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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitations use a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: “a flow management device” in claim 1 line 2 and clam 15 line 2, and “an accessory receiving mechanism” in claim 12 line 1.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
According to the Applicant’s specification para. [00019], “a flow management device” is being interpreted as an electronic solenoid valve, and equivalents thereof. According to the Applicant’s specification para. [00039], “an accessory receiving mechanism” is being interpreted as a lip, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 7, 15-22, and 26 are 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.
Regarding claim 7, the limitation “an additional medium” in line 2 is confusing, as there has been no recitation of a first medium so it is unclear what is meant by the limitation of “additional”, and thereby the scope of the claim is rendered unclear.
Regarding claim 15, the limitation “a removable accessory” in line 6 is confusing, as it is unclear whether this limitation is meant to be the same or different from “a removable accessory” in line 5. For the purposes of examination, they will be interpreted as the same limitation.
Regarding claim 17, the limitation “wherein the first state of the canister is a level of a medium inside the canister that is above a predefined level, and the second state of the canister is the level of the medium inside the canister falling below the predefined level” in lines 1-3 contradicts “wherein the first state of the canister is a level of a medium inside the canister that is below a predefined level, and the second state of the removable accessory is the level of the medium inside the canister exceeding the predefined level” of claim 16 lines 1-3 upon which this claim depends, and thus the scope of the claim is unclear. Moreover, the limitations “a medium” in line 1 and “a predefined level” in line 2 are confusing, as it is unclear whether these limitations are meant to be the same as or different from “a medium” and “a predefined level” in claim 16. According to the Examiner’s best understanding of the claimed invention and because this claim directly contradicts claim 16 upon which it depends, the Examiner is interpreting this claim as being meant to depend upon claim 15, which it would not contradict, for the purposes of examination.
Regarding claim 26, the limitation “an additional medium” in line 2 is confusing, as there has been no recitation of a first medium so it is unclear what is meant by the limitation of “additional”, and thereby the scope of the claim is rendered unclear.
Any remaining claims are rejected based on their dependency on a rejected base claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding claim 17, the limitation “wherein the first state of the canister is a level of a medium inside the canister that is above a predefined level, and the second state of the canister is the level of the medium inside the canister falling below the predefined level” in lines 1-3 is the opposite of claim 16 reciting “wherein the first state of the canister is a level of a medium inside the canister that is below a predefined level, and the second state of the removable accessory is the level of the medium inside the canister exceeding the predefined level” in lines 1-3. Thus, claim 17 thereby fails to include all the limitations of the claim 16 upon which it depends.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 23-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sermet et al. (US 2009/0020015 A1).
Regarding claim 23, Sermet discloses a method comprising: monitoring a removable accessory inserted into a pod (oxygen reserve 2 with can be inserted into or disconnected from filling station 1; oxygen reserve 2 has a sensor 12 to collect measurement information) (Figs. 1-4; para. [0029]; para. [0042]); detecting a change from a first state to a second state of the removable accessory, by a sensor of the pod (level sensor 12 measures the level of oxygen in tank 8 of reserve 2; sensor 12 determines if the level in the tank 8 is below or above a threshold value, and so can detect a change in the level of oxygen in tank 8 to above or below the threshold value) (Fig. 4; para. [0042]); and performing a function by a control interface of the pod, in response to the detecting (automatic feedback control loop 13 uses electronic signals from the level sensor 12 to indicate the change in the level of oxygen in tank 8 to above or below the threshold value, and then functions to either supply the reserve with liquid oxygen or not) (Fig. 4; para. [0042]).
Regarding claim 24, Sermet discloses wherein the function is returning the removable accessory to the first state (if the level sensor 12 determines the level in the tank 8 has dropped to below a threshold value, the automatic feedback control loop 13 would supply the tank 8 with liquid oxygen to increasing the liquid oxygen level back above the threshold value) (Fig. 4; para. [0042]).
Regarding claim 25, Sermet discloses wherein the function is injecting a solution into a canister of the removable accessory storing a medium (if the level sensor 12 determines the level in the tank 8 has dropped to below a threshold value, the automatic feedback control loop 13 would inject more liquid oxygen into the tank 8) (Fig. 4; para. [0042]).
Regarding claim 26, as best understood, Sermet discloses wherein the function is filling a canister of the removable accessory with an additional medium (if the level sensor 12 determines the level in the tank 8 has dropped to below a threshold value, the automatic feedback control loop 13 would inject additional liquid oxygen into the tank 8) (Fig. 4; para. [0042]).
