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 .
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 4 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 4, line 3: “the component” should apparently read --the filter component--.
In claim 14, line 2: “Gyroid” should apparently read --gyroid--.
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 10-18 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.
Claim 10 recites the limitations “a first passive valve” and “a second passive valve” in lines 2-3. It is not clear if these are intended to be separate from the passive valve previously recited in claim 1 (i.e., so that there are three passive valves) or if the passive valve recited in claim 1 is included in these passive valves.
Claim 11 recites the limitations “fluid” in line 6 and again in line 9, “a fluid reservoir” in line 6, and “a device” in lines 6-7. It is not clear if these are intended to refer to the same fluid recited in line 2, the fluid reservoir recited in line 2, and the (implantable) device recited in line 1, or to be separate components.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “honeycomb holes” in line 2. It is not clear what is meant by this limitation; e.g., does this mean holes in a honeycomb-shaped pattern or that the holes themselves are shaped like a honeycomb?
Claim 15 recites the limitation “the passive valve” in line 2. It is not clear if this is intended to refer to the first passive valve or the second passive valve.
Claims 12-18 are rejected by virtue of their dependence upon claim 11.
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.
Claims 1-3, 8, 11, 12, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Evans et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0273792 A1; hereinafter known as “Evans”).
Regarding claim 1, Evans discloses an electronic pump assembly (Abstract; [0039]), the electronic pump assembly comprising: a pump 106 configured to move fluid between from or to a fluid reservoir 102 of a device, the pump including a passive valve 110/112; a controller 108 configured to actuate the pump; and a flow modifier 108/110/112 configured to restrict a flow of fluid entering or within the pump ([0022]; [0031]-[0039]; [0053]; reversing valve may be taken to be the controller, or if it is electrically controlled, then that electrical control may be taken to be the controller; reversing valve, check valves, or filters may each be taken to be such a flow modifier).
Regarding claim 2, Evans discloses that the flow modifier includes a filter disposed within a fluid passageway connected to the pump ([0036]).
Regarding claim 3, Evans discloses that the filter is a first filter connected to an input of the pump, the electronic pump assembly including a second filter connected to an output of the pump ([0036]; on inlet and outlet check valves).
Regarding claim 8, Evans discloses that the flow modifier is defined by at least a portion of the passive valve ([0033]-[0034]).
Regarding claim 11, Evans discloses an implantable device (Abstract) comprising: a fluid reservoir 102 configured to hold fluid; an inflatable member 104; and an electronic pump assembly configured to transfer the fluid between the fluid reservoir and the inflatable member, the electronic pump assembly including: a pump 106 configured to move fluid between from or to a fluid reservoir of a device, the pump including a first passive valve 110 and a second passive valve 112 ; a controller configured to actuate the pump; and a flow modifier 108/110/112 configured to restrict a flow of fluid entering or within the pump ([0022]; [0031]-[0039]; [0053]; reversing valve may be taken to be the controller, or if it is electrically controlled, then that electrical control may be taken to be the controller; reversing valve, check valves, or filters may each be taken to be such a flow modifier).
Regarding claim 12, Evans discloses that the flow modifier includes a filter disposed within a fluid passageway connected to the pump ([0036]).
Regarding claim 15, Evans discloses that the flow modifier is defined by at least a portion of the passive valve ([0033]-[0034]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
Claims 4, 5, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Evans as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Jiang et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0039121 A1; hereinafter known as “Jiang”).
Regarding claim 4, Evans discloses the invention as claimed, see rejection supra, but fails to disclose that the filter includes a tubular member defining a cavity, the filter includes a filter component disposed within the cavity of the tubular member, the component defining a plurality of holes. Jiang discloses a similar apparatus (Abstract; [0003]) comprising a tubular member defining a cavity with a filter component disposed within the cavity, the component defining a plurality of holes 570, in order to provide a desired filter or flow-control function (Fig. 5B; [0050]-[0054]). 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 invention of Evans with such a filter as taught by Jiang in order to provide a desired filter or flow-control function.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Evans and Jiang discloses the invention as claimed, see rejection supra, and Jiang further discloses that the plurality of holes include linear holes (Fig. 5B; [0052]).
