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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed May 4, 2023 and July 14, 2023 fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but all information referred to therein has not been considered, as indicated on the attached and signed information disclosure statements.
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: please change “fluid” to “the fluid” in line 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: please change “a covering and/or lid assembly” to “the covering and/or lid assembly” in line 2. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: please change “ml.,” to “ml,” in line 2. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, “a bottom side” in line 4 is rejected as it is unclear whether this is the same or different than the “a bottom side” of line 1. For examination purposes these are interpreted as the same.
Claims 2-20 are rejected as dependents of claim 1.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the second material" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, claim 17 is interpreted as depending from claim 16, which includes “a second material.”
Claims 19-20 are rejected as dependents of claim 17.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the red blood cell flocculant" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, claim 18 is interpreted as depending from claim 17, which includes “a red blood cell flocculant.”
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Uruma et al. (US 2022/0331505).
Regarding claim 1, Uruma discloses a covering and/or lid assembly (see Figs. 3, 5, 9, 10, 12-13) comprising a first compartment 5241 having a top (see Fig. 9) and a bottom side (see Fig. 10), said first compartment comprising: a top side comprising a button or dimple 52421 (see par. 81, 84); a bottom side 5243, 5244 comprising a frangible covering (see par. 81, 85); and an interior chamber S5 comprising a first material (see Fig. 5; par. 77), wherein the interior chamber of the first compartment is situated between the top side and the bottom side of the first compartment (see Fig. 5), and wherein the first material is selectively released from the interior chamber of the first compartment upon compression of the button or dimple (see par. 81).
Regarding claim 2, Uruma discloses the first material comprises a blood coagulant material suitable for coagulating red blood cells (see par. 30, 75).
Regarding claim 3, Uruma discloses the blood coagulant material is suitable for coagulating red blood cells in a fluid comprising blood (see par. 30, 75).
Regarding claim 4, Uruma discloses the red blood cells are flocculated red blood cells (see par. 30, 75, if could coagulate red blood cells, also could coagulate flocculated red blood cells and as the “for coagulating red blood cells” and therefore it would require “for coagulating flocculated red blood cells,” this is interpreted as functional language and the function could be performed by the coagulate).
Regarding claim 6, Uruma discloses the first material is released from the interior chamber through the bottom side of the first compartment upon compression of the button or dimple (see par. 81, 84-85).
Claim(s) 1, 5-7, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Harpham et al. (US 2017/0304511).
Regarding claim 1, Harpham discloses a covering and/or lid assembly (see Figs. 7, 9) comprising a first compartment 695, 696 having a top and a bottom side (see Fig. 9 with top side made from dome portion 695 and bottom from seal 696), said first compartment comprising: a top side comprising a button or dimple (see Figs. 7, 9; par. 89, push down on dome portion 695); a bottom side comprising a frangible covering 696 (see par. 89, seal 696 breaks); and an interior chamber comprising a first material (see par. 89, recess of dome portion 695 stores solidifying agent), wherein the interior chamber of the first compartment is situated between the top side and the bottom side of the first compartment (see Fig. 9, par. 89), and wherein the first material is selectively released from the interior chamber of the first compartment upon compression of the button or dimple (see par. 89).
Regarding claim 5, Harpham further discloses the covering and/or lid assembly having a perimeter comprising a coupling adapter having a threaded configuration (see par. 6, 82).
Regarding claim 6, Harpham further discloses the first material is released from the interior chamber through the bottom side of the first compartment upon compression of the button or dimple (see par. 89).
Regarding claim 7, Harpham further discloses the frangible covering comprises a foil or plastic film (see par. 89, foil).
Regarding claim 14, Harpham discloses a collection and disposal system (see Figs. 7, 9; Abstract) comprising: a collection container 612 comprising a top end (see Figs. 6, 9); and a covering and/or lid assembly of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the covering and/or lid assembly comprises a coupling adapter suitable for securely attaching the covering and/or lid assembly to the top end of the collection container (see par. 6, 82).
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.
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) 2-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harpham in view of Pirzada et al. (US 2015/0306303) and further in view of Carlson et al. (US 5,451,326).
Regarding claim 2, Harpham discloses the first material is a solidifying agent (see par. 89) for waste fluids including blood (see par. 3) and the term fluid including blood (see par. 70), therefore the solidifying agent would be for solidifying blood but does not specifically disclose the first material comprises a blood coagulant material suitable for coagulating red blood cells.
