DETAILED ACTION
1. This office action is in response to the communicated dated 01 May 2026 concerning application number 18/660,623 effectively filed on 10 May 2024.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. 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.
Status of Claims
3. Claim 1, 4-5, 7, 10-16, 19-21, 25-26, 28-29, 31, and 34 are pending, of which claims 1, 13-15, and 20-21 have been amended; claims 2-3, 6, 8-9, 17-18, 22-24, 27, 30, 32-33, and 35-36 have been canceled; and claims 1, 4-5, 7, 10-16, 19-21, 25-26, 28-29, 31, and 34.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant’s arguments dated 01 May 2026, referred to herein as “the Arguments”, have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by Applicant’s amendments to the claims.
The Examiner has addressed the amended limitations within the updated text below.
Claim Objections
5. Claims 1, 20, and 28 are objected to because of the following informalities.
Claims 1, 20, and 28 contain minor typographical errors.
Claim 1, lines 9-10: The Examiner suggests changing “wherein the first crossbar is disposed along the pole longitudinal axis above the first crossbar by a first distance” to “wherein the second crossbar is disposed along the pole longitudinal axis above the first crossbar by a first distance”.
Claim 20, line 3-4: The Examiner suggests changing “one or more first bag hooks for coupling a non-infusing IV bag to the non-infusing IV bag crossbar” to “one or more first bag hooks for coupling the one or more non-infusing IV bags to the non-infusing IV bag crossbar”.
Claim 20, lines 5-6: The Examiner suggests changing “one or more second bag hooks for coupling an infusing IV bag to the infusing IV bag crossbar” to “one or more second bag hooks for coupling the one or more infusing IV bags to the infusing IV bag crossbar”.
Claim 28, lines 1-2: The Examiner suggests changing “The device of claim 1, wherein the first crossbar includes one or more pump mounts for coupling an IV pump to the first crossbar, and the second crossbar includes” to “The device of claim 1, wherein the second crossbar includes”. The Examiner respectfully submits that the one or more pump mounts for coupling an IV pump to the first crossbar was previously recited in claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
7. Claims 1, 4, 7, 13, 16, 20-21, and 28-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Timoszyk et al. (US 2009/0314923 A1) in view of Gomez (US 2015/0335774 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Timoszyk teaches an intravenous (IV) therapy pole device (the intravenous pole assemblies 13 and 302 include the same or similar components [0043, 0065, 0100, FIG. 1, FIG. 21, FIG. 30]. For example, both of the pole assemblies 13 and 302 comprise an elongated pole 119 having a telescopic pole section 151 [0043, 0065, 0100, FIG. 1, FIG. 21, FIG. 30]. Specifically, the telescopic pole section 151 is coupled to a plurality of crossbars having hooks 154 that are configured to hang the medical equipment (e.g., infusion pumps, IV fluid bags, or other IV-related equipment [0043, 0065, 0100, FIG. 1, FIG. 21, FIG. 30, see the annotated figure below]), the device comprising:
a pole extending along a pole longitudinal axis (figures 1, 21, and 30 illustrates the elongated pole 119 including a telescopic pole section 151 which extends along a longitudinal axis [0043, 0065, 0100, FIG. 1, FIG. 21, FIG. 30]);
a first crossbar extending along a first longitudinal axis, wherein the first crossbar is couplable to the pole such that the first longitudinal axis is transverse to the pole longitudinal axis (figures 1 and 30 illustrates the telescopic pole section 151 being coupled to a plurality of crossbars which include hooks 154 [0043, 0065, FIG. 1, FIG. 30]. The Examiner has provided an annotated figure below which illustrates each of the respective crossbars (e.g., first crossbar, second crossbar, and third crossbar) extending along a longitudinal axis that is transverse to the pole longitudinal axis of the pole section 151 [see the annotated figure below]), wherein the first crossbar includes one or more pump mounts for coupling an IV pump to the first crossbar (as stated previously above, the telescopic pole section 151 is coupled to a plurality of crossbars which include hooks 154 [0043, 0065, FIG. 1, FIG. 30, see the annotated figure below]. Specifically, the mounts or hooks 154 of the first crossbar are configured to hang medical equipment consisting of infusion pumps, IV fluid bags, or other IV-related equipment [0043, 0065, 0100, see the annotated figure below]);
PNG
media_image1.png
801
1351
