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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1-5, 7, and 9-10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 2: “blood and/or plasma” should read --the blood and/or plasma--
Claim 1, line 3: “said robot” should read --said at least one robot--
Claim 1, line 4: “said robot” should read --said at least one robot--
Claim 1, line 5: “the stations” should read --the plurality of stations--
Claim 1, line 5: “the robot” should read --the at least one robot--
Claim 1, line 6: “said stations” should read --said plurality of stations--
Claim 2, line 2: “the robot” should read --said at least one robot--
Claim 3, line 2: “the stations” should read --the plurality of stations--
Claim 4, line 2: “comprise” Should read --comprises--
Claim 5, line 2: “the robot” should read --said at least one robot--
Claim 5, line 2: “the tissue” should read --tissue--
Claim 7, lines 2-3: “the presence of patients at the stations” should read --a presence of patients at the plurality of stations--
Claim 9, line 2: “wherein it comprises” should read “comprising”
Claim 10, lines 2-3: “blood and/or plasma” should read --the blood and/or plasma--
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 2-3 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 2 recites the limitation “an articulated robot comprising rotary” in line 2, which does not make grammatical sense. Clarification requested. Suggested correction: “an articulated robot a comprising rotary element”.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "either side" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 and 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Li (CN 111671441) (cited by Applicant).
Regarding claim 1, Li teaches a unit (Fig. 1 ) for automatically collecting blood and/or plasma, comprising a plurality of stations (mounting seat 6, bottom plate 2, recessed hole 22) for automatically collecting blood and/or plasma and at least one robot, said robot having a blood vessel detector (Page 6, lines 3-4 binocular camera finds the position of the venous blood vessel), wherein said robot is fitted on a linear guide (translation device 31) and is movable on said linear guide (horizontal rail 311, vertical rail 313), and in that the stations are laid out along the linear guide such that the robot can move along the linear guide to access said stations. (See Figs. 1-2)
Regarding claim 2, Li teaches wherein the robot is an articulated robot comprising rotary and/or joints. (See Fig. 3, connecting rod 321, first joint 325, second 326).
Regarding claim 3, Li teaches wherein the stations (mounting seat 6, bottom plate 2, recessed hole 22) are laid out on either side of the linear guide (311, 313). (See Fig. 1)
Regarding claim 5, Li teaches wherein the robot comprises a puncture means for puncturing the tissue of a patient. (Fig. 4, puncture mechanism 442)
Regarding claim 6, Li teaches wherein the puncture comprises a needle (427), a clamp for supporting said needle (fixing block 428), and a linear actuator (motor 422). (See Fig. 6)
Regarding claim 7, Li teaches wherein at least one signal for indicating the presence of patients at the stations. (Page 3, line 1 binocular camera collects the vein position signal, which indicate the presence of patients).
Regarding claim 8, Li teaches wherein the guide comprises rails (horizontal rail 311, vertical rail 313).
Regarding claim 10, Li teaches a blood/or plasma donation center, wherein the donation center comprises at least one unit for automatically collecting blood and/or plasma. (Page 4, lines 29-32 of Machine Translation, the extracted blood is transmitted to the external vacuum test tube to store through the vacuum conveying tube.)
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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Harris (US 20120190981) (cited by Applicant).
Regarding claim 4, Li does not teach “wherein the detector for detecting blood vessels comprise an ultrasound machine and an infrared camera.”
Harris, in a related field of endeavor, teaches a system for autonomous intravenous needle insertion wherein the detector for detecting blood vessels comprise an ultrasound machine (64) and an infrared camera (61). (See Fig 3A, 3B; Paragraph [0046])
As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Li to teach to “wherein the detector for detecting blood vessels comprise an ultrasound machine and an infrared camera” as taught by Harris. Doing so highlights the difference in contrast between a vessel and the surrounding skin when the region of interest is illuminated by infrared radiation and determines flow in a vessel using Doppler Shift analysis or it may be used to image veins underneath the skin. (Paragraph [0032]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Kopperschmidt (US 20190380645) (cited by Applicant).
Regarding claim 9, Li does not specifically teach “wherein it comprises more than one robot”.
Kopperschmidt, in a related field of endeavor, teaches a detection apparatus for detecting and manipulating a blood vessel wherein it comprises more than one robot. (Paragraph [0057] two cannulation robots can be set up for puncturing blood vessels at different parts of the body).
As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Li to teach to “wherein it comprises more than one robot” as taught by Kopperschmidt. Doing so enables a set up for puncturing blood vessels at different parts of the body by, for example, a first cannulation robot being configured for cannulation on an arm and a second cannulation robot being configured for cannulation on a leg, such that the selection of the appropriate cannulation robot can ensue in patient-specific and/or treatment-specific manner. (Paragraph [0057]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Om A. Patel whose telephone number is (571)272-6331. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 a.m. - 5 p.m..
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, Jennifer Robertson can be reached at (571) 272-5001. 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.
/OM PATEL/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/JENNIFER ROBERTSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791