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. Specification Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details. The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided. The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract contains less than 50 words. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b). The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Paragraph 0001 needs to be updated to update the status of the application 17/999,092 to include US Patent 11,839,751. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 12-15 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 12, the recitation “a pair of first fluid paths, a pair of second fluid paths, and a pair of bubble suspension apparatuses” renders the claim indefinite because the claim is unclear if “a pair of first fluid paths, a pair of second fluid paths, and a pair of bubble suspension apparatuses” refers to “at least one first fluid path”, “at least one second fluid path” and “at least one bubble suspension apparatus” in claim 1 or additional. For examination purposes, examiner construes “a pair of first fluid paths, a pair of second fluid paths, and a pair of bubble suspension apparatuses” are part of “at least one first fluid path”, “at least one second fluid path” and “at least one bubble suspension apparatus”. Claims 13-15 being dependent on claim 12 are also rejected. Regarding claim 14, lines 2-3, the recitation “a first medical fluid” and “a second medical fluid” renders the claim indefinite because the claim is unclear if “a first medical fluid” and “a second medical fluid” are part of “an injection fluid” recited in claim 1, line 17. For examination purposes, examiner construes that “a first medical fluid” and “a second medical fluid” are part of “an injection fluid”. 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. Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Jiang et al. (US 2018/0280630 A1) . Regarding claim 16, Jiang teaches a method (paragraph 0028, figure 1) for preventing injection of one or more air bubbles into a patient during a powered injection procedure, the method comprising: flowing (paragraph 0030) an injection fluid in an air detection region (region being detected by element 132 ) of a fluid path (fluid path from element 112 to element 116) past at least one upstream air detector 132 ; detecting one or more air bubbles (paragraph 0039) in the injection fluid in the air detection region of the fluid path by the at least one upstream air detector 132 ; signaling (paragraph 0038, lines 5-11, paragraph 0039, lines 1-10, element 134 acting automatically based on response from element 132) to a processor 134 by the at least one air detector that the one or more air bubbles have been detected; flowing the injection fluid (fluid and bubbles are flowing into element 102 after entering from element 112) and the one or more air bubbles into a bubble suspension apparatus 102 distal to the air detection region (region being detected by element 132) ; at least temporarily suspending the one or more air bubbles in an internal fluid vortex (paragraph 0031) in the injection fluid within the bubble suspension apparatus; signaling (paragraph 0038, paragraph 0039, lines 1-10) by the processor to an actuator of a shutoff valve 118 to move the shutoff valve from a first position (position where element 118 is allowing fluid flow) providing fluid communication with a vasculature of a patient to a second position (position where element 118 is preventing fluid flow) where fluid communication with the vasculature of the patient is prevented; and moving the shutoff valve (paragraph 0038) by the actuator from the first position to the second position to prevent flowing of the one or more air bubbles to a portion of the fluid path downstream from the shutoff valve 118 , wherein the bubble suspension apparatus (paragraph 0039, element 102 allows accumulation of air before initiating command to stop the valve thereby delaying passage of one or more air bubble out of the element 102) delays passage of the one or more air bubbles out of the bubble suspension apparatus for a time sufficient to allow the processor 134 to actuate the actuator and allow the actuator to move the shutoff valve from the first position to the second position. 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. Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang et al. (US 2018/0280630 A1) . Regarding claim 18, Jiang discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above in claim 16. Jiang further discloses wherein in at least temporarily suspending the one or more air bubbles in the internal fluid vortex in the injection fluid comprises suspending the one or more air bubbles in the internal fluid vortex in the injection fluid for at least some time (paragraph 0042, the bubbles will be suspended for some time until the bubbles rise from the fluid and move upwards while the fluid is moving downwards). However, Jiang does not expressly disclose the time of at least 100 milliseconds. Jiang discloses that air bubbles need to be suspended in the internal fluid vortex for sometime to separate the air bubbles from the fluid and raise the bubbles upwards. As explained in paragraph 0042, the time requirement is disclosed to be result effective variable in that changing the time will allow sufficient time for the air bubbles to separate and accumulate near element 132. Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the Jiang time. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the time of Jiang by making the time of at least 100 milliseconds as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller , 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang et al. (US 2018/0280630 A1) in view of Yamamoto (US 2014/0249412 A1) . Regarding claim 19, Jiang discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above in claim 16. Jiang discloses the use of the removal of air bubbles from the pressurized infusion of medical liquids (abstract, paragraph 0003) and delivering the injection fluid (paragraph 0042) to flow the injection fluid in the air detection region of the fluid path past the at least one upstream air detector 132 but is silent regarding further comprising pressurizing the injection fluid by a syringe to flow the injection fluid in the air detection region of the fluid path past the at least one upstream air detector. However, Yamamoto teaches a design of a pressurized injection system (figure 7) comprising pressurizing the injection fluid by a syringe 510A, 510B to flow the injection fluid in the air detection region (region being monitored by element AS2) of the fluid path past the at least one upstream air detector AS2 for the purpose of pressurizing and delivering the liquid to the patient’s body (paragraph 0088). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the system of Jiang to include a syringe as taught by Yamamoto for the purpose of pressurizing and delivering the liquid to the patient’s body (paragraph 0088). Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang et al. (US 2018/0280630 A1) in view of Riley et al. (US 2008/0098798 A1 ) . Regarding claim 20, Jiang discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above in claim 16. Jiang is silent regarding further comprising halting, by the processor, the flowing of the injection fluid concurrently with moving the shutoff valve by the actuator from the first position to the second position. However, Riley teaches a design of a system (figure 1D) including an air bubble detector further comprising halting, by the processor, the flowing of the injection fluid concurrently with moving the shutoff valve by the actuator from the first position to the second position (paragraph 0066, lines 19-24) for the purpose of preventing building of excess pressure within the fluid line (paragraph 0066, lines 19-24). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the method of Jiang to incorporate further comprising halting, by the processor, the flowing of the injection fluid concurrently with moving the shutoff valve by the actuator from the first position to the second position as taught by Riley for the purpose of preventing building of excess pressure within the fluid line (paragraph 0066, lines 19-24). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-11 are allowed. Claims 12-15 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. Claims 17 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including 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 of record, Jiang et al. (US 2018/0280630 A1), fails to teach, disclose or render obvious a fluid path assembly comprising at least one bubble suspension apparatus intermediate of at least one first fluid path and the at least one second fluid path, the bubble suspension apparatus comprising: an internal chamber having a curved, hemispherical interior wall defined within the housing, wherein the internal chamber is at least partly spherical or hemispherical; an inlet fluid pathway in fluid communication with the first fluid path and the internal chamber, the inlet fluid pathway extending into the internal chamber at a tangent to the curved, hemispherical interior wall; and an outlet fluid pathway in fluid communication with the internal chamber and the second fluid path , the outlet fluid pathway spaced from the inlet fluid pathway such that an injection fluid flowing into the internal chamber via the inlet fluid pathway is directed away from the outlet fluid pathway; wherein the internal chamber [having a curved, hemispherical interior wall], is configured to create an internal fluid vortex in the injection fluid entering the internal chamber from the inlet fluid pathway; wherein the fluid vortex flow path flows transversely across an opening of the outlet fluid pathway; and wherein the internal fluid vortex at least temporarily suspends one or more air bubbles in a low pressure region in the center of the fluid vortex flow path(B) and delays the passage of the one or more air bubbles to the outlet fluid pathway in addition to other limitations of claim 1. Claims 2-15 being dependent on claim 1 are also indicated allowable. The closest prior art of record, Jiang et al. (US 2018/0280630 A1), fails to teach, disclose or render obvious the bubble suspension apparatus comprising: an internal chamber having a curved, hemispherical interior wall defined within the housing, wherein the internal chamber is at least partly spherical or hemispherical; an inlet fluid pathway in fluid communication with the air detection region of the fluid path and the internal chamber, the inlet fluid pathway extending into the internal chamber at a tangent to the curved, hemispherical interior wall; and an outlet fluid pathway in fluid communication with the internal chamber and the second fluid path, the outlet fluid pathway spaced from the inlet fluid pathway such that an injection fluid flowing into the internal chamber via the inlet fluid pathway is directed away from the outlet fluid pathway; wherein the internal chamber [having a curved, hemispherical interior wall], is configured to create an internal fluid vortex in the injection fluid entering the internal chamber from the inlet fluid pathway; wherein the fluid vortex flow path flows transversely across an opening of the outlet fluid pathway; and wherein the internal fluid vortex at least temporarily suspends one or more air bubbles in a low pressure region in the center of the fluid vortex flow path(B) and delays the passage of the one or more air bubbles to the outlet fluid pathway in addition to other limitations of claim 17. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT NILAY J SHAH whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-9689 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Thursday 8:00 AM-4:30 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT CHELSEA STINSON can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-270-1744 . 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. /NILAY J SHAH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3783