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 .
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 10 be found allowable, claim 19 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Applicant is advised that should claim 11 be found allowable, claim 20 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 2,3 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the connection element" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The examiner notes that it is unclear as to what the connection element is referring to as this term was not introduced in the claims prior to this instance. The examiner notes that for the purpose of examination the connection element is interpreted as the connector and therefore the cover must cover the connector.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the covered-connection connector" in line 1 and “the cover” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The examiner notes that “a” covered-connection connecter and “a cover” are introduced in claim 2. However, claim 3 depends from claim 1 and not claim 2. For the purpose of examination, it is interpreted that claim 3 depends from claim 2 as this is the claim in which “a covered-connection connector” and “a cover” are introduced.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-9,12-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Corazzari US 2022/0296798, hereafter Corazzari, in view of Schnell et al. US 2007/0179422, hereafter Schnell where Corazzari and Schnell are provided in the IDS.
Regarding claim 1, Corazzari discloses a pressure output device (POD) assembly (abstract, figure 1,9-11), comprising: a POD receptacle configured to be installed on the outer surface (figure 9, holder (1)); and a POD (figure 1,11, pod (2)) comprising an inlet port and an outlet port (7, where (7) are both blood hose ports for connecting to blood hoses in the system, where one is interpreted to be an inlet and the other is interpreted to be an outlet), and a sensor port (figure 11, (8), where (8) is an air chamber port connecting with holder port (14), where figure 11 shows the connection of the ports with and to port (37) said to be used with a sensor per para. 0076,0079), the POD configured to be removably installed within a POD seat formed in the POD receptacle (para. 0033), wherein the sensor port is arranged within a POD opening of the POD receptacle (as detailed above, air chamber port (8), interpreted to the sensor port is arranged to fit with holder port (14) of the receptacle and couple to a sensor).
The examiner notes that while the port (37) acts as a connector to the sensor as it allows for connection to a sensor, this is not specifically depicted in the figures, and therefore, as a means to achieve compact prosecution, the examiner provides a secondary reference, Schnell.
Schnell teaches a fluid system including a measurement pod and is thus considered analogous to the claimed invention. Schnell teaches a pod (see figure 2) comprises a port (116, see figure 8), where said port is in the form of a female Luer lock having lugs or screw threads or may be any other sealing/locking means (para. 0073). As further seen in figure 11, the pressure tubing, connecting to the pod, may comprise a male end (106) and a sleeve (108) to allow for a wide number of connections (para. 0079). Said pressure tubing (42a, interpreted to be substantially the same as (42)) can be seen connecting to a sensor (43) in figure 1. Therefore, as it is known that pressure pods in the art may comprise a Luer port for connecting with a corresponding connector and sleeve to ensure connection to tubing of a dialysis device, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide a connector for connecting the sensor line to the port (37) of Corazzari as Schnell teaches that connectors are known in the art for said purpose. As such, doing so would be combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (connecting a tubing line to a pressure pod), and thus a prima facie case of obviousness exists. It would have been further obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the port (37) of Corazzari as a female Luer connection as Schnell teaches that pressure pods may comprise a female Luer port for connecting to a connector. Doing so would merely involve the simple substitution of one known element (port) for another (female Luer port) to obtain predictable results (Connection to a connector), and thus a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
The examiner notes that upon the obviousness combinations, the prior arts teach a connector configured to be coupled to a measurement port (interpreted as pressure tubing portion connecting to the connector, where said tubing further connects to the sensor) arranged on an outer surface of a fluid processing system (seen to be external to the device of Corazzari per figure 11), and the POD receptacle configured to be coupled to the connector (figure 11 of Corazzari).
The examiner further notes that that one having ordinary skill in the art would reasonably determine that blood hoses in a dialysis system would be an input and output and thus the blood hose ports (7) of the pod of Corazzari would be an input and output port respectively.
Regarding claim 2, Corazzari and Schnell teach the POD assembly of claim 1, wherein the connector comprises: a covered-connection connector configured to be coupled to the measurement port; and a cover configured to be installed over the connection element. The examiner notes that as detailed under the rejection of claim 1, the prior art combination, found obvious to use a connector as detailed in Schnell to use with the device of Corazzari, where the connector comprises a male fitting (Schnell figure 11 (106) for connecting to a female port (116) of the pod, where a sleeve (108) is seen to be provided over the connection point. The examiner notes that the male-female connection is the connection point and the sleeve is interpreted as the cover.
