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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed on 12/05/2025 has been entered. Claim 1 has been amended; claims 2-6, 13, 22-27, 29, and 31-32 have been cancelled; claims 17-21, 28, and 30 have been withdrawn. Accordingly, claims 1, 7-12, 14-21, 28, and 30 are pending and under consideration.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the same combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
In light of further search and consideration, claim 1 is hereby rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leonard US 2011/0021966 A1 (previously cited), in view of Yoneda JP H08131543 A (previously cited), as cited in the IDS. Yoneda is no longer relied upon for any teaching regarding an optical intrusion as traversed on page 5-7 of Applicant’s remarks. See rejection of claims below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 2/13/2026 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 § 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 14, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leonard US 2011/0021966 A1 (previously cited, hereinafter Leonard), in view of Yoneda JP H08131543 A (previously cited, hereinafter Yoneda), as cited in the IDS.
Regarding claim 1, Leonard discloses an apparatus 844 (Fig. 8) for removing CO from blood (Examiner notes that since the device of Leonard can operate at the frequency of 400nm (Par. 41 of Leonard), which is consistent with Applicant’s workable frequency for removing carbon monoxide (Par. 34 of Applicant’s disclosure), the device of Leonard is also capable of removing CO from blood), the apparatus 844 (Fig. 8) comprising:
a housing 844 (Fig. 8) configured to house blood obtained from a body of a subject within an interior of the housing 844 (Fig. 8, and Par. 71 – “Inlet manifold 840 and outlet manifold 842 distribute blood”);
a plurality of tubules 850 (Fig. 8 – separation channels 850) disposed within the interior of the housing 844 (Fig. 8);
an optical intrusion 852 (Fig. 8 – light guides 852) coupled to the housing 844 (Fig. 8) and configured to project into the housing 844 (Fig. 8, and Par. 71 – “Light guides 852 are sandwiched between the separation channels 850 to distribute light”), wherein the optical intrusion 852 (Fig. 8) extending into the interior of the housing 844 (Fig. 8), and wherein the optical intrusion 852 (Fig. 8) is configured to transmit light from outside the housing 844 (Fig. 8) into the interior of the housing 844 (Fig. 8, and Par. 71 – “Light guides 852 are… to distribute light from the therapeutic light sources 822 to the major faces of the separation channels 850”); and
a light source 822 (Fig. 8 – light source 822) optically coupled to the optical intrusion 852 (Fig. 8, and Par. 71 – “Light guides 852 are… to distribute light from the therapeutic light sources 822”), the light source 822 (Fig. 8) being configured to emit light which is coupled via the optical intrusion 852 (Fig. 8, and Par. 71) into the interior of the housing 844 (Fig. 8) such that the emitted light interacts with the blood from the body of the subject (Par. 71 – “Light guides 852 are sandwiched between the separation channels 850 to distribute light from the therapeutic light sources 822 to the major faces of the separation channels 850”).
However, Leonard does not disclose a plurality of gas-permeable tubules, and wherein the optical intrusion comprises a fiber optic.
Leonard, in the same field of endeavor and in another embodiment, teaches wherein the optical intrusion 404 (Fig. 4b – light pipes 404) comprises a fiber optic (Par. 53 – “a light distribution device such as a light pipe or fiber-optic bundle”).
Yoneda, in the same field of endeavor of artificial lung (Par. 1 in the provided translation), teaches for removing CO from blood (Par. 1 in the provided translation – “The present invention relates to an artificial lung that can easily and quickly treat carbon monoxide poisoning”, and Par. 5 in the provided translation – “carbon monoxide in the patient's blood can be easily replaced with oxygen”), a plurality of gas-permeable tubules 11 (Fig. 2 – porous hollow fibers 11, and Par. 7 in the provided translation – “a large number of porous hollow fibers 11”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the optical intrusion of Leonard to have a fiber optic, also as taught by Leonard, in order to distribute light to the channels (Par. 53 of Leonard). It also would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the optical intrusion of Leonard to have a fiber optic, as Leonard teaches both embodiments. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143.A.).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the tubules of Leonard to be gas-permeable, in order to further replace toxic gas with oxygen (Par. 4 of Yoneda in the provided translation).
