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 .
This action is in response to Applicant’s amendments filed 6/29/2026.
Claims 1, 2, 7, 10-14, and 20 are amended.
Claims 8 and 9 are cancelled.
Claims 1-7 and 10-22 are being examined in this Office Action.
Claim Objections
Claims 6 and 20-22 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the at least one pressure sensor” in line 3. This should read “the
Claim 20 recites the limitation “the cassette” in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner recommends amending the claim to read “a
All remaining claims are objected to by virtue of their dependence on an objected claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7, 10, 13, 15, 17, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gylland et al. (Pub. No. US 20200324044 A1, herein Gylland) in view of Burlat et al. (Pub. No. US 20180185574 A1, herein Burlat) and Dudar et al. (Pub. No. US 20140074027 A1, herein Dudar)
Regarding Claim 1, Gylland discloses a control system for controlling operation of an infusion pump of an infusion pump system (Fig. 1A), the infusion pump system comprising a first IV bag (110) and a first supply line (150), a second IV bag (120) and a second supply line (160), a cassette (“the infusion pump 130 can be a fluid displacement pump employing a cassette” – Paragraph [0024]) and a common channel (140) in selective fluidic communication with the first supply line and the second supply line (“The infusion pump 130 is operable to: infuse the first fluid 112 at a first rate along a first flow path 150 including the first reservoir 110, the junction 180, and the common line 140; receive a common line flush volume value for the common line 140; switch from the first flow path 150 to a second flow path 160 including the second reservoir 120, the junction 180, and the common line 140” – Paragraph [0024]), and an infusion pump (130), wherein the infusion pump is operable to drive liquid through the cassette or cartridge and the common channel to a patient (Fig. 1A), the control system comprising:
one or more hardware processors (“The control system can include one or more hardware processors for executing instructions” – Paragraph [0010]); and
a memory storing executable instructions that when executed by the one or more hardware processors (Paragraph [0008]), configure the infusion pump to:
draw a first liquid from the first IV bag and first supply line and into the cassette (Paragraph [0024]);
automatically discontinue drawing the first liquid from the first IV bag and first supply line and begin drawing a second liquid from the second IV bag and second supply line (“the infusion pump 130 is operable to… switch from the first flow path 150 to a second flow path 160 including the second reservoir 120, the junction 180, and the common line 140” – Paragraph [0024]), after determining that the first IV bag is in a depletion zone (“The control system can change infusion of the second fluid to a second rate along the second flow path based on the determination when the monitored volume of the second fluid meets or exceeds the first volume.” – Paragraph [0010]), such that the control system is capable of both transferring liquid in the first IV bag out of the first IV bag and into the cassette in a manner that does not introduce air or vacuum from the first IV bag into the cassette (“the infusion pump 130 can be operable to monitor the first fluid path and switch to delivery of the flush volume when the infusion pump detects a given threshold of air (as a single bubble, accumulated bubbles, or by percentage volume) in the first fluid path.” – Paragraph [0025]).
Gylland does not expressly disclose the second liquid being the same as the first liquid,
automatically discontinue drawing liquid from the second IV bag and second supply line and begin drawing liquid from the first supply line upon determining that the first IV bag has been replaced with a third IV bag, and the second IV bag is in the depletion zone, and
wherein the control system is configured to deliver to the patient substantially continuously liquid including during transitions between the first IV bag, and the second IV bag, and the third IV bag.
Burlat teaches the second liquid being the same as the first liquid (Paragraph [0018]),
automatically discontinue drawing liquid from the second medication container (100B) and second supply line (11B) and begin drawing liquid from and first supply line (11A) upon determining that the first medication container (100A) has been replaced with a third medication container (Paragraph [0025]), and the second medication container is in the depletion zone (Paragraphs [0023]-[0026], Examiner interprets when the first infusion device is nearly depleted and a control signal is issued by one of the processors constitutes a depletion zone), and
wherein the control system is configured to deliver to the patient substantially continuous liquid during transitions between the first medical container, the second medical container and the third medical container (Paragraphs [0047]-[0048]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the control system disclosed by Gylland the second liquid being the same as the first liquid, automatically discontinue drawing liquid from the second IV bag and second supply line and begin drawing liquid from and first supply line upon determining that the first IV bag has been replaced with a third IV bag, and the second IV bag is in the depletion zone, and wherein the control system is configured to deliver to the patient substantially continuous liquid during transitions between the first IV bag, the second IV bag and the third IV bag as taught by Burlat so that there may be a continuous infusion of a same medication, even if a medicament container is replaced (Burlat, Paragraph [0026]).