Regarding claim 3, Corazzari and Schnell teach the POD assembly of claim 1, wherein the covered-connection connector comprises at least one flange configured to engage at least one groove of the cover when the cover is installed over the covered-connection connector. The examiner notes that as seen in figure 11 of Schnell, annotated below, the female port (116) comprises an extending portion seen to fit within a recessed portion of the cover (108) and thus is interpreted to read to the claimed invention.
PNG
media_image1.png
359
501
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Corazzari and Schnell teach the POD assembly of claim 1, wherein the connector comprises a direct-connection connector having a POD end configured to engage the POD receptacle. The examiner notes that as detailed under the rejection of claim 1, the prior art combination, found obvious to use a connector as detailed in Schnell to use with the device of Corazzari, where the connector comprises a male fitting (Schnell figure 11 (106) for connecting to a female port (116) of the pod, connected via lugs, screw thread, or other connection. The examiner notes that the male-female connection is the direct-connection point.
Regarding claim 5, Corazzari and Schnell teach the POD assembly of claim 4, wherein the direct-connection connector comprises ridges configured to engage at least one engagement structure of the POD receptacle when the POD receptacle is installed over the direct -connection connector. The examiner notes that as detailed under the rejection of claim 1 and 4, the prior art combination, found obvious to use a connector as detailed in Schnell to use with the device of Corazzari, where the connector comprises a male fitting (Schnell figure 11 (106) for connecting to a female port (116) of the pod, connected via lugs, screw thread, or other connections. The examiner notes that the lugs as detailed in the art are interpreted as ridges for engaging with the connector. Should applicant disagree, the examiner points to Schnell figure 11, where the female port (116) comprises an extending portion seen to fit engage with the external connector and thus is interpreted to read to the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 6, Corazzari and Schnell teach the POD assembly of claim 1, wherein the connector is configured to form a Luer connection with the measurement port. The examiner notes that as detailed under the rejection of claim 1, the prior art combination, found obvious to use a connector as detailed in Schnell to use with the device of Corazzari, where the connector comprises a male Luer fitting (Schnell figure 11 (106) for connecting to a female Luer port (116) of the pod, connected via lugs, screw thread, or other connection. The examiner notes that as said measurement port has been previously interpreted as the connection to the sensor, the male connector for connecting to the pressure tubing (and thus the sensor) connecting in a Luer fitting to the pod assembly reads to the claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 7, Corazzari and Schnell teach the POD assembly of claim 1, wherein the POD receptacle is configured to be coupled to the connector via a set screw fastener. The examiner notes that as detailed under the rejection of claim 1, the prior art combination, found obvious to use a connector as detailed in Schnell to use with the device of Corazzari, where the connector comprises a male Luer fitting (Schnell figure 11 (106) for connecting to a female Luer port (116) of the pod, connected via lugs, screw thread, or other connection. As a screw thread is a known connection method of connecting the connector to the POD receptacle, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use the screw thread as the Luer fitting (as compared to the previously applied “lug” or extending portion as seen in figure 11) as the screw+screw thread connection is explicitly disclosed by Schnell to be a suitable embodiment of the connection. As such, doing so would merely involve the simple substitution of one known element (Luer connection) for another (Luer connection with screw thread) to obtain predictable results (Connection to a connector), and thus a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Regarding claim 8, Corazzari and Schnell teach the POD assembly of claim 1, wherein the POD is configured to be installed within the POD receptacle by pushing the POD within the POD opening toward the fluid processing system until the POD is seated in the POD seat (para. 0067 of Corazzari, where the pod is placed within the receiving chamber of the holder). The examiner notes that as the pod is placed within the holder (seen in figure 6), however it is not specifically disclosed that the pod is pushed within the pod opening until it is seated. The examiner notes that placing the pod as seen in Corazzari would reasonably be placed and therefore at least “pushed” into placed (by positioning it in the proper location). Should applicant disagree, the examiner notes that per MPEP 2114 II "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Therefore as the structural limitations of the claimed limitation are met by the prior art device (See rejection of claim 1) and “pushing” the device into placed is understood to be functional language, the prior art reads to the claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 9, Corazzari and Schnell teach the POD assembly of claim 1, wherein the POD forms an interference fit with the POD seat when installed in the POD receptacle (Corazzari para. 0019, where the port of the cell and the holder form a force or friction fit, interpreted to be an interference fit).
