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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments filed 07/23/2025 have been entered. The amendments overcome the previous claim objections, and as such, the objections have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/23/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the features of the independent claim are not disclosed by the prior art, namely the sensor means arranged along the blood return line (for sensing concentration of ozone), and the use of an electronic control unit to regulate feedback in the amount of ozone based on the sensor means. The examiner respectfully disagrees. While the applicant’s remarks point to 1-8 and 1-12 as the ozone concentration monitors, where said monitors are not within the return tube and thus do not measure ozone in the treated blood, the examiner notes that as detailed under the previous office action’s rejection of claim 3, a sensor means arranged along the return line and adapted to detect the amount of ozone in the treated blood is interpreted to be absorbed oxygen sensor 1-23. Per para. 0171, it is clear that this sensor is arranged along the fluid return line as this sensor is located where fluid exits the gas fluid contacting device, and thus reads to the claim. The examiner has updated the rejection of claim 1 to include this limitation in view of the amendments. Further, the examiner notes that per the previous office action’s rejection of claim 4, per paragraph 0173, the device comprises a data acquisition device which reports, monitors, and stores data while performing calculations and operations on data acquired from all of the sensors. See also para. 0145-0152. Per paragraph 0152, the flow meter controls the ozone based on the previously determined concentrations (para. 0145-0151). Therefore as it is clear that an absorbent oxygen sensor is used to determine absorbed oxygen in the return fluid, and a data acquisition device is disclosed to control operation of the system based on sensed data, it is interpreted that Latino reads to the claimed invention. The examiner notes that the receiving and later operating of the device based on absorbed oxygen is interpreted to be the acquisition device regulating the system in a feedback manner based on the amount of ozone absorbed. The examiner also points to paragraph 0144, where the system “controls the rate of ozone absorption” and delivers a “measured, controlled, accurate, and reproducible amount of ozone”, where the rate of ozone introduced is interpreted to be the amount of ozone introduced by means of the data acquisition device or other control means.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Oxygenation device of claim 1,8-13,16-20, and the rest of the claims per dependence. Per page 2, the specification notes that oxygenation devices may vary, but fails to provide specific examples. Therefore any blood oxygenation device is interpreted to read to the claims.
Feeding device of claim 1, and the rest of the claims per dependence. Per page 4 the feeding device feeds gas/oxygen to the system, but is absent structure. Therefore any device capable of providing gas to a circuit is interpreted as a feeding device.
Ozone dispensing device of claim 1,4-6,9, and the rest of the claims per dependence. Per page 4 the ozone dispensing device feeds ozone to the system, but is absent structure. Therefore any device capable of providing ozone to a circuit is interpreted as said device.
Sensor means claim 3-6,14-15. Per page 5, the sensor means is adapted to detect the amount of ozone present in the blood exiting the oxygenation device, where said sensor means are of the optical type.
Auxiliary device claim 8-10,13,16,20. Per page 6, the auxiliary device controls the working gas exiting the oxygenation device. No structure is provided for this device. Therefore any device capable of providing this function may be interpreted as an auxiliary device.
Auxiliary sensor means 11-13,17-20, interpreted to be a sensor per the interpretation of the sensor means (See above)
Abatement means 10,13,16,20. Per page 7, the abatement means transform ozone into oxygen, but no structure is provided for said means. As such, any device capable of performing this function may read to the means.
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 (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 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(s) 1-4,7-8,10-11,14,16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Latino et al US 2010/0316730, provided in the IDS, hereafter Latino.
Regarding claim 1, Latino discloses
A circuit for the extracorporeal blood circulation (fig 1), comprising: at least one feeding line adapted to take blood to be treated from a patient and at least one return line adapted to reintroduce the treated blood into the patient (wherein figure 1 shows two lines, with one coming from the patient and one going to the patient, para. 0099); at least one oxygenation device connected at inlet to said feeding line and at outlet to said return line (reference block 1-10, where said block is a gas-fluid contacting device, para. 0168) and comprising at least one inlet port of the blood to be treated and at least one outlet port of the treated blood (where the inlet port is the location connecting to the line coming from the patient (containing block 1-15)) and the outlet port is the location connecting to the line going to the patient (containing block 1-25), at least one inlet channel (line containing block 1-9) and at least one outlet channel of a working gas (line containing block 1-11) comprising at least one of either air or oxygen to supply oxygen to the blood to be treated and/or to remove carbon dioxide therefrom (the examiner notes that per para. 0168, said lines are for working gas); at least one feeding device of the working gas connected to said inlet channel (cylinder per block 1-1); and at least one ozone dispensing device connected to said inlet channel to introduce ozone into the working gas entering said oxygenation device (ozone generator block 1-6).
