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
Applicant's election with traverse of Species I in the reply filed on March 2, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “disk (50) which includes reflective tape (54) is not part of the valve body of stopcock (40)” so that Marks does not teach or disclose “an external surface of the valve body includes at least one position structure”. This is not found persuasive because the stopcock 40 of Marks was equated to the claimed “main body” and not the “valve body”, as set forth below and in the Restriction Requirement. Instead, the valve body was equated to the combined structures of the “internal rotating T-shaped channel” (4:9-28), lever L, and disk 50. Therefore, fig. 6a shows the position structure (tape 54 in fig. 6a) positioned on a part of the valve body since disk 50 is part of the valve body.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 6-17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on March 2, 2026.
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Marks (US 4819653).
Regarding claim 1, Marks discloses a medical stopcock (fig. 1a and 6) including:
a main body (stopcock 40 in fig. 1a and 6 comprising ports A, B, and C);
a valve body (4:9-28 discloses "an internal rotating T-shaped channel" and a lever L which connects to disk 50; the internal rotating channel, lever L, and disk 50 forming the "valve body"), wherein the valve body defines a valve passageway (4:9-13 discloses a "T-shaped channel") and is moveable relative to the main body between a first position where a first input port and an output port are in fluid communication via the valve passageway, a second position where a second input port and the output port are in fluid communication via the valve passageway, and a third position where the second input port and the first input port are in fluid communication via the valve passageway (4:19-28 discloses the lever and rotating channel rotating between three positions to selectively open/close ports A, B, and C), and wherein an external surface of the valve body includes at least one position structure (reflective tape 54 in fig. 6 is on an external surface of disk 50 which is part of the valve body); and
at least one sensor configured to sense the at least one position structure to determine whether the valve body is in the first position, the second position, or the third position (6:36-43 discloses "an optical electronic feedback system" to verify the stopcock positions).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 18 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marks, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tsoukalis (US 20170290974).
Regarding claim 18, Marks teaches all of the claimed limitations set forth in claim 1, as discussed above, but does not teach or disclose a housing including the at least one sensor, wherein the housing holds the at least one sensor in a fixed position when the valve body moves relative to the main body.
Tsoukalis teaches a housing (module 44 in fig. 8) comprising a sensor (position detector 74 in fig. 8) which is configured to sense the position of a stopcock (stopcock 70 in fig. 8; paragraph 120). Tsoukalis teaches that the housing holds the sensor in a fixed position when the valve body moves relative to the main body (fig. 8 shows the detector positioned in a way so that it would remain stationary while valve 70 rotates). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the sensor of Marks (the "optical electronic feedback system" in 6:36-43) to be part of a housing which holds the sensor in a fixed position when the valve body moves relative to the main body, as taught by Tsoukalis. This modification would enable the entire system of Marks to be provided in a single unit and would ensure the stopcock is appropriately placed relative to the sensor.
Regarding claim 19, in the modified assembly of Marks, Tsoukalis discloses the housing is attached to the main body (fig. 8 shows the housing receives stopcock 70, which would include the main body of the stopcock).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marks in view of Tsoukalis, as applied to claims 1 and 18 above, and further in view of Lee (US 20180245699).
Regarding claim 20, modified Marks teaches all of the claimed limitations set forth in claims 1 and 18, as discussed above, but does not teach or disclose includes the housing includes a wireless communication device configured to communicate, to a computing device, sensor data sensed by the at least one sensor.
Tsoukalis further teaches that the housing includes a wireless communication device (paragraph 119 discloses wireless communication). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the housing of modified Marks to include a wireless communication device, as taught by Tsoukalis, for the purpose of enabling the device to utilize complex pump programming and to relay information to users for improved patient safety (paragraph 119).
Lee teaches a wireless communication device configured to communicate, to a computing device, sensor data sensed by the at least one sensor (paragraph 220 discloses wirelessly transmitting the opening status of the valve). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the wireless communication device of modified Marks to be capable of communicating, to a computing device, sensor data sensed by the at least one sensor, as taught by Lee in order to relay information to the patient to improve patient safety.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-5 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 2, the closest art is Marks. Marks discloses a portion of the valve body extends from a top of the main body (fig. 1a and 6 shows the lever extending out of the main body), wherein the portion of the valve body extending from the top of the main body includes a handle (disk 50 in fig. 6). However, Marks does not teach or disclose the at least one position structure includes at least one recessed portion of the handle.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COURTNEY FREDRICKSON whose telephone number is (571)270-7481. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (9 AM - 5 PM 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, BHISMA MEHTA can be reached at 571-272-3383. 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.
/COURTNEY B FREDRICKSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3783