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 listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered:
Application No. 18/116,527 (paragraph [0215])
The information disclosure statements filed August 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 the information referred to therein has not been considered:
No copy of CN 307831980 has been provided
No copy of EP 1309364 has been provided
No copy of EP 2783717 has been provided
No copy of EP 2999449 has been provided
No copy of EP 3509660 has been provided
No copy of FR 2821762 has been provided
No copy of FR 2880261 has been provided
No copy of FR 3043918 has been provided
No copy of WO 2008016777 has been provided
The information disclosure statements filed August 14, 2023, fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered:
No English translation of EP 2007869 has been provided
No English translation of EP 2179648 has been provided
No English translation of EP 2393521 has been provided
No English translation of EP 2482851 has been provided
No English translation of EP 2816991 has been provided
No English translation of EP 2934626 has been provided
No English translation of EP 2999450 has been provided
No English translation of EP 3278106 has been provided
No English translation of EP 3509659 has been provided
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 14, and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In regards to claim 2, line 4, “an increase in size” should be changed to “wherein an increase in the size”.
In regards to claim 2, line 5, “a decrease in size” should be changed to “a decrease in the size”.
In regards to claim 14, line 1, “moving” should be changed to “the pivoting”.
In regards to claim 18, line 4, “define” should be changed to “defines”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 3-10, 14, 17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Speidel (US 4,667,924).
In regards to claim 3, Speidel teaches a flexure block (Figures 7-11), comprising:
a body (22) having a sensor aperture (labeled in Figure 11 below)
a lever arm (39) configured to pivot about a pivot axis (41), the lever arm including a tubing contact section (38) and a sensor contact section (labeled in Figure 11 below)
a first flexure (55 or 64) extending from the body, the first flexure configured to couple with the lever arm (Figures 7/11)
a second flexure (64 or 55) extending from the body, the second flexure configured to couple with the lever arm (Figures 7/11)
a fixed wall section (61) coupled to the body, the fixed wall section disposed offset a tubing gap distance from the tubing contact section of the lever arm (Figures 7/11)
wherein the lever arm is pivotable about the pivot axis between an unpivoted state (Figure 11) and a pivoted state (Figure 7), wherein the sensor contact section of the lever arm is arranged a first distance from the sensor aperture in the unpivoted state (Figure 11) and a second distance from the sensor aperture in the pivoted state (Figure 7), the first distance (Figure 11) being greater than the second distance (Figure 7)
PNG
media_image1.png
485
541
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 4, Speidel teaches wherein an increase to the tubing gap distance pivots the lever arm about the pivot axis and proportionally moves the sensor contact section closer to the sensor aperture (Figure 7).
In regards to claim 5, Speidel teaches a first flexure support arm (labeled in Figure 11 below) and a second flexure support arm (labeled in Figure 11 below), the first flexure support arm configured to couple with the body and be positioned on a first side of the lever arm (Figures 7/11), the second flexure support arm configured to couple with the body and be positioned on a second side of the lever arm (Figures 7/11).
PNG
media_image2.png
413
663
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 6, Speidel teaches wherein the first flexure (55) is configured to couple between the first flexure support arm and the lever arm (Figures 7/11) and the second flexure (64) is configured to couple between the second flexure support arm and the lever arm (Figures 7/11).
In regards to claim 7, Speidel teaches wherein the body, the first flexure support arm, the second flexure support arm, the lever arm, the first flexure, the second flexure, and the fixed wall section are integrally formed from a material (Figures 7/11).
In regards to claim 8, Speidel teaches wherein the material is plastic (column 4, lines 14-16).
In regards to claim 9, Speidel teaches wherein the body, the first flexure support arm, the second flexure support arm, the lever arm, and the fixed wall section are formed from a first material and the first flexure and the second flexure are formed from a second material, wherein the first material is different from the second material (Figures 7/11).
In regards to claim 10, Speidel teaches wherein the first material is more rigid than the second material (Figure 11).
In regards to claim 14, Speidel teaches wherein moving the lever arm from the unpivoted state to the pivoted state causes the first flexure (55) to move away from a center of the flexure block and causes the second flexure (64) to move toward the center of the flexure block (Figure 11 to Figure 7).
In regards to claim 17, Speidel teaches wherein the sensor contact section comprises a finger protrusion extending in a direction perpendicular to an axis running along a length of the lever arm (Figures 7/11).
In regards to claim 19, Speidel teaches wherein the pivot axis is disposed between the lever arm and the body (Figures 7/11).
In regards to claim 20, Speidel teaches wherein the first flexure (64) joins the lever arm at a first point between the pivot axis and the tubing contact section and the second flexure (55) joins the lever arm at a second point between the pivot axis and the sensor contact section (Figures 7/11).
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 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Speidel, as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Natwick et al (US 5,055,001).
