DETAILED ACTION
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 25-27 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 25 recites the limitation "the one or more through bores" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, the examiner is interpreting claim 25 to recite “the one or more through openings” as relied upon in claim 21.
Claim 26 recites the limitation "the one or more through bores" in lines 1-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, the examiner is interpreting claim 25 to recite “the one or more through openings” as relied upon in claim 21.
Claim 27 recites the limitation "wherein a plurality of through bores are arranged". It is unclear whether the through bores correspond to the already recited “through openings” relied upon in claim 21 or to another set of openings. For the purposes of examination, the examiner is interpreting the through bores to correspond to the already recited through openings provided in claim 21.
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) 19-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Syfonios et al., DE 10 2015012604 in view of Wilkinson et al., US 4345919 (Wilkinson). For the purposes of examination, the examiner is relying on the US national stage entry of DE 10 2015012604, hereinafter referred to/from as Syfonios et al., US 2018/0272054 (Syfonios).
Regarding claim 19, Syfonios discloses an air separator (REF 50, fig. 1, ¶ 0036) for use in a dialysis machine (fig. 1, ¶ 0033) comprising:
A first subsection (see “lower part”, ¶ 0025) that serves as a mixing chamber (see “for mixing the concentrate with the RO water”, ¶ 0025), connectors via which said first subsection is connectable to a plurality of concentrate lines (see “containers are connected via lines 54, 56 to the lower portion…of the primary air separator”, ¶ 0043) and to a dialysate line (see “dialysis fluid…flows from the lower region of the primary air separator 50 via the line 58”, ¶ 0049);
A second subsection (see “upper part”, ¶ 0025) that has an inflow region (region above “partition plate”, ¶ 0030) and a degassing drainage line (REF 52, ¶ 0039); and
A separation disk (see “partition plate”, ¶ 0030) located between the subsections (¶ 0055).
Elements drawn to the dialysis machine, balancing chamber, dialyzer, water inlet system, concentrate lines, and dialysate lines are not considered to provide patentable weight to the claim since they are not positively recited as part of the structure of the air separator. Additionally, the air separator is configured to connect to the recited components of the dialysis system via the first and second subsections as seen above, thereby meeting the functionality described in claim 1 in relation to the dialysis machine.
Syfonios does not disclose the separation disk as a partly conical separation disk whose conical section extends into the first subsection. However, Wilkinson discloses a degasser for biological fluids (abstract, figs. 1-4) comprising a first subsection (REF 40) and a second subsection (REF 38) with a conical partition plate (REF 36, fig. 4) positioned therebetween, a conical section of the partition plate extending into the first subsection (fig. 4).
At the time of invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the air separator of Syfonios to have a conical partition plate as described in Wilkinson since it has been shown that various shapes are effective and matters of conventional design choice for the purposes of removing gasses from biological fluids (Wilkinson, C3/L49-52).
Regarding claim 20, Syfonios (in view of Wilkinson) discloses an air separator wherein the first subsection is below the second subsection with respect to the standing arrangement of the air separator (fig. 1, ¶ 0023), with the degassing drainage line (REF 52, ¶ 0039) being arranged above the separation disk in the standing arrangement that corresponds to an operating state (Claim 12).
Regarding claim 21, Syfonios (in view of Wilkinson) discloses an air separator further comprising through openings in the separation disk (see “one or more holes”, ¶ 0030) through which air or fluid may move from one subsection to another subsection (¶ 0055, Claim 14).
Regarding claim 22, Wilkinson further discloses the conical partition plate (REF 36) having the conical section and a flange-like portion (periphery of REF 36 adjacent REF 12, figs. 4-5) extending around said conical section, with a plurality of through openings (REF 42) arranged in the flange-like section (fig. 5).
Regarding claim 23, Syfonios (in view of Wilkinson) discloses an air separator wherein the connectors for the supply of concentrate (connections between REF 50 and REF 54/56) are not aligned with and offset from the connector of the first subsection to a dialysate line (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 24, Syfonios (in view of Wilkinson) discloses an air separator wherein the connectors are arranged such that a circulating liquid flow is capable of rising in the first subsection (see REF 54, 56, 58 connected to REF 50, fig. 1).
Regarding claims 25-26, Syfonios (in view of Wilkinson) discloses an air separator wherein the through openings extend obliquely with respect to a standing arrangement of said air separator such that a circulation flow in the mixing chamber can be formed by liquid entering into the mixing chamber (fig. 1, Claims 12-14).
Regarding claim 27, Wilkinson further discloses the conical partition plate (REF 36) having a plurality of through openings (REF 42) arranged in the peripheral direction of said partition plate (fig. 5).
Regarding claim 28, Wilkinson further discloses the conical partition plate (REF 36) having a conical section extending into a first subsection (REF 40), wherein a spacing is created between the tip of the conical section and the bottom of the first subsection (REF 29).
Regarding claim 29, Wilkinson further discloses an air separator composed of two housing parts (REF 24, 32) and a sealed seat (REF 44) in which the separation disk (REF 36) is located is provided in the region of the connecting point of the two housing parts (fig. 4).
Regarding claim 30, elements drawn to the dialysis machine are not considered to provide patentable weight to the claim since they are not positively recited as part of the structure of the air separator.
Regarding claim 31, Syfonios (in view of Wilkinson) discloses an air separator further comprising a line (REF 52) for removing air from the air separator (¶ 0039) that leads from the second subsection.
Regarding claim 32, Syfonios (in view of Wilkinson) discloses a dialysis machine (fig. 1) comprising
A balancing system (REF B, ¶ 0042) that has at least one balancing chamber (fig. 1, ¶ 0049) for a volumetrically exact supply and removal of dialysis solution to and from a dialyzer (REF D) fluidically connected to the balancing system in operation;
A water inlet system connected to the balancing system (¶ 0027, Claim 1), the water inlet system having an apparatus (REF 10, ¶ 0036) for degassing water and connected to an air separator (REF 50, ¶ 0036), the air separator having a first subsection (see “lower part”, ¶ 0025) that serves as a mixing chamber (see “for mixing the concentrate with the RO water”, ¶ 0025) and being connectable to at least one concentrate source (REF K1, K2, fig. 1, ¶ 0040) via at least one concentrate line (REF 54, 56) and being in fluid communication with the balancing system via at least one dialysate line (REF 58), the air separator relied upon in the rejection of claim 19 set forth above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DIRK R BASS whose telephone number is (571)270-7370. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4:30 EST Monday-Friday.
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, Bobby Ramdhanie can be reached at (571) 270-3240. 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.
DIRK R. BASS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1779
/DIRK R BASS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779