Pirzada discloses a solidifying agent in the form of a coagulant for coagulating/solidifying blood of bodily fluid (see par. 45, 48, 50). Carlson discloses a coagulant for fat, blood, and tissue (see col. 2, lines 8-11) being ferric sulfate and aluminum sulfate (see col. 6, lines 11-23 disclosing solidifying and via coagulant and col. 6, lines 24-32 disclosing specific coagulants), teachings of which are analogous as “the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor” (see MPEP 2141.01(a)) regarding blood coagulant material. Consequently, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a coagulant as the solidifying agent as disclosed by Pirzada in order to predictably coagulate and therefore solidify bodily fluids, which predictably would result in preventing splashing or spillage and reduced risk of contaminating personnel during transport and disposal of waste fluids collected, disclosed as desirable by Harpham in paragraph 89. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use ferric sulfate or aluminum sulfate as the coagulant, Carlson specifically disclosing such coagulants for bodily fluids including blood, fat and tissue, which would be fluids generated in liquid waste in operating rooms and emergency rooms specifically mentioned by Harpham (see par. 3), and therefore use of such coagulants would predictably result in the preventing splashing or spillage and reduced risk of contaminating personnel during transport and disposal of waste fluids collected, disclosed as desirable by Harpham in paragraph 89. As applicant discloses in paragraph 26 that possible blood coagulants for the invention are ferric sulfate and aluminum sulfate, such coagulants would be suitable for coagulating red blood cells.
Regarding claim 3, Harpham, Pirzada, and Carlson disclose the limitations of claim 2 and as explained above Harpham discloses the fluid comprises blood (see par. 3, 70).
Regarding claim 4, Harpham, Pirzada, and Carlson disclose the limitations of claim 2 and as applicant discloses in paragraph 26 that possible blood coagulants for the invention are ferric sulfate and aluminum sulfate, such coagulants would be suitable for flocculated red blood cells. It is further pointed out that “flocculated red blood cells” are related to the function of the device, as claim 2 requires the blood coagulant material to be suitable “for coagulating red blood cells” which results with the functional limitation requiring that the blood coagulant material be suitable for coagulating flocculated red blood cells. "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) (The preamble of claim 1 recited that the apparatus was "for mixing flowing developer material" and the body of the claim recited "means for mixing ..., said mixing means being stationary and completely submerged in the developer material." In this case and as pointed out above, the ferric sulfate and aluminum sulfate could perform such a required function of coagulating flocculated red blood cells.
Claim(s) 8 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harpham in view of Seddon et al. (US 2017/0210526).
Regarding claim 8, Harpham discloses the limitations of claim 1 but does not disclose a second compartment, said second compartment comprising a top side comprising a button or dimple; a bottom side comprising a frangible covering; and an interior chamber comprising a second material, wherein the interior chamber of the second compartment is situated between the top side and the bottom side of the second compartment, and wherein the second material is selectively released from the interior chamber of the second compartment upon compression of the button or dimple.
Seddon discloses a container cap with a first compartment wherein the first compartment can be compressed such that a first material is released (see Fig. 6) and that the number of compartments can vary from 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6 depending on the purpose of use of the cap (see par. 79). Consequently, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a second compartment, as disclosed by Seddon, which would predictably result in allowing for additional material to be released as desired. Furthermore, the second compartment would have a similar configuration to the first compartment of Harpham, just as in Seddon where the first and second compartments are similarly configured (see Figs. 7-8), and therefore would include a top side comprising a button or dimple, a bottom side comprising a frangible covering; and an interior chamber comprising a second material, wherein the interior chamber of the second compartment is situated between the top side and the bottom side of the second compartment, and wherein the second material is selectively released from the interior chamber of the second compartment upon compression of the button or dimple (see rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 16, Harpham discloses the limitations of claim 14 but does not disclose a second compartment, said second compartment comprising a top side comprising a second button or dimple; a bottom side comprising a frangible covering; and an interior chamber comprising a second material, wherein the interior chamber of the second compartment is situated between the top side and the bottom side of the second compartment, and wherein the second material is selectively released from the interior chamber of the second compartment upon compression of the button or dimple.
