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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 4, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Amendments to the current set of claims have changed the scope of the claimed invention, resulting in a modification of the previous prior art rejection.
On pages 6-7 of the Remarks section as indicated by the page number at the bottom of each page, Applicant discusses the amendments made to the claims and the Specification. On page 7, Applicant argues against Examiner’s objection to the Abstract about the first sentence being grammatically correct. Applicant argues that the verb “that includes” is grammatically proper in the context of the sentence and further argues that using “comprising” instead would introduce legal phraseology not proper in the Abstract. The Examiner notes that the verb “that includes” is used in a relative clause to modify the subject to which it refers, it is not a verb in the main clause, otherwise the word “that” would not be used. The Examiner maintains this objection as a result.
On pages 7-8, Applicant agues against the objection to the Specification regarding the insertion of the WIPO publication number, arguing it is not required. However, the insertion of the WIPO publication number into the Specification by Applicant has been noted, thus the objection has been withdrawn. The Examiner has withdrawn the other objections to the Specification due to the amendments made.
On pages 8-11, Applicant argues against the previous prior art rejection of independent Claim 1, arguing that previous anticipatory reference McBride, (US 5,800,721), does not disclose the “opposed wall” or “guide wall” because the liquid from tube 130 allegedly flows into “cup 126”, not onto crown 64. Applicant also argues that wall portion 18c does not allegedly “guide the liquid downward from the opposed wall” as in Claim 1. The Examiner notes that the liquid flows into/is received by chamber 68 in which one side of chamber 68 is lower wall 18, including wall portion 18c, (See column 7, lines 40-44, McBride). Thus, the Examiner maintains that contact is capable of being kept between the liquid and wall portion 18 as it collects and drains via basin 50 and outlet 20. Applicant argues that the present invention requires these features. The Examiner notes that the claim now requires that the liquid hits the opposed wall, which is a change in scope of the claimed invention.
Applicant also argues that tube 130 is not “connected to a downstream-side end portion of the inflow port”, arguing that the fitting 176 to which tube 130 is connected is a separate component from inlet 34, thus it is only “an indirect” connection. The Examiner notes that the tube 130 is fixedly attached to inlet 34 via fitting 176, and the claim language also does not require direct connection. The Examiner finds this remark unpersuasive.
Applicant then states that Claim 1 has been amended to distinguish further from McBride in which now the claim requires the liquid hits against the opposed wall and that the opposed wall has further structural features and angles not claimed by McBride. In response, the Examiner notes that previous secondary reference Yokoyama et al., (“Yokoyama”, US 2002/0094300), explicitly discloses these added claimed features, and thus these remarks are considered moot.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the first sentence lacks a subject-verb grammatical structure. 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).
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 & 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McBride, (US 5,800,721), in view of Yokoyama et al., (“Yokoyama”, US 2002/0094300).
Regarding Claims 1-5 & 7-9, McBride discloses a liquid storage reservoir, (See Abstract, comprising: a housing that is able to store a liquid, (Housing 12, See Figure 1 & 2, See column 6, lines 21-37); an inflow port connected to an upper portion of the housing to allow the liquid to flow into the housing, (Inlet 34, See Figures 1 & 2, See column 6, lines 32-34, lines 45-49); an outflow port connected to a lower portion of the housing to allow the liquid to flow out of the housing, (Outlet 20, See Figures 1 & 2, See column 6, lines 21-23, See column 7, lines 1-2); and an introduction pipe connected to a downstream-side end portion of the inflow port to introduce the liquid into the housing, (Upper portion of Tube 130 connects to bottom portion of Inlet 34 via Fitting 176, See Figure 2, See column 10, lines 46-58), wherein the inflow port is connected to the housing in a posture intersecting a vertical direction, (Inlet 34 is perpendicular before bending to vertical as it joins with Fitting 176, See Figure 2 & 4, See column 10, lines 46-58), the introduction pipe is formed to be tubular, and has a shape extending vertically downward from the downstream-side end portion of the inflow port, (Tube 130 extends vertically downward from Fitting 176 and Inlet 34, See Figure 2, See column 10, lines 46-58), the housing has an opposed wall formed at a position opposed to a lower end portion of the introduction pipe, (Crown 64 directly facing across from bottom of Tube 130, See Figure 2, See column 7, lines 12-22), and a guide wall that guides the liquid downward from the opposed wall, (Wall Portion 18c extends from Crown 64, See Figure 2, See column 10, lines 10-25), the opposed wall has a curved shape, the opposed wall has a center opposed portion located vertically below a center of the lower end portion of the introduction pipe, (Opposed top portion of Crown 64 directly across from bottom of Tube 130, in which Crown 64 is curving away from Tube 130 in either lateral direction, See Figure 2).
McBride does not disclose an angle between a horizontal direction and a line tangent to an upper end portion of the opposed wall is smaller than an angle between the horizontal direction and a line tangent to the center opposed portion, and an angle between the horizontal direction and a line tangent to a lower end portion of the opposed wall is larger than the angle between the horizontal direction and the line tangent to the center opposed portion.