Regarding claim 12, Corazzari and Schnell teach the POD assembly of claim 1, wherein the fluid processing device is a hemodialysis (HD) machine, where Corazzari discloses that the device is an extracorporeal blood treatment device such as a dialysis machine (para. 0007).
Regarding claim 13, Corazzari and Schnell teach the POD assembly of claim 1, wherein the measurement port is a pressure port of a hemodialysis (HD) machine. The examiner notes that as detailed under the rejection of claim 1, the combination of Corazzari and Schnell teach that the pressure line is connected to the pod and the sensor, where the measurement port is formed of the pressure tubing. Thus it is interpreted that the measurement port is a pressure port of the system as it is part of the pressure line. Corazzari discloses that the device is an extracorporeal blood treatment device such as a dialysis machine (para. 0007).
Regarding claim 14, Corazzari and Schnell teach the POD assembly of claim 13, wherein the POD is fluidically coupled with a pressure sensor of a hemodialysis (HD) machine to provide pressure readings for arterial or venous blood flowing through an extracorporeal circuit. The examiner notes that as detailed under the rejection of claim 1 and 13, the combination of Corazzari and Schnell teach that the pressure line is connected to the pod and the sensor, thus fluidly coupling the components.
Regarding claim 15, Corazzari and Schnell teach the POD assembly of claim 1, wherein the POD comprises a flange configured to engage a membrane of the POD to form a dimple in the membrane to prevent vapor lock between the membrane and an inner surface of the POD. As seen in figure 11 of Corazzari connection between port (8) of the pod and (14) of the holder comprises plastic layer (29 per para. 0076). It can be seen in figure 11 that the plastic layer and port connection extends into the chamber thus forming a flange. As the flange extends into the chamber it may engage with the membrane (4) based on pressure change. the examiner notes that per MPEP 2114 II "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Therefore as the prior art teaches an extending structure (flange) where said flange may contact the membrane based on pressure change (since the flange is within the chamber with the membrane) structural limitations of the claimed limitation are met by the prior art device (See rejection of claim 1) and the “formation of a dimple” as well as “prevention of a vapor lock” due to said flange are understood to be functional language, the prior art reads to the claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 16, Corazzari discloses a method of measuring pressure of blood flowing through an extracorporeal circuit of a dialysis machine, the method comprising: installing (figure 9,10, para. 0067) a pressure output device (POD) (figure 1,11, pod (2)) comprising an inlet port, an outlet port, (7, where (7) are both blood hose ports for connecting to blood hoses in the system, where one is interpreted to be an inlet and the other is interpreted to be an outlet) and a sensor port (figure 11, (8), where (8) is an air chamber port connecting with holder port (14), where figure 11 shows the connection of the ports with and to port (37) said to be used with a sensor per para. 0076,0079), in a POD assembly (figure 11), the POD assembly comprising: a POD receptacle figure 9, holder (1) configured to be installed on the outer surface wherein the POD is configured to be removably installed within a POD seat formed in the POD receptacle (para. 0033), wherein the sensor port is arranged within a POD opening of the POD receptacle (as detailed above, air chamber port (8), interpreted to the sensor port is arranged to fit with holder port (14) of the receptacle and couple to a sensor). The examiner notes that per para. 0007, the system is a hemodialysis. Corazzari further teaches the measuring of fluid pressure using a pressure sensor detecting movement of a membrane of the POD resulting from a flow of the blood through the POD (para. 0004,0013, where para. 0004 discloses how PODs known in the art function by having the membrane receive a line pressure and transmit that pressure through the system to a pressure signal).
The examiner notes that while the port (37) acts as a connector to the sensor as it allows for connection to a sensor, there is no specific disclosure of connection to a pressure port this is not specifically depicted in the figures, and therefore, as a means to achieve compact prosecution, the examiner provides a secondary reference, Schnell.