In regards to claim 13, Speidel is silent about wherein at least one of the first flexure or the second flexure is formed from a photochemically etched metal. Natwick et al teaches a flexure block (Figures 1-15) wherein at least one of a first flexure or a second flexure is formed from a metal (column 10, lines 16-17: flat metal spring flexures 110). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify at least one of the first flexure or the second flexure, of the flexure block of Speidel, to be formed from a metal, as taught by Natwick et al, as such will allow for flexing to enable the lever arm to pivot the tubing contact section away from the fixed wall section through a greater angle that would otherwise be possible, without closing off fluid flow through flexible tubing (column 10, lines 16-23). However, Natwick et al is silent about whether the metal is a photochemically etched metal. But the term “photochemically etched” is held as a process term in a product-by-process claim, and thus the patentability of the product does not depend upon its method of production. Structurally, the combination of Speidel and Natwick renders obvious the same structure of a flexure block comprising at least one of the first flexure or the second flexure including a metal, as taught by Natwick et al.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-12, 15-16, and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
In regards to claim 11, the prior art of record does not disclose or render obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the combination of a flexure block, as claimed, specifically including a seal configured to provide a fluid barrier between the sensor aperture and the tubing contact section of the lever arm.
Speidel teaches a flexure block (Figures 7-11).
However, Speidel does not teach a seal configured to provide a fluid barrier between the sensor aperture and the tubing contact section of the lever arm.
Thus, claim 11 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim 3, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim 3. Claim 12 is objected to by virtue of being dependent upon claim 11.
In regards to claim 15, the prior art of record does not disclose or render obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the combination of a flexure block, as claimed, specifically including wherein the pivot axis is defined by a virtual intersection point of the first flexure and the second flexure.
Speidel teaches a flexure block (Figures 7-11).
However, Speidel does not teach wherein the pivot axis is defined by a virtual intersection point of the first flexure and the second flexure, as Speidel instead teaches that a virtual intersection point of the first flexure (55) and the second flexure (64) is at the sensor aperture (labeled in Figure 11 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
485
541
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Thus, claim 15 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim 3, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim 3.
In regards to claim 16, the prior art of record does not disclose or render obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the combination of a flexure block, as claimed, specifically including wherein the pivot axis is disposed along a length of the lever arm between the tubing contact section and the sensor contact section.
Speidel teaches a flexure block (Figures 7-11).
However, Speidel does not teach wherein the pivot axis is disposed along a length of the lever arm between the tubing contact section and the sensor contact section, as Speidel instead teaches wherein the pivot axis (41) is disposed below the lever arm (39) (Figures 7/11).
Thus, claim 16 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim 3, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim 3.
In regards to claim 18, the prior art of record does not disclose or render obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the combination of a flexure block, as claimed, specifically including wherein a distance between the first point and the second point define a width of the lever arm.
Speidel teaches a flexure block (Figures 7-11) wherein the first flexure (55) joins the lever arm at a first point adjacent the pivot axis (Figures 7/11), wherein the second flexure (64) joins the lever arm at a second point adjacent the pivot axis (Figures 7/11).
However, Speidel does not teach wherein a distance between the first point and the second point define a width of the lever arm, as Speidel instead teaches wherein a distance between the first point and the second point define a length of the lever arm (Figures 7/11).
Thus, claim 18 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim 3, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim 3.
Claims 1-2 are allowed over the prior art of record.
In regards to claim 1, the prior art of record does not disclose or render obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the combination of a flexure-based tubing state sensor, as claimed, specifically including wherein the pressure sensor detects pressure at the tubing contact section via rotation of the lever arm and the sensor contact section acting on the pressure region.
Speidel teaches a flexure-based tubing state sensor (Figures 7-11)(column 4, lines 20-24: The front connector 24 on the right-hand side serves for the attachment of a pressure hose which links the air release valve 21 to an inflatable measuring cuff and, in most cases, also to a pressure gauge), comprising:
a flexure block (Figures 7-11) including
a body (22) having a sensor aperture (labeled in Figure 11 below)
a lever arm (39) configured to pivot about a pivot axis (41), the lever arm including a tubing contact section (38) and a sensor contact section (labeled in Figure 11 below)
a first flexure (55 or 64) extending from the body, the first flexure configured to couple with the lever arm (Figures 7/11)
a second flexure (64 or 55) extending from the body, the second flexure configured to couple with the lever arm (Figures 7/11)
a fixed wall section (61) coupled to the body, the fixed wall section disposed offset a tubing gap distance from the tubing contact section of the lever arm (Figures 7/11)
wherein the lever arm is pivotable about the pivot axis between an unpivoted state (Figure 11) and a pivoted state (Figure 7), wherein the sensor contact section of the lever arm is arranged a first distance from the sensor aperture in the unpivoted state (Figure 11) and a second distance from the sensor aperture in the pivoted state (Figure 7), the first distance (Figure 11) being greater than the second distance (Figure 7)
a pressure sensor (column 4, lines 20-24: The front connector 24 on the right-hand side serves for the attachment of a pressure hose which links the air release valve 21 to an inflatable measuring cuff and, in most cases, also to a pressure gauge) comprising a pressure region disposed adjacent the sensor aperture and in contact with the sensor contact section of the lever arm (Figures 7/11)
PNG
media_image1.png
485
541
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Speidel does not teach wherein the pressure sensor detects pressure at the tubing contact section via rotation of the lever arm and the sensor contact section acting on the pressure region, as Speidel instead teaches wherein the pressure sensor detects pressure of an inflatable measuring cuff (column 4, lines 22-24: an inflatable measuring cuff and, in most cases, also to a pressure gauge).
Thus, claim 1 is allowed over the prior art of record. Claim 2 is allowed over the prior art of record by virtue of being dependent upon claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHEFALI D PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-3645. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-4:30pm 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, Kevin C Sirmons can be reached at (571) 272-4965. 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.
/SHEFALI D PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3783