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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1–17, 31, and 33–48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites:
1. A device for separating a gas from a fluid, the device comprising:
a filter;
a body defining an interior, the filter being within the interior and segmenting the interior into a first chamber and a second chamber;
an inlet that is configured to communicate the fluid into the first chamber;
a first outlet that is configured to communicate the fluid out of the first chamber, wherein an inner surface of the first chamber that is adjacent the first outlet tapers towards the first outlet; and
a second outlet that is adjacent the filter and configured to communicate the gas out of the second chamber, wherein an inner surface of the second chamber that is adjacent the second outlet at least partially tapers towards the second outlet, wherein:
the second outlet has a closed central portion and defines a plurality of vents spaced apart along a periphery of the second outlet,
a diameter of the closed central portion is smaller than a diameter of the second outlet,
each of the plurality of vents is defined by two side walls and a bottom surface that slopes downwardly away from the closed central portion,
the filter is impermeable to a liquid of the fluid and is configured to isolate the second chamber from the liquid of the fluid when the fluid is in the first chamber, and
the filter is permeable to the gas of the fluid and is configured to permit communication of the gas from the first chamber to the second chamber to separate the gas from the liquid of the fluid. Emphasis added.
The Applicant has not pointed out where the new limitation of “a diameter of the closed central portion is smaller than a diameter of the second outlet” is supported by the disclosure, nor does there appear to be written description of this limitation in the application as originally filed. See MPEP 2163.04, subsection I.
Claims 2–17, 31, and 33–48 are rejected for lack of written description because they depend from claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claims 47 and 48 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.
Claims 47 and 48 recite:
47. The device of claim 46, wherein the fluid is communicated into the first chamber in a first direction, and the gas is communicated out of the second outlet in a second direction that is opposite to the first direction. Emphasis added.
48. The device of claim 47, wherein the fluid is communicated out of the first outlet in the first direction.
Claims 47 and 48 are indefinite because they are each a single claim that claims both an apparatus and method steps of using the apparatus. Specifically, claims 47 and 48 are each apparatus claims because they are to a “device.” Each claim also recites method steps of using the device by saying fluid or gas is “communicated into” or “communicated out of” the device. The claim is indefinite because it is unclear whether infringement would occur when a device is created that allows fluid or gas to be communicated into or out of the device in the claimed manner, or whether infringement requires that fluid or gas is actually communicated in the claimed manner. See MPEP 2173.05(p), subsection II (a single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite).
To overcome the rejections, claims 47 and 48 could be amended to read:
47. The device of claim 46, wherein the device is configured to allow the fluid [[is]] to be communicated into the first chamber in a first direction, and the device is configured to allow the gas [[is]] to be communicated out of the second outlet in a second direction that is opposite to the first direction. Emphasis added.
48. The device of claim 47, wherein the device is configured to allow the fluid [[is]] to be communicated out of the first outlet in the first direction.
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.
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.
Claims 1–4, 12–14, 31, 33–35, and 42–48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leason, US 4,113,627 in view of Manahan et al., US 2012/0160105 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Leason teaches a filter unit 93, which reads on the claimed “device for separating gas from a fluid.” See Leason Fig. 16, col. 9, ll. 17–26.
The filter unit 93 comprises an annular filter element 86, which reads on the “filter.” See Leason Fig. 16, col. 8, ll. 61–64.
The filter unit 93 also comprises a filter housing, which reads on the “body.” See Leason Fig. 16, col. 9, ll. 17–26. The interior of the filter housing reads on the “interior.” The filter element 86 is in the interior, as seen in Fig. 16. The filter element 86 segments the interior into a “first chamber” above the filter element 86 and a “second chamber” below the filter element 86, as seen in Fig. 16.
The filter unit 93 further comprises an inlet port 83 (the “inlet”) that is configured to communicate fluid into the “first chamber.” See Leason Fig. 16, col. 8, ll. 45–57.
The filter unit 93 also comprises an outlet opening formed in the tube (unlabeled) in the upper part of the 95 of the filter housing, as seen in Fig. 16, that is configured to communicate the fluid out of the “first chamber” above the filter 86. Note that the outlet opening is analogous to the outlet opening 17 in the tube seen in Fig. 3. See Leason Figs. 3, 16, col. 4, ll. 10–20. The outlet opening reads on the “first outlet.” An inner surface of the “first chamber” that is adjacent to the outlet opening tapers towards the outlet opening, as seen in Fig. 16.