Regarding claim 13, Evans discloses the invention as claimed, see rejection supra, but fails to disclose that the filter includes a tubular member defining a cavity, the filter includes a cylindrical member disposed within the cavity of the tubular member, the cylindrical member defining a plurality of holes. Jiang discloses a similar apparatus (Abstract; [0003]) comprising a tubular member defining a cavity with a cylindrical member disposed within the cavity, the cylindrical member defining a plurality of holes 570, in order to provide a desired filter or flow-control function (Fig. 5B; [0050]-[0054]). 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 invention of Evans with such a filter as taught by Jiang in order to provide a desired filter or flow-control function.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Evans and Jiang discloses the invention as claimed, see rejection supra, and Jiang further discloses that the plurality of holes include holes include circular holes, Y-shaped holes, hexagonal holes, honeycomb holes, or holes arranged in a Gyroid lattice (Fig. 5B; [0052]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Evans and Jiang as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Keaney et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0043084 A1; hereinafter known as “Keaney”). The combination of Evans and Jiang discloses the invention as claimed, see rejection supra, but fails to disclose that the plurality of holes include conical holes. Keaney discloses a filter component that defines a plurality of conical holes in order to compensate for and/or maintain a constant pressure across the filter component (Fig. 3A; [0049]). 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 combination of Evans and Jiang with conical holes, as taught by Keaney, in order to compensate for and/or maintain a constant pressure across the filter component.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Evans and Jiang as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Jahangir (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0023110 A1). The combination of Evans and Jiang discloses the invention as claimed, see rejection supra, but fails to disclose that the filter component includes a cylindrical portion having a first end portion including a flat surface and a second end portion including a conical portion. Jahangir discloses a filter component that includes a cylindrical portion having a first end portion including a flat surface and a second end portion including a conical portion in order to fit snuggly within a tubular member ([0022]). 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 combination of Evans and Jiang with such a filter component shape as taught by Jahangir in order to fit snuggly within the tubular member.
Claims 9 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Evans and Jiang as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Herz et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0055889 A1; hereinafter known as “Herz”). The combination of Evans and Jiang discloses the invention as claimed, see rejection supra, but fails to disclose that the pump includes a piezo element, a diaphragm actuator, and a base plate defining an inlet port and an outlet port. Herz discloses a similar pump assembly (Abstract; [0002]) comprising a piezo element 210, a diaphragm actuator 110, and a base plate 750 defining an inlet port 752 and an outlet port 754 ([0170]-[0171]) in order to provide improved sealing while being easily produced ([0011]; [0173]). 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 combination of Evans and Jiang with such a pump as taught by Herz in order to provide improved sealing while being easily produced.
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weber et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0350712 A1; cited in the IDS filed 03 August 2023; hereinafter known as “Weber”), in view of Evans.
Regarding claim 19, Weber discloses a method of controlling an implantable device (Abstract), the method comprising; detecting a signal to actuate a pump 108/110 of an electronic pump assembly 106, the pump including a piezoelectric pump 220, and transferring, by the pump, fluid from a fluid reservoir 102 ([0033]; [0035]). Weber fails to expressly disclose that the pump has a passive valve, as well as restricting, by a flow modifier, a flow of fluid entering the pump. Evans discloses a similar method (Abstract) that uses a pump assembly comprising a pump 106 and a passive valve 110/112, as well as restricting, by a flow modifier, a flow of fluid entering the pump, in order to restrict/block fluid from entering the pump until pressure exceeds a threshold level and provide filtering ([0034]-[0036]). 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 invention of Weber with a passive valve and by restricting, by a flow modifier, a flow of fluid entering the pump, as taught by Evans, in order to restrict/block fluid from entering the pump until pressure exceeds a threshold level and provide filtering.
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Weber and Evans discloses the invention as claimed, see rejection supra, and Evans further discloses that the flow modifier is disposed in a fluid passageway between the fluid reservoir and the pump ([0036]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10, 17, and 18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: none of the prior art of record teaches or reasonably suggests such a pump that includes a piezo element, a diaphragm actuator, and a base plate with inlet and outlet ports, wherein the pump includes first and second layers of material that define first and second passive valves and that are disposed between the diaphragm actuator and the base plate, in combination with such devices.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THADDEUS B COX whose telephone number is (571)270-5132. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm.
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, Jason M. Sims can be reached at (571)272-7540. 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.
/THADDEUS B COX/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights