DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The Information Disclosure Statement submitted on 06 June 2025 has been considered by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
4. Claims 1, 4, 13-15, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sjoblom (US 2015/0136918 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Sjoblom teaches an intravenous (IV) therapy pole device (the intravenous therapy pole device 1 comprises a vertical pole 7 [abstract, 0020, 0022]), the device comprising:
a pole extending along a pole longitudinal axis (figures 1A-1B illustrates the vertical pole 7 extending along a longitudinal axis [0022, FIGS. 1A-1B]);
a first crossbar extending along a first longitudinal axis (figures 1A-1B illustrates the suspension member 8 comprising a rod or crossbar 10 that extends along an axis that is transverse to the longitudinal axis of the vertical pole 7 [0022, FIGS. 1A-1B]), wherein the first crossbar is couplable to the pole such that the first longitudinal axis is transverse to the pole longitudinal axis (figures 1A-1B illustrates the suspension member 8 comprising a rod or crossbar 10 that extends along an axis that is transverse to the longitudinal axis of the vertical pole 7 [0022, FIGS. 1A-1B]. Specifically, the rod or crossbar 10 of the suspension member 8 is coupled to the vertical pole 7 [0022, FIGS. 1A-1B]); and
a second crossbar extending along a second longitudinal axis (figures 1A-1B illustrates the suspension member 9 comprising a rod or crossbar 10 that extends along an axis that is transverse to the longitudinal axis of the vertical pole 7 [0022, FIGS. 1A-1B]), wherein the second crossbar is couplable to the pole such that the second longitudinal axis is transverse to the pole longitudinal axis (figures 1A-1B illustrates the suspension member 9 comprising a rod or crossbar 10 that extends along an axis that is transverse to the longitudinal axis of the vertical pole 7 [0022, FIGS. 1A-1B]. Specifically, the rod or crossbar 10 of the suspension member 9 is coupled to the vertical pole 7 [0022, FIGS. 1A-1B]), wherein the first crossbar and the second crossbar are spaced apart along the pole longitudinal axis by a distance (the crossbar 10 of the suspension member 8 is positioned at a first vertical level 4 along the longitudinal axis of the vertical pole 7 [0014, 0022, FIGS. 1A-1B]. Meanwhile, the crossbar 10 of the suspension member 9 is disposed at a second vertical level 5 along the longitudinal axis of the vertical pole 7 [0014, 0022, FIGS. 1A-1B]. Specifically, figures 1A-1B illustrates the first vertical level 4 being spaced apart from the second vertical level 5 [0022, FIGS. 1A-1B]),
Sjoblom does not explicitly teach wherein the distance is in a range of 6 to 48 inches.
However, Sjoblom teaches that the first crossbar and the second crossbar to be set at different vertical levels on the pole to form a distance between the first crossbar and the second crossbar (the crossbar 10 of the suspension member 8 and the crossbar 10 of the suspension member 9 may be at different vertical levels (e.g., vertical level 4 and vertical level 5) on the pole 7 to form a distance between the respective crossbars 10 of the suspension members 8 and 9 [0014, 0022, FIGS. 1A-1B]). Thus, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to adjust the vertical levels of the first crossbar and the second crossbar to form a distance that ranges from 6 to 48 inches. The advantage of such modification will ensure that there is enough distance between each of the crossbars for hanging IV stands (e.g., racks) which suspends at least one infusion bag ([0014, 0022-0023]). The Examiner further submits that the skilled artisan could arrive at such a distance via routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 4, Sjoblom teaches wherein each of the first crossbar and the second crossbar are slidably coupled to the pole (the crossbar 10 of the suspension member 8 is coupled to the vertical pole 7 and the crossbar 10 of the suspension member 9 is coupled to the vertical pole 7 [0014, 0022, FIGS. 1A-1B]. Specifically, each of the crossbars 10 of the suspension members 8 and 9 may consist of telescopic portions which allow the crossbars 10 to project or slide with respect to the pole 7 [0022]).
Regarding claim 13, Sjoblom suggests the device of claim 1. Sjoblom does not explicitly teach a third crossbar extending along a third longitudinal axis wherein the third crossbar is couplable to the pole such that the third longitudinal axis is transverse to the pole longitudinal axis.
The Examiner respectfully submits, as Sjoblom teaches the use of crossbars extending along an axis transverse to the pole longitudinal axis (figures 1A-1B illustrates the suspension members 8 and 9 comprising respective crossbars 10 that extends along an axis that is transverse to the longitudinal axis of the vertical pole 7 [0022, FIGS. 1A-1B]), configuring a third crossbar to be coupled to the pole such that the third crossbar forms a third longitudinal axis that is transverse to the pole longitudinal axis would be a matter of duplicating and rearranging the known elements without producing a new and unexpected result, with such matters having been held by the Courts as being obvious to the skilled artisan (MPEP 2144.04)
Regarding claim 14, Sjoblom suggests the device of claim 13. Sjoblom does not explicitly teach wherein the third crossbar is disposed along the pole longitudinal axis above the first crossbar and above the second crossbar.
The Examiner respectfully submits, as Sjoblom teaches the use of crossbars disposed along the pole longitudinal axis (figures 1A-1B illustrates the suspension members 8 and 9 comprising respective crossbars 10 that extends along an axis that is transverse to the longitudinal axis of the vertical pole 7 [0022, FIGS. 1A-1B]), configuring the third crossbar to be disposed above the first crossbar and above the second crossbar would be a matter of rearranging the known elements without producing a new and unexpected result, with such matters having been held by the Courts as being obvious to the skilled artisan (MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding claim 15, Sjoblom suggests the device of claim 14. Sjoblom does not explicitly teach wherein the third crossbar and the second crossbar are spaced apart along the pole longitudinal axis by a secondary distance.
The Examiner respectfully submits, as Sjoblom teaches the use of a first and second crossbar being spaced apart by a first distance (the crossbar 10 of the suspension member 8 is positioned at a first vertical level 4 and the crossbar 10 of the suspension member 9 is positioned at a second vertical level 5 [0014, 0022, FIGS. 1A-1B]), configuring the third crossbar to be positioned along the pole longitudinal axis by a secondary distance would be a matter of rearranging the known elements without producing a new and unexpected result, with such matters having been held by the Courts as being obvious to the skilled artisan (MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding claim 29, a base coupled to an end of the pole (the base 6 is coupled to end of the vertical pole 7 [0021-0022, FIGS. 1A-1B]) such that the base is closer to the first crossbar than it is to the second crossbar (the base 6 is closer to the first crossbar 10 of the suspension member 8 than it is to the second crossbar 10 of the suspension member 9 [FIG. 1B]), wherein the base includes three or more casters (figure 1B illustrates the base 6 including more than three casters or wheels ([0021, FIG. 1B]).
5. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sjoblom in view of West et al. (US 2010/0052274 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Sjoblom suggests the device of claim 4. Sjoblom does not explicitly teach wherein the pole includes at least one set of two or more distance markings, wherein the two or more distance markings are spaced apart along the pole longitudinal axis.
The prior art by West is analogous to Sjoblom, as they both teach a pole that is configured to hang medical equipment ([abstract, 0026]).
West teaches wherein the pole includes at least one set of two or more distance markings, wherein the two or more distance markings are spaced apart along the pole longitudinal axis (a plurality of markings or indicators may be provided along the first portion 70 and the second portion 72 of the pole to identify specific heights or distances along the pole length [0031, FIG. 1]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the Sjoblom’s pole to include two or more distance markings that are space apart along the pole longitudinal axis, as taught by West. The advantage of such modification will allow for identifying specific heights or distances along the pole length (see paragraph [0031] by West).
6. Claims 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sjoblom in view of Fukuhara et al. (US 2013/0228997 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Sjoblom suggests the device of claim 1, wherein the second crossbar is configured to be coupled with an IV bag (the crossbar 10 of the suspension member 9 is configured to support one or more IV stands 2 which suspends an at least one infusion bag [0014, 0022-0023, FIGS. 1A-1B]).
The Examiner respectfully submits that Sjoblom teaches an alternate embodiment comprising hooks for coupling with an IV bag ([0025-0026, 0028]). However, Sjoblom does not explicitly teach the second crossbar comprising one or more first bag hooks for coupling the IV bag to the second crossbar.
The prior art by Fukuhara is analogous to Sjoblom, as they both teach an IV stand ([abstract]).
Fukuhara teaches the second crossbar comprising one or more first bag hooks for coupling the IV bag to the second crossbar (the horizontal crossbar comprises a plurality of hooks 10 that are configured to be coupled with an infusion bag [0032, FIG. 1]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to modify Sjoblom’ s second crossbar to include hooks for coupling with the IV bag, as taught by Fukuhara. This modification is beneficial, as the hooks may provide better support for the IV bag (see paragraph [0032] by Fukuhara).
Regarding claim 16, Sjoblom suggests the device of claim 13. Sjoblom does not explicitly teach wherein the third crossbar comprises one or more second bag hooks for coupling an IV bag to the third crossbar.
However, Fukuhara teaches wherein the third crossbar comprises one or more second bag hooks for coupling an IV bag to the third crossbar (the horizontal crossbar comprises hooks 10 that are configured to be coupled with an infusion bag [0032]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to modify the third crossbar suggested by Sjoblom to include hooks for coupling with the IV bag, as taught by Fukuhara. This modification is beneficial, as the hooks may provide better support for the IV bag (see paragraph [0032] by Fukuhara).
7. Claims 10 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sjoblom in view of Fukuhara et al., further in view of Smith (US 2022/0118175 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Sjoblom in view of Fukuhara suggests the device of claim 7. Sjoblom and Fukuhara do not explicitly teach wherein the second crossbar comprises one or more bag markings, wherein each of the one or more bag markings is different than any other bag marking, wherein each of the one or more bag markings is disposed adjacent a different one of the one or more first bag hooks for identifying the different one of the one or more first bag hooks.
The prior art by Smith is analogous to Sjoblom, as they both teach an IV pole that is configured to support an IV fluid bag ([0040, 0045]).
Smith teaches wherein the pole comprises one or more bag markings, wherein each of the one or more bag markings is different than any other bag marking, wherein each of the one or more bag markings is disposed adjacent to different hooks for identifying the different hooks (the pole 6 comprises an inverted polyhedron structure 8 having a different types of indicia 38 (e.g., different numbers, different colors, or different icons) represented on the respective side surfaces 24 of the inverted polyhedron structure 8 [0040, 0046, 0050, 0064, FIG. 1, FIG. 3]. Specifically, figure 3 illustrates the different types of indicia 38 being positioned adjacent to the hooks 26 on the respective side surfaces 24 of the inverted polyhedron structure 8 [0046, 0050, 0064, FIG. 3]. Specifically, the plurality of indicia 38 may be associated with particular or respective IV fluid bags to reduce misidentification errors [0050, 0064], FIG. 3]).
Smith does not explicitly teach the one or more bag markings to be disposed adjacent to the different first bag hooks along the second crossbar.
The Examiner respectfully submits that Fukuhara teaches the use of a crossbar having hooks (the horizontal crossbar comprises a plurality of hooks 10 that are configured to be coupled with an infusion bag [0032, FIG. 1]) and Smith teaches the use of bag markings that are adjacent to different hooks on an IV pole ([see the explanation above]). Thus, configuring the bag markings to be arranged adjacent to the different first bag hooks along the second crossbar as recited in the pending claims would be a matter of rearranging the known elements without producing a new and unexpected result, with such matters having been held by the Courts as being obvious to the skilled artisan (MPEP 2144.04).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to modify the second crossbar suggested by Sjoblom in view of Fukuhara to comprise one or more bag markings that are arranged adjacent to the different first bag hooks, as further suggested by Smith. This modification is beneficial, as the bag markings may be associated with particular or respective IV fluid bags to reduce misidentification errors (see paragraphs [0046, 0050, 0064] by Smith).
Regarding claim 19, Sjoblom in view of Fukuhara suggests the device of claim 16. Sjoblom and Fukuhara do not explicitly teach wherein the third crossbar comprises one or more secondary bag markings, wherein each of the one or more secondary bag markings is different than any other secondary bag marking, wherein each of the one or more secondary bag markings is disposed adjacent a different one of the one or more second bag hooks for identifying the different one of the one or more second bag hooks.
Smith teaches wherein the pole comprises one or more secondary bag markings, wherein each of the one or more secondary bag markings is different than any other secondary bag marking, wherein each of the one or more secondary bag markings is disposed adjacent to different hooks for identifying the different hooks (the pole 6 comprises an inverted polyhedron structure 8 having a different types of indicia 38 (e.g., different numbers, different colors, or different icons) represented on the respective side surfaces 24 of the inverted polyhedron structure 8 [0040, 0046, 0050, 0064, FIG. 1, FIG. 3]. Specifically, figure 3 illustrates the different types of indicia 38 being positioned adjacent to the hooks 26 on the respective side surfaces 24 of the inverted polyhedron structure 8 [0046, 0050, 0064, FIG. 3]. Specifically, the plurality of indicia 38 may be associated with particular or respective IV fluid bags to reduce misidentification errors [0050, 0064], FIG. 3]).
Smith does not explicitly teach the one or more secondary bag markings to be disposed adjacent to the different second bag hooks along the third crossbar.
The Examiner respectfully submits that Fukuhara teaches the use of a crossbar having hooks (the horizontal crossbar comprises a plurality of hooks 10 that are configured to be coupled with an infusion bag [0032, FIG. 1]) and Smith teaches the use of bag markings that are adjacent to different hooks on an IV pole ([see the explanation above]). Thus, configuring the secondary bag markings to be arranged adjacent to the different second bag hooks along the third crossbar as recited in the pending claims would be a matter of rearranging the known elements without producing a new and unexpected result, with such matters having been held by the Courts as being obvious to the skilled artisan (MPEP 2144.04).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to modify the third crossbar suggested by Sjoblom in view of Fukuhara to comprise one or more secondary bag markings that are arranged adjacent to the different second bag hooks, as further suggested by Smith. This modification is beneficial, as the bag markings may be associated with particular or respective IV fluid bags to reduce misidentification errors (see paragraphs [0046, 0050, 0064] by Smith).
8. Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sjoblom in view of Vaughan (US Patent No. 4,695,025).
Regarding claim 11, Sjoblom suggests the device of claim 1. Sjoblom does not explicitly teach wherein the second crossbar further includes one or more IV bag extensions having a bag extension longitudinal axis, wherein each of the one or more IV bag extensions is coupled to an end of the second crossbar such that the second longitudinal axis and the bag extension longitudinal axis reside in a plane that is perpendicular to the pole longitudinal axis, wherein the bag extension longitudinal axis is transverse to the second longitudinal axis.
The prior art by Vaughan is analogous to Sjoblom, as they both teach a pole comprising a hanger or crossbar that is configured to hang intravenous bags ([abstract, column 1 lines 5-12]).
Vaughan teaches wherein the second crossbar further includes one or more IV bag extensions having a bag extension longitudinal axis (the cross-arm or crossbar 13 is coupled to hanger arm extension 19 which has a longitudinal axis [column 3 lines 15-21, FIGS. 1-2, FIGS. 4-5]. Specifically, the hanger arm extension 19 comprises a loop 27 for hanging an IV bag [column 3 lines 1-15, FIG. 1]), wherein each of the one or more IV bag extensions is coupled to an end of the second crossbar such that the second longitudinal axis and the bag extension longitudinal axis reside in a plane that is perpendicular to the pole longitudinal axis (the hanger arm extension 19 comprises a connector 29 that is configured to connect the hanger arm extension 19 and the crossbar 13 into mutual axial alignment [column 3 lines 15-22, FIG. 1]. Specifically, figures 1-2 illustrates the crossbar 13 and the hanger arm extension 19 residing in a plane that is perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the pole 5 [FIGS. 1-2, column 2 lines 40-50]), wherein the bag extension longitudinal axis is transverse to the second longitudinal axis (the connector 29 comprises hinges 37a-37b which allows the hanger arm extension 19 to be bent or pivoted at various angles with respect to the crossbar 13 [column 3 lines 15-57, FIGS. 1-2, FIG. 5]. In this case, the Examiner respectfully submits that the hanger arm extension 19 may be bent or pivoted to form an axis that is transverse to the longitudinal axis of the crossbar 13 [column 3 lines 15-57, FIGS. 1-5]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to modify Sjoblom’s second crossbar to include one or more IV bag extensions, as taught by Vaughan. This modification is beneficial, as the hanger extension comprises a hinge which allows the hanger extension to be pivoted at various angles for storage purposes and/or hanging an IV bag (see [column 1 lines 5-12, column 3 lines 1-57] by Vaughan).
Regarding claim 12, Vaughan teaches wherein at least one of the one or more IV bag extensions is hingedly coupled to the end of the second crossbar (the connector 29 comprises hinges 37a-37b which allows the hanger arm extension 19 to be bent or pivoted at various angles with respect to the crossbar 13 [column 3 lines 15-57, FIGS. 1-2, FIG. 5]).
9. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sjoblom in view of Fukuhara et al. and Vaughan.
Regarding claim 20, Sjoblom suggests the device of claim 13, wherein the third crossbar is an infusing IV bag (as stated previously in claim 13, the crossbars 10 of the suspension members (e.g., suspension members 8-9) were duplicated to form a third crossbar [see claim 13 above]. Specifically, the crossbars 10 of the suspension members are configured to support one or more IV stands 2 which suspends an at least one infusion bag [0014, 0022-0023, FIGS. 1A-1B]).
Sjoblom does not explicitly teach wherein the second crossbar is a non-infusing IV bag crossbar, wherein the non-infusing IV bag crossbar comprises one or more first bag hooks for coupling a non-infusing IV bag to the non-infusing IV bag crossbar, and wherein the infusing IV bag crossbar comprises one or more second bag hooks for coupling an infusing IV bag to the infusing IV bag crossbar.
However, Fukuhara teaches wherein the infusing IV bag crossbar comprises one or more second bag hooks for coupling an infusing IV bag to the infusing IV bag crossbar (the horizontal crossbar comprises a plurality of hooks 10 that are configured to be coupled with an infusion bag [0032]).
Meanwhile, Vaughan teaches wherein the second crossbar is a non-infusing IV bag crossbar, wherein the non-infusing IV bag crossbar comprises one or more first bag hooks for coupling a non-infusing IV bag to the non-infusing IV bag crossbar (the cross-arm or crossbar 13 is coupled to hanger arm extension 19 which has a longitudinal axis [column 3 lines 15-21, FIGS. 1-2, FIGS. 4-5]. Specifically, the hanger arm extension 19 comprises a hook or loop 27 for hanging an intravenous (IV) bag [column 3 lines 1-15, FIG. 1]. The Examiner respectfully submits that Vaughan does not recite the use of infusion bags throughout the entire disclosure of the patent [column 3 lines 1-15]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to modify the third crossbar suggested by Sjoblom to include hooks for coupling with the infusing IV bag, as taught by Fukuhara. This modification is beneficial, as the hooks may provide better support for the infusing IV bag (see paragraph [0032] by Fukuhara). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Sjoblom’s second crossbar to be a non-infusing IV bag crossbar that includes one or more hooks for hanging a non-infusing IV bag, as taught by Vaughan. This modification is beneficial, as the hooks may provide support for a non-infusing IV bag that is used during a treatment (see [column 3 lines 1-15] by Vaughan).
10. Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sjoblom in view of Krasner et al (US 2021/0220550 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Sjoblom suggests device of claim 1. Sjoblom does not explicitly teach wherein the first crossbar includes one or more pump mounts for coupling an IV pump to the first crossbar. The prior art by Krasner is analogous to Sjoblom, as they both teach an IV pole that is configured to hand IV bag ([abstract, 0012-0013, 0035]).
Krasner teaches wherein the first crossbar includes one or more pump mounts for coupling an IV pump to the first crossbar (the mounted devices (e.g., feeding pumps) may be coupled to the different hooks (e.g., hooks 22, 24, or 26) of the crossbar [0012-0013, 0035, FIGS. 7-9]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to modify Sjoblom’s first crossbar to include one or more pump mounts for coupling an IV pump to the first crossbar, as taught by Krasner. The advantage of such modification will provide a hook for mounting an IV feeding pump directly to the crossbar (see paragraphs [0012-0013, 0035] by Krasner).
11. Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sjoblom in view of Krasner et al., further in view Smith.
Regarding claim 25, Sjoblom in view of Krasner suggests the device of claim 21. Sjoblom and Krasner do not explicitly teach wherein the first crossbar comprises one or more pump markings, wherein each of the one or more pump markings is different than any other pump marking, wherein each of the one or more pump markings is disposed adjacent a different one of the one or more pump mounts for identifying the different one of the one or more pump mounts.
However, Smith teaches wherein the pole comprises one or more pump markings, wherein each of the one or more pump markings is disposed adjacent a different one of the one or more pump mounts for identifying the different one of the one or more pump mounts (the pole 6 comprises an inverted polyhedron structure 8 having a different types of indicia 38 (e.g., different numbers, different colors, or different icons) represented on the respective side surfaces 24 of the inverted polyhedron structure 8 [0040, 0046, 0050, 0064, FIG. 1, FIG. 3]. Specifically, figure 3 illustrates the different types of indicia 38 being positioned adjacent to the hooks or pump mounts 26 on the respective side surfaces 24 of the inverted polyhedron structure 8 [0046, 0050, 0064, FIG. 3]. Specifically, the plurality of indicia 38 may be associated with particular or respective pump housings to reduce misidentification errors [0050, 0064], FIG. 3]).
Smith does not explicitly teach the one or more pump markings to be disposed adjacent to the different pump mounts along the first crossbar.
The Examiner respectfully submits that Kasner teaches a pump mount on a crossbar (the mounted devices (e.g., feeding pumps) may be coupled to the different hooks (e.g., hooks 22, 24, or 26) of the crossbar [0012-0013, 0035, FIGS. 7-9]) and Smith teaches the use of pump markings that are positioned adjacent to different pump mounts on an IV pole ([see the explanation above]). Thus, configuring the pump markings to be disposed adjacent to the different pump mounts along the first crossbar would be a matter of rearranging the known elements without producing a new and unexpected result, with such matters having been held by the Courts as being obvious to the skilled artisan (MPEP 2144.04).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to modify the first crossbar suggested by Sjoblom in view of Krasner to include pump markings that disposed adjacent to the different pump mounts, as further suggested by Smith. This modification is beneficial, as the pump markings or indicia may be associated with particular or respective pump housings to reduce misidentification errors (see paragraphs [0046, 0050, 0064] by Smith).
12. Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sjoblom in view of Vaughan and Krasner et al.
Regarding claim 26, Sjoblom suggests the device of claim 1. Sjoblom does not explicitly teach wherein the first crossbar further includes one or more pump extensions having a pump extension longitudinal axis, wherein each of the one or more pump extensions is coupled to an end of the first crossbar such that the first longitudinal axis and the pump extension longitudinal axis reside in a plane that is perpendicular to the pole longitudinal axis, wherein the pump extension longitudinal axis is transverse to the first longitudinal axis.
Vaughan teaches wherein the first crossbar further includes one or more extensions having an extension longitudinal axis (the cross-arm or crossbar 13 is coupled to hanger arm extension 19 which has a longitudinal axis [column 3 lines 15-21, FIGS. 1-2, FIGS. 4-5]. Specifically, the hanger arm extension 19 comprises a loop 27 for hanging various types of medical devices or equipment [column 1 lines 5-12, column 3 lines 1-15, FIG. 1]), wherein each of the one or more extensions is coupled to an end of the first crossbar such that the first longitudinal axis and the extension longitudinal axis reside in a plane that is perpendicular to the pole longitudinal axis (the hanger arm extension 19 comprises a connector 29 that is configured to connect the hanger arm extension 19 and the crossbar 13 into mutual axial alignment [column 3 lines 15-22, FIG. 1]. Specifically, figures 1-2 illustrates the crossbar 13 and the hanger arm extension 19 residing in a plane that is perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the pole 5 [FIGS. 1-2, column 2 lines 40-50]), wherein the extension longitudinal axis is transverse to the first longitudinal axis (the connector 29 comprises hinges 37a-37b which allows the hanger arm extension 19 to be bent or pivoted at various angles with respect to the crossbar 13 [column 3 lines 15-57, FIGS. 1-2, FIG. 5]. In this case, the Examiner respectfully submits that the hanger arm extension 19 may be bent or pivoted to form an axis that is transverse to the longitudinal axis of the crossbar 13 [column 3 lines 15-57, FIGS. 1-5]).
Vaughan does not explicitly teach wherein the one or more extensions are used for hanging a pump.
However, Krasner teaches wherein the one or more extensions are used for hanging a pump (the mounted devices (e.g., feeding pumps) may be coupled to the different hooks (e.g., hooks 22, 24, or 26) of the extended crossbar [0012-0013, 0035, FIGS. 7-9]).
Therefore, would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to modify Sjoblom’s first crossbar to include one or more extensions, as taught by Vaughan. This modification is beneficial, as the hanger extension comprises a hinge which allows the hanger extension to be pivoted at various angles storage purposes and/or hanging various types of medical devices (see [column 1 lines 5-12, column 3 lines 1-57] by Vaughan). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the one or more extensions of the first crossbar suggested by Sjoblom in view of Vaughan to be used for hanging a pump, as further taught by Krasner. The advantage of such modification will provide a hook for mounting an IV feeding pump directly to the extension of the crossbar (see paragraphs [0012-0013, 0035] by Krasner).
13. Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sjoblom in view of Fukuhara et al. and Krasner et al.
Regarding claim 28, Sjoblom suggests the device of claim 1, wherein the second crossbar is configured to be coupled with an IV bag (the crossbar 10 of the suspension member 9 is configured to support one or more IV stands 2 which suspends an at least one infusion bag [0014, 0022-0023, FIGS. 1A-1B]).
Sjoblom does not explicitly teach the second crossbar comprising one or more first bag hooks for coupling the IV bag to the second crossbar;
wherein the first crossbar includes one or more pump mounts for coupling an IV pump to the first crossbar; and
wherein each of the one or more pump mounts is vertically aligned with a different one of the one or more first bag hooks relative to the pole longitudinal axis.
However, Fukuhara teaches the second crossbar comprising one or more first bag hooks for coupling the IV bag to the second crossbar (the horizontal crossbar comprises a plurality of hooks 10 that are configured to be coupled with an infusion bag [0032]).
Meanwhile, Krasner teaches wherein the first crossbar includes one or more pump mounts for coupling an IV pump to the first crossbar (the mounted devices (e.g., feeding pumps) may be coupled to the different hooks (e.g., hooks 22, 24, or 26) of the extended crossbar [0012-0013, 0035, FIGS. 7-9]).
Sjoblom, Fukuhara, and Krasner do not explicitly teach wherein each of the one or more pump mounts is vertically aligned with a different one of the one or more first bag hooks relative to the pole longitudinal axis.
The Examiner respectfully submits that Sjoblom teaches the use of crossbars (the plurality of crossbars 10 are disposed at different vertical levels 4 and 5 [0022, FIGS. 1A-1B]), Fukuhara teaches the use of first bag hooks (the crossbar comprises a plurality of hooks 10 that may be coupled with an infusion bag [0032, FIG. 1]), and Kasner teaches the use of a pump mount (the mounted devices (e.g., feeding pumps) may be coupled to the different hooks (e.g., hooks 22, 24, or 26) of the extended crossbar [0012-0013, 0035, FIGS. 7-9]). Thus, configuring the pump mount to be vertically aligned with a different one of the first bag hooks relative to the pole longitudinal axis would be a matter of rearranging the known element without producing a new and unexpected result, with such matters having been held by the Courts as being obvious to the skilled artisan (MPEP 2144.04).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to modify Sjoblom’ s second crossbar to include hooks for coupling with the IV bag, as taught by Fukuhara. This modification is beneficial, as the hooks may provide better support for the IV bag (see paragraph [0032] by Fukuhara). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Sjoblom’s first crossbar to include one or more pump mounts for coupling an IV pump to the first crossbar, as taught by Krasner. The advantage of such modification will provide a hook for mounting an IV feeding pump directly to the crossbar (see paragraphs [0012-0013, 0035] by Krasner).
14. Claims 31 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sjoblom in view of Silverman et al. (US 2007/0221796 A1) and Caddell (US 2021/0113404 A1).
Regarding claim 31, Sjoblom suggests the device of claim 29. Sjoblom does not explicitly teach a vertical adjustment device disposed on the base of the device, the vertical adjustment device comprising a hydraulic pump and a foot pedal for moving the first crossbar and the second crossbar along the pole longitudinal axis relative to the base.
The prior art by Silverman is analogous to Sjoblom, as they both teach the use of an IV stand or pole that is configured to support an IV bag ([abstract, 0002]).
Silverman teaches a vertical adjustment device disposed on the base of the device (the foot pedal assembly 48 is disposed on the moveable base 12 [0017]), the vertical adjustment device comprising a gas spring (gas spring 40 [0017]) and a foot pedal for moving the first crossbar and the second crossbar along the pole longitudinal axis relative to the base (the foot pedal assembly 48 engages the gas spring 40 which causes the extension pole arm 74 and the crossbar support 124 to be raised between a first height and a second height on the IV pole 10 [0017, FIG. 1]).
Silverman does not explicitly teach the foot pedal controlling a hydraulic pump.
The prior art by Caddell is analogous to Sjoblom, as they both teach the use of an IV stand or pole that is configured to support an IV bag ([0026, 0032]).
Silverman and Caddell suggest the foot pedal controlling a hydraulic pump (as stated previously above, Silverman teaches the foot pedal assembly 48 (e.g., lever) being configured to raise the extension pole arm 74 and the crossbar support 124 [0017]. Meanwhile, Caddell teaches the base 128 comprises a support pole 126 including a hydraulic actuator that is operated by a lever [0038]. Specifically, the support pole 126 of the base 128 is coupled to an upper pole assembly 130 comprising crossbars having one or more hooks 132 [0038-0039]. In this case, the hydraulic actuator may be actuated by a lever to adjust the height of support pole 126 and the upper pole assembly 130 [0038]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to modify Sjoblom’s first and second crossbar to move along the pole by actuating a vertical adjustment device comprising a foot pedal, as taught by Silverman. The advantage of such modification will allow for selectively raising the height of crossbars which support the IV bag (see paragraph [0017] by Silverman). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the foot pedal suggested by Sjoblom in view of Silverman to control a hydraulic pump, as taught by Caddell. The advantage of such modification may improve the control of the height adjustments of the IV pole device (see paragraphs [0026, 0038-0039] by Caddell).
Regarding claim 34, Silverman teaches wherein the pole comprises a telescoping pole, wherein the vertical adjustment device causes the telescoping pole to extend longitudinally (the foot pedal assembly 48 is configured to raise the extension pole arm 74 and the crossbar support 124 between a first height and a second height on the IV pole 10 [0017, FIG. 1]).
Statement on Communication via Internet
15. Communications via Internet email are at the discretion of the applicant. All Internet communications between USPTO employees and applicants must be made using USPTO tools.
Without a written authorization by applicant in place, the USPTO will not respond via Internet email to any Internet correspondence which contains information subject to the confidentiality requirement as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 122. A paper copy of such correspondence and response will be placed in the appropriate patent application. Except for correspondence that only sets up an interview time, all correspondence between the Office and the applicant including applicant's representative must be placed in the appropriate patent application. If an email contains any information beyond scheduling an interview such as an interview agenda or authorization, it must be placed in the application.
For those applications where applicant wishes to communicate with the examiner via Internet communications, e.g., email or video conferencing tools, the following is a sample authorization form which may be used by applicant:
"Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file."
Please refer to MPEP 502.03 for guidance on Communications via Internet.
Conclusion
16. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA BRENDON SOLOMON whose telephone number is (571)270-7208. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30am -4:30pm.
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, Niketa Patel can be reached on (571)272-4156. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/J.B.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3792
/ANKIT D TEJANI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796