PNG
media_image1.png
878
1285
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Also, Leason teaches embodiments where the filter unit comprises a third housing part 48 (also called shield 180) on the outside of the filter housing to surround the venting aperture 52 (or 175) (analogous to aperture 77 in Fig. 16) to prevent structural damage to the filter 54 (or 176) (analogous to filter 86 in Fig. 16) through contact with external objects. See Leason Figs. 4, 9, col. 5, ll. 31–38, col. 7, ll. 36–41. The third housing part 48 (and shield 180) is an outlet because it comprises slots (unlabeled) to allow gas to exit the filter unit after the gas has passed through the filter 54 (or 176), as seen by the fluid arrows in Fig. 4. The slots in the shield 180 are on the outer perimeter of the shield 180, as seen in Fig. 9. It would have been obvious for the Fig. 16 embodiment to include the shield 180 of the Fig. 9 embodiment on the bottom of the housing in the Fig. 16 embodiment, to cover outlet openings 78 (providing access to the filter 86) to prevent structural damage to the filter 86 from external objects that could be inserted through the outlet openings 78. With this modification, the shield 180 reads on the “second outlet that is adjacent to the filter and configured to communicate the gas out of the second chamber.” An inner surface of the “second chamber” (below filter 86) that is adjacent to the shield 180 would at least partially tapers toward the shield 180 because venting aperture 77 adjacent to the outlet opening 78 is tapered. Id. at Fig. 16, col. 8, ll. 45–57.
The shield 180 has a “closed central portion,” as claimed, which is the circular portion at the top of the shield, as seen in Fig. 9. The slots along the outer perimeter of the shield 180 read on the “plurality of vents spaced along a periphery of the second outlet.”
A diameter of the “closed central portion” is smaller than a diameter of the shield 180 (the “second outlet”) including the feet seen in Fig. 9. This reads on “a diameter of the closed central portion is smaller than a diameter of the second outlet.”
PNG
media_image2.png
1404
1580
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Leason further teaches that each of the slots is defined by two side walls (the left and right walls of each slot) and a bottom surface (the surface at the bottom of each slot), as seen in Fig. 9.
The filter 86 is impermeable to a liquid of the fluid and is configured to isolate the “second chamber” (below the filter 86) from the liquid of the fluid when the fluid is in in the “first chamber” (above the filter 86) because the filter 86 is hydrophobic. See Leason col. 7, ll. 36–41.
The filter 86 is permeable to the gas of the fluid and is configured to permit communication of the gas from the “first chamber” to the “second chamber” to separate the gas from the liquid of the fluid because the filter 86 is provided to purge gases from the interior of the housing to the space below the filter 86 so that the gases can be vented. See Leason col. 7, ll. 36–41.
Leason differs from claim 1 because it is silent as to the bottom surface of each slot sloping downwardly away from the closed central portion of the shield 180, as claimed.
But Manahan teaches a vent filter assembly 300 comprising a reinforcement structure 350 comprising a plurality of notches 330 around the perimeter of the reinforcement structure. See Manahan Fig. 3A, [0043]. Each notch 330 has a bottom surface that is configured to allow fluid that accumulates on the top of the filter to drain away from the filter. Id.
It would have been obvious for the bottom surface of the each slot in Leason to slope downwardly away from the closed central portion of the shield 180 to allow liquid to drain away from the filter unit.
Regarding claim 2, Leason teaches that the inlet port 83 (the “inlet”) and the shield 180 on the bottom of the housing in the Fig. 16 embodiment to cover outlet openings 78 (the “second outlet”) form a “top of the filter housing” when the filter housing is rotated 180° from the perspective of Fig. 16.
Regarding claim 3, note that the “top of the body” is the bottom of the filter housing from the perspective of Fig. 16 (the bottom of the filter housing is the top when the filter housing is rotated 180° from the perspective of Fig. 16). Leason teaches that a center of the right-angle turn of the inlet port 83 (the inlet) is laterally offset from a center of the bottom of the filter housing (the “body”), while a center of the left-hand portion of the shield 180 (the “second outlet”) would also laterally offset from the center of the bottom of the filter housing, as seen in Figs. 9 and 16.
PNG
media_image3.png
875
1522
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
1032
1460
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Leason teaches that the “first outlet” has an inner diameter, as seen in the annotated figure above, and the shield 180 (the “second outlet”) has an inner diameter, as seen in Fig. 9. The inner diameter of the “first outlet” is less than the inner diameter of the shield 180 because the shield 180 would cover substantially all of the bottom of the filter housing, whereas the inner diameter of the “first outlet” is the inner diameter of the tube at the top of the filter housing.