Latino further discloses a first channel for feeding the working gas, connected on one side to said feeding device and on the other side to said inlet channel (line extending from block 1-1 upward (defined to be a gas source per claim 1 rejection) where the rest of the pathway was previously defined as the inlet channel) and at least a second channel for feeding the ozone, connected on one side to said ozone dispensing device and on the other side to said first feeding channel (line extending from block 1-6 downward (defined to be an ozone source per claim 1 rejection) where the line can be seen connecting to the first feeding channel and the ozone generator).
PNG
media_image1.png
377
303
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Latino further discloses a sensor means arranged along said return line and adapted to detect the amount of ozone contained in the treated blood (absorbed oxygen sensor block 1-23). As detailed in the response to arguments, per para. 0171, it is clear that this sensor is arranged along the fluid return line as this sensor is located where fluid exits the gas fluid contacting device, and thus reads to the claim
Latino further discloses at least one electronic control unit provided with at least one processing and command unit , operationally connected to said ozone dispensing device and to said sensor means , said processing and command unit being programmed to intervene on said ozone dispensing device , so as to regulate the amount of ozone introduced into the working gas, depending on the signal received from said sensor means (para. 0173). The examiner notes per paragraph 0173, the device comprises a data acquisition device which reports, monitors, and stores data while performing calculations and operations on data acquired from all of the sensors. See also para. 0145-0152. Per paragraph 0152, the flow meter controls the ozone based on the previously determined concentrations (para. 0145-0151). The examiner also points to paragraph 0144, where the system “controls the rate of ozone absorption” and delivers a “measured, controlled, accurate, and reproducible amount of ozone”, where the rate of ozone introduced is interpreted to be the amount of ozone introduced by means of the data acquisition device or other control means.
Regarding claim 7, Latino discloses
The circuit according to claim 1, further comprising: at least one exhaust line of the working gas connected to said outlet channel (para. 0169, line connecting to exit purge valves (block 1-11)).
Regarding claim 8, Latino discloses
The circuit according to claim 7, wherein said auxiliary device is connected to said exhaust line for the control of the working gas leaving said oxygenation device (exit purge valve (block 1-11), as said valves control the flow of the gas leaving the oxygenation device by being open/closed).
Regarding claim 10, Latino discloses
The circuit according to claim 9, wherein said auxiliary device comprises means for the abatement of the ozone contained in the working gas leaving said oxygenation device and at least one exhaust port of the working gas thus abated in the environment (ozone destructor 1-14).
Regarding claim 11, Latino discloses
The circuit according to claim 10, further comprising: auxiliary sensor means positioned along said exhaust line and adapted to detect the amount of residual ozone contained in the working gas leaving said oxygenation device (ozone concentration sensor 1-12).
Regarding claim 14, Latino discloses,
The circuit according to claim 1, further comprising: sensor means arranged along said return line and adapted to detect the amount of ozone contained in the treated blood (ozone concentration sensor 1-12).
Regarding claim 16, Latino discloses
The circuit according to claim 8, wherein said auxiliary device comprises means for the abatement of the ozone contained in the working gas leaving said oxygenation device and at least one exhaust port of the working gas thus abated in the environment (ozone destructor 1-14).
Regarding claim 17, Latino discloses
The circuit according to claim 7, further comprising: auxiliary sensor means positioned along said exhaust line and adapted to detect the amount of residual ozone contained in the working gas leaving said oxygenation device (ozone concentration sensor 1-12).
Regarding claim 18, Latino discloses
The circuit according to claim 8, further comprising: auxiliary sensor means positioned along said exhaust line and adapted to detect the amount of residual ozone contained in the working gas leaving said oxygenation device (Latino ozone concentration sensor 1-12)..
