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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 4/6/2026 has been entered: Claims 1-2, 4-17, 32, 42, and 44-45 are pending in the present application.
Claims 1, 4-5, 9, 17, and 42 are currently amended and claim 45 is new. Claim 32 is withdrawn. Claims 1-2, 4-17, 42, and 44-45 are under consideration.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to 1-2, and 4-16 have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of Applicant’s amendments. The 103 rejection of claims 1-2, 4-16, 42, and 44 has been withdrawn.
Regarding claim 17, Applicant notes the prior art did not appear to discuss the newly amended limitations of the projections configured to prevent the canister release mechanism from returning to an engaged position, as discussed in the interview on 4/1/2026. However, upon further review, the mechanism by which the projections (460) of Braga push the entire canister away from the pump device also appears to prevent returning to an engaged position by way of said projections filling the locking recesses during the disconnection process.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2, 4-16, 42, and 44 recite allowable subject matter.
Reasons for Allowance
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The closest prior art drawn to Gordon (US 2013/0150813 A1), fails to show or make obvious the claimed combination of elements, particularly the limitations as set for in claim 1, which recites features not taught or suggested by the prior art.
Gordon fails to teach a second noise reducing chamber positioned in the fluid path downstream of the negative pressure source and in fluid communication with the outlet of the first noise reduction chamber or a check valve positioned in the fluid flow path and configured to prevent fluid from flowing in a reverse direction back towards the negative pressure source, the check valve positioned downstream of the first noise reduction chamber.
While the use of additional noise reducing chambers and valves are generally known in the art of noise reduction, such as in Boennen et al. (US 2021/0108544 A1) or Davie et al. (US
2019/0001029 A1), said references still does not explicitly teach such elements in the claimed order. Thus, there does not appear to be clear motivation to modify Gordon as such.
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.
Claims 17 and 45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gordon, and further in view of Braga et al. (US 2009/0240218 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Gordon discloses a negative pressure wound therapy system (Figs. 1, 5, and 10-12; Abstract), comprising:
a pump device comprising a source of negative pressure (pump 44/248, described in ¶s 123, 164, 175) configured to be fluidly connected to a wound covered by a wound dressing (¶s 3, 20, and 30-31);
a canister couplable with the pump device and configured to collect fluid aspirated from a wound as a result of negative pressure being provided to the wound by the source of negative pressure (waste container 204; ¶s 30, 34-42, and 175); and
a canister release mechanism coupled with the pump device (catch arrangements 206), comprising an actuator coupled with one or more movable latches (clips 222), the canister release mechanism being configured to cause the pump device to disengage the canister form the pump device when the actuator is depressed;
wherein:
the one or more latches are configured to move between a first position in which the one or more latches secure the canister to the pump device and a second position in which the one or more latches release the canister from the pump device when the actuator is depressed (¶ 175 describes how the catch arrangement functions to engage and disengage the canister from the pump; the engaging and disengaging function requiring actuation of the clip portions, such as an engaging finger to provide a hinge against the canister, or the textured clip ends, which a user may apply force to in order to operate the rest of the clip).
Gordon does not explicitly disclose the canister release mechanism comprises at least one projection configured to push the entire canister away from the pump device so as to move the entire canister away from the pump device when the actuator is depressed, and the at least one projection is configured such that, when the actuator is completely depressed, the at least one projection prevents the canister release mechanism from returning to an engaged position in which the canister is locked to the pump device
However, Braga teaches a wound therapy system (Fig. 1; Abstract), thus being in the same field of endeavor, comprising a canister release mechanism using projections which are configured to push the canister away from the pump assembly when the actuator is depressed (Figs. 7A-7B; ¶ 71 describes how the actuator button 458 is used to bias the canister away from the pump control unit 452), wherein said projections would also comprise movable latches (in their moving relative to/against the canister), where the at least one projection is configured such that, when the actuator is depressed, the at least one projection prevents the canister release mechanism from returning to an engaged position in which the canister is locked to the pump device (¶ 71 describes how the projections 460 are configured to engage with internal surfaces 462 when button 458 is depressed, which would prevent the locking latches 454 from engaging the internal surfaces 462 and thus returning to an engaged position).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Gordon to comprise the actuator and release mechanism of Braga. Doing so would be advantageous in providing a singular actuation point for the release of the canister, thus simplifying the design.
Further, the limitations of “the at least one projection configured to push the entire canister away from the pump so as to move the entire canister away from the pump device when the actuator is depressed” and “the at least one projection is configured such that, when the actuator is completely depressed, the at least one projection prevents the canister release mechanism from returning to an engaged position in which the canister is locked to the pump device” are considered functional language. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function, because apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. See MPEP 2112.02. Thus, if a prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use as recited the claim, then it meets the claim. In the instant case, the device of Gordon and Braga has all the structure of the device as claimed. As such, it is capable of performing the functions as claimed (i.e. the latch would be capable of pushing the entire canister away from the pump device so as to move the entire canister away from the pump device and when the actuator is depressed and preventing the canister release mechanism from returning to an engaged position).
Regarding claim 45, the limitations of “the at least one projection of the canister release mechanism is configured to move over a corresponding projection of the canister as the actuator is completely depressed to move the entire canister away from the pump device” are considered functional language. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function, because apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. See MPEP 2112.02. Thus, if a prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use as recited the claim, then it meets the claim. In the instant case, the device of Gordon and Braga has all the structure of the device as claimed. As such, it is capable of performing the functions as claimed (i.e. the outer cam surface 460 would move over the top edge of the canister that projects out from and above internal surfaces 462).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALESSANDRO R DEL PRIORE whose telephone number is (571)272-9902. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 - 5:30.
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.
/ALESSANDRO R DEL PRIORE/ Examiner, Art Unit 3781
/GUY K TOWNSEND/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781
Prosecution Insights