has become blocked – 0076, 0081).
Regarding claim 15, while RYU in combination with Vernon-Harcourt teach the above limitations RYU further teaches the waste fluid drawing related information further indicates a blockage of a tube into which the waste fluid is drawn, and wherein the processor is further configured to detect the blockage of the tube based on the first change (target negative pressure level - figure 7, 0115, 0140, 0141-0143).
Regarding claim 16, while RYU in combination with Vernon-Harcourt teach the above limitations RYU further teaches the waste fluid drawing related information further indicates a blockage of a tube into which the waste fluid is drawn, and wherein the processor is further configured to detect the blockage of the tube based on the first change (target negative pressure level - figure 7, 0115, 0140, 0141-0143).
Regarding claim 17, while RYU in combination with Vernon-Harcourt teach the above limitations RYU further teaches the waste fluid drawing related information further indicates a blockage of a tube into which the waste fluid is drawn, and wherein the processor is further configured to detect the blockage of the tube based on the first change (target negative pressure level - figure 7, 0115, 0140, 0141-0143).
Regarding claim 18, while RYU in combination with Vernon-Harcourt teach the above limitations RYU further teaches the driver is further configured to store an upper limit and a lower limit of an absolute value of the negative pressure, wherein the driver is further configured to switch drive of the suction device such from the ON period to the OFF period when the absolute value of the negative pressure exceeds the upper limit, and wherein the driver is further configured to switch drive of the suction device from the OFF period to the ON period when the absolute value of the negative pressure falls below the lower limit (target negative pressure level - figure 7, 0115, 0140, 0141-0143).
Claims 8 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RYU and Vernon-Harcourt in view of Boynton et al. [US 2016/0235897 A1; hereinafter “Boynton”].
Regarding claims 8 and 19, while RYU in combination with Vernon-Harcourt teach the above limitations, neither describe the driver is further configured to drive the suction device at a driving frequency greater than or equal to approximately 20 kHz.
However, Boynton teaches a negative pressure assisted tissue treatment system with a variable frequency pump drive system the driver is further configured to drive the suction device at a driving frequency (Boynton - 0045).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of RYU with the variable frequency pump drive system as taught by Boynton to increase the performance of the pump over existing fixed frequency drive system pumps without increasing the pump size or weight (Boynton – 0045).
While RYU in combination with Vernon-Harcourt and Boynton teach the above limitations, neither does not specifically disclose a driving frequency greater than or equal to approximately 20 kHz.
However, Boynton mentions, “The control system determines the optimum drive frequency for the pump given the pressure measured and relayed by the pressure sensor . The optimum drive frequency for the pump may be determined by the control system either repeatedly or continuously. The control system adjusts the variable frequency drive circuit to drive the pump at the optimum frequency determined by the control system.” (Boynton – 0044).
One of ordinary skilled in the art would have realized, through routine experimentation and a matter of design choice, to choose the desired driving frequencies to optimize the driving frequency for the pump, thereby effectively optimizing the pump’s performance to one’s needs.
Particular size and/or shape are obvious expedient as they are directed to engineering design choice matters. (See MPEP 2144.04). A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skilled in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Relevant Prior Art / Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Schmidt et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2015/0362000 A1) discloses a fluid waste collection and disposal system;
Adahan (US Patent Application Publication 2009/0157016 A1) discloses a suction head in fluid communication with a pump head for enabling drainage thereof to a waste container.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICKY GO whose telephone number is (571)270-3340. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 9:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Arleen M. Vazquez can be reached on (571) 272-2619. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RICKY GO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857