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 .
Specification
Examiner suggests applicant to update the status of parent US Patent Application No. 17/088437 as follows:
-Paragraph [001], Line 2: After “2020,”, insert “ now U.S. Patent No. 11,998,670,”.
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.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Recitation of “the side fingers” in line 2 of claims 5-6 lacks a positive antecedent basis.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2008/0132828 A1 (Howard) in view of US 2014/0012201 A1 (Schaefer).
Regarding Claim 1, Howard discloses a dialysis machine (para [0017]) comprising:
a frame fixedly coupled to the dialysis machine (Fig. 12; para [0131]: dialysis machine100 with base 170);
a cassette slidably coupled to the frame (Fig. 12; para [0136], cassette 150 slides to move into the operating position), the cassette comprises one or more track structures (Fig. 12; para [0134], [0136], piston heads, 34 36, provide vertical alignment for the cassette);
an actuation mechanism configured to slide the cassette with respect to the one or more track structures and to actuate the one or more alignment-locking features to either secure or release the disposable cassette (Fig. 12; para [0136]-[0137], [0139], once cassette is in the proper position from piston heads, the controller commands a pressure source to inflate a bladder 182 locking the cassette between lid 180 and front plate 30); but does not specially disclose one or more alignment-locking features extending from the frame, the one or more alignment-locking features configured to align and lock with one or more alignment features of a disposable cartridge and secure or release a disposable cartridge.
However, Schaefer discloses a dialysis machine (para [0038]), comprising a cartridge with one or more track structures that comprise a rotor and one or more rollers (Fig. 2; para [0042], [0044], pump housing 10 with curved running surface 11, rotor 30, and tube roller pump having crowns 31-32 by means of rollers); and one or more alignment-locking features extending from the frame, the one or more alignment-locking features configured to be inserted into one or more alignment features of a disposable cartridge and secure or release a disposable cartridge (Figs. 2, 3a; para [0046]-[0047], [0056]: tube is inserted into the curved running surface, which is defined by a recess in the housing... locking element 50 locks rotor shaft in place and can released).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the alignment-locking feature as taught by Schaefer for use in the dialysis machine as in Howard to simplify handling when removing tube segments by reducing the number of steps to remove the rotor (Schaefer: para [0008]-[0009]), because Howard and Schaefer are directed towards dialysis machines with lock and alignment features.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 11-18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,998,670. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1 and 11-18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,998,670 anticipate claims 1-10 of the instant application. See the comparison table below.
Claims of
Application No. 18/650469
Claims of
U.S Patent No. 11,998,670
Comparison
1
1
Narrow claim 1 anticipates broad instant claim 1 and contains all the limitations of claim 1.
2
11/1
Narrow claim 11/1 anticipates broad instant claim 2 and contains all the limitations of claim 2.
3
12/1
Narrow claim 12/1 anticipates broad instant claim 3 and contains all the limitations of claim 3.
4
13/1
Narrow claim 13/1 anticipates broad instant claim 4 and contains all the limitations of claim 4.
5
14/1
Narrow claim 14/1 anticipates broad instant claim 5 and contains all the limitations of claim 5.
6
15/1
Narrow claim 15/1 anticipates broad instant claim 6 and contains all the limitations of claim 6.
7
16/1
Narrow claim 16/1 anticipates broad instant claim 7 and contains all the limitations of claim 7.
8
17/16/1
Narrow claim 17/16//1 anticipates broad instant claim 8 and contains all the limitations of claim 8.
9
1
Narrow claim 1 anticipates broad instant claim 9 and contains all the limitations of claim 9.
10
18/1
Narrow claim 18/1 anticipates broad instant claim 10 and contains all the limitations of claim 10.
. Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-1142. The examiner can normally be reached Maxi Flex.
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, VICKIE KIM can be reached at 571-272-0579. 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.
/John Kim/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772
JK
6/29/26
Prosecution Insights