Seddon discloses a container cap with a first compartment wherein the first compartment can be compressed such that a first material is released (see Fig. 6) and that the number of compartments can vary from 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6 depending on the purpose of use of the cap (see par. 79). Consequently, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a second compartment, as disclosed by Seddon, which would predictably result in allowing for additional material to be released as desired. Furthermore, the second compartment would have a similar configuration to the first compartment of Harpham, just as in Seddon where the first and second compartments are similarly configured (see Figs. 7-8), and therefore would include a top side comprising a button or dimple, a bottom side comprising a frangible covering; and an interior chamber comprising a second material, wherein the interior chamber of the second compartment is situated between the top side and the bottom side of the second compartment, and wherein the second material is selectively released from the interior chamber of the second compartment upon compression of the button or dimple (see rejection of claim 1 above).
Claim(s) 8, 9, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uruma in view of Seddon.
Regarding claim 8, Uruma discloses the limitations of claim 1 but does not specifically disclose a second compartment, said second compartment comprising a top side comprising a button or dimple; a bottom side comprising a frangible covering; and an interior chamber comprising a second material, wherein the interior chamber of the second compartment is situated between the top side and the bottom side of the second compartment, and wherein the second material is selectively released from the interior chamber of the second compartment upon compression of the button or dimple.
Seddon discloses a container cap with a first compartment wherein the first compartment can be compressed such that a first material is released (see Fig. 6) and that the number of compartments can vary from 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6 depending on the purpose of use of the cap (see par. 79). Consequently, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a second compartment, as disclosed by Seddon, which would predictably result in allowing for additional material to be released as desired. Furthermore, the second compartment would have a similar configuration to the first compartment of Uruma, just as in Seddon where the first and second compartments are similarly configured (see Figs. 7-8), and therefore would include a top side comprising a button or dimple, a bottom side comprising a frangible covering; and an interior chamber comprising a second material, wherein the interior chamber of the second compartment is situated between the top side and the bottom side of the second compartment, and wherein the second material is selectively released from the interior chamber of the second compartment upon compression of the button or dimple (see rejection of claim 1 above regarding Uruma).
Regarding claim 9, Uruma and Seddon disclose the limitations of claim 8, and Uruma further discloses the waste liquid treating agent stored is a flocculant that flocculates red blood cells (see par. 75).
Regarding claim 11, Uruma and Seddon disclose the limitations of claim 9, but do not specifically disclose the first material comprises a blood coagulant.
Uruma discloses having a blood coagulant or flocculant as the stored waste liquid treating agent (see par. 75). Seddon discloses having the different compartments store a multiple selection of additives or contents available for adding to the contents of a container (see par. 77). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have blood coagulant in one of the first and second compartments and have flocculant in the other of the first and second compartments, as Seddon discloses allowing for a selection of additives for adding contents of a container and Uruma discloses the additives of coagulant and flocculant as options for adding to stored waste liquid. This would predictably result in allowing for the option of either adding a coagulant or a flocculant, both additions disclosed by Uruma as useful for treating waste liquid.
Claim(s) 9, 12-13, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harpham in view of Seddon as applied to claims 8 and 16 above, respectively, and further in view of Vallieres (US 5,595,731).
Regarding claim 9, Harpham and Seddon disclose the limitations of claim 8 but do not disclose the second material comprises a red blood cell flocculant.
Harpham discloses both use of a solidifying agent and/or a disinfecting agent (see par. 89) for waste fluids including blood (see par. 3) and the term fluid including blood (see par. 70), therefore providing motivation both for the use of a solidifying agent and a disinfecting agent.
Vallieres discloses a blood gelifying compound that can be used by medical staff in surgery rooms and the like, when wasted blood from the patient is collected, to solidify the waste fluid (see Abstract). Vallieres discloses this compound including a superabsorbent polymer such as polyacrylamide (see col. 3, line 66-col. 4, line 3). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the second material include a solidifying agent comprising polyacrylamide, such a compound disclosed by Vallieres, this predictably resulting in preventing splashing or spillage and reduced risk of contaminating personnel during transport and disposal of waste fluids collected, disclosed as desirable by Harpham in paragraph 89. Applicant discloses polyacrylamide as a red blood cell flocculant in paragraph 16 and Table I of the current application.
Regarding claim 12, Harpham, Seddon, and Vallieres disclose the limitations of claim 9 and these prior art further disclose polyacrylamide, as explained above in the rejection of claim 9, and applicant discloses polyacrylamide as a red blood cell flocculant that is suitable for flocculating red blood cells in a fluid in paragraph 16 and Table I of the current application.