Regarding claim 14, Leonard in view of Yoneda suggests the invention of claim 1. The combination further discloses wherein the optical intrusion (Par. 54 of Leonard – “light tubes”) comprises a fluorescent material (Par. 54 of Leonard – “light tubes incorporating fluorescent material”).
Regarding claim 15, Leonard in view of Yoneda suggests the invention of claim 1. The combination further discloses wherein the light source 404 (Fig. 4b of Leonard) comprises at least one of an LED or a laser (Par. 59 of Leonard – “the number of therapeutic light sources can vary as necessary… Also, any light source capable of providing the necessary wavelengths of light could be used. This includes light emitting diodes (LED),…, laser diodes (LD)…”).
Regarding claim 16, Leonard in view of Yoneda suggests the invention of claim 1. The combination further discloses wherein the light source emits light between 400-700 nm (Par. 33 of Leonard – “the light source can be configured to generate light with a substantial component in the wavelength range of 200-400 nm”).
Claims 7, 9, 10, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leonard in view of Yoneda as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gilmore et al. US 5,263,925 A (newly cited, hereinafter Gilmore).
Regarding claim 7, Leonard in view of Yoneda suggests the invention of claim 1. However, the combination does not disclose wherein the optical intrusion comprises a tapered structure extending into the interior of the housing.
Gilmore, in the same field of endeavor of treatment of blood with irradiation (Abstract), teaches wherein the optical intrusion 42 (Fig. 10 – concave lenses 42) comprises a tapered structure 42 (Col. 5, line 1-8 – concave lenses) extending into the interior of the housing 21 (Fig. 10 – cell 21).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the optical intrusion of the combined device to have a tapered structure as taught by Gilmore, in order to closely directing the rays from fiber optic to the tubules/channels (Col. 5, line 1-8 of Gilmore).
Regarding claim 9, Leonard in view of Yoneda in view of Gilmore suggests the invention of claim 7. The combination further discloses wherein the tapered structure 42 (Fig. 10 of Gilmore) is solid (Par. 53 of Leonard – light pipes 404 can be solid state light sources).
Regarding claim 10, Leonard in view of Yoneda in view of Gilmore suggests the invention of claim 7. However, the combination does not disclose wherein the tapered structure is part of the housing.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the tapered structure of the combination to be part of the housing , since such modification would have involved making elements integral. Making elements integral is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965).
Regarding claim 11, Leonard in view of Yoneda in view of Gilmore suggests the invention of claim 7. However, the combination does not disclose wherein the tapered structure has a shape of at least one of a wedge, a cone, or a pyramid.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the tapered structure of the combination to other tapered structure as claimed, as it is a matter of engineering design to reconfigure the taper in different ways, where the change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected result, is an obvious engineering design. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Regarding claim 12, Leonard in view of Yoneda in view of Gilmore suggests the invention of claim 1. However, the combination does not disclose wherein the optical intrusion comprises a plurality of tapered structures.
Gilmore, in the same field of endeavor of treatment of blood with irradiation (Abstract), teaches wherein the optical intrusion 42 (Fig. 10 – concave lenses 42) comprises a plurality of tapered structures 42 (Col. 5, line 1-8 – concave lenses).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the optical intrusion of the combined device to have tapered structures as taught by Gilmore, in order to closely directing the rays from fiber optic to the tubules/channels (Col. 5, line 1-8 of Gilmore).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leonard in view of Yoneda as applied to claim 7, and further in view of Zhu et al. CN 110975560 A (previously cited, hereinafter Zhu).
Regarding claim 8, Leonard in view of Yoneda in view of Gilmore suggests the invention of claim 7. However, the combination does not disclose wherein the tapered structure is hollow.
Zhu, in the same field of endeavor of gas purification treatment (Title) using light (Par. 13 in the provided translation), teaches wherein the structure 1 (Fig. – chamber 1) is hollow (Par. 37 in the provided translation – “reactor 1 in this embodiment is specifically designed as a hollow cylindrical structure”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the tapered structure of the combination to be hollow as taught by Zhu, in order to facilitate the installation and placement of any lamp inside (Par. 37 of Zhu in the provided translation).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QUYNH DAO LE whose telephone number is (571)272-7198. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 5:30 pm.
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, Sarah Al-Hashimi can be reached at (571) 272-7159. 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.
/QUYNH DAO LE/Examiner, Art Unit 3781
/ANDREW J MENSH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781