Regarding claim 19, Latino discloses
The circuit according to claim 9, further comprising: auxiliary sensor means positioned along said exhaust line and adapted to detect the amount of residual ozone contained in the working gas leaving said oxygenation device (ozone concentration sensor 1-12).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 5-6,15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Latino in view of Wainwright US 5052382, hereafter Wainwright.
Regarding claim 5, Latino discloses
The circuit according to claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein said electronic control unit comprises at least one memory programmable with at least one maximum ozone value , said processing and command unit being programmed to compare the value of the amount of ozone detected by said sensor means with said maximum ozone value and to intervene on said ozone dispensing device in the event of the value of ozone detected by said sensor means being greater than or equal to said maximum value so as to reduce the amount of ozone introduced into the working gas.
Wainwright teaches a patient treatment device using ozone and is thus considered analogous to the claimed invention. Wainwright teaches that the device measures ozone and provides the data to a computer control to ensure a constant level of concentration (column 7 lines 4-9). In doing so, the device establishes the maximum and minimum ozone production where doing so allows the operator to know the amount of ozone being used for treatment, where a physician prescribed said amount, and where the computer control ensures said values (column 7 lines 10-21). Therefore as Wainwright teaches that ozone used in a blood treatment system is monitored by a controller to establish a maximum and minimum concentration based on prescriptions, and where a computer control ensures the proper values of ozone based on sensed ozone to ensure constant concentration, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the control system of Wainwright with the sensing system of Latino as a means to ensure constant ozone concentrations while also determining a minimum and maximum concentration.
Regarding claim 6, Latino and Wainwright teach
The circuit according to claim 5, wherein said electronic control unit comprises at least one memory programmable with at least one minimum ozone value , said processing and command unit being programmed to compare the value of the amount of ozone detected by said sensor means with said minimum ozone value and to intervene on said ozone dispensing device in the event of the value of ozone detected by said sensor means is lower than said minimum value so as to increase the amount of ozone introduced into the working gas. The examiner notes that as detailed above under the rejection of claim 6, the device of Latino and Wainwright determines both a maximum and a minimum ozone concentration based on system operation, and therefore the combination of arts reads to claim 6.
Regarding claim 15, Latino discloses
The circuit according to claim 4, but fails to specifically disclose wherein said electronic control unit comprises at least one memory programmable with at least one minimum ozone value, said processing and command unit being programmed to compare the value of the amount of ozone detected by said sensor means with said minimum ozone value and to intervene on said ozone dispensing device in the event of the value of ozone detected by said sensor means is lower than said minimum value so as to increase the amount of ozone introduced into the working gas.
Wainwright teaches a patient treatment device using ozone and is thus considered analogous to the claimed invention. Wainwright teaches that the device measures ozone and provides the data to a computer control to ensure a constant level of concentration (column 7 lines 4-9). In doing so, the device establishes the maximum and minimum ozone production where doing so allows the operator to know the amount of ozone being used for treatment, where a physician prescribed said amount, and where the computer control ensures said values (column 7 lines 10-21). Therefore as Wainwright teaches that ozone used in a blood treatment system is monitored by a controller to establish a maximum and minimum concentration based on prescriptions, and where a computer control ensures the proper values of ozone based on sensed ozone to ensure constant concentration, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the control system of Wainwright with the sensing system of Latino as a means to ensure constant ozone concentrations while also determining a minimum and maximum concentration.
Claim(s) 9,12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Latino in view of Viannay et al. US 3927981, hereafter Viannay.
Regarding claim 9, Latino discloses
The circuit according to claim 8, wherein said auxiliary device is connected to at least one of either said ozone dispensing device, said first feeding channel or said second feeding channel for the reintroduction of the ozone contained in the working gas leaving said oxygenation device into the working gas entering the oxygenation device.