Claims 23-24 and 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Combs et al. (US 2022/0213885 A1).
Regarding claim 23, Combs discloses a method comprising: monitoring a removable accessory inserted into a pod (transfer container 140 is removable from its insertion into a system 100; transfer container 140 includes a liquid level sensor 266 for detecting its liquid level to see when it should be emptied) (Figs. 1-18; para. [0107]; para. [0123]); detecting a change from a first state to a second state of the removable accessory, by a sensor of the pod (liquid level sensor 266 detects changes in the liquid level to see when the transfer container 140 should be emptied, i.e. the sensor detects when the liquid level changes from an empty volume or state, to the liquid level being at a full volume or state) (Figs. 1-18; para. [0123]); and performing a function by a control interface of the pod, in response to the detecting (controller 500 can be used to control the liquid level sensor 266 and other components such as a drain pump 262; controller 500 would perform the function of draining transfer container 140 as determined by the liquid level sensor 266) (Figs. 1-18; paras. [0133-0134]; para. [0136]).
Regarding claim 24, Combs discloses wherein the function is returning the removable accessory to the first state (draining transfer container 140 would have the transfer container 140 return from a full state back to an empty state) (Figs. 1-18; paras. [0133-0134]).
Regarding claim 27, Combs discloses wherein the function is notifying a clinician with at least one of an audible alarm, a notification on a graphical user interface, a visual indicator, or a combination thereof (liquid level sensor 266 can be coupled to an indicator such as an alarm, warning light, audio and/or visual message generator regarding the liquid level state, which would thereby notify a user of the state; as the transfer container can be manually emptied, there would have to be a human user available to operate the device which can be notified by the indicator) (Figs. 1-18; para. [0133]; para. [0135]).
Regarding claim 28, Combs discloses wherein the function is evacuating a canister of the removable accessory to remove a medium from the canister (transfer container 140 can be evacuated of fluid by the drain pump 262) (Figs. 1-18; paras. [0133-0134]).
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.
Claims 1, 3-7, 11-15, 17, 20, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walker (US 5,247,962) in view of Yan (US 2012/0209243 A1) and Sermet.
Regarding claim 1, Walker discloses a pod (unit 10 with shell 14 defining a recess 26) (Figs. 1-2; col. 3 lines 65-68) comprising: a flow management device disposed within a pod casing (gas service outlet 30 within the shell 14 and guard 132) (Figs. 1-2, 9; col. 4 lines 3-16; col. 6 lines 49-68; col. 7 lines 1-3); at least one fluidic coupling within the casing that is fluidically connected to the flow management device (the mechanism including the gas conduit adapter 36, first conduit member 60, gas conduit 68, second conduit member 70, gas conduit 78, and/or adapter 81 inside shell 14 and guard 132 is fluidically attached to gas service outlet 30) (Figs. 1-3, 9; col. 4 lines 3-16, 63-68; col. 5 lines 1-14; col. 6 lines 49-68; col. 7 lines 1-3), the at least one fluidic coupling configured to fluidically connect with a removable accessory insertable within the pod casing (the mechanism including the gas conduit adapter 36, first conduit member 60, gas conduit 68, second conduit member 70, gas conduit 78, and/or adapter 81 fluidically connects to the gas service device 38, 40 insertable into the recess 26 of shell 40 and guard 132; port 80 is threaded to receive an adapter 81 and the gas service device 38, 40, wherein threaded mechanisms are known to provide removability) (Figs. 1-3, 9; col. 4 lines 3-16, 21-50, 63-68; col. 5 lines 1-14).
Walker does not disclose a flow management device as interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as detailed above.
However, Yan discloses a fluid delivery device (Yan; abstract) including a flow management device as interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), i.e. an electronic solenoid valve (pressure regulating valves can include solenoids, and can be opened and closed by a computer thereby requiring electricity) (Yan; para. [0112]).
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 Walker device to include a flow management device as interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), i.e. an electronic solenoid valve, as taught by Yan, for the purpose of enabling the device to control the amount of pressure that a cartridge can receive from pressure modifying devices (Yan; para. [0112]).
Walker does not disclose a sensor configured to detect a change from a first state to a second state of the removable accessory.
However, Sermet teaches an oxygen reserve coupled to a filling station (Sermet; abstract) including a sensor configured to detect a change from a first state to a second state of the removable accessory (level sensor 12 measures the level of oxygen in tank 8 of reserve 2; sensor 12 determines if the level in the tank 8 is below or above a threshold value, and so can detect a change in the level of oxygen in tank 8 to above or below the threshold value) (Sermet; Fig. 4; para. [0042]).
