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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 9, 10, and 19 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 claims 9 and 19, the claims recite that the second position comprises an end seal. It is unclear if this “end seal” is a structure or a function. If Applicant intends for the first interpretation to be used, it is further unclear how a position can comprise an end seal. If Applicant intends for the second interpretation to be used, it is advised to clarify that, in the second position, an end seal is formed to stop fluid flow. For examination purposes, a seal created in the second position is considered to meet the claim limitation.
Claim 10 is also rejected by virtue of being dependent on claim 9.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-13, and 16-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Childers (US 20090107902) in view of Herskowitz (US 5554123).
Regarding claim 1, Childers discloses a fluid control device for an ultrasound-based treatment system (system 10 in fig. 1 is functionally capable of being used in an ultrasound based treatment system since the specifics of the treatment system are not further claimed), comprising:
at least one motor (motor 66 in fig. 14),
at least one camshaft operatively coupled to the motor in rotational communication with the motor (camshaft 64 in fig. 14), and
at least one actuator in communication with the at least one camshaft (pinch valves 48 in fig. 14), such that when the at least one camshaft rotates, thereby moving the at least one actuator between a first position and a second position through a fluid channel of a cartridge manifold (fig. 13 and 14 shows that when camshaft 64 is rotated, it causes valve body 62 to rotate which in turn causes the pinch valves 48 to move vertically to open/close a fluid channel of cassette 40 in fig. 8, equated to the claimed cartridge manifold).
However, Childers does not teach or disclose a motor shaft extending from an axis of the motor and operatively coupled to the camshaft in rotational communication such that when the motor shaft is operating, the motor shaft causes the at least one camshaft to rotate.
Herskowitz teaches a fluid control device (fig. 1) comprising a motor (motor 66 in fig. 5) comprising a motor shaft extending from an axis of the motor (motor drive shaft 68 in fig. 5) which is in rotational communication with a camshaft (camshaft 74 in fig. 4) such that such that when the motor shaft is operating, the motor shaft causes the at least one camshaft to rotate (3:28-30 discloses a rotary motor shaft; 5:9-14 discloses camshaft rotating once the motor turns on so that it is understood that the drive shaft would rotate with the camshaft).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Childers so that the camshaft is rotationally engaged to a motor shaft extending form an axis of the motor in order to couple the camshaft to the motor and in order to allow the camshaft to be separated from the motor in case of motor failure.
Regarding claim 4, in the modified device of Childers, Childers discloses a vent (vent port 190 in fig. 49; paragraph 136).
Regarding claim 6, in the modified device of Childers, Childers discloses the at least one actuator is a rod and spring (see below).
PNG
media_image1.png
324
434
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, in the modified device of Childers, Childers discloses the first position starts fluid flow (paragraph 112 discloses a retracted position in which fluid can flow through the system).
Regarding claim 8, in the modified device of Childers, Childers discloses the second position stops fluid flow (paragraph 112 and 113 discloses a pinched position to close a fluid line).
Regarding claim 9, in the modified device of Childers, Childers discloses the second position comprises an end seal to stop fluid flow through a fluid port (paragraph 113 discloses the pinched position would seal the fluid line which would stop fluid flow through a port, the examiner notes that the fluid port is functional and not positively recited).
Regarding claim 10, in the modified device of Childers, Childers discloses the fluid port is a front fluid channel (the examiner notes that the fluid port is functional and not positively recited due to the “to stop” language in claim 9, the device of Childers is functionally capable of stop fluid flowing through a front fluid channel).
Regarding claim 11, in the modified device of Childers, Childers discloses a compression spring that acts on the at least one actuator to move the at least one actuator to an original position (spring 56 in fig. 13; paragraph 114).
Regarding claim 12, in the modified device of Childers, Childers discloses at least one camshaft is a radial cam (the examiner notes that the “radial” direction is not defined; the camshaft 64 in fig. 14 extends radially from the motor so as to be a “radial cam”).
Regarding claim 13, Childers discloses a fluid control device for an ultrasound-based treatment system (system 10 in fig. 1 is functionally capable of being used in an ultrasound based treatment system since the specifics of the treatment system are not further claimed), comprising:
at least one rocker arm (clamp heads 54 in fig. 13),
at least one actuator (pinch valve 48 in fig. 13) in communication with a first end of the at least one rocker arm (see below),
at least one camshaft (camshaft 64 in fig. 14) in communication with a second end of the rocker arm (see below; the camshaft 64 is in functional communication with the end below, the examiner notes that the claim does not presently require the second end to be opposite to the first end), and
PNG
media_image2.png
302
488
media_image2.png
Greyscale
at least one motor (motor 66 in fig. 14), the motor in rotational communication with the at least one camshaft such that when the motor is operating, the motor causes the at least one rocker arm to actuate thereby moving the at least one actuator between a first position and a second position (fig. 13 and 14 shows that when the motor is on, the camshaft rotates which causes valve body 62 to rotate which in turn causes the clamp heads 64 to pivot to move the pinch valves between open and closed positions).
However, Childers does not teach or disclose a motor shaft extending from the motor and operatively coupled to the camshaft in rotational communication such that when the motor shaft is operating, the motor shaft causes the at least one camshaft to rotate.
Herskowitz teaches a fluid control device (fig. 1) comprising a motor (motor 66 in fig. 5) comprising a motor shaft extending from an axis of the motor (motor drive shaft 68 in fig. 5) which is in rotational communication with a camshaft (camshaft 74 in fig. 4) such that such that when the motor shaft is operating, the motor shaft causes the at least one camshaft to rotate (3:28-30 discloses a rotary motor shaft; 5:9-14 discloses camshaft rotating once the motor turns on so that it is understood that the drive shaft would rotate with the camshaft).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Childers so that the camshaft is rotationally engaged to a motor shaft extending form an axis of the motor in order to couple the camshaft to the motor and in order to allow the camshaft to be separated from the motor in case of motor failure.
