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
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 1-15 and 18-20 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 1 and 18 recite first and second compliance configurations. It is unclear what is meant by said claim language. It is unclear if each configuration has a different compliance, if each configuration has a compliance and also some other property, or if the compliance of the configurations are the same and first and second are merely labels.
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.
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 1-7, 9, 13, 14, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. PG Pub. No. 2012/0101343 A1 to Duffy et al. in view of U.S. PG Pub. No. 2020/0324061 A1 to Ament.
Regarding claim 1, Duffy discloses a blood vessel location device, comprising: a housing; a light emitting diode (LED) strip coupled to the housing and including a linear array of LEDs, the LED strip moveable between a use position and a storage position relative to the housing; and a control system positioned within the housing and configured to control the LEDs (see Figs. 1-7 and para 23-29 and 55-71). Examiner notes that the use position is when 100 and 200 are connected and that the storage position is when 100 and 200 are separated.
Ament discloses a similar device for locating blood vessels, comprising two pegs coupled between the housing and the LED strip, the pegs couplable with the LED strip in a first compliance configuration and a second compliance configuration (see Figs. 7, 8, and 12 and para 126-129).
It would have been obvious and predictable to have used two peg and apertures in combination the Duffy device because doing so would predictably improve coupling between elements 100 and 200 of Duffy.
Regarding claims 2-5, Ament discloses a similar device for locating blood vessels, further comprising pegs coupling the LED strip to the housing, the pegs spacing the LED strip away from the housing in the use position; further comprising two pegs hingedly coupled between the LED strip and the housing; wherein the LED strip includes at least two apertures, the blood vessel location system further comprising: two pegs, each including a stud sized to be received within one of the at least two apertures of the LED strip; and two hinges coupling the pegs to the housing; and wherein the studs are interference fit with the apertures (see Figs. 7, 8, and 12 and para 126-129).
It would have been obvious and predictable to have used two peg and apertures in combination the Duffy device because doing so would predictably improve coupling between elements 100 and 200 of Duffy. Further, including elements like hinges would allow for coupling but also allow for angular adjustability, thus increasing versatility and ease of use of the device.
Regarding claim 6, Duffy discloses a device, further comprising a cable connecting the LED strip to the control system (see Figs. 1-7 and para 23-29 and 55-71).
Regarding claim 7, Duffy discloses a device, wherein the LED strip is removable from the housing (see Figs. 1-7 and para 23-29 and 55-71).
Regarding claim 9, Duffy discloses a device, wherein the linear array of LEDs includes red LEDs (see Figs. 1-7 and para 23-29 and 55-71).
Regarding claim 13, Duffy discloses a device, wherein the linear array of LEDs includes equidistantly spaced LEDs (see Figs. 1-7 and para 23-29 and 55-71).
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize the location of the LED’s, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. Optimizing space would have provide uniform light without deleterious gaps in lighting.
Regarding claim 14, Duffy discloses a device, wherein the LED strip is formed of a translucent plastic (see para 64).
Regarding claim 18, Duffy discloses a method of locating a blood vessel of an patient, the method including: supporting a light emitting diode (LED) strip with a housing; illuminating a linear array of LEDs through a body part of the patient; and moving the LED strip between a use position and a storage position relative to the housing (see Figs. 1-7 and para 23-29 and 55-71).
Duffy does not specifically disclose use on an infant.
However, Ament discloses a similar vessel finding method, wherein an infant is the subject (see para 134).
It would have been obvious and predictable to have combined the teachings of Duffy and Ament because doing so would predictably find vessels in infants and allow for intravenous therapy.
Ament discloses a similar method for locating blood vessels, comprising moving two pegs engaged between the housing and the LED strip between a first compliance configuration and a second compliance configuration (see Figs. 7, 8, and 12 and para 126-129).
It would have been obvious and predictable to have used two peg and apertures in combination the Duffy device because doing so would predictably improve coupling between elements 100 and 200 of Duffy.
Regarding claim 19, Duffy discloses a device, further comprising illuminating a linear array of red LEDs through the body part of the infant (see Figs. 1-7 and para 23-29 and 55-71).
Regarding claim 20, Ament discloses a similar device for locating blood vessels, wherein moving the LED strip between the use position and the storage position includes actuating hinges and pegs coupled between the housing and the LED strip (see Figs. 7, 8, and 12 and para 126-129).
It would have been obvious and predictable to have used two peg and apertures in combination the Duffy device because doing so would predictably improve coupling between elements 100 and 200 of Duffy. Further, including elements like hinges would allow for coupling but also allow for angular adjustability, thus increasing versatility and ease of use of the device.
Claims 8 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duffy and Ament as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. PG Pub. No. 2016/0242649 A1 to Mullani.
Regarding claim 8, Mullani discloses a similar blood vessel locating device, wherein the linear array of LEDs includes white LEDs (see abstract and para 5-7 and 9).
It would have been obvious and predictable to have combined the teachings of Duffy and Mullani because doing so would provide a dual function device that can be switched between a vessel finding function and a skin illumination function.
Regarding claims 10 and 12, the combination of Duffy and Mullani discloses a device wherein the linear array of LEDs includes white LEDs in a linear arrangement and red LEDs in a linear arrangement; and wherein the linear array of LEDs includes a plurality of white LEDs in a linear arrangement and a plurality of red LEDs in a linear arrangement (see abstract and para 5-7 and 9, noting that in combination a skilled artisan would have retained the linear shape of Duffy because Duffy already discloses multiple light colors in a linear arrangement).
It would have been obvious and predictable to have combined the teachings of Duffy and Mullani because doing so would provide a dual function device that can be switched between a vessel finding function and a skin illumination function.
Regarding claim 11, Mullani discloses a similar blood vessel locating device, wherein the control system includes a LED switch configured to select the white LEDs or the red LEDs (see abstract and para 5-7 and 9).
It would have been obvious and predictable to have combined the teachings of Duffy and Mullani because doing so would provide a dual function device that can be switched between a vessel finding function and a skin illumination function.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duffy and Ament as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. PG Pub. No. 2014/0155753 A1 to McGuire et al.
Regarding claim 15, McGuire discloses a similar vessel locating device, wherein the LED strip is formed of a flexible plastic (see para 55).
It would have been obvious and predictable to have made the LED strip of Duffy flexible in light of the teachings of McGuire because doing so would allow the device to more easily conform to the skin or surface of the user.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16 and 17 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art does not specifically disclose a blood vessel location device with two levels of compliance caused by the structural arrangement of inner and outer apertures that selectively receive a pair of pegs.
Response to Arguments
Although moot in view of the new grounds of rejection, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant suggests that the amended claims are commensurate in scope with allowed claims 16 and 17 and are therefore allowable as well.
However, the present claims are broader than the claims indicated as allowable. The present claims indicate two compliance configurations, but said configurations can be the same level of compliance merely at another location in the BRI of the claims. Further, broader interpretations are also possible, and the above cited prior art reads on said interpretations of the claims.
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 RAJEEV P SIRIPURAPU whose telephone number is (571)270-3085. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 M-F.
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 is Keith Raymond. 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.
/RAJEEV P SIRIPURAPU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3798
Prosecution Insights