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 Walker device to include a sensor configured to detect a change from a first state to a second state of the removable accessory, as taught by Sermet, for the purpose of providing the system with an automatic feedback control loop to ensure the tank is filled with an acceptable supply of liquid oxygen (Sermet; para. [0042]).
Regarding claim 3, the modified Walker teaches wherein the first state of the removable accessory is a level of a medium inside a canister of the removable accessory that is above a predefined level, and the second state of the canister is the level of the medium inside the canister falling below the predefined level (the level sensor 12 determines when the level in the tank 8 is above or below a threshold value, the first state being above and the second state being below) (Sermet; Fig. 4; para. [0042]).
Regarding claim 4, the modified Walker teaches when the sensor detects the change from the first state to the second state, the sensor sends a signal to a control interface of the pod for performing at least one function (if the level sensor 12 determines the level in the tank 8 falls below a threshold value, the automatic feedback control loop 13 would supply the tank 8 with liquid oxygen, thereby increasing the liquid oxygen level) (Sermet; Fig. 4; para. [0042]).
Regarding claim 5, the modified Walker teaches wherein the at least one function is returning the removable accessory to the first state (if the level sensor 12 determines the level in the tank 8 has dropped to below a threshold value, the automatic feedback control loop 13 would supply the tank 8 with liquid oxygen to increasing the liquid oxygen level back above the threshold value) (Sermet; Fig. 4; para. [0042]).
Regarding claim 6, the modified Walker teaches wherein the at least one function is an injection of a solution into a canister of the removable accessory storing a medium (if the level sensor 12 determines the level in the tank 8 has dropped to below a threshold value, the automatic feedback control loop 13 would inject more liquid oxygen into the tank 8) (Sermet; Fig. 4; para. [0042]).
Regarding claim 7, as best understood, the modified Walker teaches wherein the at least one function is filling a canister of the removable accessory with an additional medium (if the level sensor 12 determines the level in the tank 8 has dropped to below a threshold value, the automatic feedback control loop 13 would inject additional liquid oxygen into the tank 8) (Sermet; Fig. 4; para. [0042]).
Regarding claim 11, the modified Walker teaches wherein, when the removable accessory is inserted within the pod casing, the at least one fluidic coupling mates with at least one corresponding fluidic coupling of the removable accessory within the casing (gas service device 38, 40 is insertable into the recess 26 of space defined by the shell 14 and guard 132; the mechanism including the gas conduit adapter 36, first conduit member 60, gas conduit 68, second conduit member 70, gas conduit 78, and adapter 81 fluidically mates with the tubing of device 38, 40 at adapter 81) (Walker; Figs. 1-3, 9; col. 4 lines 3-16, 21-50, 63-68; col. 5 lines 1-14; col. 6 lines 49-68; col. 7 lines 1-3), and fluid managed by the flow management device flows through the removable accessory and in or out of an outlet of the removable accessory that is fluidically connected to the at least one corresponding fluidic coupling (the Yan solenoid pressure regulating valve would manage the Walker fluid flow; fluid flows from the Walker gas service device 38, 40 to or from a patient, and so gas service device 38, 40 has an outlet; the Walker mechanism including the gas conduit adapter 36, first conduit member 60, gas conduit 68, second conduit member 70, gas conduit 78, and adapter 81 fluidically connects with gas service device 38, 40) (Walker, Figs. 1-3 and 9, col. 4 lines 3-50, and 63-68, col. 5 lines 1-14, col. 6 lines 49-68, col. 7 lines 1-3; Yan, para. [0112]).
Regarding claim 12, the modified Walker teaches further comprising an accessory receiving mechanism located within the pod casing, the accessory receiving mechanism facilitating an insertion and fluidic coupling of the accessory within the pod casing (the port 80 and/or the adapter 81 is within the recess 26 of shell 40 and guard 132; the port 80 and/or adapter 81 is used to fluidly connect and insert the gas service device 38, 40 into the recess 26 of shell 40 and guard 132) (Walker; Figs. 1-3, 9; col. 5 lines 7-14).
Regarding claim 13, the modified Walker teaches further comprising a cover that at least partially covers an interior of the pod casing (picture 130 can conceal the unit 10 with shell 14 and recess 26) (Walker; Figs. 1-2; col. 6 lines 29-35).
Regarding claim 14, the modified Walker teaches wherein the pod casing is configured to be disposed at least partially within a wall cavity (unit 10 with shell 14 is disposed inside a recess in a wall of the medical facility) (Walker; Figs. 1-2; col. 3 lines 54-64).