Modified Gylland in view of Burlat does not expressly disclose automatically purging air or vacuum from the first IV bag in the first supply line away from the cassette or cartridge.
Dudar teaches automatically purging air from the first fluid supply (30) in the first supply line (18) away from the cassette (“Control unit 12 is configured to monitor air sensor 72a and maintain the bypassing valve and air purge pumping state until air sensor 72a indicates that the medical fluid does not have air. In this instance, air sensor 72a is used as a feedback provider to control unit 12 Control unit 12 is alternatively configured to run open-loop and maintain this air purge recirculation state for an amount of time or number of pump strokes that is known or expected, e.g., determined empirically, to satisfactorily drive air back to fluid supply 30.” – Paragraph [0079], Fig. 4).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the control system disclosed by modified Gylland in view of Burlat to automatically purging air from the first IV bag in the first supply line away from the cassette as taught by Dudar in order to deliver an uninterrupted infusion of liquid and medications, even if air enters the infusion line (Dudar, Paragraph [0006]).
Regarding Claim 2, modified Gylland in view of Burlat and Dudar discloses the control system of claim 1, wherein the infusion pump is configured to automatically draw liquid from at least the second supply line (Gylland, “the infusion pump 130 can be operable to monitor the first fluid path and switch to delivery of the flush volume when the infusion pump detects a given threshold of air (as a single bubble, accumulated bubbles, or by percentage volume) in the first fluid path.” – Paragraph [0026]) until the infusion pump receives a signal from an air-in-line sensor (Dudar, 72a, Paragraph [0078]) detecting air within a region of the cassette inserted into the pump (Gylland, Paragraph [0026], junction 180 being within cassette in Fig. 1).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the control system disclosed by modified Gylland in view of Burlat wherein the infusion pump receives a signal from an air-in-line sensor as taught by Dudar so that a pump is able to remove air from the common line and back into a fluid supply (Dudar, Paragraph [0079]).
Regarding Claim 3, modified Gylland in view of Burlat and Dudar discloses the control system of claim 1, wherein the steps of determining that the first IV bag is in the depletion zone or determining that the second IV bag is in the depletion zone is based on a period of time for at least one of the first IV bag and the second IV bag to enter the depletion zone based upon a container volume (Burlat, Paragraphs [0023]-[0026]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the control system disclosed by modified Gylland in view of Dudar wherein the steps of determining that the first IV bag is in the depletion zone or determining that the second IV bag is in the depletion zone is based on a period of time for at least one of the first IV bag and the second IV bag to enter the depletion zone based upon a container volume as taught by Burlat so that when a medication container is depleted or nearly depleted, the control system may issue a signal to being infusion of a medical liquid within the second medical container (Burlat, Paragraph [0023]).
Regarding Claim 4, modified Gylland in view of Burlat and Dudar discloses the control system of claim 3.
Modified Gylland in view of Burlat and Dudar does not expressly disclose wherein the container volume is determined by an electronically readable data source on the first IV bag or second IV bag.
However, in a differing embodiment, Gylland discloses wherein the container volume is determined by an electronically readable data source on the first IV bag or second IV bag (“The possibility for manual typographical errors can be reduced by use of a barcode, radio frequency (RFID), optical, touch memory reader, near field communicator, or the like to input or scan a machine readable identifier on the infusion set, common line, or its package to obtain the volume value, the list number or other identifier associated with the volume value.” – Paragraph [0033]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the control system disclosed by modified Gylland in view of Burlat and Dudar wherein the container volume is determined by an electronically readable data source on the first IV bag or second IV bag as taught by the differing embodiment of Gylland so that a user is able to prevent manual error by scanning an identifier on the IV bag in order to determine container volume (Gylland, Paragraph [0033]).
