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 Group I (a device: fillable chamber and apparatus comprising thereof) in the reply filed on November 10, 2025, is acknowledged.
Please note, for clarity of the record, the restriction requirement a typographical error inadvertently stated claims of group I, however, properly are inclusive of claims 1, 3, 5, 11-13, 16, 20, 23, 25, and 59. Applicant has argued the inclusion of the same, and the claims, so grouped with Group I, have restated below. Applicant has not argued persuasive of error the lack of unity of invention arguments in view of Montgomery et al (US 2001/0025191 A1). The restriction requirement is still deemed proper and therefore made FINAL.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 11-13, 16, 20, 23, 25, 28-30, 37, 41, 44, 50, 54, 55, and 59 are pending of which claims 28-30, 37, 41, 44, and 50 (Group II: drawn to a process of using) and claims 54 and 55 (Group III: drawn to a process of making) are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Pending claims 1, 3, 5, 11-13, 16, 20, 23, 25, and 59 (Group I) have been examined on the merits.
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.
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) 1, 3, 5, 11-13, 16, 20, 23, 25, and 59 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Montgomery et al (US 2001/0025191 A1).
The instant claims are drawn to a device comprising a, or a plurality of, fillable chamber(s), each having: first and second layers; an inlet and outlet, and retention members, said retention members arranged in a series of spaced veins, between the first and second layer and creating a continuous channel from the inlet to the outlet.
Montgomery ‘191, however, teaches a device suitable as a transplant organ external cooling system, the device comprising a fillable chamber having first and second layers; an inlet and outlet, and retention members arranged in a series of spaced veins, between the first and second layer and creating a continuous channel from the inlet to the outlet. Montgomery although not identical (does not anticipate under 35 USC), would have at least been obvious to have provided such arrangement including a plurality of chambers. ‘191 teaches providing a sleeve or blanket (broadly a multi-layer, flexible, resilient form (see entire document, e.g. [0009-0011], [0028]+) and which may be arranged to contain fluid in a circulating series of channels having an inlet and outlet (e.g. see figures, and as in the figures e.g. fig. 1, esp. canals/channels (10, and inlet/outlet ports 12 & 14 ), whereby the device may further comprise pumps (18), tubing (20), and temperature regulation including via cooling [0030] and heating [0031] mechanisms (see e.g. [0029]+).
Consequently, it would have been obvious to have provided a device as instantly claimed. Montgomery ‘191 is relied upon for the reasons discussed above. If not expressly taught by the reference, based upon the overall beneficial teaching provided by this reference with respect to the variety of configurations and array of tissues and organs suitable therewith, in the manner disclosed therein, the adjustments of particular conventional working conditions (e.g., determining one or more suitable shapes/elongations/positions, duplications/pluralities, materials and ranges in which to provide a device as claimed), is deemed merely a matter of judicious selection and routine optimization which is well within the purview of the skilled artisan.
From the teachings of the reference, it is apparent that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in producing the claimed invention. Therefore, the invention as a whole was prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effective filed, as evidenced by the references, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Conclusion
No claims are presently allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AARON J KOSAR whose telephone number is (571)270-3054. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 9-6 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, Anand Desai can be reached at (571)272-0947. 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.
/AARON J KOSAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1655
Prosecution Insights