DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the first and second end covers (claim 13) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 2 should be amended to - guiding rail, at least one infusion clip, the at least one infusion clip is connected to the guiding rail, the guiding-. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 1 should be amended to - further comprising a [[steeper]] stepper motor, wherein-. 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:
The claim is unclear because of the limitation “at least one infusion clip, each infusion clip being connected to the CT gantry” in line 3. Its unclear if the claim requires at least one infusion clip or a plurality of infusion clips since the claim language “at least one infusion clip” suggests only one infusion clip is required to infringe the claim while the claim language “each infusion clip” suggests a plurality is required. For the sake of examination, the office has assumed that only one infusion clip is required to infringe the claim however the applicant should amend the claim to clarify.
Claims 2-20 are rejected due to their dependence on claim 1.
Regarding claims 2, 3, 5, 8, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 20:
The claim is unclear because of the limitation “the infusion clip” in the claim This limitation suggests the only one infusion clip is required when the limitation “at least one infusion clip” in line 3 of claim 1 (on which this claim depends) suggests that one or more infusion clips can infringe this claim. For the sake of examination, the office has assumed that one or more infusion clips can infringe the claim however the applicant should amend the claim to clarify.
Regarding claim 10:
The claim limitation “at least one infusion clip” in line 2 is unclear. The limitation is unclear because of the earlier recitation of the limitation “at least one infusion clip” in line 3 of claim 1 (on which this claim depends) which raises a question of if two of at least one infusion clips are required by the claim 10 or only one. For the sake of examination, the office has assumed that only one at least one infusion clip is required by the claim. However, the applicant should amend the claim to clarify.
Regarding claim 12:
The claim limitation “a plurality of infusion clips” in line 1 is unclear. The limitation is unclear because of the earlier recitation of the limitation “at least one infusion clip” in line 3 of claim 1 (on which this claim depends) which raises a question of if two plurality of infusion clips are required by the claim 12 or only one. For the sake of examination, the office has assumed that only one at least one infusion clip is required by the claim. However, the applicant should amend the claim to clarify.
Regarding claim 13:
The claim limitation “at least one infusion clip” in line 3 is unclear. The limitation is unclear because of the earlier recitation of the limitation “at least one infusion clip” in line 3 of claim 1 (on which this claim depends) which raises a question of if two of at least one infusion clips are required by the claim 13 or only one. For the sake of examination, the office has assumed that only one at least one infusion clip is required by the claim. However, the applicant should amend the claim to clarify.
Regarding claim 14:
The claim recites the limitation "the transfusion catheter" in lines 3 and 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 15-16 are rejected due to their dependence on claim 14.
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(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2005037163 A2 to Graham et al. (Graham) in view of CN 108704184 A to Guan (see English language machine translation attached to this or a previous office action).
Regarding claim 1:
Graham discloses:
A CT device (figure 5), comprising:
a CT gantry (see housing of 152 as shown in figure 5).
Graham fails to disclose:
At least one infusion clip, each infusion clip being connected to the CT gantry and configured to position an infusion assembly.
Guan teaches:
A shoulder transfusion device (figure 2) that includes a hook (9) for supporting a infusion bag (101) and a infusion clip (5) for supporting a catheter (as shown in figure 2). The system further teaches the hook and infusion clip can be added to the should support from other methods for convenience when the patient cannot lift the medication or for convenience (see page 1 and 2 of the English language machine translation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Graham to further include the hook and infusion clip and associated transfusion (infusion bad and infusion catheter) located on the gantry of the CT device based on the teaching of Guan in order to conveniently located the medication or other equipment for a transfusion of the patient (Guan, see pages 1 and 2 of the translation).
Further, the applicant should note that the system in Graham is a CT device that is used with infusion systems that can be attached to different structures for convenience (page 1, lines 15-20; page 13, lines 10-15; page 4, lines 25-30; page 13, lines 10-15).
Regarding claim 2:
All limitations of the claim are taught by the 35 USC 103 rejection of claim 1 by Graham and Guan:
The CT device according to claim 1, further comprising: a hook (see the hook of Guan incorporated into Graham), connected to an upper portion of the CT gantry (see the hook in Guan at a higher location), wherein the infusion assembly comprises an infusion bag and an infusion catheter (see the catheter and infusion bag of Guan incorporated into Graham as part of the hook and infusion clip), the hook is configured to hang the infusion bag, and the infusion clip is configured to carry the infusion catheter (as shown in figure 2 of Guan).
Regarding claim 3:
All limitations of the claim are taught by the 35 USC 103 rejection of claim 1 by Graham and Guan:
The CT device according to claim 2, wherein the infusion catheter is fixed to the infusion clip (as shown in Guan the infusion catheter is fixed to the infusion clip as shown in figure 2 and would be incorporated to the gantry of Graham in the same manner) or movably provided on the infusion clip.
Regarding claim 4:
Graham discloses:
The CT device according to claim 2, wherein the hook is fixed to the CT gantry (as shown in Guan the hook is fixed to a flat surface 1 as shown in figure 2 and would be incorporated to the gantry of Graham in the same manner) or slidably connected to the CT gantry.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2005037163 A2 to Graham et al. (Graham) and CN 108704184 A to Guan as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of CN 108578813 A to Zhang et al. (Zhang)(see English language machine translation attached to this or a previous office action.
Regarding claim 12:
Graham and Guan fail to disclose:
The CT device according to claim 1, wherein a plurality of infusion clips are provided on the CT gantry.
Zhang teaches:
An infusion device (figure 2) that includes a plurality of hooks (10) and a plurality of clips (11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Graham and Guan to multiply the number of infusion clips and hangers as taught by Zhang in order to increase the amount of medication that can be supplied or supported.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5-11 and 13-20 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following is pertinent prior art:
US-20070239121-A1
Tully
See the clip 101
US-20140324024-A1
Tejani
See the clip 100
CN-215425785-U
CHEN
See the hanger 10
CN-106620923-A
QIN
See the hanger 9
CN-108095961-A
JIN
See the hanger 11
DE-19631877-A1
FUCHS
See the clip 6
CN-107550511-A
ZHANG
See the support “SF”
KR-101640481-B1
KIM
See the hanger 17
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WESLEY HARRIS whose telephone number is (571)272-3665. The examiner can normally be reached M to F, 9am-5pm.
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, Michael Tsai can be reached on (571) 270-5246. 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.
/WESLEY G HARRIS/Examiner, Art Unit 3783