Regarding Claim 7, modified Gylland in view of Burlat and Dudar discloses the control system of claim 1, wherein the infusion pump draws liquid from the first IV bag only upon receiving an indication of first IV bag liquid availability, and wherein the infusion pump draws from the second IV bag only upon receiving an indication of second IV bag liquid availability (Burlat, Paragraph [0040]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the control system disclosed by Gylland in view of Dudar wherein the infusion pump draws liquid from the first IV bag only upon receiving an indication of first IV bag liquid availability, and wherein the infusion pump draws from the second IV bag only upon receiving an indication of second IV bag liquid availability as taught by Burlat so that the infusion system is able to automatically switch infusion of the first liquid to infuse the second liquid (Burlat, Paragraph [0040]).
Regarding Claim 10, modified Gylland in view of Burlat and Dudar discloses the control system of claim 1, wherein the infusion pump is configured to automatically draw liquid from at least one of the first IV bag and the second IV bag for a predetermined period of time (Burlat, Paragraph [0046]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the control system disclosed by Gylland in view of Dudar wherein the infusion pump is configured to automatically draw liquid from at least one of the first IV bag and the second IV bag for a predetermined period of time as taught by Burlat so that medication may be administered to a patient over a long period of time at a constant dosage (Burlat, Paragraph [0005]).
Regarding Claim 13, Gylland discloses an infusion pump system configured to perform a method for controlling operation of an infusion pump of the infusion pump system (Fig. 1A), the infusion pump system comprising a first IV bag (110), a second IV bag (120), a cassette (“the infusion pump 130 can be a fluid displacement pump employing a cassette” – Paragraph [0024]), and a common channel (140) in selective fluidic communication with the first IV bag and the second IV bag (Fig. 1A, Paragraph [0024]), and an infusion pump (130), wherein the infusion pump is operable to drive fluid through the cassette and the common channel (Fig. 1A), the infusion pump system capable of executing the steps comprising:
drawing a first fluid from the first IV bag through the cassette or cartridge and into the common channel (“The infusion pump 130 is operable to: infuse the first fluid 112 at a first rate along a first flow path 150 including the first reservoir 110, the junction 180, and the common line 140” – Paragraph [0024], Fig. 1A);
automatically discontinuing drawing the first fluid from the first second IV bag and drawing a second fluid from the second first IV bag through the common channel (“(“the infusion pump 130 is operable to… switch from the first flow path 150 to a second flow path 160 including the second reservoir 120, the junction 180, and the common line 140” – Paragraph [0024])” – Paragraph [0024]) upon determining that the first second IV bag is in a depletion zone (“The control system can change infusion of the second fluid to a second rate along the second flow path based on the determination when the monitored volume of the second fluid meets or exceeds the first volume.” – Paragraph [0010]),
wherein fluid drawn from the second first IV bag through the cassette or cartridge and into the common channel is substantially successively continuous with fluid drawn from the first second IV bag through the cassette and into the common channel (“The infusion pump can deliver a first fluid from a first reservoir, then switch to delivering a second fluid from a second reservoir as per patient requirements. As discussed above, switching may result in some of the first fluid remaining in a common line.” – Paragraph [0022]).
Gylland does not expressly disclose the second fluid being the same as the first fluid.
Burlat teaches the second fluid being the same as the first fluid (Paragraph [0018]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the infusion pump system disclosed by Gylland wherein the second fluid is the same as the first fluid as taught by Burlat so that there may be a continuous infusion of a same medication (Burlat, Paragraph [0026]).
