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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/27/2026 have been fully considered.
The examiner agrees with Applicant’s characterization of the interview.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that Mason fails to teach an egg shaped body where the second end is narrower than the first end. this argument is convincing and therefore the rejection is withdrawn. However, upon further consideration in light of the amendments, a new rejection is made over Miller (US 2,044,911) which discloses a body that the examiner considered to be egg shaped wherein the second end is narrower than the first end (fig. 2).
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
claim 1 line 2 recites “an egg-shaped body having”. This appears to be a typo and the word having should be deleted.
Claim 16, line 5 includes the same error described above.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7, 9-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller (US 2,044,911) in view of Fawner Finger Exerciser (https://www.amazon.com/Fanwer-Exerciser-Strength-Extension-Arthritis/dp/B07HH48K75 a print out of the sale listing provided with a prior Office action, first available for sale 11/1/2018).
Regarding claim 1, the preamble “an intravenous (IV) set hand pump” is interpreted to be an intended use, wherein the claims are drawn to the pump and not the IV set. Further limitation - “pump is configured, when squeezed, to increase a fluid rate of an IV set downstream of the IV set hand pump” is also interpreted to be a functional limitation of the pump and does not positively recite the IV set. The device of Miller is capable of delivering fluid to a patient interface, and therefore is capable of use with an IV set. Miller discloses a hand pump comprising: an egg-shaped body 39 (figs. 1, 2); an inlet port 41 disposed at a first end of the body (fig. 2); and an outlet port 48 disposed at a second end of the body (fig. 2), wherein the IV set hand pump is configured, when squeezed, to increase a fluid flow rate of an IV set downstream of the IV set hand pump beyond a maximum gravity based fluid flow rate of the IV set (page 2, left col, lines 5-10), and wherein the second end of the egg-shaped is narrower that the first end of the egg-shaped body (fig. 2).
Claim 1 further calls for a grip portion extending radially outward from the body, the grip portion to comprise four finger holes, each sized and shaped to receive a finger. Miller teaches that the body is meant to be gripped and squeezed, but fails to disclose this feature. Fawner Finger Exerciser teaches a squeezable member having a grip member including two finger holes, each sized and shaped to receive a finger (see product picture below). Fawner Finger Exerciser is considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because it is an egg shaped member configured to be gripped in the hand and repeatedly squeezed and is therefore reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the invention which is providing a squeezable member suitable for repeated squeezing and releasing without slipping from the hand. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the grip portion of Miller to include finger holes as taught by Fawner Finger Exerciser so that the user can reliably grip the body and squeeze the body without losing hold of the body.
PNG
media_image1.png
587
530
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Miller in view of Fawner Finger Exerciser fails to teach four finger holes, rather teaching two finger holes. However, the number of finger holes is interpreted to be a matter of obvious design choice. Applicant has not provided any benefit to having four finger holes over two finger holes, and further discloses that these are alternative configurations as shown in figs. 3 and 4 of the instant application. Therefore, it is presumed that these configurations work equally well for the purpose of gripping the body. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the gripping portion of Miller in view of Fawner Finger Exerciser to have four finger holes instead of two as doing so would have been a matter of obvious design choice.
Regarding claim 2, Miller further discloses that an interior of the egg-shaped body comprises curved interior surfaces (fig. 2).
Regarding claim 3, the shape of the body of Miller has a larger volume in the upper portion which encourages the flow of the fluid downward and the body is squeezed, and therefore the curved interior surfaces are configured to one of decrease and eliminate dead areas that retain fluid during fluid outflow from the body through the outlet port.
Regarding claim 7, Fawner Finger Exerciser teaches that the finger holes comprise an oblong opening (see product picture above). it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the holes comprising an oblong opening as taught by Fawner Finger Exerciser in the combination describe above to provide an opening sized to readily receive the finger and be readily releasable after use.
Regarding claim 9, the limitation “the one or more finger holes are configured to be gripped by one of a robotic arm and mechanical pump fingers” is interpreted to be an intended use limitation wherein the robotic arm nor the mechanical pump fingers are positively recited. The finger holes taught above with regard to claim 1 are capable of being gripped by a robotic arm or mechanical pump fingers as they are configured to receive a squeezing pressure from finger shaped elements.