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a second crossbar extending along a second longitudinal axis, wherein the second crossbar is couplable to the pole such that the second longitudinal axis is transverse to the pole longitudinal axis (figures 1 and 30 illustrates the telescopic pole section 151 being coupled to a plurality of crossbars which include hooks 154 [0043, 0065, FIG. 1, FIG. 30]. The Examiner has provided an annotated figure above which illustrates each of the crossbars extending along a longitudinal axis that is transverse to the pole longitudinal axis of the pole section 151 [see the annotated figure above]), wherein the second crossbar is disposed along the pole longitudinal axis above the first crossbar by a first distance (the Examiner respectfully submits that the annotated figure above illustrates the second crossbar being disposed above the first crossbar by a first distance [see the annotated figure above]. In other words, there is a distance between the first crossbar and the second crossbar [see the annotated figure above]), wherein the second crossbar is a non-infusing IV bag crossbar configured to suspend one or more non-infusing IV bags (the hooks 154 of the second crossbar are configured to hang medical equipment consisting of infusion pumps, IV fluid bags, or other IV-related equipment [0043, 0065, 0100, see the annotated figure above]. In this case, the hooks 154 of the second crossbar can be used to suspend or hang IV bags that are non-infused [0043, 0065, see the annotated figure above]. The Examiner respectfully submits that Applicant has not claimed the non-infusing IV bags, but has rather claimed the second crossbar to be configured to hang or suspend one or more non-infusing IV bags); and
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 (figures 1 and 30 illustrates the telescopic pole section 151 being coupled to a plurality of crossbars which include hooks 154 [0043, 0065, FIG. 1, FIG. 30]. The Examiner has provided an annotated figure above which illustrates each of the crossbars extending along a longitudinal axis that is transverse to the pole longitudinal axis of the pole section 151 [see the annotated figure above]), wherein the third crossbar is disposed along the pole longitudinal axis above the second crossbar by a second distance (the Examiner respectfully submits that the annotated figure above illustrates the third crossbar being disposed above the second crossbar by a second distance [see the annotated figure above]. In other words, there is a distance between the second crossbar and the third crossbar [see the annotated figure above]), wherein the third crossbar is an infusing IV bag crossbar configured to suspend one or more infusing IV bags (the hooks 154 of the third crossbar are configured to hang medical equipment consisting of infusion pumps, IV fluid bags, or other IV-related equipment [0043, 0065, 0100, see the annotated figure above]. In this case, the hooks 154 of the third crossbar can be used to suspend or hang IV bags that are infused [0043, 0065, see the annotated figure above]. The Examiner respectfully submits that Applicant has not claimed the infusing IV bags, but has rather claimed the third crossbar to be configured to hang or suspend one or more infusing IV bags).
Timoszyk does not explicitly teach wherein the first distance and the second distance are preconfigured based on a flowrate of fluids and/or medication from the one or more non-infusing IV bags and the one or more infusing IV bags.
The prior art by Gomez is analogous to Timoszyk, as they both teach an intravenous pole ([0028, 0038]).
Gomez teaches wherein the first distance and the second distance are preconfigured based on a flowrate of fluids from the one or more non-infusing IV bags and the one or more infusing IV bags (the intravenous pole 10 comprises crossbars or support members 19a-19d having hooks that are configured to support a plurality of IV bags 35 [0015, 0028, 0035, 0038, FIG. 1]. Furthermore, the height of the crossbars or support members 19a-19d may be individually adjusted to raise and lower its attached hook [0038]. Specifically, this allows the hooks on the crossbars or support members 19a-19d to be adjusted to a desired height or distance to accommodate different sized fluid bags and different gravity-based flow rates [0038]. For example, the crossbar or support member 19b may be adjusted to a height that is above the crossbar or support member 19a to accommodate for gravity-based flow rates (first distance configuration) [0038]. Meanwhile, the crossbar or support member 19c may be adjusted to a height that is above the crossbar or support member 19b to accommodate for gravity-based flow rates [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 the Timoszyk’s first and second distance to be preconfigured based on a flowrate of fluids from the one or more non-infusing IV bags and the one or more infusing IV bags, as taught by Gomez. The advantage of such medication will allow for adjusting the respective crossbars (e.g., support members) to a desired height or distance to accommodate different IV bags with different flow requirements (see paragraphs [0013, 0038] by Gomez).
Regarding claim 4, Timoszyk teaches wherein each of the first crossbar and the second crossbar are slidably coupled to the pole (the annotated figure above illustrates the first crossbar being coupled to the slidable mount 450 which can be vertically adjusted along the pole section 151 [0100, FIG. 30, see the annotated figure above]. Furthermore, the annotated figure above illustrates the second crossbar being coupled to the slidable mount 451 which can be vertically adjusted along the pole section 151 [0100, FIG. 30, see the annotated figure above]. Specifically, the slidable mounts 450 and 451 may be locked into a position on the pole section 151 via the clamping knobs 152 [0100, FIG. 30, see the annotated figure above]).
Regarding claim 7, Timoszyk teaches wherein the second crossbar comprises one or more first bag hooks for coupling an IV bag to the second crossbar (the hooks 154 of the second crossbar are configured to hang medical equipment consisting of infusion pumps, IV fluid bags, or other IV-related equipment [0043, 0065, 0100, see the annotated figure above]).
Regarding claim 13, Timoszyk in view of Gomez suggests the device of claim 1. Timoszyk and Gomez do not explicitly teach wherein the first distance between the first and second crossbars is in a range of 6 to 48 inches.
However, Timoszyk teaches the first and second crossbars to be set at different vertical levels on the pole to form the first distance between the first crossbar and the second crossbar (the annotated figure above illustrates the first crossbar being coupled to the slidable mount 450 which can be vertically adjusted along the pole section 151 [0100, FIG. 30, see the annotated figure above]. Furthermore, the annotated figure above illustrates the second crossbar being coupled to the slidable mount 451 which can be vertically adjusted along the pole section 151 [0100, FIG. 30, see the annotated figure above]). 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, such that the first distance ranges from 6 to 48 inches. The advantage of such modification will ensure that there is enough distance between each of the crossbars to hang the IV bags via the hooks (see the annotated figure above and paragraphs [0043, 0065] by Timoszyk). The Examiner further submits that the skilled artisan could arrive at such a distance via routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 16, Timoszyk teaches wherein the third crossbar comprises one or more second bag hooks for coupling an IV bag to the third crossbar (the hooks 154 of the third crossbar are configured to hang medical equipment consisting of infusion pumps, IV fluid bags, or other IV-related equipment [0043, 0065, see the annotated figure above]).
Regarding claim 20, Timoszyk teaches wherein the non-infusing IV bag crossbar comprises one or more first bag hooks for coupling the one or more non-infusing IV bags to the non-infusing IV bag crossbar (the hooks 154 of the second crossbar are configured to hang medical equipment consisting of infusion pumps, IV fluid bags, or other IV-related equipment [0043, 0065, see the annotated figure above]. In this case, the hooks 154 of the second crossbar can be used to suspend or hang IV bags that are non-infused [0043, 0065, 0100, see the annotated figure above]); and
wherein the infusing IV bag crossbar comprises one or more second bag hooks for coupling the one or more infusing IV bags to the infusing IV bag crossbar (the hooks 154 of the third crossbar are configured to hang medical equipment consisting of infusion pumps, IV fluid bags, or other IV-related equipment [0043, 0065, see the annotated figure above]. In this case, the hooks 154 of the third crossbar can be used to suspend or hang IV bags that are infused [0043, 0065, see the annotated figure above]).
Regarding claim 21, Timoszyk teaches wherein the intravenous (IV) therapy pole is configured to improve safety and accuracy of intravenous medication administration (the annotated figure above illustrates the telescopic pole section 151 being coupled to the plurality of crossbars which include hooks 154 [0043, 0065, FIG. 1, FIG. 30, see the annotated figure above]. Specifically, the hooks 154 of the crossbars are configured to hang medical equipment consisting of infusion pumps, IV fluid bags, or other IV-related equipment [0043, 0065, see the annotated figure above]. The Examiner respectfully submits that this configuration allows the infusion pumps and IV bags to be safely or properly suspended from the crossbars to administer the IV fluid or medicine to the patient [0043, 0065, FIG. 1, FIG. 30, see the annotated figure above]).
Regarding claim 28, Timoszyk teaches wherein the first crossbar includes the one or more pump mounts for coupling the IV pump to the first crossbar (the mounts or hooks 154 of the first crossbar are configured to hang medical equipment consisting of infusion pumps, IV fluid bags, or other IV-related equipment [0043, 0065, 0100, see the annotated figure above]), and the second crossbar includes one or more first bag hooks for coupling an IV bag to the second crossbar (the hooks 154 of the second crossbar are configured to hang medical equipment consisting of infusion pumps, IV fluid bags, or other IV-related equipment [0043, 0065, see the annotated figure above]), 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 annotated figure above illustrates mounts or hooks 154 of the first crossbar being vertically aligned with the hooks 154 of the second crossbar [FIG. 30, see the annotated figure above]. The Examiner respectfully submits that the hooks 154 of the second crossbar connected to an adjustable mount 451 which can be rotated to adjust the orientation of the hooks 154 [0100, FIG. 30, see the annotated figure above]. In this case, the user may adjust the orientation of the hooks 154 of the second crossbar to be vertically aligned with the orientation of the mounts or hooks 154 of the first crossbar [0100, FIG. 30, see the annotated figure above]).
Regarding claim 29, Timoszyk in view of Gomez suggests the device of claim 1. Timoszyk teaches a base coupled to the pole such that base is closer to the first crossbar than it is to the second crossbar, wherein the base includes three or more casters (figure 21 illustrates the cart 301 comprising a base 310 having rollers or casters 322 [0083-0085, FIG. 21]. Furthermore, figure 21 illustrates base 310 being coupled to the pole assembly 302 via the elongated support member 330 [0083-0085, FIG. 21]. As stated previously in claim 1, the pole assembly 302 comprises the elongated pole having a telescopic pole section 151 [0043, 0065, 0100, FIG. 1, FIG. 21, FIG. 30]. Specifically, figure 21 and the annotated figure above illustrates the telescopic pole section 151 being coupled to the first, second, and third crossbars which have hooks 154 [0043, 0065, 0100, FIG. 1, FIG. 21, FIG. 30, see the annotated figure above]. In this case, figure 21 illustrates base 310 being closer to the first crossbar than it is to the second crossbar [FIG. 21]).
Meanwhile, Gomez teaches the base coupled to the end of the pole (the pole assembly 10 has a lower end secured to the hub 56 of the base 55 [0015, 0032, FIG. 1]. Specifically, the base 55 includes a plurality of casters 57 [0014, 0033-0034]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the Timoszyk’s base to be coupled to the end of the pole, as taught by Gomez. The advantage of such modification will improve the support and stability of the pole while the IV fluid bags are suspended from the respective hooks of the crossbars (e.g., support members 19a-19d) (see paragraphs [0003, 0014-0015, 0038] and [FIG. 1] by Gomez).
8. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Timoszyk et al. in view of Gomez, further in view of West et al. (US 2010/0052274 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Timoszyk in view of Gomez suggests the device of claim 4. Timoszyk and Gomez do 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 Timoszyk, 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 pole suggested by Timoszyk in view of Gomez to include two or more distance markings that are spaced 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).
9. Claims 10, 19, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Timoszyk et al. in view of Gomez, further in view of Smith (US 2022/0118175 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Timoszyk in view of Gomez suggests the device of claim 7. Timoszyk and Gomez 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 Timoszyk, 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 Timoszyk teaches the use of a second crossbar having hooks (the hooks 154 of the second crossbar are configured to hang an IV bag [0043, 0065, see the annotated figure above]) 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 Timoszyk in view of Gomez 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, Timoszyk in view of Gomez suggests the device of claim 16. Timoszyk and Gomez 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.
However, 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 Timoszyk teaches the use of a third having hooks (the hooks 154 of the third crossbar are configured to hang IV fluid bags [0043, 0065, see the annotated figure above]) 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 Timoszyk in view of Gomez 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).
Regarding claim 25, Timoszyk in view of Gomez suggests the device of claim 21. Timoszyk and Gomez does 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 Timoszyk teaches the use of a pump mount on a first crossbar (the mounts or hooks 154 of the first crossbar are configured to hang medical equipment consisting of infusion pumps, IV fluid bags, or other IV-related equipment [0043, 0065, 0100, see the annotated figure above]) 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 Timoszyk in view of Gomez 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 a particular or respective pump housing to reduce misidentification errors (see paragraphs [0046, 0050, 0064] by Smith).
10. Claims 11-12 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Timoszyk et al. in view of Gomez, further in view of Vaughan (US Patent No. 4,695,025).
Regarding claim 11, Timoszyk in view of Gomez suggests the device of claim 1. Timoszyk and Gomez do 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 Timoszyk, 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 the second crossbar suggested by Timoszyk in view of Gomez to include one or more IV bag extensions, as taught by Vaughan. This modification is beneficial, as the IV bag extension (e.g., hanger extension) comprises a hinge which allows the IV bag 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, Timoszyk in view of Gomez and Vaughan suggests the device of claim 11. 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]).
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 one or more IV bag extensions suggested by Timoszyk in view of Gomez and Vaughan to be hingedly coupled to the end of the second crossbar, as further taught by Vaughan. This modification is beneficial, as the hinge allows the IV bag extension (e.g., 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 26, Timoszyk in view of Gomez suggests the device of claim 1. Timoszyk teaches wherein the first crossbar is configured to hang one or more pumps (the mounts or hooks 154 of the first crossbar are configured to hang medical equipment consisting of infusion pumps, IV fluid bags, or other IV-related equipment [0043, 0065, 0100, see the annotated figure above]).