Modified Gylland in view of Burlat does not expressly disclose preventing air or vacuum from being introduced into the cassette; and
purging any air or vacuum from a fluid line into the second IV bag; and
Dudar teaches preventing air from being introduced into the cassette (“Control unit 12 is configured to monitor air sensor 72a and maintain the bypassing valve and air purge pumping state until air sensor 72a indicates that the medical fluid does not have air. In this instance, air sensor 72a is used as a feedback provider to control unit 12 Control unit 12 is alternatively configured to run open-loop and maintain this air purge recirculation state for an amount of time or number of pump strokes that is known or expected, e.g., determined empirically, to satisfactorily drive air back to fluid supply 30.” – Paragraph [0079], Fig. 4); and
purging any air from a fluid line (18) into a fluid supply (30, Paragraphs [0078]-[0079]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the infusion pump system disclosed by modified Gylland in view of Burlat to include purging any air from being introduced into the cassette; and purging any air from a fluid line into the second IV bag as taught by Dudar in order to deliver an uninterrupted infusion of liquid and medications, even if air enters the infusion line (Dudar, Paragraph [0006]).
Regarding Claim 15, modified Gylland in view of Burlat and Dudar discloses the infusion pump system of claim 13, wherein the infusion pump draws fluid from the first IV bag only upon determining first IV bag fluid availability, and wherein the infusion pump draws from the second IV bag only upon determining second IV bag fluid availability (Burlat, Paragraph [0040]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the infusion pump disclosed by Modified Gylland in view of Dudar wherein the infusion pump draws fluid from the first IV bag only upon determining first IV bag fluid availability, and wherein the infusion pump draws from the second IV bag only upon determining second IV bag fluid availability as taught by Burlat so that that the infusion system is able to automatically switch infusion of the first liquid to infuse the second liquid (Burlat, Paragraph [0040]).
Regarding Claim 17, modified Gylland in view of Burlat and Dudar discloses the infusion pump system of claim 13, wherein the infusion pump is configured to automatically draw fluid from at least one of the first IV bag and supply line and the second IV bag and supply line for a predetermined period of time (Burlat, Paragraph [0046]).
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 the infusion pump system disclosed by modified Gylland in view of Dudar wherein the infusion pump is configured to automatically draw fluid from at least one of the first IV bag and supply line and the second IV bag and supply line for a predetermined period of time as taught by Burlat so that so that medication may be administered to a patient over a long period of time at a constant dosage (Burlat, Paragraph [0005]).
Regarding Claim 20, Gylland discloses a control system for controlling operation of an infusion pump of an infusion pump system (Fig. 1A), the infusion pump system comprising a first IV bag (110), a second IV bag (120), a common channel (140) in selective fluidic communication with the first IV bag and the second IV bag (Fig. 1A), and an infusion pump (130), wherein the infusion pump is operable to drive fluid through the cassette (“the infusion pump 130 can be a fluid displacement pump employing a cassette” – Paragraph [0024]) and the common channel (Fig. 1A, Paragraph [0024]), the control system comprising:
one or more hardware processors (“The control system can include one or more hardware processors for executing instructions” – Paragraph [0010]); and
a memory storing executable instructions that when executed by the one or more hardware processors (Paragraph [0010]), configure the infusion pump to:
draw a first fluid from the first IV bag through the cassette and into the common channel (Paragraph [0024], Fig. 1A);
automatically discontinue drawing the first fluid from the first IV bag and draw a second fluid from the second IV bag through the cassette and into the common channel (“the infusion pump 130 is operable to… switch from the first flow path 150 to a second flow path 160 including the second reservoir 120, the junction 180, and the common line 140” – Paragraph [0024]), upon determining that the first IV bag is in a depletion zone (“The control system can change infusion of the second fluid to a second rate along the second flow path based on the determination when the monitored volume of the second fluid meets or exceeds the first volume.” – Paragraph [0010]), and
wherein fluid drawn from the first IV bag through the cassette and into the common channel is substantially successively continuous with fluid drawn from the second IV bag through the cassette or cartridge and into the common channel (“The infusion pump can deliver a first fluid from a first reservoir, then switch to delivering a second fluid from a second reservoir as per patient requirements. As discussed above, switching may result in some of the first fluid remaining in a common line.” – Paragraph [0022]).
Gylland does not expressly disclose the second fluid being the same as the first fluid, and
automatically discontinue drawing fluid from the second IV bag and draw fluid from a third IV bag that has replaced the first IV bag through the cassette and into the common channel upon receiving instructions to draw fluid from the third IV bag.