Regarding claim 12, Leason teaches that the “first outlet” is capable of connecting the filter unit 93 (the “device”) to an inlet of a pump, because the outlet port connects to an outlet pipe (seen in Fig. 9), which could be connected to a pump. See MPEP 2114, subsection IV (Functional claim language that is not limited to a specific structure covers all devices that are capable of performing the recited function).
Regarding claim 13, Leason teaches that the inlet port 83 (the “inlet”) is capable of connecting the filter unit 93 (the “device”) to an outlet of a pump, because the inlet port 83 connects to an inlet pipe (seen in Fig. 9), which could be connected to a pump. See MPEP 2114, subsection IV (Functional claim language that is not limited to a specific structure covers all devices that are capable of performing the recited function).
Regarding claim 14, Leason teaches that the filter 176 comprises polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE). See Leason col. 5, ll. 55–60.
Regarding claim 31, Leason teaches that the plurality of slots (the “vents”) are spaced apart around a circumference of the shield 180 (the “second outlet”), as seen in Fig. 9.
Regarding claim 33, Leason teaches that the closed central portion of the shield 180 is continuously closed, as seen in Figs. 9–11.
Regarding claim 34, Leason teaches that the filter 86 has pores having a diameter of 0.2 micron. See Leason col. 5, ll. 55–60.
Regarding claim 35, Leason teaches that the filter 86 is formed of a hydrophobic material. See Leason col. 7, ll. 36–41.
Regarding claim 42, Leason teaches that the inlet port 83 (the “inlet”) and the “first outlet” can have flexible hoses extending from them, as seen in Fig. 9. It would have been obvious for the flexible hose of the inlet port 83 to be pointed upward, and the flexible hose of the “first outlet” to be pointed downward, along the same vertical axis as the flexible hose of the inlet port 83 depending on how the flexible hoses are handled during use. This axis would read on the “first axis.” Also, the shield 180 (the “second outlet”) extends along a “second axis,” which is the axis running through the center of it. This axis would be parallel to the “first axis” when the flexible hoses are bent in the manner described above.
Regarding claim 43, Leason teaches that the inlet port 83 (the “inlet”) and the “first outlet” can have flexible hoses extending from them, as seen in Fig. 9. It would have been obvious for the flexible hose of the inlet port 83 to be pointed upward, and the flexible hose of the “first outlet” to be pointed outward depending on how the flexible hoses are handled during use. This configuration would read on “the inlet extends along a first axis and the first outlet extends along a second axis that is perpendicular to the first axis.”
Regarding claim 44, Leason teaches that an inner surface of the area below the filter 86 (the “second chamber”) is cup-shaped due to the tapered shape of the aperture 77. See Leason Fig. 16, col. 8, ll. 45–57.
Regarding claim 45, note that the top of the filter housing in Fig. 16 is the “bottom” and the bottom of the filter housing is the “top” when the filter housing is rotated 180° from the perspective of Fig. 16. With this interpretation, the “first outlet” (the outlet port in the tube at the top of Fig. 16) extends from the “bottom of the body” that is opposite from the “top of the body.”
Regarding claim 46, Leason teaches that the inlet port 83 (the “inlet”) and the shield 180 (provided on the bottom of the filter housing) extend from the bottom end of the filter housing (the “first end of the body”), as seen in Figs. 9 and 16. Also, the “first outlet” (the outlet port in the tube at the top of Fig. 16) extends from the top end of the filter housing (the “second end of the body”) that is opposite the bottom end, as seen in Fig. 16.
Regarding claims 47 and 48, Leason teaches that the fluid is capable of being communicated into the “first chamber” (above filter element 86 seen in Fig. 16) in a vertically upward direction (the “first direction”) because the fluid enters the “first chamber” and then flows out of the outlet tube at the top of the structure seen in Fig. 16 (claims 47 and 48). The gas is capable of being communicated out of the shield 180 (the “second outlet”) in a vertically downward direction (the “second direction”) that is opposite to the “first direction,” because gas could flow out of the slots in the shield 180 and then turn to flow in a downward, vertical direction. See MPEP 2114 (functional claim language that is not limited to a specific structure covers all devices that are capable of performing the recited function).
Claims 8–11, 38 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leason, US 4,113,627 in view of Manahan et al., US 2012/0160105 A1 and in further view of Paradis, US 4,507,120.
Regarding claim 8, Leason as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as explained above.
Leason as modified differs from claim 8 because it is silent as to the filter housing (the “body”) comprising projections extending into the space below the filter 86 (the “second chamber”) to resist a pressure exerted by the fluid on the filter.