Viannay teaches a blood oxygen treatment device and is thus considered analogous to the claimed invention. Viannay teaches that said device comprises a gas ejector, where the gas ejector either recycles at least a portion of the gas back into the inlet (column 1 lines 64-68)or removes excess gas to the atmosphere through an exhaust outlet (fig. 2, 10c, see column 3 lines 18-24). See also column 2 lines 60-65). This configuration allows for a constant recycling of the gas such that the device can be used repeatedly (see claim 1 of Viannay, abstract). The examiner notes that further, per claim 5, Viannay teaches a means for controlling the gas flow through both the inlet and exhaust outlet as a means of operating the device. The examiner notes that per the previously detailed citation (column 3 lines 18-24), gas that is excess to the desired amount to recycle is released into the atmosphere. Therefore it is interpreted that Viannay teaches a control means for controlling the gas into the exhaust, and the gas is recycled into the inlet of the device unless the parameters of the gas are too high compared to the inlet gas, where said gas is then vented. As a means to effectively recycle used gas back into the system, it would therefore have been obvious to one having ordinary skill to provide the device of Latino with the exhaust connection of Wainwright.
Regarding claim 12, Latino discloses
The circuit according to claim 11, but fails to disclose wherein said processing and command unit is operationally connected to said auxiliary sensor means and is programmed to intervene on said ozone dispensing device so as to regulate the amount of dispensed ozone depending on the amount of residual ozone detected by said auxiliary sensor means and reintroduced into the working gas entering said oxygenation device.
Viannay teaches a blood oxygen treatment device and is thus considered analogous to the claimed invention. Viannay teaches that said device comprises a gas ejector, where the gas ejector either recycles at least a portion of the gas back into the inlet (column 1 lines 64-68)or removes excess gas to the atmosphere through an exhaust outlet (fig. 2, 10c, see column 3 lines 18-24). See also column 2 lines 60-65). This configuration allows for a constant recycling of the gas such that the device can be used repeatedly (see claim 1 of Viannay, abstract). The examiner notes that further, per claim 5, Viannay teaches a means for controlling the gas flow through both the inlet and exhaust outlet as a means of operating the device. The examiner notes that per the previously detailed citation (column 3 lines 18-24), gas that is excess to the desired amount to recycle is released into the atmosphere. Therefore it is interpreted that Viannay teaches a control means for controlling the gas into the exhaust, and the gas is recycled into the inlet of the device unless the parameters of the gas are too high compared to the inlet gas, where said gas is then vented. As a means to effectively recycle used gas back into the system, it would therefore have been obvious to one having ordinary skill to provide the device of Latino with the exhaust connection of Wainwright. Doing so would incorporate the control pathway of Wainwright with the control system of Latino, wherein the combination of arts therefore teach that excess gas (greater than inlet value) is provided to the atmosphere (ozone destructor 1-14 of Latino) or the outlet gas is recycled back into the inlet (less than or equal to inlet value). The examiner notes that the two ozone sensors of Latino would provide data to the controller in order to make this determination.
Claim(s) 13,20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Latino in view of Viannay and Wainwright.
Regarding claim 13, Latino and Viannay teach
The circuit according to claim 12 wherein said memory is programmable with a value of reference residual ozone and said processing and command unit is operationally connected to said auxiliary sensor means and to said auxiliary device , said processing and command unit being programmed to intervene on said auxiliary device so as to send the working gas flowing through said exhaust line to said oxygenation device , where the value of residual ozone detected by said auxiliary sensor means is greater than or equal to said value of reference residual ozone , or to said abatement means when the value of residual ozone detected by said auxiliary sensor means is lower than said value of reference residual ozone.
As detailed under the rejection of claim 12, it is interpreted that Viannay teaches a control means for controlling the gas into the exhaust, and the gas is recycled into the inlet of the device unless the parameters of the gas are too high compared to the inlet gas, where said gas is then vented. As a means to effectively recycle used gas back into the system, it would therefore have been obvious to one having ordinary skill to provide the device of Latino with the exhaust connection of Wainwright. Doing so would incorporate the control pathway of Wainwright with the control system of Latino, wherein the combination of arts therefore teach that excess gas (greater than inlet value) is provided to the atmosphere (ozone destructor 1-14 of Latino) or the outlet gas is recycled back into the inlet (less than or equal to inlet value). The examiner notes that the two ozone sensors of Latino would provide data to the controller in order to make this determination. The examiner notes that the reference residual ozone value is the value is the value determined by the sensors.