Regarding claim 10, the limitation “the egg-shaped body is configured to be gripped by one of a robotic arm and mechanical pump fingers” is interpreted to be an intended use limitation wherein the robotic arm nor the mechanical pump fingers are positively recited. The body disclosed by Miller is capable of being gripped by a robotic arm or mechanical pump fingers as it is configured to receive a squeezing pressure a gripping element.
Regarding claim 11, Miller discloses that the body 39 is formed from a flexible material (page 2, left col., lines 5-10) and is configured to be in contact with a medical fluid (page 2, left col., lines 11-14).
Regarding claim 12, Miller discloses that an exterior surface of the egg-shaped body comprises texture members (figs. 1, 2: ribs on outer surface of the body).
Regarding claim 13, Miller discloses that the texture members are bumps (figs. 1, 2).
Regarding claim 14, Miller discloses that the texture members are raised lines (figs. 1, 2).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller in view of Fawner Finger Exerciser as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Berk et al (US 9,011,460).
Claim 15 differs from the teaching above in calling for the texture members to be non-slip coated areas. Berk teaches a squeezable body, the body having a texture surface to enhance grip (col. 2, lines 57-59). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the body of Miller to include a texture that provides a non-slip area as taught by Berk to allow the user to easily grip and squeeze the body. The limitation “coated” is interpreted to be a product by process limitation. The scope of such limitations are not limited to the recited steps, but rather to the structure implied by the recited steps. See MPEP 2113. In this case, the structure implied by the term non-slip coated is a surface having a non-slip area. This is what Berk teaches as discussed above.
Claim(s) 16, 18, 19, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mason (US 6,802,823) in view of Miller in view of Fawner Finger Exerciser.
Regarding claim 16, Miller discloses an intravenous (IV) set comprising: a first IV 16 tube configured to be coupled to a fluid source 40a, 40b (fig. 2; col. 6, lines 25-26); a second IV tube 18; and an IV set hand pump 14, comprising: a body (fig. 2); a grip portion extending radially outward from the body (fig. 4: the outer surface of the body 14 is a grip portion as it is intended to be gripped by the user); an inlet port 52 disposed at a first end of the body, the inlet port coupled to the first IV tube (fig. 1; col. 6, lines 34-35); and an outlet port 54 disposed at a second end of the body, the outlet port coupled to the second IV tube (fig. 1; col. 6, lines 34-5), wherein the IV set hand pump is configured, when squeezed, to increase a fluid flow rate of the IV set downstream of the IV set hand pump beyond a maximum gravity based fluid flow rate of the IV set (abstract).
Claim 16 further calls for the body to have an egg-shape, wherein the egg-shaped body is narrower at the second end than the first end. Miller discloses a hand pump for providing an increased fluid slow rate, wherein the body 39 has an egg shape and wherein the egg-shaped body is narrower at the second end (bottom) than the first end (top) (figs. 2, 3). This configuration provides a directed force to move the fluid in the body downward upon squeezing the largest portion of the body to assist the fluid in moving in the desired direction. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shape of the body of Mason to have an egg shape that has a second end narrower than the first end as taught by Miller to provide a directed force to the fluid when the bulb is s squeezed to ensure the fluid is moved downward.
Claim 16 further calls for grip portion to comprise four finger holes, each sized and shaped to receive a finger. Fawner Finger Exerciser teaches a squeezable member having a grip member including two finger holes, each sized and shaped to receive a finger (see product picture above). Fawner Finger Exerciser is considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because it is an egg shaped member configured to be gripped in the hand and squeezed and is therefore and is therefore reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the invention which is providing a squeezable member suitable for repeated squeezing and releasing without slipping from the hand. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the grip portion of Mason to include finger holes as taught by Fawner Finger Exerciser so that the user can reliably grip the body and squeeze the body without losing hold of the body.
Mason in view of Fawner Finger Exerciser fails to teach four finger holes, rather teaching two finger holes. However, the number of finger holes is interpreted to be a matter of obvious design choice. Applicant has not provided any benefit to having four finger holes over two finger holes, and further discloses that these are alternative configurations as shown in figs. 3 and 4 of the instant application. Therefore, it is presumed that these configurations work equally well for the purpose of gripping the body. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the gripping portion of Mason in view of Fawner Finger Exerciser to have four finger holes instead of two as doing so would have been a matter of obvious design choice.
