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
Receipt is acknowledged of applicant's amendment filed on 2/19/26. Claims 1-9, 11-12 and 16 are cancelled. Claims 17-20 are new. Claims 10, 13-15 and 17-20 are currently pending and an action on the merits is as follows.
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) 10 and 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al. US 2016/0331876 in view of Gibbs et al. 5,734,464.
Regarding claim 10, Smith discloses an apparatus for measuring amount of blood in liquid collected from a patient during a medical or surgical operation, the apparatus is for determining blood loss of the patient during the medical or surgical operation, wherein the apparatus comprises
at least one first light source ([¶67,68] light source 132),
at least one first detector for measuring a light parameter ([¶67,68] light detector 134),
a transparent flow-through channel that is in the space between the at least one first light source and the at least one first detector ([¶67,68] tubing 126), and
a measuring device for measuring the total amount of liquid ([¶7,37,38,54] the processor determines flow and volume).
Smith discloses using various wavelengths from visible light to infrared but does not specify a wavelength range that is between 600 nm and 700 nm and another wavelength range is between 450 nm and 550 nm. Gibbs teaches a similar blood flow measuring device that uses red and green light ([C1 L25-35] the sensors use green light 500-550nm and red light 650-700nm). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to combine the device of Smith with the teachings of red and green wavelengths of Gibbs in order to monitor both red bolls cells and non-red blood cell components in the fluid ([C3 L10-40]). Additionally, Smith teaches using any appropriate wavelength in the visible or infrared spectrum and Gibbs provides two common wavelength ranges.
Regarding claim 3, Smith discloses using infrared light and a coupled detector but does not disclose it is for measuring oxygen saturation. Gibbs teaches that it is well known to use infrared light to determine oxygen saturation ([C2 L39-55]).
Regarding claim 13, Smith discloses the method comprises accomplishing a second measurement for determining by detecting light that passes through flowing liquid by using at least two different wavelengths ([¶62] several wavelengths can be used. [C2 L39-55] oxygen saturation is determined).
Regarding claim 14, Smith discloses one of the wavelengths belongs to the red light wavelengths and one of the wavelengths belongs to the infrared light wavelengths ([¶56-57] visible light for color and IR can be used).
Regarding claim 15, Smith discloses the total amount of liquid is metered by weighing or measuring the flow rate ([¶50,85] total fluid amount is determined from the flow).
Claim(s) 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al. US 2016/0331876 in view of Gibbs et al. 5,734,464 further in view of Merchant et al. US 2020/0030515.
Regarding claim 17, Smith discloses an apparatus for measuring amount of blood in liquid collected from a patient during a medical or surgical operation, the apparatus is for determining blood loss of the patient during the medical or surgical operation, wherein the apparatus comprises
at least one first light source ([¶67,68] light source 132),
at least one first detector for measuring a light parameter ([¶67,68] light detector 134),
a transparent flow-through channel that is in the space between the at least one first light source and the at least one first detector ([¶67,68] tubing 126), and
a measuring device for measuring the total amount of liquid ([¶7,37,38,54] the processor determines flow and volume).
Smith discloses using various wavelengths from visible light to infrared but does not specify a wavelength range that is between 600 nm and 700 nm. Gibbs teaches a similar blood flow measuring device that uses red and green light ([C1 L25-35] the sensors use green light 500-550nm and red light 650-700nm). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to combine the device of Smith with the teachings of red and green wavelengths of Gibbs in order to monitor both red bolls cells and non-red blood cell components in the fluid ([C3 L10-40]). Additionally, Smith teaches using any appropriate wavelength in the visible or infrared spectrum and Gibbs provides two common wavelength ranges.
Smith does not disclose the method comprises removing gas from the liquid before the first measurement. Merchant discloses a blood collecting device that removes gas ([¶92]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to combine the device of Smith with the gas filter of Merchant in order to remove air bubbles ([¶92]).
Regarding claim 18, Gibbs teaches accomplishing a second measurement for determining oxygen saturation by detecting light that passes through flowing liquid by using at least two different wavelengths ([C1 L25-35] additional wavelengths are used. [C2 L39-55] oxygen saturation is determined).
Regarding claim 19, Smith discloses one of the wavelengths belongs to the red light wavelengths and one of the wavelengths belongs to the infrared light wavelengths ([¶57-58]).
Regarding claim 20, Smith discloses the total amount of liquid is metered by weighing or measuring the flow rate ([¶37,38,54]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/19/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that there is no motivation aside from hindsight for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Smith with Gibbs, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Smith teaches all the components of the claim except it does not explicitly disclose the claims wavelength ranges. Smith does disclose using visible light and/or infrared which encompass the claimed wavelength ranges. Gibbs is then relied upon to teach specific wavelength ranges within infrared and visible light for the same purpose of detecting blood components. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to combine the device of Smith with the teachings of red and green wavelengths of Gibbs in order to monitor both red bolls cells and non-red blood cell components in the fluid ([C3 L10-40]). The combination of Gibbs with Smith is no more than the simple substitution of one know element, the wavelengths in Gibbs, for another, the wavelengths of Smith, to obtain the predictable results of blood detection.
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).
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 MICHAEL ANTHONY CATINA whose telephone number is (571)270-5951. The examiner can normally be reached 10-6pm.
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, Robert Chen can be reached at 5712723672. 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 A CATINA/Examiner, Art Unit 3791 /TSE W CHEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights