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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/18/2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 2/17/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. However, it is noted that while the EPO action cited on the IDS has been considered, the documents referenced by that action are not of record as they were not properly cited on the IDS.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/28/2026 have been fully considered.
Regarding the amendments to the claims, Applicant states that the amendments to the claims are supported by Fig. 3 and the corresponding description in paragraph 0027. This argument is not convincing. The examiner does not find support for the claim amendments of the body have an eccentric shape and the second end of the body having a greater volume than the first end. the shape is described as “egg-shaped” in the disclosure and fig. 3 shows a shape that would be generally understood to be “egg-shaped”. The disclosure and the figures do not show any delineation between a first end and a second end that would indicate that the second end has a greater volume than the first end. Further, based on the egg-shape of the body as can be seen in fig. 3, it appears that the second end has a narrower cross section than the first end which would indicate that the volume of the first end would be greater than the volume of the second end. therefore, the examiner does not find support for the claim amendments in the disclosure.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that fig. 1 of Mason shows an oval shaped body and therefore fails to shown an eccentrically shaped body and a body that has a second end having a greater volume than the first end of the body. This argument is not convincing. The term “eccentric” is given it’s plain meaning which includes an oval or an ellipse and therefore the oval body of Mason is eccentric. Additionally, Mason clearly shows in fig. 1 the lower portion of the body having a neck 54 that is both longer and wider than the upper neck 52, and therefore, the second end has a greater volume than the first end.
Regarding Fawner Finger Exerciser, Applicant argues that the ball is oval shaped, and fails to teach or suggest a body having an eccentric shape wherein the second end of the body has a volume greater than the first end of the body. This argument is not convincing as Fawner is not relied upon to teach the shape of the body, but rather the finger receiving elements.
Regarding claims 16 and 19, Applicant’s arguments are similar to those above and therefore are not convincing for similar reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-3, 7, 9-16, 18, 19, 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 16, 19 have been amended to include the limitations “the body having an eccentric shape… wherein the second end of the body ahs a greater volume than the first end of the body.” There is no support for these limitations. The disclosure describes that body as “having an egg-shape” but does not disclose that the body has an eccentric shape. The scope of “eccentric shape” is different than that of egg shape and while an egg shape may reasonably be considered to be an example of and egg shape, the term eccentric shape is much broader and therefore the disclosure does not support the full breadth of the claim. The disclosure further does not provide support for the second (outlet) end of the body having a greater volume that the first (inlet) end of the body. The disclosure does not provide any information about the delineation between what might be considered the first end and what might be considered the second end of the body. Fig. 3 shows the egg shaped body where the second end has a narrower cross section than the first end and therefore a person of ordinary skill in the art would not understand that the second end would have a greater volume than the first end as it is a smaller outer dimension.
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, 9-11, , 16, 17, 19, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mason (US 6,802,823) 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, Mason discloses an intravenous (IV) set hand pump comprising: a body 14 having an eccentric shape (fig. 1: oval shape); a grip portion extending radially outward from the body (fig. 4: the outer surface of the body is intended to be gripped and therefore forms a grip portion); an inlet port 52 disposed at a first end of the body; and an outlet port 54 disposed at a second end of the body (fig. 6; col. 6, lines 34-36), 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 (abstract), and wherein the second end of the body includes a neck 54 that is longer and wider than a neck 52 at the first end, thereby causing the volume of the second end to be greater than the volume of the first end (fig. 2).
Claim 1 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 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 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.
PNG
media_image1.png
587
530
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 2, Mason further discloses that an interior of the body comprises curved interior surfaces (fig. 2).
Regarding claim 3, Mason shows that the curved body is fully collapsible thereby minimizing dead space when squeezed (fig. 4), 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 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 Mason 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, Mason discloses that the body 14 is formed from a flexible material (col. 6, line 34) and is configured to be in contact with a medical fluid (fig. 3).
Regarding claim 16, Mason 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 having an eccentric shape (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), and the second end of the body includes a neck 54 that is longer and wider than a neck 52 at the first end, thereby causing the volume of the second end to be greater than the volume of the first end (fig. 2) .
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 17, Fawner Finger Exerciser teaches that the grip members include oblong openings (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 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), the IV set hand pump comprising: a body having an eccentric shape (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), wherein the second end of the body includes a neck 54 that is longer and wider than a neck 52 at the first end, thereby causing the volume of the second end to be greater than the volume of the first end (fig. 2); 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).
Claim 19 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.
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.
Claim(s) 6 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mason in view of Fawner Finger Exerciser as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mechor (US 2019/0184088).
Regarding claim 6, Mechor teaches a squeezable body for fluid delivery having one or more grip members 15 (fig. 1; page 2, para. 0024). Mechor is considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor – namely, resilient, squeezable medical fluid delivery members. Mechor teaches that the one or more grip members are grooves, each groove sized and shaped to receive a finger (fig. 1; page 2, para. 0024). 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 grooves sized and shaped to receive a finger as taught by Mechor in the combination described above to provide the user a surface to grasp while squeezing the body to ensure that the body does not slip out of the user’s hand.
Claim(s) 12-14, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mason in view of Fawner Finger Exerciser as applied to claims 1 or 16 above, and further in view of Budoff (US 4,405,321).
Claim 12 differs from Mason in calling for an exterior surface of the body comprises texture members. Claim 13 calls for the texture members to be bumps. Claim 14 calls for the texture members to be raised lines. Budoff teaches an elastic body that is squeezed to discharge medical fluid therefrom wherein the body comprises texture members in the form of raised lines 15 (fig. 1), the lines allow the user to grasp and squeeze the body at any point on the body and cause the entire contents of the body to be discharged (col. 3, lines 20-23). The raised lines are interpreted to be bumps as they are elevated surface elements. 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 in the form of raised lines as taught by Budoff so that the user can easily grab and squeeze the body and discharge the entire contents therefrom.
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). Claim 18 differs from Mason in calling for texture members are disposed on an exterior surface of the body, the texture members comprising one of bumps, raised lines and non-slip coated areas. Budoff teaches an elastic body that is squeezed to discharge medical fluid therefrom wherein the body comprises texture members in the form of raised lines 15 (fig. 1), the lines allow the user to grasp and squeeze the body at any point on the body and cause the entire contents of the body to be discharged (col. 3, lines 20-23). The raised lines are interpreted to be bumps as they are elevated surface elements. 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 in the form of raised lines as taught by Budoff so that the user can easily grab and squeeze the body and discharge the entire contents therefrom.
Claim(s) 12, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mason in view of Fawner Finger Exerciser as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Berk et al (US 9,011,460).
Claim 12 differs from Mason in calling for an exterior surface of the body to comprise texture members. Claim 15 further calls 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 Mason 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.
Conclusion
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