DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claims 1-2, 11, 15-18, 27, and 31-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burnett et al. (US 2017/0136209 A1) in view of Woodard et al. (US 2021/0298653 A1) and in further view of Stapleton et al. (US 2013/0318701 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Burnett discloses a smart fluid discharge monitoring device (Figs. 10A-C, feats. 1000, 1001, and 1002; ¶0135-0155; Figs. 21-23; ¶0178-0185) comprising: a housing (1018; ¶0137); a frame within the housing (1102; ¶0148); a cartridge positioned within an upper shell of the housing (Figs. 10A-C, feat. 1022; ¶0137 and 0140-0143; Fig. 21, feat. 2100; ¶0179-0180), wherein the cartridge comprises a window (Fig. 21, feat. 2110; ¶0179), through which a discharge fluid is configured to flow (¶0140-0143; Fig. 21, feat. 2106; ¶0179-0182); a tube (Fig. 10C, feat. 1001; ¶0137) connected to the cartridge (1022); wherein the smart fluid discharge monitoring device is configured to detect one or more optical characteristic of the discharge fluid through the window as the discharge fluid flows through the cartridge (¶0178-0185).
Burnett does not disclose a door removably attached to the housing, the door delimiting an interior region of the housing below the upper shell or a plurality of tanks removably secured within the interior region, wherein the tanks are configured to receive the discharge fluid from the cartridge. Instead of a plurality of tanks for receiving discharge fluid from the cartridge, Burnett discloses a single bag (1020; ¶0148).
Woodard teaches a urine monitor (Figs. 2-4, feat. 110; ¶0065-0072) for monitoring the urine discharged by a patient (¶0002-0004). The urine monitor comprises a housing (212) with an interior cavity (214) delimited by a door (416) which advantageously partially conceals the drainage receptacle (154) and any urine therein (¶0066). Modifying the device of Burnett to include a door which at least partially conceals the bag for receiving urine (Burnett: Fig. 1A, feat. 1020) would place the door, and the cavity delimited by the door, below the upper shell of the housing (Burnett: Fig. 1A, feat. 1018) because the bag of Burnett is positioned below the upper shell. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device suggested by Burnett so that the housing includes a door removably attached to the housing, the door delimiting an interior region of the housing below the upper shell in order to at least partially conceal the drainage receptacle as taught by Woodard.
Burnett (Fig. 1A, feat. 1020) and Woodard each disclose or teach a single bag (Figs. 2-4, feat. 154) for receiving discharge fluid from the cartridge, and therefore Burnett in view of Woodard does not suggest a plurality of tanks removably secured within the interior region, wherein the tanks are configured to receive the discharge fluid from the cartridge.
Stapleton teaches a waste handling system (Figs. 1-2, feat. 10; ¶0015) comprising a pair of tanks (58, 60; ¶0019) each holding a urine bag (32, 34; ¶0016-0019). A flow diverter valve (48) comprises one outlet branch for each tank and automatically switches urine flow from one bag to the other based on which bag is full, which advantageously allows the full urine bag to be changed without needing to stop draining urine (¶0020-0021). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device suggested by Burnett in view of Woodard to include a plurality of tanks removably secured within the interior region, wherein the tanks are configured to receive the discharge fluid from the cartridge and a flow diverter valve in order to allow a full tanks to be changed without needing to stop draining fluid from a patient as taught by Stapleton.
Regarding claim 2, Burnett in view of Woodard and in further view of Stapleton suggests the device of claim 1. Burnett further discloses a controller (Figs. 10A-C, feat. 1018; ¶0137 and 0140-0143) for controlling the actuation of valve assemblies (1132; ¶0140-0142) to control the fluid flow into the urine receptacle. As discussed above, Stapleton also teaches a valve assembly for controlling fluid flow into a plurality of urine receptacles (Figs. 1-2, feat. 48). Therefore, Burnett in view of Woodard and in further view of Stapleton further suggests a controller; wherein the cartridge comprises a valve assembly for each of the plurality of tanks; and wherein the controller is configured to control actuation of the valve assemblies between an open position and a closed position.
Regarding claim 11, Burnett in view of Woodard and in further view of Stapleton suggests the device of claim 1. Woodard further teaches ultrasonic flow rate monitoring through a drainage cassette (¶0081). Therefore, Burnett in view of Woodard and in further view of Stapleton further suggests that the device is configured to measure a flow rate of the discharge fluid through the cartridge.
Regarding claim 15, Burnett in view of Woodard and in further view of Stapleton suggests the device of claim 1, and Burnett further discloses that the smart fluid discharge device is a smart catheter, configured for connection to a catheter configured for evacuation of the discharge fluid from a patient to whom the catheter is attached (Figs. 10A-C, feats. 1000, 1001, and 1002; ¶0136-0137).
Regarding claim 16, Burnett in view of Woodard and in further view of Stapleton suggests the device of claim 1. Burnett further teaches that the catheter of the device may be placed in the pleural space (¶0002), making it a chest tube. Therefore, Burnett in view of Woodard and in further view of Stapleton further discloses that the smart fluid discharge monitoring device is a smart chest tube, configured for connection to a chest tube configured for evacuation of the discharge fluid from a patient to whom the chest tube is attached.
Regarding claim 17, Burnett discloses a method of monitoring a discharge fluid from a patient (¶0018 and 0179-0185), the method comprising: providing a smart fluid discharge monitoring device (Figs. 10A-C, feats. 1000, 1001, and 1002; ¶0135-0155; Figs. 21-23; ¶0178-0185), comprising: : a housing (1018; ¶0137); a frame within the housing (1102; ¶0148); a cartridge positioned within an upper shell of the housing (Figs. 10A-C, feat. 1022; ¶0137 and 0140-0143; Fig. 21, feat. 2100; ¶0179-0180), wherein the cartridge comprises a window (Fig. 21, feat. 2110; ¶0179), through which a discharge fluid is configured to flow (¶0140-0143; Fig. 21, feat. 2106; ¶0179-0182); a tube (Fig. 10C, feat. 1001; ¶0137) connected to the cartridge (1022); and a fluid receptacle (1020; ¶0148); connecting a discharge tube attached to a patient to the tube of the cartridge (Fig. 10A, feat. 1016; ¶0138); detecting one or more optical characteristics of the discharge fluid through the window as the discharge fluid flows through the cartridge (¶0178-0185); and receiving the discharge fluid into the fluid receptacle from the cartridge (¶0148).
Burnett does not disclose a door removably attached to the housing, the door delimiting an interior region of the housing below the upper shell or a plurality of tanks removably secured within the interior region, wherein the tanks are configured to receive the discharge fluid from the cartridge. Instead of a plurality of tanks for receiving discharge fluid from the cartridge, Burnett discloses a single bag (1020; ¶0148).
Woodard teaches a urine monitor (Figs. 2-4, feat. 110; ¶0065-0072) for monitoring the urine discharged by a patient (¶0002-0004). The urine monitor comprises a housing (212) with an interior cavity (214) delimited by a door (416) which advantageously partially conceals the drainage receptacle (154) and any urine therein (¶0066). Modifying the device of Burnett to include a door which at least partially conceals the bag for receiving urine (Burnett: Fig. 1A, feat. 1020) would place the door, and the cavity delimited by the door, below the upper shell of the housing (Burnett: Fig. 1A, feat. 1018) because the bag of Burnett is positioned below the upper shell. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device used in the method suggested by Burnett so that the housing includes a door removably attached to the housing, the door delimiting an interior region of the housing below the upper shell in order to at least partially conceal the drainage receptacle as taught by Woodard.
Burnett (Fig. 1A, feat. 1020) and Woodard each disclose or teach a single bag (Figs. 2-4, feat. 154) for receiving discharge fluid from the cartridge, and therefore Burnett in view of Woodard does not suggest a plurality of tanks removably secured within the interior region, wherein the tanks are configured to receive the discharge fluid from the cartridge.
Stapleton teaches a waste handling system (Figs. 1-2, feat. 10; ¶0015) comprising a pair of tanks (58, 60; ¶0019) each holding a urine bag (32, 34; ¶0016-0019). A flow diverter valve (48) comprises one outlet branch for each tank and automatically switches urine flow from one bag to the other based on which bag is full, which advantageously allows the full urine bag to be changed without needing to stop draining urine (¶0020-0021). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device used in the method suggested by Burnett in view of Woodard to include a plurality of tanks removably secured within the interior region, wherein the tanks are configured to receive the discharge fluid from the cartridge and a flow diverter valve in order to allow a full tanks to be changed without needing to stop draining fluid from a patient as taught by Stapleton.
Regarding claim 18, Burnett in view of Woodard and in further view of Stapleton suggests the method of claim 17. Burnett further discloses a controller (Figs. 10A-C, feat. 1018; ¶0137 and 0140-0143) for controlling the actuation of valve assemblies (1132; ¶0140-0142) to control the fluid flow into the urine receptacle. As discussed above, Stapleton also teaches a valve assembly for controlling fluid flow into a plurality of urine receptacles (Figs. 1-2, feat. 48). Therefore, Burnett in view of Woodard and in further view of Stapleton further suggests that the cartridge comprises a valve assembly for each of the plurality of tanks, the method comprising providing a controller that controls actuation of the valve assemblies between an open position and a closed position.
Regarding claim 27, Burnett in view of Woodard and in further view of Stapleton suggests the method of claim 17. Woodard further teaches ultrasonic flow rate monitoring through a drainage cassette (¶0081). Therefore, Burnett in view of Woodard and in further view of Stapleton further suggests that the device is configured to measure a flow rate of the discharge fluid through the cartridge.
Regarding claim 31, Burnett in view of Woodard and in further view of Stapleton suggests the method of claim 17, and Burnett further discloses that the discharge tube is a catheter and the smart fluid discharge monitoring device is a smart catheter (Figs. 10A-C, feats. 1000, 1001, and 1002; ¶0136-0137).
Regarding claim 32, Burnett in view of Woodard and in further view of Stapleton suggests the method of claim 17. Burnett further teaches that the catheter of the device may be placed in the pleural space (¶0002), making it a chest tube. Therefore, Burnett in view of Woodard and in further view of Stapleton further discloses that the discharge tube is a chest tube and the smart fluid discharge monitoring device is a smart chest tube.
Claims 3 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burnett in view of Woodard, in further view of Stapleton, and in further view of Han et al. (US 5,891,051 A).
Regarding claim 3, Burnett in view of Woodard and in further view of Stapleton suggests the device of claim 2, but does not disclose a tank occupancy sensor configured to detect when a tank is installed within the smart fluid discharge monitoring device.
Han teaches an electronic fluid output monitor (Figs. 1-2, feat. 10; Col. 4, lines 55-62) comprising a housing (12) and a tank for receiving fluid (14; Col. 4, line 63 – Col. 5, line 2). The housing comprises a lid (16) with an optical sensor (32) which detects the presence or absence of the tank in order to prevent erroneous volumetric measurements (Col. 5, lines 11-24). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device suggested by Burnett in view of Woodard and in further view of Stapleton to include a tank occupancy sensor configured to detect when a tank is installed within the smart fluid discharge monitoring device in order to prevent erroneous volumetric measurements as taught by Han.
Regarding claim 19, Burnett in view of Woodard and in further view of Stapleton suggests the method of claim 18, but does not disclose detecting, via a tank occupancy sensor, when a tank is installed within the smart fluid discharge monitoring device.
Han teaches an electronic fluid output monitor (Figs. 1-2, feat. 10; Col. 4, lines 55-62) comprising a housing (12) and a tank for receiving fluid (14; Col. 4, line 63 – Col. 5, line 2). The housing comprises a lid (16) with an optical sensor (32) which detects the presence or absence of the tank in order to prevent erroneous volumetric measurements (Col. 5, lines 11-24). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method suggested by Burnett in view of Woodard and in further view of Stapleton to include detecting, via a tank occupancy sensor, when a tank is installed within the smart fluid discharge monitoring device in order to prevent erroneous volumetric measurements as taught by Han.
Claims 4-6 and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burnett in view of Woodard, in further view of Stapleton, in further view of Han, and in further view of Holt et al. (US 2019/0069830 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Burnett in view of Woodard, in further view of Stapleton, and in further view of Han suggests the device of claim 3. Woodard further teaches that the urine discharge receptacle (Fig. 5, feat. 154) may be mounted via a load bearing hook (528) in the interior cavity, such that a load cell measures the weight of urine in the receptacle (¶0074). Therefore, Burnett in view of Woodard, in further view of Stapleton, and in further view of Han further suggests that each tank is attached to the frame via a corresponding tank mount and each tank mount is mounted to the frame by a load cell. Burnett in view of Woodard, in further view of Stapleton, and in further view of Han does not disclose that the load cell is configured to output a signal that corresponds to a volume of the discharge within the tank attached to the corresponding tank mount.
Holt teaches a load cell for the measurement of voided urine volume and flowrate by measuring the weight and using the specific gravity of urine to calculate the volume (Figs. 1-2, feat. 2; ¶0009-0011 and 0040-0041). Holt teaches that this advantageously allows for low-cost and continuous measurement of urine output (¶0007-0011). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device suggested by Burnett in view of Woodard, in further view of Stapleton, and in further view of Han so that the load cell is configured to output a signal that corresponds to a volume of the discharge within the tank attached to the corresponding tank mount in order to continuously monitor fluid output as taught by Holt.
Regarding claim 5, Burnett in view of Woodard, in further view of Stapleton, in further view of Han, and in further view of Holt suggests the device of claim 4. Burnett further discloses that the controller may monitor the volume of the urine in the receptacle (Burnett: ¶0148). As discussed above, Stapleton teaches that the flow diverter valve may be controlled to receive a signal that one tank is full, shut off flow to that tank, and allow flow to the other tank (Stapleton: ¶0020-0021). Therefore, Burnett in view of Woodard, in further view of Stapleton, in further view of Han, and in further view of Holt further suggests that the controller receives the signal from the load cell and, when the controller determines that one of the tanks is full, or within a predefined percentage of full, the controller is configured to close the valve assembly for the full tank and to open the valve assembly of another of the tanks.