Regarding claim 16, in the modified device of Childers, Childers discloses the at least one actuator is a rod and spring (see below).
PNG
media_image1.png
324
434
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 17, in the modified device of Childers, Childers discloses the first position starts fluid flow (paragraph 112 discloses a retracted position in which fluid can flow through the system).
Regarding claim 18, in the modified device of Childers, Childers discloses the second position stops fluid flow (paragraph 112 and 113 discloses a pinched position to close a fluid line).
Regarding claim 19, in the modified device of Childers, Childers discloses the second position comprises an end seal to stop fluid flow through a fluid port (paragraph 113 discloses the pinched position would seal the fluid line which would stop fluid flow through a port, the examiner notes that the fluid port is functional and not positively recited).
Regarding claim 20, in the modified device of Childers, Childers discloses a compression spring that acts on the at least one actuator to move the at least one actuator to an original position (spring 56 in fig. 13; paragraph 114).
Regarding claim 21, Childers discloses a fluid control device for a balloon catheter (the device shown in fig. 14 is capable of being used on a balloon catheter by pinching a fluid line to a balloon catheter), comprising:
at least one motor (motor 66 in fig. 14),
at least one camshaft operatively coupled to the motor in rotational communication with the motor (camshaft 64 in fig. 14), and
at least one actuator configured to move in communication with the at least one camshaft and control a flow of a fluid by pinching a flow path of the fluid to or from the balloon catheter (pinch valve 48 in fig. 14 is functionally capable of pinching a flow path of a balloon catheter).
However, Childers does not teach or disclose a motor shaft extending from an axis of the motor and operatively coupled to the camshaft in rotational communication such that when the motor shaft is operating, the motor shaft causes the at least one camshaft to rotate.
Herskowitz teaches a fluid control device (fig. 1) comprising a motor (motor 66 in fig. 5) comprising a motor shaft extending from an axis of the motor (motor drive shaft 68 in fig. 5) which is in rotational communication with a camshaft (camshaft 74 in fig. 4) such that such that when the motor shaft is operating, the motor shaft causes the at least one camshaft to rotate (3:28-30 discloses a rotary motor shaft; 5:9-14 discloses camshaft rotating once the motor turns on so that it is understood that the drive shaft would rotate with the camshaft).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Childers so that the camshaft is rotationally engaged to a motor shaft extending form an axis of the motor in order to couple the camshaft to the motor and in order to allow the camshaft to be separated from the motor in case of motor failure.
Regarding claim 22, in the modified device of Childers, Childers discloses the flow path is a flow tube (the examiner notes that the flow path is a functional limitation and not positively recited due to the “configured to” language in claim 21, as such, the pinch valve 48 of Childers is functionally capable of pinching a tube, see also fig. 8 which shows the pinch valve pinching a tube).
Regarding claim 23, in the modified device of Childers, Childers discloses the flow path is a flow channel of a fluid manifold (the examiner notes that the flow path is a functional limitation and not positively recited due to the “configured to” language in claim 21, as such, the pinch valve 48 of Childers is functionally capable of pinching a flow channel of a fluid manifold, see also fig. 8 which shows the pinch valve pinching a flow channel of cassette 40).
Claim(s) 2 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Childers in view of Herskowitz, as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, and further in view of Tan (US 20110184340).
Regarding claims 2 and 14, modified Childers teaches all of the claimed limitations set forth in claims 1 and 13, as discussed above, but does not teach or disclose one or more processors configured to control the at least one motor operably coupled to the at least one camshaft to move the at least one actuator between the first position and the second position.
Tan is directed towards a fluid control device (fig. 1) comprising a processor (microcontroller 516 in fig. 6) which is configured to control a motor operatively coupled to a valve (paragraph 127 discloses the microcontroller controls valve motor 512 to selectively open/close various valves). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of modified Childers to include a processor configured to control the at least one motor operably coupled to the at least one camshaft to move the at least one actuator between the first position and the second position, as taught by Tan, for the purpose of automatically controlling opening/closing of the actuators.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Childers in view of Herskowitz, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zafiris (US 20210228856).
Regarding claim 3, modified Childers teaches all of the claimed limitations set forth in claim 1, as discussed above, but does not teach or disclose the at least one actuator is configured to move to the first position when power is removed.
Zafiris is directed towards an actuator (paragraph 171 discloses valve actuators) which is configured to move to the first position when power is removed (paragraph 171 discloses moving the valves to a closed position when there is a loss of power; the examiner notes that the “first position” is not defined in claim 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of modified Childers to have the at least one actuator is configured to move to the first position (closed) when power is removed, as taught by Zafiris in order to provide a fail-safe mechanism (paragraph 171).
Claim(s) 5 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Childers in view of Herskowitz, as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, and further in view of Charles (US 6665554).
Regarding claim 5 and 15, modified Childers teaches all of the claimed limitations set forth in claims 1 and 13, respectively, but does not teach or disclose a gear train coupled to the motor shaft to produce more force at the second position.
Charles is directed towards a motor (motor 155 in fig. 9) which is operable to move a clamp (clamp 160 in fig. 9) and which further comprises a geartrain to produce more force at the second position (13:23-26 discloses a gear train for torque amplification). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the motor of Childers to be coupled to a gear train, as taught by Charles in order to amplify torque (13:23-26).
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 FREDRICKSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3783
Prosecution Insights