Timoszyk and Gomez do 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 pump extensions having a pump 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 hook or loop 27 for hanging various types of medical devices or equipment [column 1 lines 5-12, column 3 lines 1-15, FIG. 1]. In this case, Timoszyk’s infusion pumps could be hung on Vaughan’s hook or loop 27 of the hanger arm extension 19 [see the explanation above]. This is possible, as Timoszyk’s teaches the medical equipment (e.g., infusion pumps, IV bags, or other IV-related equipment) designed to be hung on the hooks 154 of the first crossbar [0043, 0065, 0100, see the annotated figure above]), 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 (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 pump 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]).
Therefore, 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 Timoszyk and Gomez to include one or more pump extensions, as taught by Vaughan. This modification is beneficial, as the pump extension (e.g., hanger extension) comprises a hinge which allows the pump extension (e.g., hanger extension) to be pivoted at various angles for storage purposes and/or hanging medical equipment (see [column 1 lines 5-12, column 3 lines 1-57] by Vaughan).
11. Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Timoszyk et al. in view of Gomez, further in view of Hoftman et al. (US Patent No. 5,820,086).
Regarding claim 14, Timoszyk in view of Gomez suggests the device of claim 13. Timoszyk and Gomez do not explicitly teach wherein the first distance and the second distance are preconfigured based on a pressure difference that ensures proper infusion of medication from the one or more infusing IV bags.
The prior art by Hoftman is analogous to Timoszyk, as they both teach an IV pole that is configured to support one or more IV fluid bags ([abstract]).
Hoftman teaches wherein the first distance and the second distance are preconfigured based on a pressure difference that ensures proper infusion of medication from the one or more infusing IV bags (each of the crossbars or hangers 16, 17, 18, and 19 may be adjusted between different heights or distances based upon the desired fluid pressure that ensures proper infusion from the IV fluid bags 22 [column 6 lines 30-42, 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 the first distance and the second distance suggested by Timoszyk in view of Gomez to be preconfigured based on a pressure difference that ensures proper infusion of medication from the one or more infusing IV bags, as taught by Hoftman. The advantage of such modification will allow each of the crossbars (e.g., support hangers) to be adjusted between different height or distances based on the desired fluid pressure for the IV bags. Specifically, this ensures that the crossbars provide sufficient support to the IV fluid bags while delivering the fluid to the patient (see [column 1 lines 10-15, column 6 lines 30-42] by Hoftman).
Regarding claim 15, Timoszyk in view of Gomez and Hoftman suggests the device of claim 14. Timoszyk, Gomez, and Hoftman do not explicitly teach wherein the second distance between the second and third crossbars is in a range of 4 to 20 inches.
However, Timoszyk teaches the second and third crossbars to be set at different vertical levels on the pole to form the second distance between the first crossbar and the second crossbar (the annotated figure above illustrates the second crossbar being coupled to the slidable mount 451 which can be vertically adjusted along the pole section 151 [0100, FIG. 30, see the annotated figure above]. Meanwhile, the annotated figure above illustrates the third crossbar being disposed above the second crossbar [see the annotated figure above]). Thus, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to adjust the vertical level of the second crossbar relative to the third crossbar, such that the second distance ranges from 4 to 20 inches. The advantage of such modification will ensure that there is enough distance between each of the crossbars to hang the IV bags via the hooks (see the annotated figure above and paragraphs [0043, 0065] by Timoszyk). The Examiner further submits that the skilled artisan could arrive at such a distance via routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05).
12. Claims 31 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Timoszyk et al. in view of Gomez, further in view of Silverman et al. (US 2007/0221796 A1) and Caddell (US 2021/0113404 A1).
Regarding claim 31, Timoszyk in view of Gomez suggests the device of claim 29. Timoszyk and Gomez do 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 Timoszyk, 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 Timoszyk, 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 the first and second crossbar suggested by Timoszyk in view of Gomez 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 Timoszyk in view of Gomez and 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, Timoszyk in view of Gomez, Silverman, and Caddell suggests the device of claim 31. Timoszyk teaches wherein the pole comprises a telescoping pole (telescopic pole section 151 [0065, FIG. 1, FIG. 30])
Meanwhile, Silverman teaches 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]).
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 vertical adjustment device suggested by Timoszyk in view of Gomez, Silverman, and Caddell to cause the telescoping pole to extend longitudinally, as further taught by Silverman. The advantage of such modification will allow for adjusting the height of the telescopic pole (e.g., extension pole arm 74) without applying any manual upper body power or finger pressure to the telescopic pole (see paragraph [0017, 0028] by Silverman).
Conclusion
13. 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 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.
/JOSHUA BRENDON SOLOMON/Examiner, Art Unit 3792
Prosecution Insights