Burlat teaches the second fluid being the same as the first fluid (Paragraph [0018]), and
automatically discontinue drawing fluid from the second medication container (100B) and draw fluid from a third medication container that has replaced the first medication container (“The infusion process is then continued at the second flow rate F2, until the second medication container 100B is depleted or nearly depleted, upon which it can be switched over to another, third infusion device or it can be switched back to the first infusion device 1A whose medication container 100a has been refilled or replaced.” – Paragraph [0047]) through the cartridge (2, Fig. 5) and into the common channel (3) upon receiving instructions to draw fluid from the third medication container (Paragraphs [0023]-[0026], [0047]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the control system disclosed by Gylland wherein the second fluid being the same as the first fluid, and automatically discontinue drawing fluid from the second IV bag and draw fluid from a third IV bag that has replaced the first IV bag through the cassette and into the common channel upon receiving instructions to draw fluid from the third IV bag as taught by Burlat so that there may be a continuous infusion of a same medication, even if a medicament container is replaced (Burlat, Paragraph [0026])
Modified Gylland in view of Burlat does not expressly disclose that the control system is capable of both transferring remaining liquid in the first IV bag out the first IV bag and into the cassette in a manner that does not introduce air or vacuum from the first IV bag into the cassette or cartridge, or automatically purging air or vacuum from the first IV bag away from the cassette.
Dudar teaches automatically purging air or vacuum from the first IV bag away from the cassette (Paragraph [0079], Fig. 4).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the control system disclosed by modified Gylland in view of Burlat to include automatically purging air or vacuum from the first IV bag away from the cassette as taught by Dudar in order to deliver an uninterrupted infusion of liquid and medications (Dudar, Paragraph [0006]).
Claim(s) 5, 6, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Gylland in view of Burlat and Dudar, further in view of Vanderveen et al. (US 7561986 B2, herein Vanderveen).
Regarding Claim 5, modified Gylland in view of Burlat and Dudar discloses the control system of claim 1.
Modified Gylland in view of Burlat and Dudar does not expressly disclose wherein the steps of determining that the first IV bag is in the depletion zone or determining that the second IV bag is in the depletion zone is based on a signal from a pressure sensor in communication with a respective IV bag and supply line.
Vanderveen teaches wherein the steps of determining that the first IV bag is in the depletion zone or determining that the second IV bag is in the depletion zone is based on a signal from a pressure sensor (255) in communication with a respective IV bag (205) and supply line (Col. 7 Lines 37-47, Fig. 4).
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 the control system disclosed by modified Gylland in view of Burlat and Dudar wherein the steps of determining that the first IV bag is in the depletion zone or determining that the second IV bag is in the depletion zone is based on a signal from a pressure sensor in communication with a respective IV bag and supply line as taught by Vanderveen so that a user is able to determine when an IV bag is empty via a sensor (Vanderveen, Col. 7 Lines 43-47).
Regarding Claim 6, modified Gylland in view of Burlat, Dudar, and Vanderveen discloses control system of claim 5, wherein the steps of determining that the first IV bag is in the depletion zone or determining that the second IV bag is in the depletion zone is based on an upstream pressure measured by the at least one pressure sensor (Vanderveen, Col. 7 Lines 37-47, Fig. 4).
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 the control system disclosed by modified Gylland in view of Burlat and Dudar wherein the steps of determining that the first IV bag is in the depletion zone or determining that the second IV bag is in the depletion zone is based on an upstream pressure measured by the at least one pressure sensor as taught by Vanderveen so that a user is able to determine when an IV bag is empty via a sensor (Vanderveen, Col. 7 Lines 43-47).
Regarding Claim 14, modified Gylland in view of Burlat and Dudar discloses the infusion pump system of claim 13.
Modified Gylland in view of Burlat and Dudar does not expressly disclose wherein the determination that the first IV bag is depleted and the determination that the second IV bag is depleted are based on an upstream pressure measured by at least one pressure sensor.
