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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-11 are pending in the application.
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 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)(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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-8, and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by D1 Debiotech (US 2017/0246369 A1) (equivalent to WO 2016-059589 A1 (French)).
PNG
media_image1.png
400
521
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
381
461
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As to claim 1, Debiotech teaches a support member 10/12 for an integrated blood treatment (dialysis) fluid module 10 (Fig.1-8; Abstract; [0046]-[0066], incorporated herein), the support member 10/12 comprising: a base body (front panel of blood treatment device 10; Fig.2; [0049],ll.1-6) configured to support a blood treatment device 4 (filter 4; Fig.3; [0046],ll.6-7) having a cylindrical casing (Fig.3;[0014],ll.8-9); and a handle 12 (handle with grasping element 12; Fig.2,[0014]; [0049]) permanently attached to the base body (via elements 13,14 Fig.2; [0049]), the handle 12 configured to be manually gripped for handling the integrated blood treatment fluid module (Fig.4; [0049]), and the handle 12 comprising a concave seating surface (adjacent/in filter support/fastening portion 11 Fig.2) configured to accommodate the cylindrical casing 4 of the blood treatment device (Fig.2-4; [0014],ll.8-9; [0052]-[0053]).
PNG
media_image3.png
383
348
media_image3.png
Greyscale
As to claim 2, Debiotech teaches wherein the handle 12 comprises at least one fastening portion 11 (concave filter support 11 [0014]) configured to accommodate at least one fastening member 5 (sorbent 5) to releasably fasten the cylindrical casing to the concave seating surface of the handle 12 (Fig.4; [0049]-[0050]).
As to claim 4, Debiotech teaches wherein the handle 12 is elongated between a first end and a second end along a longitudinal axis (Fig.8,2), wherein the handle 12 comprises at least one end stop portion arranged at the first end or at the second end, and wherein the at least one end stop portion is configured to restrain a relative movability of the cylindrical casing (of filter 4) along the longitudinal axis (where stop portion formed as attached to fastening portion 11 holding filter 4 cylindrical casing by extensions of 12 adjacent arm connections of 14 and 13 to 12 Fig.8,2).
As to claim 6, Debiotech teaches wherein the handle 12 comprises a back surface opposing the concave seating surface (Fig.2,8), wherein the back surface is offset from a front surface of the base body to form a finger passage 18 for fingers of a hand of an operator while gripping the handle 12 (Fig.2,4,8).
As to claim 7, Debiotech teaches wherein the handle comprises at least one spacer 13 and attachment portion 14 protruding from the back surface (Fig.2), wherein the at least one spacer 13 and attachment portion 14 is permanently attached to the front surface by forming said finger passage 18 (Fig.2,8).
As to claim 8, Debiotech teaches wherein the handle comprises: a first spacer and attachment portion 14 at a first end of the handle; and
a second spacer and attachment portion 14 at a second end of the handle 12 (Fig.2,8, the first end and the second end being longitudinally opposing ends of the handle 12.
As to claim 10, Debiotech teaches an integrated blood treatment fluid module for an apparatus for extracorporeal blood treatment, the integrated blood treatment fluid module comprising: the support member according to claim 1 (as presented above);
a blood treatment device 4 with a cylindrical casing ([0014],ll.8-9) releasably accommodated on the concave seating surface of the handle 12 of the support member (as presented above); and a fluid distribution circuitry 6/7 configured for fluid communication with the blood treatment device 4 and supported on the support member 10 (Fig.6; [0046]).
As to claim 11, Debiotech teaches an apparatus 1 for extracorporeal blood treatment (Fig.1; [0046]), the apparatus 1 comprising: the integrated blood treatment fluid module according to claim 10 (as presented above); and
a main frame 10 (main device 10 attached to blood treatment fluid module Fig.1-2; [0049]),
the integrated blood treatment fluid module being releasably mounted to the main frame 10 (at front panel of 10, as presented above for claim 1).
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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for ‘establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 under 35 U.S.C. 103, the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 103 and potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art under 35 U.S.C. 103. Claims 3,5, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Debiotech.
As to claims 3 and 5, Debiotech does not specifically teach wherein: (claim 3) the at least one fastening portion 11 is a slot extending continuously between lateral surfaces of the handle opposing each other along a transverse axis, wherein the slot is configured to accommodate a hook-and-loop fastening strip; and (claim 5) the at least one end stop portion is a rib protruding from the concave seating surface and configured to contact an end surface of the cylindrical casing. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the fastening portion 11 of Debiotech to further include a slot/hook/loop or end surface rib fastener, and one of skill would have been motivated to do so, in order to provide a more secure fastening of the filter 4 to the fastening portion 11; and where such connections are known in the art and would be an obvious design choice.
As to claim 9, Debiotech teaches a kit for setting up an apparatus for extracorporeal blood treatment, the kit comprismg: the support member according to claim 1; and
a set of different blood treatment devices 4 having differently sized cylindrical casings with different diameters;
wherein the concave seating surface (in fasteni11) of the handle 12 of the support member 10/12 has a curvature radius large enough to accommodate a largest cylindrical casing of the differently sized cylindrical casings such that each of the different blood treatment devices is selectively supportable on the support element.
Debiotech does not specifically teach a set of different blood treatment devices 4 having differently sized cylindrical casings with different diameters; wherein the concave seating surface (in fasteni11) of the handle 12 of the support member 10/12 has a curvature radius large enough to accommodate a largest cylindrical casing of the differently sized cylindrical casings such that each of the different blood treatment devices is selectively supportable on the support element. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the fastening portion 11 of Debiotech to further include different sized curvature radii for differently sized cylindrical casing, and one of skill would have been motivated to do so, in order to accommodate differently sized cylindrical filter casings 4, to provide more secure fastening of the filter 4 to the fastening portion 11; and where such connections are known in the art and would be an obvious design choice.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. The references provided on the attached PTO Form 892 are considered relevant to Applicants’ disclosure and are cited to show further the general state of the art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to: GUY K. TOWNSEND whose telephone number is (571) 270-3689. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Fri., 11 am to 6 pm Eastern Time. The direct fax number is (571) 270-4689.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, REBECCA EISENBERG, can be reached on 571-270-5879. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/GUY K TOWNSEND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781