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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I directed to claim 17-29 in the reply filed on 09/01/2026 is acknowledged.
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 spring of claims 24-26 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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 17-23,27-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Lawrence et al. US 2008/0213113, hereafter Lawrence.
Regarding Claim 17, Lawrence discloses a clamping element for securing a tube (first and second tube holding devices (40)), the clamping element having a first guide and a second guide for receiving a tube (where one clamping device is interpreted as the first guide and the other is interpreted as the second guide, and where a tube is seen positioned within them in figure 10), wherein the first and second guides run towards each other (see figure 10, where the guides cause the tube to run through the pump), and wherein the clamping element is connectable to a pump device such that a tube guide can be formed by the first and second guides at a pump inlet and a pump outlet of the pump device (see figure 7).
Regarding Claim 18, Lawrence discloses the clamping element according to claim 17, wherein the clamping element is at least partially elastic (para. 0051, where the tube holding device may comprise an appropriate flexible material and is thus interpreted to be elastic).
Regarding Claim 19, Lawrence discloses the clamping element according to claim 17, wherein a first side portion of the clamping element is elastic (para. 0051, where the tube holding device may comprise an appropriate flexible material and is thus interpreted to be elastic). The examiner notes that the clamping devices, best seen in figure 8 have a first arm (47) and second arm (46), where the arms are interpreted a first and second side.
Regarding Claim 20, Lawrence discloses the clamping element according to claim 19, wherein the clamping element has at least one connecting element for connecting to a pump device. The examiner notes that as seen in figure 8, the tube holding members comprise a bottom portion that is narrower than the rest of the body. Per para. 0035, said portion is inserted into rigid wall cavity (270) of the pump device to hold the holding member in place. Therefore as this portion of the tube holder is narrower than the rest of the body and is configured to fit within cavity it is interpreted as a connecting element and further interpreted as a pin shaped protrusion (due to its comparatively thinner construction).
Regarding Claim 21, Lawrence discloses the clamping element according to claim 20, wherein the at least one connecting element comprises a pin-shaped protrusion. The examiner notes that as detailed under the rejection of claim 21, Lawrence discloses a pin-shaped protrusion.
Regarding Claim 22, Lawrence discloses the clamping element according to claim 20, wherein said connecting element is formed on a second side portion which lies opposite the first side portion. The examiner notes that as seen in figure 8 of Lawrence, the defined second portion (46) extends to form the connecting element. The defined first portion (47) is merely attached at hinge (45). Thus Lawrence reads to the claimed limitation.
Regarding Claim 23, Lawrence discloses the clamping element according to claim 17, wherein the first and second guides are formed on a first portion that is rotatable about an axis of rotation of a second portion. The examiner notes that both of the guides are formed from the defined first and second portions, as the guides are formed by the closing of the individual parts of the holders. The examiner notes that the first portion (47) is attached by a hinge (45) to the second portion (46), where figure 8 shows the opening direction, and figure 10 shows the open configuration. The examiner notes that as the first portion rotates, about a hinge, relative to the second portion (on which the hinge is formed), it is interpreted that the first portion is rotatable about an axis of rotation of the second portion.
Regarding Claim 27, Lawrence discloses the clamping element according to claim 23, wherein an axis of rotation about which the first portion is rotatable is arranged on the second portion. The examiner notes that as seen in figure 8, the hinge (axis of rotation) is formed on the defined second portion (46).
Regarding Claim 28, Lawrence discloses the clamping element according to claim 17, wherein the first and/or second guide is groove-shaped and/or receives the tube on two opposite sides of the tube. The examiner notes that both the first and second guide are groove shaped (see figure 8,10) and receive the tube on two opposite sides (the hold at opposite ends of the tube).
Regarding Claim 29, Lawrence discloses the clamping element according to claim 17, wherein the clamping element is assigned at least one extension which extends above the first guide and/or the second guide (figure 8, where the guides (lumen [43]) in the holding devices) are seen to be below an extension of the holding devices (where said extension includes grips (41)) such that the tube can be clamped between the first guide and the at least one extension and/or the second guide and the at least one extension (figure 8). The examiner notes that a tube within the lumen (43) and thus within the guide, would be clamped between the guide and the extension member (portion of the arms above the lumen), as the extension portions form at least a section of the lumen).
PNG
media_image1.png
362
396
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
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.
Claim(s) 24-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lawrence in view of Hankinson US3963023, hereafter Hankinson.
Regarding Claim 24, Lawrence discloses the clamping element according to claim 23 but fails to disclose wherein the first portion is preloaded by means of a spring in a first position, and wherein, in the first position, the first portion is at least partially spaced apart from the second portion, as no spring is disclosed.
Hankinson teaches a blood tubing holding device and is thus considered analogous to the claimed invention. Hankinson teaches a first portion interpreted as the door (door (48) with flange (54) as seen in figure 3), rotatably connected to a second portion (panel (14)) through a hinge (50). The hinge comprises a coil spring (52, column 3 lines 39-53) that functions as a cam to bias against the hinge and close the door over the rest of the device (column 3 lines 39-53). Therefore, as Hankinson teaches that coil springs can be used to bias hinges into a desired position, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the hinge of Lawrence with a coil spring to aid in the opening/closing of the hinge. Doing so would merely require combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, that being the opening/closing of a hinge, and thus a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Regarding Claim 25, Lawrence and Hankinson teach the clamping element according to claim 24, wherein the spring comprises a spiral spring. Per the rejection of claim 24, a coil spring is interpreted as a spiral spring.
Regarding Claim 26, Lawrence discloses the clamping element according to claim 24, wherein the axis of rotation is mounted on the second portion and the spring is mounted on the axis of rotation. The examiner notes that as seen in figure 8 of Lawrence, the hinge (axis of rotation) is formed on the defined second portion (46), and upon combination, as the hinge is biased about the spring, as seen in Hankinson, it is interpreted that the spring is mounted on the hinge and thus mounted on the axis of rotation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Matthew Wrubleski whose telephone number is (571)272-1150. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-4:00 EST.
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 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.
/MATTHEW WRUBLESKI/Examiner, Art Unit 3781
/ARIANA ZIMBOUSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781
Prosecution Insights