Yokoyama discloses an angle between a horizontal direction and a line tangent to an upper end portion of the opposed wall is smaller than an angle between the horizontal direction and a line tangent to the center opposed portion, and an angle between the horizontal direction and a line tangent to a lower end portion of the opposed wall is larger than the angle between the horizontal direction and the line tangent to the center opposed portion, (Blood Distributing Member 17 directly below Outlet 20, apex of Member 17 has a tangent of 0 degrees, smaller than the portion of Member 17 directly below Outlet 20, and rightmost portion of Member 17 before it joins lateral portion has steeper tangent angel than portion directly below Outlet 20, See Figure 2, Yokoyama).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the liquid storage reservoir of modified McBride by incorporating an angle between a horizontal direction and a line tangent to an upper end portion of the opposed wall is smaller than an angle between the horizontal direction and a line tangent to the center opposed portion, and an angle between the horizontal direction and a line tangent to a lower end portion of the opposed wall is larger than the angle between the horizontal direction and the line tangent to the center opposed portion as in Yokoyama because the orientation of the opposed wall to the introduction pipe results in “blood falling from the lower end of the…tube” which “impinges softly on the blood distributing member…thus reducing the amount of foaming”, (See paragraph [0081], Yokoyama).
Additional Disclosures Included:
Claim 2: The liquid storage reservoir according to claim 1, wherein the downstream-side end portion of the inflow port has a wall surface opposed to flow of the liquid, (Inlet 34 joins with Fitting 176 in which the beginning entrance of Inlet 34 is horizontal and then bends with Fitting 176 to the vertical such that the interior wall surface of Fitting 176 would be opposed to said flow, See Figure 2, McBride).
Claim 3: The liquid storage reservoir according to claim 1, wherein the opposed wall has a shape that gradually extends downward in a direction toward the guide wall, (Crown 64 slopes in either direction downward to Wall Portion 18c, See Figure 2, McBride).
Claim 4: The liquid storage reservoir according to claim 1, wherein a distance between the center of the lower end portion of the introduction pipe and the center-opposed portion is 0.1 time or more and 0.8 time or less as large as an inner diameter of the lower end portion of the introduction pipe, (Height difference in pixel length of bottom edge of Tube 130 to Crown 64 is roughly 28 pixels, while horizontal difference in either edge of Crown 64 is roughly 70 pixels, which results in a ratio of 0.4, in McBride, anticipating the claimed range at this value. Illustration of pixel differences shown below).
PNG
media_image1.png
99
215
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 5: The liquid storage reservoir according to claim 1, wherein the inflow port has a shape with an inner diameter gradually decreased in a direction toward the introduction pipe, (Venous Blood Inlet 5c, See Figure 4, See paragraph [0104], Yokoyama; Top interior edge of Inlet 5c is larger than bottom interior edge indicating decrease in inner diameter).
Claim 7: The liquid storage reservoir according to claim 1, wherein the housing further has an intersecting wall having a shape extending from a lower end portion of the guide wall in a direction intersecting the guide wall, (Wall Portion 18c joins Wall Portion 18a and/or 18b which extend in a direction different/intersecting with Wall Portion 18c, Figure 2, See column 6, lines 64-67, column 7, lines 1-20, McBride).
Claim 8: The liquid storage reservoir according to claim 7, wherein the housing further has a tubular portion provided below the intersecting wall, (Basin 50 and/or interior of Lower Portion 14/Housing 12 has round/circular profile as shown in Figure 1, McBride), the outflow port is connected to a lower end portion of the tubular portion, (Outlet 20 at bottom of Lower Portion 14/Basin 50, See Figure 1 & 2, See column 6, lines 21-27, McBride), and the tubular portion has a shape having a cross section gradually decreased in a direction toward the outflow port, (Basin 50 as part of Lower Portion 14 progressively narrows toward Outlet 20, See column 6, lines 64-67, column 7, lines 1-8, McBride).
Claim 9: The liquid storage reservoir according to claim 8, wherein the housing further has a coupling wall that couples the intersecting wall and the tubular portion to each other, (Wall Portion 18b joins Basin 50 to Wall Portion 18a, See Figure 2, See column 6, lines 64-67, column 7, lines 1-6), and the coupling wall has a shape inclined to extend gradually downward in a direction toward the tubular portion, (Wall Portion 18b extends at slope along edge of Basin 50 as part of Lower Portion 14, See Figure 2, See column 6, lines 64-67, column 7, lines 1-4, McBride).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McBride, (US 5,800,721), in view of Yokoyama et al., (“Yokoyama”, US 2002/0094300), in further view of Wendler et al., (“Wendler”, US 2010/0211028).
Regarding Claim 6, modified McBride discloses the liquid storage reservoir according to claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the introduction pipe has a shape with an inner diameter gradually increased in a downward direction.
Wendler discloses wherein the introduction pipe has a shape with an inner diameter gradually increased in a downward direction, (See paragraph [0030]; Do at bottom of Downtube 80 is wider than Di at top of Downtube 80).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the liquid storage reservoir of modified McBride by incorporating wherein the introduction pipe has a shape with an inner diameter gradually increased in a downward direction as in Wendler so that “the flared lumen diameter slows the velocity of the…blood being delivered” in which “this effect, in turn, reduces the velocity of bubbles….as a buoyancy of air bubble forces the air bubble to the free surface of the venous blood flow” and “as a result, air is removed from the venous blood flow more effectively such that the reservoir…exhibits improved air handling capabilities”, (See paragraph [0030], Wendler).
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 JONATHAN M PEO whose telephone number is (571)272-9891. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9AM-5PM.
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.
/JONATHAN M PEO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779
Prosecution Insights