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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Please correct the chain of continuity in first paragraph in page 1 of the speciation filed on 8/1/2023 to include the updated event such as “ 16/707,211 filed December 9, 2019 and Now U.S. Patent No.11712402B2 issued on Aug. 1, 2023 which is a Continuation of U.S. Patent Application entitled “MULTI-MIX INFUSION BAG,” serial number 14/804,071, filed July 20, 2015 and Now US Patent 10500133 B2 issued on Dec. 10, 2019..etc.).
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-4 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5 of U.S. Patent No.11712402B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because :
The current claim 1 discloses a multi-mix infusion bag (claim 1, Col. 6, lines 1-68) comprising : a lower portion having a lower chamber (claim 1, Col. 6, lines 53-68); an upper portion comprising a plurality of chamber (claim 1, Col. 6, lines 53-68); a separating wall (claim 1, Col. 6, lines 53-68); a plurality of perforations (claim 1, Col. 6, lines 53-68 and Col. 7, lines 1-8).
Note that the current claim 1 is border than claim 1 of the patent as the patent include a dispensing device.
Also, the limitation in claim 2 of the current application ( patent, claim 2, Col. 7, lines 1-20), the limitation of claim 3 ( patent, claim 3, Col. 7, lines 1-20), the limitation of claim 4 ( patent, claim 4, Col. 7, lines 1-20).
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasso et al. (US 2005/0224372 A1) (“Sasso”) in view of Larkin (US. 4608043).
Re claim 1, Sasso discloses a multi-mix infusion bag (Fig. 1-2, abstract) comprising: a lower portion having a lower chamber(14); an upper portion (12a-b) comprising a plurality of chambers (12a-b), wherein each chamber is separated and contains an intravenous agent (¶0057); a separating wall (16a-b) located between the upper portion and the lower portion to prevent the intravenous agents in the plurality of chambers from entering the lower chamber (¶0057); and a plurality of perforations (18,18a-18b, ¶0056) formed in the separating wall (Fig. 2), wherein at least one perforation of the plurality of perforations corresponds to one chamber of the plurality of chambers (Fig. 2), and wherein each of the plurality of perforations provides fluid communication between each chamber and the lower chamber to transferred the separated intravenous agents into the lower chamber through the perforations for mixing of the intravenous agents (¶0056, ¶0057), but it fails to disclose wherein each perforation is formed in response to pressure applied to each chamber of the plurality of chambers of the upper portion to apply pressure to the separating wall.
However, Larkin disclose a multi-mix infusion bag (Fig. 1-5) and wherein perforation (16) is formed in response to pressure applied to each chamber of the plurality of chambers (42,, Col. 3, lines 1-10) of the upper portion to apply pressure to the separating wall (wall between to 42, 44, Col. 3, lines 1-10).
Thus, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modify teach perforations of Sasso so that each perforation is formed in response to pressure applied to each chamber of the plurality of chambers of the upper portion to apply pressure to the separating wall as taught by Larkin for the purpose of using an art recognized perforations that can be effectively rupture as desired for mixing the agents (Larkin , abstract, Col. 3, lines 1-10).
Re claim 2, Sasso discloses an outlet (30, ¶0056) coupled to the lower chamber (Fig. 2), wherein the mixed intravenous agents are dispensed through the outlet (¶0056).
Re claim 3, Sasso discloses an inlet coupled to the lower chamber (32, 28, ¶0057).
Re claim 4, Sasso discloses wherein an additive is flowed into the lower chamber through the inlet and mixed with the intravenous agents in the lower chamber (drug, ¶0057).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAMZA A. DARB whose telephone number is (571)270-1202. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-5:00 M-F (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, 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.
/HAMZA A DARB/Examiner, Art Unit 3783 /CHELSEA E STINSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3783