Regarding claim 15, as best understood, Walker discloses a system comprising: a pod (unit 10 with shell 14 defining a recess 26) (Figs. 1-2; col. 3 lines 65-68) comprising a flow management device disposed within a pod casing (gas service outlet 30 within the shell 14 and guard 132) (Figs. 1-2, 9; col. 4 lines 3-16; col. 6 lines 49-68; col. 7 lines 1-3), at least one fluidic coupling within the casing that is fluidically connected to the flow management device (the mechanism including the gas conduit adapter 36, first conduit member 60, gas conduit 68, second conduit member 70, gas conduit 78, and/or adapter 81 inside shell 14 and guard 132 is fluidically attached to gas service outlet 30) (Figs. 1-3, 9; col. 4 lines 3-16, 63-68; col. 5 lines 1-14; col. 6 lines 49-68; col. 7 lines 1-3), the at least one fluidic coupling configured to fluidically connect with a removable accessory insertable within the pod casing (the mechanism including the gas conduit adapter 36, first conduit member 60, gas conduit 68, second conduit member 70, gas conduit 78, and/or adapter 81 fluidically connects to the gas service device 38, 40 insertable into the recess 26 of shell 40 and guard 132; port 80 is threaded to receive an adapter 81 and the device 38, 40, wherein threaded mechanisms are known to provide removability) (Figs. 1-3, 9; col. 4 lines 3-16, 21-50, 63-68; col. 5 lines 1-14); a removable accessory for use with the pod, the removable accessory comprising: a body portion having a first side and a second side, and at least one fluidic coupling disposed on the body portion (gas service device 38, 40 has a body with a top and bottom side, with tubing to fluidically connect it to adapter 81 on its body) (Figs. 1-3, 9; col. 4 lines 3-16, 63-68; col. 5 lines 1-14).
Walker does not disclose a flow management device as interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as detailed above.
However, Yan discloses a fluid delivery device (Yan; abstract) including a flow management device as interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), i.e. an electronic solenoid valve (pressure regulating valves can include solenoids, and can be opened and closed by a computer thereby requiring electricity) (Yan; para. [0112]).
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 Walker device to include a flow management device as interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), i.e. an electronic solenoid valve, as taught by Yan, for the purpose of enabling the device to control the amount of pressure that a cartridge can receive from pressure modifying devices (Yan; para. [0112]).
Walker does not disclose a canister operably attached to the body portion, configured to store a medium; a sensor configured to detect a change from a first state to a second state of the canister; and a control interface electrically connected to the sensor and configured to receive a signal from the sensor indicating the change.
However, Sermet teaches an oxygen reserve coupled to a filling station (Sermet; abstract) including a canister operably attached to the body portion, configured to store a medium (the body of the reserve 2 has a tank 8 operably attached, wherein the tank 8 is for storing liquid oxygen) (Sermet; Figs. 2, 4; para. [0042]); a sensor configured to detect a change from a first state to a second state of the canister (level sensor 12 measures the level of oxygen in tank 8 of reserve 2; sensor 12 determines if the level in the tank 8 is below or above a threshold value, and so can detect a change in the level of oxygen in tank 8 to above or below the threshold value) (Sermet; Fig. 4; para. [0042]); and a control interface electrically connected to the sensor and configured to receive a signal from the sensor indicating the change (automatic feedback control loop 13 uses electronic signals from the level sensor 12 to indicate the change in the level of oxygen in tank 8 to above or below the threshold value) (Sermet; Fig. 4; para. [0042]).
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 Walker device to include a canister operably attached to the body portion, configured to store a medium; a sensor configured to detect a change from a first state to a second state of the canister; and a control interface electrically connected to the sensor and configured to receive a signal from the sensor indicating the change, as taught by Sermet, for the purpose of providing the system with an automatic feedback control loop to ensure a tank is filled with an acceptable supply of liquid oxygen (Sermet; para. [0042]).
Regarding claim 17, as best understood, the modified Walker teaches wherein the first state of the canister is a level of a medium inside the canister that is above a predefined level, and the second state of the canister is the level of the medium inside the canister falling below the predefined level (the level sensor 12 determines when the level in the tank 8 is above or below a threshold value, the first state being above and the second state being below) (Sermet; Fig. 4; para. [0042]).