Regarding claim 13, Harpham Seddon, and Vallieres disclose the limitations of claim 12 and Harpham further discloses the fluid comprises blood (see par. 3, 70).
Regarding claim 17, Harpham and Seddon disclose the limitations of claim 16 but do not disclose the second material comprises a red blood cell flocculant.
Harpham discloses both use of a solidifying agent and/or a disinfecting agent (see par. 89) for waste fluids including blood (see par. 3) and the term fluid including blood (see par. 70), therefore providing motivation both for the use of a solidifying agent and a disinfecting agent.
Vallieres discloses a blood gelifying compound that can be used by medical staff in surgery rooms and the like, when wasted blood from the patient is collected, to solidify the waste fluid (see Abstract). Vallieres discloses this compound including a superabsorbent polymer such as polyacrylamide (see col. 3, line 66-col. 4, line 3). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the second material include a solidifying agent comprising polyacrylamide, such a compound disclosed by Vallieres, this predictably resulting in preventing splashing or spillage and reduced risk of contaminating personnel during transport and disposal of waste fluids collected, disclosed as desirable by Harpham in paragraph 89. Applicant discloses polyacrylamide as a red blood cell flocculant in paragraph 16 and Table I of the current application.
Claim(s) 9 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harpham in view of Seddon as applied to claims 8 and 16 above, respectively, and further in view of Ohira et al. (US 5,945,004), submitted with the IDS of May 4, 2023.
Regarding claim 9, Harpham and Seddon disclose the limitations of claim 8 but do not disclose the second material comprises a red blood cell flocculant.
Harpham discloses both use of a solidifying agent and/or a disinfecting agent (see par. 89) for waste fluids including blood (see par. 3) and the term fluid including blood (see par. 70), therefore providing motivation both for the use of a solidifying agent and a disinfecting agent.
Ohira discloses a method and apparatus for treating waste liquids containing body fluid by
adding flocculant to waste material, such as body fluids including blood, collected in a container (see Abstract) in order to help separate the flocculate from the supernatant liquor in order to help with disposal of the waste (see col. 3, II. 52-67). Ohira further discloses the flocculant being a red blood cell
flocculant that is configured to form flocculated red blood cells in the container. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have the second material of Harpham be a flocculant as disclosed by Ohira, as Ohira disclosing this material being used to help with the disposal of waste material, such as body fluids including blood.
Regarding claim 17, Harpham and Seddon disclose the limitations of claim 16 but do not disclose the second material comprises a red blood cell flocculant.
Harpham discloses both use of a solidifying agent and/or a disinfecting agent (see par. 89) for waste fluids including blood (see par. 3) and the term fluid including blood (see par. 70), therefore providing motivation both for the use of a solidifying agent and a disinfecting agent.
Ohira discloses a method and apparatus for treating waste liquids containing body fluid by
adding flocculant to waste material, such as body fluids including blood, collected in a container (see Abstract) in order to help separate the flocculate from the supernatant liquor in order to help with disposal of the waste (see col. 3, II. 52-67). Ohira further discloses the flocculant being a red blood cell
flocculant that is configured to form flocculated red blood cells in the container. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have the second material of Harpham be a flocculant as disclosed by Ohira, as Ohira disclosing this material being used to help with the disposal of waste material, such as body fluids including blood.
Claim(s) 10 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harpham in view of Seddon and further in view of Ohira as applied to claims 9 and 17 above, respectively, and further in view of Carew et al. (US 2018/0196031), submitted with the IDS of May 4, 2023.
Regarding claim 10, Harpham, Seddon, and Ohira disclose the limitations of claim 9 but do not specifically disclose the red blood cell flocculent being polyDADMAC.
Carew discloses a well-known red blood cell flocculent being polyDADMAC (see Abstract). It
would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to have the red blood cell flocculent be polyDADMAC, Carew disclosing
polyDADMAC being a well-known red blood cell flocculent, substituting the red blood cell flocculent disclosed by Ohira with that of Carew, and the results of the substitution would have been predictable due to the nature of red blood cell flocculent reacting with blood.
Regarding claim 18, Harpham, Seddon, and Ohira disclose the limitations of claim 17 but do not specifically disclose the red blood cell flocculent being polyDADMAC.
