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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on September 12, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on August 22, 2025. As directed by the amendment: claims 1, 18, 36, 47, and 54 have been amended. Thus, claims 1-70 are presently pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed August 22, 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 18, 36, 47, and 54 under 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Applicant’s amendments
Claim Objections
Claims 4 and 57 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 4, the claim should be amended to recite “the transverse axis” since the transverse axis is already recited in the independent claim.
Regarding claim 57, the claim should be amended to recite “the transverse axis” since the transverse axis is already recited in the independent claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 8-17, 19, 28-35, 42-53, 63, 69, and 70 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 8, the claim is directed towards an alignment key. It is unclear if this is the same alignment key recited in claim 1 or a different alignment key.
Regarding claim 10, there is a lack of antecedent basis in the limitation “the delivery tube”. It is unclear if this delivery tube should be amended to be drawn to the “delivery tube assembly” or the “peristaltic tube” recited in claim 1.
Regarding claim 16, there is a lack of antecedent basis in the limitation “the fluid reservoir”. It is unclear if this delivery tube should be amended to be drawn to the “the fluid reservoir chamber” or “a fluid reservoir”.
Regarding claim 19, the claim is drawn to a engagement surface which is coplanar with the back surface. This claim is dependent on claim 18 which has been amended to recite that the engagement surface comprises a recessed area recessed relative to the back surface. It is unclear how the engagement surface can both be coplanar and recessed relative to the back surface.
Regarding claim 28, there is a lack of antecedent basis in the limitation “the delivery tube”. It is unclear if this delivery tube should be amended to be drawn to the “delivery tube assembly” or the “peristaltic tube” recited in claim 18.
Regarding claim 34, there is a lack of antecedent basis in the limitation “the fluid reservoir”. It is unclear if this delivery tube should be amended to be drawn to the “the fluid reservoir chamber” or “a fluid reservoir”.
Regarding claim 42, there is a lack of antecedent basis in the limitation “the delivery tube”. It is unclear if this delivery tube should be amended to be drawn to the “delivery tube assembly” or the “peristaltic tube” recited in claim 36.
Regarding claim 45, there is a lack of antecedent basis in the limitation “the fluid reservoir”. It is unclear if this delivery tube should be amended to be drawn to the “the fluid reservoir chamber” or “a fluid reservoir”.
Regarding claim 47, there is a lack of antecedent basis in the limitation “the delivery tube”. It is unclear if this delivery tube should be amended to be drawn to the “delivery tube assembly” or the “peristaltic tube” recited earlier in the claim.
Regarding claim 49, the claim is drawn to “a peristaltic tube”. It is unclear if this is the same peristaltic tube recited in claim 47 or a different tube.
Regarding claim 52, there is a lack of antecedent basis in the limitation “the fluid reservoir”. It is unclear if this delivery tube should be amended to be drawn to the “the fluid reservoir chamber” or “a fluid reservoir”.
Regarding claim 63, there is a lack of antecedent basis in the limitation “the delivery tube”. It is unclear if this delivery tube should be amended to be drawn to the “delivery tube assembly” or the “peristaltic tube” recited in claim 54.
Regarding claim 69, there is a lack of antecedent basis in the limitation “the fluid reservoir”. It is unclear if this delivery tube should be amended to be drawn to the “the fluid reservoir chamber” or “a fluid reservoir”.
Claims 9, 11-15, 17, 29-33, 35, 43, 44, 46, 48, 50, 51, 53, and 70 are also rejected by virtue of being dependent on rejected claims above.
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.
Claims 3, 20-22, and 39 are 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 claims 3, 20, 22, and 39, the claims fail to further limit the parent claim since the limitations set forth in the claims can be found in the parent claim.
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 21 is also rejected by virtue of being dependent on claim 20.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 2, 4-7, 18, 23-27, 36-38, 40, 41, 54-56, 64-68 are allowed.
Claims 47-53 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 8-17, 19, 28-35, 42-46, 63, 69, 70 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest prior art is Amborn (US 20110087165) and Johnson (US 5954485).
Regarding claim 1, Amborn fails to disclose each of the opposing rails is recessed relative an adjacent portion of the boundary in plan view. The opposing rails are equated to snaps 32C in fig. 4A which are shown to protrude both downwardly and slightly outwardly from the remainder of the boundary (front, back, left and right sides 36, 38, 40, and 42 in fig. 4A). As such, the rails cannot be considered to be recessed relative to an adjacent portion of the boundary.
Regarding claims 18, 47, and 54, Johnson fails to teach among all the limitations or render obvious a recessed area recessed relative to the back surface which tapers to a smaller cross-sectional dimension toward the end surface, in combination with the total structure and function as claimed. The recessed area of Johnson is considered to be the opening formed by the loop 170 and the end surface are the ribs adjacent the loop 170, as designated in the rejection. Based on a top view of the cassette shown in fig. 12, it would appear that a cross-sectional dimension of the recessed area would get greater toward the end surface. As such, Johnson does not teach or disclose the cross-sectional dimension getting smaller toward the end surface, as required by the claim.
Regarding claim 36, Amborn fails to disclose the boundary includes a receiving recess to receive an alignment pin from the pump. The boundary of Amborn is equated to the walls of pressure plate 12, as defined above. The boundary includes a plurality of snaps 32 in fig. 3. However, Amborn discloses that these snaps are configured to snap into apertures 88 in fig. 5B of the rear housing (paragraph 39). As such, these snaps would not be configured to receive an alignment pin from the pump. Additionally, there is no other recess of the defined boundary of Amborn which is capable of receiving an alignment pin, as required by the claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COURTNEY FREDRICKSON whose telephone number is (571)270-7481. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (9 AM - 5 PM 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, BHISMA MEHTA can be reached at 571-272-3383. 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.
/COURTNEY B FREDRICKSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3783