Regarding claim 20, the modified Walker teaches the invention as previously claimed, including further comprising to inject a solution into the interior of the canister in response to a signal from the control interface based on the sensor detecting the change (automatic feedback control loop 13 used to inject liquid oxygen into the inside of the tank 8 in response to a signal detecting a change from the level being above a threshold value to below it) (Sermet; Fig. 4; para. [0042]), but does not teach a pump fluidically connected to an interior of the canister, the pump electrically connected to the control interface.
However, Yan further teaches a pump, the pump electrically connected to the control interface (a pressure modifying device such as a pump is used to dispense the liquid or fluid; pressure modifying device 125 is controlled by a computer or user interface) (Yan; para. [0077]; para. [0111]).
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 modified Walker device to include a pump fluidically connected to an interior of the canister, the pump electrically connected to the control interface, as taught by Yam, for the purpose of enabling the fluid to be dispensed in a controlled manner (Yan; para. [0077]).
With this modification, the modified Walker device would thus teach a pump fluidically connected to an interior of the canister (Sermet automatic feedback control loop 13 would use a Yan pump to inject liquid oxygen into the inside of the tank 8 in response to a signal detecting a change from the level being above a threshold value to below it) (Sermet, Fig. 4, para. [0042]; Yan, para. [0077]).
Regarding claim 22, the modified Walker teaches further comprising a pump fluidically connected to an interior of the canister, the pump electrically connected to the control interface and configured to add an additional medium to the interior of the canister in response to a signal from the control interface based on the sensor detecting the change (Sermet automatic feedback control loop 13 would use a Yan pump to inject liquid oxygen into the inside of the tank 8 in response to a signal detecting a change from the level being above a threshold value to below it; the Yan pump would be electrically connected to the Sermet automatic feedback control loop 13) (Sermet, Fig. 4, para. [0042]; Yan, para. [0077], para. [0111]).
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 8-16, 18-19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walker in view of Yan and Carr et al. (US 2015/0328379 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Walker discloses a pod (unit 10 with shell 14 defining a recess 26) (Figs. 1-2; col. 3 lines 65-68) comprising: a flow management device disposed within a pod casing (gas service outlet 30 within the shell 14) (Figs. 1-2; col. 4 lines 3-16); at least one fluidic coupling within the casing that is fluidically connected to the flow management device (gas conduit adapter 36 inside shell 14 is fluidically attached to gas service outlet 30) (Figs. 1-2, 8; col. 4 lines 3-16), the at least one fluidic coupling configured to fluidically connect with a removable accessory insertable within the pod casing (gas conduit adapter 36 fluidically connects to the gas service device 38, 40 insertable into the recess 26 of shell 40; port 80 is threaded to receive an adapter 81 and the device 38, 40, wherein threaded mechanisms are known to provide removability) (Figs. 1-3, 8; col. 4 lines 3-16, 21-50; col. 5 lines 7-14).
Walker does not disclose a flow management device as interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as detailed above.
However, Yan discloses a fluid delivery device (Yan; abstract) including a flow management device as interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), i.e. an electronic solenoid valve (pressure regulating valves can include solenoids, and can be opened and closed by a computer thereby requiring electricity) (Yan; para. [0112]).
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 Walker device to include a flow management device as interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), i.e. an electronic solenoid valve, as taught by Yan, for the purpose of enabling the device to control the amount of pressure that a cartridge can receive from pressure modifying devices (Yan; para. [0112]).
Walker does not disclose a sensor configured to detect a change from a first state to a second state of the removable accessory.
However, Carr teaches a fluid management system (Carr; abstract) including a sensor configured to detect a change from a first state to a second state of the removable accessory (sensors are used to detect the volume of fluid in the fluid collection containers; sensors detect a state in which the volume has not yet reached a predetermined volume and a state in which the volume has reached a predetermined volume; alternatively, leak sensors are used to detect if a leak in the container develops, with no leak present being the first state and a leak present being a second state) (Carr; para. [0046]; para. [0049]; para. [0072]).
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 Walker device to include a sensor configured to detect a change from a first state to a second state of the removable accessory, as taught by Carr, for the purpose of allowing for fluid collection and fluid deficit monitoring processes to continue uninterrupted (Carr; para. [0049]; para. [0072]).
Regarding claim 2, the modified Walker teaches wherein the first state of the removable accessory is a level of a medium inside a canister of the removable accessory that is below a predefined level, and the second state of the removable accessory is the level of the medium inside the canister exceeding the predefined level (sensors detect whether or not the fluid volume has reached a predetermined volume, the first state being a volume below the predetermined volume and the second state being above the predetermined volume) (Carr; para. [0049]; para. [0072]).