Vanderveen teaches wherein the determination that the first IV bag is depleted and the determination that the second IV bag is depleted are based on an upstream pressure measured by at least one pressure sensor (Col. 7 Lines 37-47, Fig. 4).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the infusion pump system disclosed by Modified Gylland in view of Burlat and Dudar wherein the determination that the first IV bag is depleted and the determination that the second IV bag is depleted are based on an upstream pressure measured by at least one pressure sensor as taught by Vanderveen so that a user is able to determine when an IV bag is empty (Col. 7 Lines 43-47).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gylland in view of Burlat and Dudar, further in view of Lopez et al. (US 11007119 B2, herein Lopez).
Regarding Claim 16, modified Gylland in view of Burlat and Dudar discloses the infusion pump system of claim 15.
Modified Gylland in view of Burlat and Dudar does not expressly disclose wherein the determination of second IV bag fluid availability is based on a threshold weight of at least one of the first IV bag and the second IV bag.
Lopez teaches wherein the determination of second IV bag fluid availability is based on a threshold weight of at least one of the first IV bag and the second IV bag (Col. 36 Lines 13-31).
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 the infusion pump system disclosed by modified Gylland in view of Burlat and Dudar wherein the determination of second IV bag fluid availability is based on a threshold weight of at least one of the first IV bag and the second IV bag as taught by Lopez so that users are able to determine if a proper amount of fluid has been delivered to a patient (Lopez, Col. 36 Lines 24-31).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11, 12, 18, 19, 21, and 22 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art of record fails to disclose or make obvious the claimed invention, including the following features:
Regarding Claim 11, wherein discontinuing drawing liquid from the first IV bag further comprises back priming liquid from the common channel into the first IV bag.
Regarding Claim 12, wherein discontinuing drawing liquid from the second IV bag further comprises back priming liquid from the common channel into the second IV bag.
Regarding Claim 18, wherein discontinuing drawing fluid from the first IV bag further comprises back priming fluid from the cassette or cartridge into the first IV bag.
Regarding Claim 19, wherein discontinuing drawing fluid from the second IV bag further comprises back priming fluid from the cassette or cartridge into the second IV bag.
Regarding Claim 21, wherein discontinuing drawing fluid from the first IV bag further comprises back priming fluid from the cassette or cartridge into the first IV bag.
Regarding Claim 22, wherein discontinuing drawing fluid from the second IV bag further comprises back priming fluid from the cassette or cartridge into the second IV bag.
The combination of the claimed limitations is novel and found to be allowable over the prior art. The cited references taken singly or in combination do not anticipate or make obvious the Applicant’s claimed invention.
Examiner notes that the limitations indicated as containing allowable subject matter above are done so in context of the claims as a whole – e.g. the cited portions of claim 11 are allowable in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 6/29/2026 have been fully considered.
In regards to Applicant’s argument:
“Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112 as being indefinite. In particular, the Office Action notes that "the at least one pressure sensor" recited in claim 14 lacks antecedent basis. Applicant has amended claim 14 to recite "at least one pressure sensor."
This argument is persuasive and the 35 U.S.C. § 112b rejection for claim 14 has been withdrawn.
In regards to Applicant’s argument:
“Jacobson does not disclose every element of amended independent claims 1, 13, or 20. Claims 2-4, 7, 10, and 12 depend from claim 1; claims 15, 17, and 19 depend from claim 13; and claim 22 depends from claim 20. These dependent claims are patentable over Jacobson for at least the same reasons as their respective independent claims, in addition to their further limitations. Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the rejection.”
This argument is persuasive and the 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection for claims 1-4, 7, 10, 12, 13, 15, 17, 19, 20, and 22 have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Gylland, Burlat, and Dudar.
In regards to Applicant’s argument:
“At least for these reasons, none of claims 1, 13 and 20, nor the claims that depend from them are obvious in view of Jacobson, alone or in any alleged combination with Vanderveen and/or Lopez. Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the rejections.”
This argument is persuasive and the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection for claims 5, 6, 11, 14, 18, and 21 are withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made of in view of Gylland, Burlat, and Dudar.
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 Mark Golovan whose telephone number is (571)272-2119. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am-4:30pm Alt. Fri off.
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, Chelsea Stinson can be reached at 571-270-1744. 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.
/MARK GOLOVAN/ Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3783
/CHELSEA E STINSON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3783