But Paradis teaches a filter element comprising a housing that holds a semi-permeable membrane 64 that allows gas to flow through but not liquid. See Paradis Fig. 3B, col. 2, ll. 17–28. The membrane 64 separates the filter element into chambers on either side of the membrane 64. Id. A top section of the housing comprises diagonal fins 62f that project into the chamber on top of the membrane 64. Id. at Fig. 4A, col. 3, ll. 31–36. The diagonal fins 62f are beneficial because they provide support to the membrane 64 when suction is applied against the membrane 64. Id. It would have been obvious for the space below the filter 86 of Leason to comprise the diagonal fins 62f of Paradis to provide support to the filter 86. With this modification, the diagonal fins 62f would read on the “projections.”
Regarding claim 9, Paradis teaches that the diagonal fins 62f extend radially inwardly into the chamber above the membrane 64 to a central portion of the chamber, as seen in Fig. 4A. Therefore, when Leason is modified in view of Paradis, the fins 62f would extend radially inwardly into the area above the filter 176 to the closed central portion of the shield 180.
Regarding claims 10 and 11, Paradis teaches that the height of the diagonal fins 62f segment the chamber above the membrane 64 into a plurality of sub-chambers, as seen in Fig. 4A. When Leason is modified in view of Paradis, each vent would communicate with at least one respective sub-chamber because gas would move through the sub-chambers to the vents.
Regarding claim 38, Leason as modified in view of Paradis would teach that the diagonal fins 62f (the “projections”) intersect within the closed central portion of the shield 180 of Leason, because the diagonal fins 62f meet in the middle of the device in Paradis as seen in Fig. 4A.
Regarding claim 39, Leason as modified in view of Paradis would teach that the diagonal fins 62f (the “projections”) extend perpendicularly from a surface of the filter 176 (the “filter”) to a portion of the shield 180 (the “second outlet”), because the diagonal fins 62f extend perpendicularly from the filter 64 toward the top of the housing in Paradis, as seen in Fig. 4A. Also, the diagonal fins 62f separate the space above the filter 64 into a plurality of sub-chambers and the shield 180 of Leason comprises the vents which are spaced from one another. Therefore, it would have been obvious for each of the vents to be isolated from one another by the sub-chambers formed from each of the fins 62f due to the spacing of the vents.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leason, US 4,113,627 in view of Manahan et al., US 2012/0160105 A1 and optionally in further view of Folden et al., US 2009/0071911 A1.
Regarding claim 15, Leason teaches that the filter 86 is a first of at least four filters, as seen in Fig. 15. One of the other four filters 86 reads on the “second filter held within the second chamber.” The second filter 86 is impermeable to the liquid of the filter and permeable to the gas of the fluid, because it is hydrophobic and is configured to purge gas from the housing. See Leason col. 7, ll. 36–41.
Alternatively, Folden teaches a vent assembly 270 for an extracorporeal circuit comprising a hydrophobic membrane 260 (similar to the filter 86 of Leason) covered by a vent structure 264. See Folden Fig. 7D, [0092]–[0093]. The vent structure 264 is impermeable to liquid but is permeable to gas because it allows gas to vent out of chamber 230 but swells up when liquid contacts it. Id. at [0094]–[0095]. The vent structure 264 is beneficial because if liquid contacts it, the vent structure 264 expands to close off to seal the chamber 230 so that foreign substances cannot enter the chamber 230. Id.
PNG
media_image5.png
506
511
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious for the vent structure 264 of Folden to cover the bottom of the filter 86 in Leason to prevent liquid from entering the inside of the filter housing. With this modification, the vent structure 264 would read on the “second filter held within the second chamber.”
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leason, US 4,113,627 in view of Manahan et al., US 2012/0160105 A1 and in further view of Ruschke, US 4,298,358.
Regarding claim 16, Leason as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as explained above.
Leason as modified differs from claim 16 because it is silent as to the filter 86 further comprising a pad within the second chamber, wherein the pad is configured to absorb the liquid and the pad is configured to be permeable to the gas.
But Ruschke teaches a gas separating and venting filter comprising a hydrophobic membrane that comprises a layer of backing material of a fibrous construction. See Ruschke col. 6, ll. 21–41. The backing material is beneficial because it assists in attaching the membrane to the housing of the filter. Id.
It would have been obvious to use the backing material of Ruschke with the filter 86 of Leason to improve the ability of the filter 86 to attach to the housing of the filter 86.