Regarding claim 4, the modified Walker teaches when the sensor detects the change from the first state to the second state, the sensor sends a signal to a control interface of the pod for performing at least one function (when the sensors detect the fluid volume has gone from below the predetermined volume to above it, signals are sent to the control unit to close valves for suction and fluid input and then later open valves for emptying the fluid collection container; alternatively, leak sensors can be used to detect if a leak in the container develops, with no leak present being the first state and a leak present being a second state, and the control unit can then take an appropriate action when a leak develops) (Carr; para. [0046]; para. [0049]; para. [0072]).
Regarding claim 5, the modified Walker teaches wherein the at least one function is returning the removable accessory to the first state (when the sensors detect the fluid volume has gone from below the predetermined volume to above it, signals are sent to the control unit to close valves for suction and fluid input and then later open valves for emptying the fluid collection container; emptying the container would thus return it to its first state of the fluid volume being below the predetermined volume) (Carr; para. [0049]; para. [0072]).
Regarding claim 8, the modified Walker teaches wherein the at least one function is notifying a clinician with at least one of an audible notification, a visual notification on a graphical user interface, or an indicator (using leak sensors, a control unit can provide a visual or audible indicator to alert a user of a potential problem with the measurement system if a leak is detected; displaying the visual signal would have to involve using the display device of the main unit 30) (Carr; para. [0034]; para. [0046]).
Regarding claim 9, the modified Walker teaches wherein the at least one function is an evacuation of a canister of the removable accessory to remove a medium from the canister (when the sensors detect the fluid volume has gone from below the predetermined volume to above it, signals are sent to the control unit to close valves for suction and fluid input and then later open valves for emptying the fluid collection container) (Carr; para. [0049]; para. [0072]).
Regarding claim 10, the modified Walker teaches wherein the sensor is an optical sensor housed within the pod (Carr sensors used to detect the volume of fluid in the fluid collection containers can be optical, and would be within the Walker unit 10 with the recess 26 defined by the shell 40 and guard 132) (Walker, Figs. 1-3, 9; Carr, para. [0049], para. [0072]).
Regarding claim 11, the modified Walker teaches wherein, when the removable accessory is inserted within the pod casing, the at least one fluidic coupling mates with at least one corresponding fluidic coupling of the removable accessory within the casing (gas service device 38, 40 is insertable into the recess 26 of space defined by the shell 14 and guard 132; the mechanism including the gas conduit adapter 36, first conduit member 60, gas conduit 68, second conduit member 70, gas conduit 78, and adapter 81 fluidically mates with the tubing of device 38, 40 at adapter 81) (Walker; Figs. 1-3, 9; col. 4 lines 3-16, 21-50, 63-68; col. 5 lines 1-14; col. 6 lines 49-68; col. 7 lines 1-3), and fluid managed by the flow management device flows through the removable accessory and in or out of an outlet of the removable accessory that is fluidically connected to the at least one corresponding fluidic coupling (the Yan solenoid pressure regulating valve would manage the Walker fluid flow; fluid flows from the Walker gas service device 38, 40 to or from a patient, and so gas service device 38, 40 has an outlet; the Walker mechanism including the gas conduit adapter 36, first conduit member 60, gas conduit 68, second conduit member 70, gas conduit 78, and adapter 81 fluidically connects with gas service device 38, 40) (Walker, Figs. 1-3 and 9, col. 4 lines 3-50, and 63-68, col. 5 lines 1-14, col. 6 lines 49-68, col. 7 lines 1-3; Yan, para. [0112]).
Regarding claim 12, the modified Walker teaches further comprising an accessory receiving mechanism located within the pod casing, the accessory receiving mechanism facilitating an insertion and fluidic coupling of the accessory within the pod casing (the port 80 and/or the adapter 81 is within the recess 26 of shell 40 and guard 132; the port 80 and/or adapter 81 is used to fluidly connect and insert the device 38, 40 into the recess 26 of shell 40 and guard 132) (Walker; Figs. 1-3, 9; col. 5 lines 7-14).
Regarding claim 13, the modified Walker teaches further comprising a cover that at least partially covers an interior of the pod casing (picture 130 can conceal the unit 10 with shell 14 and recess 26) (Walker; Figs. 1-2; col. 6 lines 29-35).
Regarding claim 14, the modified Walker teaches wherein the pod casing is configured to be disposed at least partially within a wall cavity (unit 10 with shell 14 is disposed inside a recess in a wall of the medical facility) (Walker; Figs. 1-2; col. 3 lines 54-64).
Regarding claim 15, as best understood, Walker discloses a system comprising: a pod (unit 10 with shell 14 defining a recess 26) (Figs. 1-2; col. 3 lines 65-68) comprising a flow management device disposed within a pod casing (gas service outlet 30 within the shell 14 and guard 132) (Figs. 1-2, 9; col. 4 lines 3-16; col. 6 lines 49-68; col. 7 lines 1-3), at least one fluidic coupling within the casing that is fluidically connected to the flow management device (the mechanism including the gas conduit adapter 36, first conduit member 60, gas conduit 68, second conduit member 70, gas conduit 78, and/or adapter 81 inside shell 14 and guard 132 is fluidically attached to gas service outlet 30) (Figs. 1-3, 9; col. 4 lines 3-16, 63-68; col. 5 lines 1-14; col. 6 lines 49-68; col. 7 lines 1-3), the at least one fluidic coupling configured to fluidically connect with a removable accessory insertable within the pod casing (the mechanism including the gas conduit adapter 36, first conduit member 60, gas conduit 68, second conduit member 70, gas conduit 78, and/or adapter 81 fluidically connects to the gas service device 38, 40 insertable into the recess 26 of shell 40 and guard 132; port 80 is threaded to receive an adapter 81 and the device 38, 40, wherein threaded mechanisms are known to provide removability) (Figs. 1-3, 9; col. 4 lines 3-16, 21-50, 63-68; col. 5 lines 1-14); a removable accessory for use with the pod, the removable accessory comprising: a body portion having a first side and a second side, and at least one fluidic coupling disposed on the body portion (gas service device 38, 40 has a body with a top and bottom side, with tubing to fluidically connect it to adapter 81 on its body) (Figs. 1-3, 9; col. 4 lines 3-16, 63-68; col. 5 lines 1-14).
Walker does not disclose a flow management device as interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as detailed above.
However, Yan discloses a fluid delivery device (Yan; abstract) including a flow management device as interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), i.e. an electronic solenoid valve (pressure regulating valves can include solenoids, and can be opened and closed by a computer thereby requiring electricity) (Yan; para. [0112]).
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 Walker device to include a flow management device as interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), i.e. an electronic solenoid valve, as taught by Yan, for the purpose of enabling the device to control the amount of pressure that a cartridge can receive from pressure modifying devices (Yan; para. [0112]).
Walker does not disclose a canister operably attached to the body portion, configured to store a medium; a sensor configured to detect a change from a first state to a second state of the canister; and a control interface electrically connected to the sensor and configured to receive a signal from the sensor indicating the change.
However, Carr teaches a fluid management system (Carr; abstract) including a canister operably attached to the body portion, configured to store a medium (fluid collection containers 64, 66 operably attached to the bodies of suction source 90, suction line 33, and valves 34a, 36a) (Carr; Figs. 1, 5-7; paras. [0039-0040]); a sensor configured to detect a change from a first state to a second state of the canister (sensors are used to detect the volume of fluid in the fluid collection containers; sensors detect a state in which the volume has not yet reached a predetermined volume and a state in which the volume has reached a predetermined volume; alternatively, leak sensors are used to detect if a leak in the container develops, with no leak present being the first state and a leak present being a second state) (Carr; para. [0046]; para. [0049]; para. [0072]); and a control interface electrically connected to the sensor and configured to receive a signal from the sensor indicating the change (control unit of main unit 30 can be electronically connected to the sensors and receive signals from them regarding the changes in fluid levels and/or leaks) (Carr; para. [0046]; para. [0049]; para. [0072]).
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 Walker device to include a canister operably attached to the body portion, configured to store a medium; a sensor configured to detect a change from a first state to a second state of the canister; and a control interface electrically connected to the sensor and configured to receive a signal from the sensor indicating the change, as taught by Carr, for the purpose of allowing for fluid collection and fluid deficit monitoring processes to occur and continue uninterrupted (Carr; para. [0049]; para. [0072]).
Regarding claim 16, the modified Walker teaches wherein the first state of the canister is a level of a medium inside the canister that is below a predefined level, and the second state of the removable accessory is the level of the medium inside the canister exceeding the predefined level (sensors detect whether or not the fluid volume of a fluid collection container has reached a predetermined volume, the first state being a volume below the predetermined volume and the second state being above the predetermined volume) (Carr; para. [0049]; para. [0072]).