However, should applicant disagree with this interpretation, the examiner would again bring in Wainwright, as previously applied. Wainwright teaches a patient treatment device using ozone and is thus considered analogous to the claimed invention. Wainwright teaches that the device measures ozone and provides the data to a computer control to ensure a constant level of concentration (column 7 lines 4-9). In doing so, the device establishes the maximum and minimum ozone production where doing so allows the operator to know the amount of ozone being used for treatment, where a physician prescribed said amount, and where the computer control ensures said values (column 7 lines 10-21). Therefore as Wainwright teaches that ozone used in a blood treatment system is monitored by a controller to establish a maximum and minimum concentration based on prescriptions, and where a computer control ensures the proper values of ozone based on sensed ozone to ensure constant concentration, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the control system of Wainwright with the sensing system of Latino as a means to ensure constant ozone concentrations while also determining a minimum and maximum concentration. These minimum and maximum values would therefore operate as the defined reference values for determining the gas being recycled or vented.
Regarding claim 20, Latino discloses
The circuit according to claim 11, wherein said memory is programmable with a value of reference residual ozone and said processing and command unit is operationally connected to said auxiliary sensor means and to said auxiliary device, said processing and command unit being programmed to intervene on said auxiliary device so as to send the working gas flowing through said exhaust line to said oxygenation device, where the value of residual ozone detected by said auxiliary sensor means is greater than or equal to said value of reference residual ozone, or to said abatement means when the value of residual ozone detected by said auxiliary sensor means is lower than said value of reference residual ozone.
Viannay teaches a blood oxygen treatment device and is thus considered analogous to the claimed invention. Viannay teaches that said device comprises a gas ejector, where the gas ejector either recycles at least a portion of the gas back into the inlet (column 1 lines 64-68)or removes excess gas to the atmosphere through an exhaust outlet (fig. 2, 10c, see column 3 lines 18-24). See also column 2 lines 60-65). This configuration allows for a constant recycling of the gas such that the device can be used repeatedly (see claim 1 of Viannay, abstract). The examiner notes that further, per claim 5, Viannay teaches a means for controlling the gas flow through both the inlet and exhaust outlet as a means of operating the device. The examiner notes that per the previously detailed citation (column 3 lines 18-24), gas that is excess to the desired amount to recycle is released into the atmosphere. Therefore it is interpreted that Viannay teaches a control means for controlling the gas into the exhaust, and the gas is recycled into the inlet of the device unless the parameters of the gas are too high compared to the inlet gas, where said gas is then vented. As a means to effectively recycle used gas back into the system, it would therefore have been obvious to one having ordinary skill to provide the device of Latino with the exhaust connection of Wainwright. Doing so would incorporate the control pathway of Wainwright with the control system of Latino, wherein the combination of arts therefore teach that excess gas (greater than inlet value) is provided to the atmosphere (ozone destructor 1-14 of Latino) or the outlet gas is recycled back into the inlet (less than or equal to inlet value). The examiner notes that the two ozone sensors of Latino would provide data to the controller in order to make this determination, and the examiner notes that the reference residual ozone value is the value is the value determined by the sensors.
However, should applicant disagree with this interpretation, the examiner would again bring in Wainwright, as previously applied. Wainwright teaches a patient treatment device using ozone and is thus considered analogous to the claimed invention. Wainwright teaches that the device measures ozone and provides the data to a computer control to ensure a constant level of concentration (column 7 lines 4-9). In doing so, the device establishes the maximum and minimum ozone production where doing so allows the operator to know the amount of ozone being used for treatment, where a physician prescribed said amount, and where the computer control ensures said values (column 7 lines 10-21). Therefore as Wainwright teaches that ozone used in a blood treatment system is monitored by a controller to establish a maximum and minimum concentration based on prescriptions, and where a computer control ensures the proper values of ozone based on sensed ozone to ensure constant concentration, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the control system of Wainwright with the sensing system of Latino as a means to ensure constant ozone concentrations while also determining a minimum and maximum concentration. These minimum and maximum values would therefore operate as the defined reference values for determining the gas being recycled or vented.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Matthew Wrubleski whose telephone number is (571)272-1150. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-4:00 EST.
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, Rebecca Eisenberg can be reached at 571-270-5879. 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.
/MATTHEW WRUBLESKI/Examiner, Art Unit 3781 /REBECCA E EISENBERG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3781