Carew discloses a well-known red blood cell flocculent being polyDADMAC (see Abstract). It
would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to have the red blood cell flocculent be polyDADMAC, Carew disclosing
polyDADMAC being a well-known red blood cell flocculent, substituting the red blood cell flocculent disclosed by Ohira with that of Carew, and the results of the substitution would have been predictable due to the nature of red blood cell flocculent reacting with blood.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harpham.
Regarding claim 15, Harpham discloses the limitations of claim 14 but does not disclose the collection container has a volume of about 1,200 ml, about 1,500 ml, about 2,000 ml or about 5,000 ml. However, in In Gardner V. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Similar to in Gardner, the only difference between the device of Harpham and the claimed device is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device (the specific volume claimed) and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the device of Harpham, in that the first material would be released from the interior chamber of the first compartment upon compression of the button or dimple and into the collection container, and therefore the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the device disclosed by Harpham.
Claim(s) 17 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harpham in view of Seddon as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Uruma.
Regarding claim 17, Harpham and Seddon disclose the limitations of claim 16 but do not disclose the second material comprises a red blood cell flocculant.
Harpham discloses both use of a solidifying agent and/or a disinfecting agent (see par. 89) for waste fluids including blood (see par. 3) and the term fluid including blood (see par. 70).
Uruma discloses having a blood coagulant or red blood cell flocculant as the stored waste liquid treating agent (see par. 75), the waste liquid including blood (see par. 30, 75). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the waste liquid treating agent that is the second material of Harpham and Seddon include flocculant, as such a material for treating blood is disclosed by Uruma and would predictably result in precipitation as aggregates in the waste liquid receiving space by the flocculant (see par. 75) for treatment of the waste liquid.
Regarding claim 19, Harpham, Seddon, and Uruma disclose the limitations of claim 17 but do not specifically teach the first material of the first compartment comprises a red blood cell coagulant.
Uruma discloses having a blood coagulant or flocculant as the stored waste liquid treating agent (see par. 75). Seddon discloses having the different compartments store a multiple selection of additives or contents available for adding to the contents of a container (see par. 77). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have blood coagulant in one of the first and second compartments and have flocculant in the other of the first and second compartments, as Seddon discloses allowing for a selection of additives for adding contents of a container and Uruma discloses the additives of coagulant and flocculant as options for adding to stored waste liquid. This would predictably result in allowing for the option of either adding a coagulant or a flocculant, both additions disclosed by Uruma as useful for treating waste liquid.
Regarding claim 20, Harpham, Seddon, and Uruma disclose the limitations of claim 19 and Uruma further discloses the red blood cell flocculant is in an amount suitable for sedimenting red blood cells within a volume of fluid (see par. 75).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, and 5-7 of U.S. Patent No. 11,559,466, hereinafter ‘466. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
The following claims of the current application are disclosed by the claims of ‘466 as indicated below:
Application claim
1
2
3
4
5
6
‘466 claim
1
1
1
1
3
1
Application claim
7
8
9
10
11
12
‘466 claim
5
1
1
6
1
1
Application claim
13
14
15
16
17
19
20
‘466 claim
1
7
7
7
7
7
7
Regarding claim 18, claim 9 of ‘466 discloses substantially all limitations required by claim 18 except for the red blood cell flocculant that is in the second compartment comprising polyDADMAC. However, claim 9 of ‘466 discloses a red blood cell flocculant that comprises polyDADMAC and consequently, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the red blood cell flocculant that is the second compartment be polyDADMAC as this would predictably result in the type of material, flocculant, required, and ‘466 discloses such a flocculant for use in a covering and/or lid assembly chamber.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Oleti (US 2018/0251287) discloses different compartments for the same or different materials in a covering and/or lid assembly with the compartments being pushed to release contents of the compartments; Porter (US 2010/0044377) discloses different compartments in a removable cap for a container with the compartments being pushed to release contents of the compartments; Plone (US 5,147,337) discloses different compartments for a medicament dispenser carrier structure with the compartments being pushed to release contents of the compartments; Bennett et al. (US 3,326,363) discloses different compartments for a lid type closure with the compartments being pushed to release contents of the compartments; Uruma et al. (US 2022/0098064) discloses flocculants and solid compounds added to waste liquid treatment containing a body fluid.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARIANA ZIMBOUSKI whose telephone number is (303)297-4665. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 - 5:00 PST M-F.
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, REBECCA E EISENBERG can be reached at (571) 270-5879. 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.
/ARIANA ZIMBOUSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781
Prosecution Insights