Regarding claims 18-19, the modified Walker teaches wherein the control interface sends a notification in response to receiving the signal from the sensor, wherein the notification is at least one of an audible alarm, a notification on a graphical user interface, a visual indicator, or a combination thereof (using leak sensors, a control unit can provide a visual or audible indicator to alert a user of a potential problem with the measurement system if a leak is detected; displaying the visual signal would have to involve using the display device of the main unit 30) (Carr; para. [0034]; para. [0046]).
Regarding claim 21, the modified Walker teaches further comprising a vacuum pump fluidically connected to an interior of the canister, the vacuum electrically connected to the control interface and configured to evacuate the interior of the canister in response to a signal from the control interface based on the sensor detecting the change (Walker vacuum supply/Carr suction source 90 would be fluidically connected to the Carr fluid collection containers 64, 66 interiors and electronically connected to the Carr control unit to evacuate the collected fluid in response to a sensor detecting the fluid in the container has reached a predetermined volume) (Walker, Figs. 1-2, col. 4 lines 21-26; Carr, Figs. 1, 5-7, para. [0039], para. [0046], para. [0049]).
Double Patenting
Claims 1, 4, 11, and 23 of this application is patentably indistinct from claims 7 and 17 of Application No. 18/472,838, hereinafter ‘838. Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.78(f), when two or more applications filed by the same applicant or assignee contain patentably indistinct claims, elimination of such claims from all but one application may be required in the absence of good and sufficient reason for their retention during pendency in more than one application. Applicant is required to either cancel the patentably indistinct claims from all but one application or maintain a clear line of demarcation between the applications. See MPEP § 822.
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, 11, and 23 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 7 and 17 of copending Application No. 18/472,838, hereinafter ‘838 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Regarding claim 1, ‘838 discloses a pod comprising: a flow management device disposed within a pod casing (‘838; claim 17); at least one fluidic coupling within the casing that is fluidically connected to the flow management device (‘838; claim 17), the at least one fluidic coupling configured to fluidically connect with a removable accessory insertable within the pod casing (at least one fluidic coupling fluidically connects with the at least one fluidic coupling withing the casing of the pod as a function of the removable accessory) (‘838; claim 17); and a sensor configured to detect a change from a first state to a second state of the removable accessory (a sensor configured to detect a change in pressure at the outlet of the removable accessory; a change in pressure means a first pressure state has gone to a second pressure state) (‘838; claim 17).
Regarding claim 4, ‘838 discloses when the sensor detects the change from the first state to the second state, the sensor sends a signal to a control interface of the pod for performing at least one function (a control interface receives the signal from the sensor indicating the change in pressure, and then the control interface sends a control signal to perform the function of stopping a gas from flowing through the outlet) (‘838; claim 17).
Regarding claim 11, ‘838 discloses wherein, when the removable accessory is inserted within the pod casing, the at least one fluidic coupling mates with at least one corresponding fluidic coupling of the removable accessory within the casing, and fluid managed by the flow management device flows through the removable accessory and in or out of an outlet of the removable accessory that is fluidically connected to the at least one corresponding fluidic coupling (the removable accessory has at least one fluidic coupling fluidically connecting with the at least one fluidic coupling withing the casing of the pod as a function of the removable accessory being inserted into the pod; the fluidic couplings are fluidically connected to the flow management device, which controls when a gas flows or stops flowing through the outlet of the removable accessory) (‘838; claim 17).
Regarding claim 23, ‘838 discloses a method comprising: monitoring a removable accessory inserted into a pod (a method using a pressure sensor proximate the outlet of the removable accessory received by a pod to monitor for a pressure drop) (‘838; claim 7); detecting a change from a first state to a second state of the removable accessory, by a sensor of the pod (the pressure sensors monitors for a pressure drop to atmospheric, which means a first pressure state has gone to a second pressure state) (‘838; claim 7); and performing a function by a control interface of the pod, in response to the detecting (a control interface of the pod receives a signal from the pressure sensor indicating the pressure drop, and then stops the flow of gas) (‘838; claim 7).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
EP 2 510 969 A1 by Sage is considered to be relevant as it discloses a medical gas supply system in a wall with respective ports to supply oxygen, a medical air blend, and/or a vacuum.
US 2006/0290525 A1 by Anderson et al. is considered to be relevant as it discloses a medical gas system in a wall with a gas sensor module for monitoring it.
US 2017/0060142 A1 by Stinson is considered to be relevant as it discloses a fluid management device with fittings to allow for accessories to be removable.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACQUELINE M PINDERSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-7032. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00-4:00.
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, Timothy Stanis can be reached at 571-272-5139. 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.
/JACQUELINE M PINDERSKI/Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/RACHEL T SIPPEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Prosecution Insights