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 .
Amendment
The amendment filed 9/30/2025 has been entered:
Claims 1-11 are pending and under consideration in the present application. Claims 1 and 7 are currently amended with claims 12-18 being canceled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 9/30/2025, with respect to claim 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claim 1 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments with respect to claim 7 necessitated a new grounds of rejection in view of a previously uncited element of Wudyka. Thus, Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 7 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-6 are allowed.
Reasons for Allowance
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowable subject matter:
The closest prior art drawn to Wudyka, 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.
While Wudyka fails to explicitly teach a base support positioned inside the canister… comprising a filter support portion and one or more support tabs… wherein the fluid sensors are supported by the one or more support tabs of the base support.
Further, Wudyka already teaches similar filter and base support elements (filter 760 and frame 612, or ), while the fluid sensors are supported by a distinct structure. As such, it does not appear obvious to incorporate duplicate elements or to rearrange said structures to read on Applicant’s invention as claimed.
References such as Lina (US 2004/0006319 A1) also disclose having both a filter support and fluid level transducers, but similarly do not disclose them in a combined configuration.
Thus, claims 1-6 are allowed over the prior art of record.
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 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wudyka (US 2010/0318071 A1), in view of Su et al. (US 2019/0059807 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Wudyka teaches a canister for negative pressure wound therapy (Fig. 2 shows system 200 comprising canister 242; Abstract) comprising:
a canister (canister 242; ¶s 38-39), comprising:
a canister housing comprising a top portion (canister top 336; ¶s 48-50) and a bottom (chamber 335) configured to store fluid aspirated from the wound (Fig. 4 best shows canister 242 with walls crating a housing; ¶s 38-39); and
a fluid level sensor fully enclosed within the canister housing comprising a pair of arms extending into an interior of the canister housing (sensors 320 in the form of electrode pair 425A and 425B; Fig. 4 shows how said sensors are enclosed within the interior volume of the canister) and configured to be in fluid communication with fluid aspirated from the wound, wherein the fluid level sensor is configured to detect a completed electrical circuit when the fluid aspirated from the wound comes into contact with the pair of arms of the fluid level sensor (¶s 57-59), and wherein the fluid level sensor is configured to detect a canister full condition when the electrical circuit is closed (¶s 7, 58, and 60 describe the canister full condition); and an electronic circuitry configured to read a sensor output and detect a state of the fluid level sensor and provide an indication of 584, a status of the canister (¶s 7, 41, and 57-69); and
a base support positioned inside the canister housing and offset from the top portion, wherein the base support is configured to support the pair of arms of the fluid level sensor (Fig. 5 shows side wall 580 and recessed portion 584 which can be seen in Fig. 4 as being offset from the top portion; ¶ 62 describes how the side wall supports the canister top 336 against the chamber 335, thus supporting the pair of arms of the fluid level sensors).
Wudyka does not explicitly teach that the reader is configured to wirelessly detect a state of the fluid level sensor.
However, in addressing the same problem as Applicant, the problem being communication between sensors and controllers, Su teaches a medical monitoring device comprising an electronic circuitry system (Fig. 7, computing device 30) and a series of sensors (sensors 21 and 23) which can use either wired or wireless communications, the wireless communications including NFC (¶ 45).
Thus, Su shows that wireless/NFC communication is an equivalent structure known in the art. Therefore, because these two connection/communication means were art-recognized equivalents before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute the wireless, NFC communications of Su for the wired communications of Wudyka.
Regarding claim 8, Wudyka further discloses the status of the canister comprises the canister full condition (¶s 7, 58, and 60 describe the canister full condition).
Regarding claim 9, as previously stated Su shows that wireless/NFC communication is an equivalent structure known in the art. Therefore, because these two connection/communication means were art-recognized equivalents before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute the wireless, NFC communications of Su for the wired communications of Wudyka. Doing so would thus comprise the fluid level sensor comprising NFC capabilities and also be configured to communicate with the reader using NFC.
Regarding claim 10, as previously stated Su shows that wireless/NFC communication is an equivalent structure known in the art. Therefore, because these two connection/communication means were art-recognized equivalents before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute the wireless, NFC communications of Su for the wired communications of Wudyka. Doing so would thus comprise the level sensor comprising NFC temper detection circuitry tamper detection circuitry.
Further, the limitations of “wherein responsive to the fluid aspirated from the wound completing a circuit in the NFC temper detection circuitry, the fluid level sensor is configured to detect the canister full condition” 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 2144. 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 Wudyka and Su has all the structure of the device as claimed. As such, it is capable of performing the functions as claimed (i.e. Wudyka is configured for canister full detection and would continue to be when modified with the NFC circuitry of Su).
Regarding claim 11, as previously stated Su shows that wireless/NFC communication is an equivalent structure known in the art. Therefore, because these two connection/communication means were art-recognized equivalents before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute the wireless, NFC communications of Su for the wired communications of Wudyka. Doing so would thus comprise the electronic circuitry comprising an antenna configured to communicate with the NFC tamper detection circuitry and facilitate the transmission and reception of data (as an antenna is inherently required for NFC communication).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendments 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