Schnell teaches a fluid system including a measurement pod and is thus considered analogous to the claimed invention. Schnell teaches a pod (see figure 2) comprises a port (116, see figure 8), where said port is in the form of a female Luer lock having lugs or screw threads or may be any other sealing/locking means (para. 0073). As further seen in figure 11, the pressure tubing, connecting to the pod, may comprise a male end (106) and a sleeve (108) to allow for a wide number of connections (para. 0079). Said pressure tubing (42a, interpreted to be substantially the same as (42)) can be seen connecting to a sensor (43) in figure 1. Therefore, as it is known that pressure pods in the art may comprise a Luer port for connecting with a corresponding connector and sleeve to ensure connection to tubing of a dialysis device, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide a connector for connecting the sensor line to the port (37) of Corazzari as Schnell teaches that connectors are known in the art for said purpose. As such, doing so would be combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (connecting a tubing line to a pressure pod), and thus a prima facie case of obviousness exists. It would have been further obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the port (37) of Corazzari as a female Luer connection as Schnell teaches that pressure pods may comprise a female Luer port for connecting to a connector. Doing so would merely involve the simple substitution of one known element (port) for another (female Luer port) to obtain predictable results (Connection to a connector), and thus a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
The examiner notes that upon the obviousness combinations, the prior arts teach a connector configured to be coupled to a measurement port (interpreted as pressure tubing portion connecting to the connector, where said tubing further connects to the sensor) arranged on an outer surface of a fluid processing system (seen to be external to the device of Corazzari per figure 11), and the POD receptacle configured to be coupled to the connector (figure 11 of Corazzari). And thus the sensor would be coupled to the connector to fluidically couple the POD to the pressure port. The examiner further notes that as the connector taught in Schnell, found obvious to combine with Corazzari comprises a male end to connect with a female port on the receptacle, it is interpreted that the female end would fit over the male end when the receptacle is coupled to the connector and thus reads to the claimed limitation of the receptacle fitting over the connector.
The examiner further notes that that one having ordinary skill in the art would reasonably determine that blood hoses in a dialysis system would be an input and output and thus the blood hose ports (7) of the pod of Corazzari would be an input and output port respectively.
Regarding claim 17, Corazzari and Schnell teach the method of claim 16, wherein the connector comprises: a covered-connection connector configured to be coupled to the measurement port; and a cover configured to be installed over the connection element. The examiner notes that as detailed under the rejection of claim 16, the prior art combination, found obvious to use a connector as detailed in Schnell to use with the device of Corazzari, where the connector comprises a male fitting (Schnell figure 11 (106) for connecting to a female port (116) of the pod, where a sleeve (108) is seen to be provided over the connection point. The examiner notes that the male-female connection is the connection point and the sleeve is interpreted as the cover.
Regarding claim 18, Corazzari and Schnell teach the method of claim 16, wherein the connector comprises a direct-connection connector having a POD end configured to engage the POD receptacle. The examiner notes that as detailed under the rejection of claim 1, the prior art combination, found obvious to use a connector as detailed in Schnell to use with the device of Corazzari, where the connector comprises a male fitting (Schnell figure 11 (106) for connecting to a female port (116) of the pod, connected via lugs, screw thread, or other connection. The examiner notes that the male-female connection is the direct-connection point.
Claim 10,19 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Corazzari in view of Schnell and further in view of Lindley et al. US 2016/0089484, hereafter Lindley.
Regarding claim 10, Corazzari, Schnell, and Lindley teach the POD assembly of claim 1, wherein the outlet port is arranged in a top position, vertically above a bottom position of the inlet port. The examiner notes that as seen in figure 1 of Corazzari, blood hose ports 7 are seen to be opposed from one another. While the ports were previously interpreted as an inlet and an outlet, there is no disclosure that the outlet is arranged in a top position above the inlet.
Lindley teaches a pressure measuring device for dialysis and is thus considered analogous to the claimed invention. Lindley teaches the device in the form of a pod, where the pod comprises walls surrounding a diaphragm, similar to the previously applied prior art references (see Corazzari figure 11 membrane (4) para. 0058, Lindley abstract). Lindley further teaches that the pod has an inlet port (38) and an outlet port (40) for connecting to blood tubing (para. 0045). The examiner notes that in Lindley Figure 3, an example system can be seen with pressure pods 12 and 120 being used. Based on the flow (seen by the arrows) the pods may be connected to blood tubing with the inlet above the outlet (Seen in pod 12) or with the inlet below the outlet (Seen in pod 120), thus it is interpreted that the orientation of the pod may be changed and still function as intended. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Corazzari to have the outlet port and tubing be placed vertically above the inlet tubing as Lindley teaches that the orientation of the ports may change while still allowing the device to function properly.