With this modification, the backing material would read on the “pad.” The backing material is a nonwoven fabric made out of polyester fibers. See Ruschke col. 6, ll. 56–66. While polyester is generally hydrophobic, it will absorb at least some water after relatively long exposure times. Therefore, the backing material is considered to be “configured to absorb the liquid.” The backing material would be permeable to the gas because it is a nonwoven material which is porous.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leason, US 4,113,627 in view of Manahan et al., US 2012/0160105 A1 and in further view of Rosenberg, US 3,650,093.
Regarding claim 17, Leason as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as explained above.
Leason as modified differs from claim 17 because it is silent as to the filter unit 93 (the “device”) comprising a valve that is configured to selectively isolate the filter 86 (the “filter”) from fluid in the space above the filter 86 (the “first chamber”) when at least one of the fluid fills a volume of the first chamber of the fluid exerts a predetermined pressure on the valve.
But Leason is interpreted such that the “first chamber” includes interior passage of inlet port 83, which is a conduit that supplies the fluid to the space above the filter 86. See Leason Figs. 9–11, col. 7, ll. 7–28. Also, the filter unit 93 can be used in a medical setting to remove air from blood. Rosenberg teaches a conduit used to purify blood, comprising a check valve that ensures that blood only flows in one direction. See Rosenberg col. 5, ll. 46–60. The check valve will close when fluid moving in the wrong direction applies pressure to the valve. It would have been obvious to include a check valve in the inlet port 83 of Leason to ensure that blood only flows in one direction through the system.
With this modification, the check valve would read on the “valve.” It would selectively isolate the filter 86 from fluid in the inlet port 83 upstream from the check valve when fluid moving in the wrong direction exerts a predetermined pressure on the valve.
Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leason, US 4,113,627 in view of Manahan et al., US 2012/0160105 A1 and in further view of Zia et al., US 6,508,859 B1.
Regarding claim 36, Leason as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as explained above.
Leason as modified differs from claim 36 because it is silent as to the volume of gas that the space below the filter 86 (the “second chamber”) holds. But Zia teaches that the volume of air that can be vented from a gas separation device used for medical procedures is result effective because it affects the volume of fluid that can be processed by the device. See Zia col. 3, ll. 5–15. Zia teaches that it is desirable for a separator to be able to vent a single 2 ml air bolus. Id. Therefore, it would have been obvious to use routine experimentation to determine the optimal volume of the space below the filter 86 depending on the amount of fluid being processed. See MPEP 2144.05, subsection II. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success of achieving the claimed range of 1 to 1.8 mL of gas, because Zia teaches that a gas separation device similar to de Winter should be able to handle a 2 mL air bolus.
Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leason, US 4,113,627 in view of Manahan et al., US 2012/0160105 A1 and optionally in further view of Feunlund et al., US 2013/0103002 A1.
Regarding claim 37, Leason teaches that the filter 86 is disk-shaped because it is a relatively flat piece of material, as seen in Fig. 16. Note that a disk is not necessarily round, for instance a floppy disk is square or rectangular.
Even if the filter 86 is not considered as disk shaped, it would have been obvious to modify the filter 86 to be disk-shaped for the following reasons. The filter device of Leason is used to vent gas from the housing. Fruenlund teaches an infusion tube system comprising a body 8 with a plurality of vent openings covered by a membrane 36 to vent gas from the body 8. See Fruenlund Figs. 4–6, [0045]. The vents and the membrane 36 are disc-shaped, as seen in Figs. 4–6. It would have been obvious for the filter 86 of Leason to be disc-shaped because this would merely represent changing the shape of the device with no change in function. See MPEP 2144.04, subsection IV, B.
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. 103 Rejections
The Applicant argues that the entirety of the shield 180 is closed, and asserts that the diameter of the closed portion of the shield 180 is equal to the diameter of the “second outlet” defined by the shield 180. See Applicant Rem. filed March 18, 2026 (“Applicant Rem.”) 8.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The shield 180 includes feet on the outer perimeter, as seen in Fig. 9, which are included in the diameter of the shield 180. The “closed central portion” of the shield 180 is the circular portion at the top of the shield 180, as seen in Fig. 9. The diameter of the shield 180 including the feet is larger than the diameter of the circular portion at the top of the shield 180, as seen in Fig. 9.
PNG
media_image6.png
1406
1362
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kawamura et al., US 2021/0113758 A1 (air trap chamber for extracorporeal circuit); Hill et al., US 2015/0053704 A1 (venting valve for fuel tank).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to T. BENNETT MCKENZIE whose telephone number is (571)270-5327. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 7:30AM-6:00PM.
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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at 571-270-7872. 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.
T. BENNETT MCKENZIE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1776
/T. BENNETT MCKENZIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights