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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1-15 are rejected.
Claims 16-18 are withdrawn.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I, claims 1-15, in the reply filed on September 9, 2026, is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Accordingly, claims 16-18 are withdrawn from further consideration because they are drawn to a non-elected invention.
Claim Objections
Claims 3-5 and 6-15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3: “pressure pump,” in line 5 should be replaced with --pressure pump.--.
Claim 4: “hemofiltration, continuous arteriovenous hemofiltration” in line 3 should be replaced with --hemofiltration, or continuous arteriovenous hemofiltration--.
Claim 5: “dimensions of suitcase” in line 2 should be replaced with --dimensions of a suitcase--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 6-15 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent cannot depend from any other multiple dependent claim. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, the claims 6-15 have not been further treated on the merits.
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.
Claim 3 is 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 3 recites the limitation "the inlet" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the outlet" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 6-15 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. Claims 6-15 are multiple dependent claims that improperly depend from multiple dependent claims, and therefore, fail to further limiting the subject matter of the claim upon which they depend. 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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(s) 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kelly et al. (US 2013/0213890) [hereinafter Kelly].
With respect to claim 1, Kelly discloses an ultrafiltration system, as shown in Fig. 2, having: a portable treatment module 301 (primary dialysis circuit), as shown in Fig. 2, having: an arterial line 610 (blood inlet line) configured to deliver blood from the patient, as shown in Fig. 2; a venous line 620 (blood outlet line) configured to return blood to the patient, as shown in Fig. 2; and a hemofilter 199 (dialyzer) with a hemofiltration membrane 200 (dialyzing membrane), as shown in Fig. 2, a blood inlet 163 (inlet end) that receives blood provided by the blood inlet line 610, as shown in Fig. 2, and a blood outlet 164 (outlet end) that provides blood towards the blood outlet line 620, as shown in Fig. 2; a filtration pump 193 (negative-pressure pump) configured to apply negative pressure across the dialyzing membrane 200 (see paragraph 0224), to provide ultrafiltration of uremic toxins from the blood (see paragraphs 0110, 0185-0191, 0198); a dialysis circuit 241 (replacement fluid line) configured to deliver replacement fluid to the blood, as shown in Fig. 4 (see paragraphs 0230, 0228, module 400 which includes circuit 241 can be connected to the system shown in Fig. 2); and pumps 125, 186, 290, 181, 274, configured to drive blood and fluidic flow in the system, as shown in Fig. 4.
With respect to claim 2, Kelly discloses wherein the negative-pressure pump 193, 290, applies a negative pressure across the dialyzer membrane 200, 135, to draw the uremic toxins across the dialyzing membrane 200, 135 (see paragraph 0224, 0228).
With respect to claim 3, Kelly discloses wherein the dialyzer 199 includes a first compartment and a second compartment separated by the dialyzing membrane 200, as shown in Fig. 2, and the first compartment includes the inlet for the blood inlet line 610 and the outlet for the blood outlet line 620, as shown in Fig. 2, and the second compartment includes no inlet and an outlet 198 for a line to the negative-pressure pump 193, as shown in Fig. 2.
With respect to claim 4, Kelly discloses wherein the system operates using Continuous Veno-Venous Hemofiltration (CVVH), intermittent veno-venous hemofiltration, continues arteriovenous hemofiltration (see paragraphs 0006, 0187, 0188).
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(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kelly (US 2013/0213890).
With respect to claim 5, Kelly discloses a portable system (suitcase) (see paragraphs 0012-0014). Kelly lacks wherein dimensions of suitcase containing the portable hemopurification system are equal to or less than 55 cm×40 cm×20 cm. However, the specific dimensions claimed by applicant, i.e., equal to or less than 55 cm×40 cm×20 cm, is considered to be nothing more than a choice of engineering skill, choice or design that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious during routine experimentation based among other things, on desired accuracy, since the courts have held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than a prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (see In re Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (FED. Cir. 1984), cert. Denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Hutchisson (US 4,083,777) and Kamen et al. (US 8,562,834) disclose portable hemodialysis systems.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MADELINE GONZALEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-5502. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5:30.
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, Benjamin Lebron can be reached at 571-272-0475. 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.
/MADELINE GONZALEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773