Regarding claim 19, Corazzari, Schnell, and Lindley teach POD assembly of claim 1, wherein the outlet port is arranged in a top position, vertically above a bottom position of the inlet port. The examiner notes that as seen in figure 1 of Corazzari, blood hose ports 7 are seen to be opposed from one another. While the ports were previously interpreted as an inlet and an outlet, there is no disclosure that the outlet is arranged in a top position above the inlet.
Lindley teaches a pressure measuring device for dialysis and is thus considered analogous to the claimed invention. Lindley teaches the device in the form of a pod, where the pod comprises walls surrounding a diaphragm, similar to the previously applied prior art references (see Corazzari figure 11 membrane (4) para. 0058, Lindley abstract). Lindley further teaches that the pod has an inlet port (38) and an outlet port (40) for connecting to blood tubing (para. 0045). The examiner notes that in Lindley Figure 3, an example system can be seen with pressure pods 12 and 120 being used. Based on the flow (seen by the arrows) the pods may be connected to blood tubing with the inlet above the outlet (Seen in pod 12) or with the inlet below the outlet (Seen in pod 120), thus it is interpreted that the orientation of the pod may be changed and still function as intended. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Corazzari to have the outlet port and tubing be placed vertically above the inlet tubing as Lindley teaches that the orientation of the ports may change while still allowing the device to function properly.
Claim(s) 11,20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Corazzari in view of Schnell and Lindley, as evidenced by Kamen et al. US 2009/0101549, hereafter Kamen.
Regarding claim 11, Corazzari, Schnell, and Lindley teach the POD assembly of claim 10, wherein fluid flow within a chamber is in a rotary fluid flow rotating from the inlet port to the outlet port.
The examiner notes that per MPEP 2114 II "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Therefore as the structural limitations of the claimed limitation are met by the prior art device (See rejection of claim 1) and the flow direction is interpreted to be a resulting function of said structure, the prior art reads to the claimed limitation.
However, should applicant disagree the examiner cites prior art reference Kamen. Per para. 0025 of Corazzari and as seen in figure 11, the capsule (pod) is substantially round or essentially round (per para. 0058). Kamen teaches a blood circuit containing a device (air trap) comprising an inlet and outlet, where said component is spheroid shaped and has a curved inner wall (para. 0111). Per the same citation, said shape allows for blood to circulate through the trap along the inside walls in a spiral like fashion. Therefore, as Corazzari teaches a spheroid shaped device comprising an inlet and outlet where blood flows through, where Kamen evidences that spheroid shaped “pathways” with blood flowing through an inlet to an outlet allow for blood to flow in a spiral like motion, it is interpreted that the blood flowing through Corazzari would also flow in a spiral like motion as said flow is based on the shape of the device, where both devices are spheroid in shape.
Regarding claim 20, Corazzari, Schnell, and Lindley teach POD assembly of claim 10, wherein fluid flow within a chamber is in a rotary fluid flow rotating from the inlet port to the outlet port.
The examiner notes that per MPEP 2114 II "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Therefore as the structural limitations of the claimed limitation are met by the prior art device (See rejection of claim 1) and the flow direction is interpreted to be a resulting function of said structure, the prior art reads to the claimed limitation.
However, should applicant disagree the examiner cites prior art reference Kamen. Per para. 0025 of Corazzari and as seen in figure 11, the capsule (pod) is substantially round or essentially round (per para. 0058). Kamen teaches a blood circuit containing a device (air trap) comprising an inlet and outlet, where said component is spheroid shaped and has a curved inner wall (para. 0111). Per the same citation, said shape allows for blood to circulate through the trap along the inside walls in a spiral like fashion. Therefore, as Corazzari teaches a spheroid shaped device comprising an inlet and outlet where blood flows through, where Kamen evidences that spheroid shaped “pathways” with blood flowing through an inlet to an outlet allow for blood to flow in a spiral like motion, it is interpreted that the blood flowing through Corazzari would also flow in a spiral like motion as said flow is based on the shape of the device, where both devices are spheroid in shape.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Wilt et al. US 2013/0020237, disclosing a POD (see figures 4c,d).
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