Regarding claim 18, Mason discloses that the body is formed of a flexible material configured to be in contact with a medical fluid (col. 2, lines42-44; fig. 2). Miller teaches texture members formed of raised lines on the body (fig. 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the body of Mason to include texture members in the form of raised lines as taught by Miller to provide a tactile surface to assist the user in gripping and squeezing the body.
Regarding claim 19, Mason discloses a method of operating an intravenous (IV) set hand pump, the method comprising: coupling a first IV tube 16 of an IV set to a fluid source 40a,b (fig. 2: the elements are shown as being coupled and therefore the step of coupling is necessarily disclosed); coupling a second IV 18 tube of the IV set to a fluid recipient (col. 5, lines 43-45); grasping the IV set hand pump 14 coupled between the first IV tube and the second IV tube (fig. 4), compressing the body to force fluid to flow through the second IV tube at a flow rate greater than one of a maximum gravity based fluid flow rate of the IV set and a maximum infusion flow rate of an infusion pump (fig. 4; abstract); expanding the body to pull more fluid from the fluid source into the body (col. 12, lines 49-55); and repeating the compressing and expanding steps to deliver a desired volume of fluid to the fluid recipient (col. 12, lines 12-16: bolus dose is delivered as desired).
Regarding the IV handpump of claim 1, Mason further discloses the IV set hand pump comprising: a body (fig. 2); a grip portion extending radially outward from the body (fig. 4: the outer surface of the body is gripped by the user and therefore forms a grip portion); an inlet port 52 disposed at a first end of the body, the inlet port coupled to the first IV tube (fig. 2); and an outlet port 54 disposed at a second end of the body, the outlet port coupled to the second IV tube 18 (fig. 2).
The handpump of claim 1 further includes the body having an egg-shape, wherein the egg-shaped body is narrower at the second end than the first end. Miller discloses a hand pump for providing an increased fluid slow rate, wherein the body 39 has an egg shape and wherein the egg-shaped body is narrower at the second end (bottom) than the first end (top) (figs. 2, 3). This configuration provides a directed force to move the fluid in the body downward upon squeezing the largest portion of the body to assist the fluid in moving in the desired direction. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shape of the body of Mason to have an egg shape that has a second end narrower than the first end as taught by Miller to provide a directed force to the fluid when the bulb is s squeezed to ensure the fluid is moved downward.
Claim 1 further calls for a grip portion to comprise four finger holes, each sized and shaped to receive a finger. Fawner Finger Exerciser teaches a squeezable member having a grip member including two finger holes, each sized and shaped to receive a finger (see product picture above). Fawner Finger Exerciser is considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because it is an egg shaped member configured to be gripped in the hand and squeezed and is therefore and is therefore reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the invention which is providing a squeezable member suitable for repeated squeezing and releasing without slipping from the hand. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the grip portion of Mason to include finger holes as taught by Fawner Finger Exerciser so that the user can reliably grip the body and squeeze the body without losing hold of the body.
Mason in view of Fawner Finger Exerciser fails to teach four finger holes, rather teaching two finger holes. However, the number of finger holes is interpreted to be a matter of obvious design choice. Applicant has not provided any benefit to having four finger holes over two finger holes, and further discloses that these are alternative configurations as shown in figs. 3 and 4 of the instant application. Therefore, it is presumed that these configurations work equally well for the purpose of gripping the body. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the gripping portion of Mason in view of Fawner Finger Exerciser to have four finger holes instead of two as doing so would have been a matter of obvious design choice.
Claim 21 calls for the finger holes to comprise circular openings. The shape of the openings is interpreted to be a matter of obvious design choice. Applicant has not provided any stated benefit to the shape of the openings, and discloses oblong and circular openings as alternatives. Therefore, it would have been a matter of obvious design choice to modify the finger holes of Mason in view of Fawner Finger Exerciser to be circular instead of oblong because doing so would have been a matter of obvious design choice.
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 LAURA A BOUCHELLE whose telephone number is (571)272-2125. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00 CST.
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.
LAURA A. BOUCHELLE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3783
/LAURA A BOUCHELLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3783
Prosecution Insights