Regarding claim 6, Burnett in view of Woodard, in further view of Stapleton, in further view of Han, and in further view of Holt suggests the device of claim 4. Woodard further teaches that the load bearing hook (Fig. 5, feat. 528) carries the whole load of the urine receptacle (¶0074). Therefore, Burnett in view of Woodard, in further view of Stapleton, in further view of Han, and in further view of Holt further suggests that each tank mount is connected to the frame only by the load cell, in a cantilevered manner.
Regarding claim 20, Burnett in view of Woodard, in further view of Stapleton, and in further view of Han suggests the method of claim 19. Woodard further teaches that the urine discharge receptacle (Fig. 5, feat. 154) may be mounted via a load bearing hook (528) in the interior cavity, such that a load cell measures the weight of urine in the receptacle (¶0074). Therefore, Burnett in view of Woodard, in further view of Stapleton, and in further view of Han further suggests attaching each tank to the frame via a corresponding tank mount and connecting each tank mount to the frame by a load cell. Burnett in view of Woodard, in further view of Stapleton, and in further view of Han does not disclose outputting, from the load cell, a signal that corresponds to a volume of the discharge fluid within the tank attached to the corresponding tank mount.
Holt teaches a load cell for the measurement of voided urine volume and flowrate by measuring the weight and using the specific gravity of urine to calculate the volume (Figs. 1-2, feat. 2; ¶0009-0011 and 0040-0041). Holt teaches that this advantageously allows for low-cost and continuous measurement of urine output (¶0007-0011). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method suggested by Burnett in view of Woodard, in further view of Stapleton, and in further view of Han so that to include outputting, from the load cell, a signal that corresponds to a volume of the discharge fluid within the tank attached to the corresponding tank mount in order to continuously monitor fluid output as taught by Holt.
Regarding claim 21, Burnett in view of Woodard, in further view of Stapleton, in further view of Han, and in further view of Holt suggests the method of claim 20. Burnett further discloses that the controller may monitor the volume of the urine in the receptacle (Burnett: ¶0148). As discussed above, Stapleton teaches that the flow diverter valve may be controlled to receive a signal that one tank is full, shut off flow to that tank, and allow flow to the other tank (Stapleton: ¶0020-0021). Therefore, Burnett in view of Woodard, in further view of Stapleton, in further view of Han, and in further view of Holt further suggests receiving, at the controller, the signal from the load cell, and when the controller determines that one of the tanks is full, or within a predefined percentage of full, closing, using the controller, the valve assembly for the full tank and opening using the controller, the valve assembly of another of the tanks.
Regarding claim 22, Burnett in view of Woodard, in further view of Stapleton, in further view of Han, and in further view of Holt suggests the method of claim 20. Woodard further teaches that the load bearing hook (Fig. 5, feat. 528) carries the whole load of the urine receptacle (¶0074). Therefore, Burnett in view of Woodard, in further view of Stapleton, in further view of Han, and in further view of Holt further suggests that each tank mount is connected to the frame only by the load cell, in a cantilevered manner.
Claims 7-10 and 23-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burnett in view of Woodard, in further view of Stapleton, and in further view of Harris et al. (US 2019/0002817 A1).
Regarding claims 7-10, Burnett in view of Woodard and in further view of Harris suggest the device of claim 2, but are silent with respect to the construction of the valve assembly.
Harris teaches a pinch valve assembly (Figs. 11-12, feat. 50; ¶0032-0033) for controlling fluid flow through tubes (Fig. 12, feats. 130a, 130b) by pinching them against an anvil plate (32). The pinch valve assembly comprises an actuator motor (Fig. 11, feat. 56; ¶0032) with a lead screw (58) comprising a carriage arm (57) with rollers (54a, 54b) at its distal end. The rollers (54a, 54b; ¶0032) engage the sloped cam surfaces (51a, 52b) on the backs of spring-loaded valve bodies (53a, 53b), which further comprise fingers (52a, 52b) to compress the tubes (130a, 130b).The cam surface (Fig. 11, feat. 51b) of one of the valve bodies (53b) defines a sloped recess (58b) which engages the corresponding roller (54b) to maintain the valve body (53b) in the open position (Fig. 11; ¶0032). As the actuator motor moves the carriage arm along the lead screw, the rollers slide or roll along the sloped cam surfaces of the valve bodies, and the valve bodies are moved between opened and closed positions in order to allow or block the flow of fluid through the tubes (¶0032). Harris teaches that such a valve assembly advantageously allows a given state to be maintained with no power (¶0032). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device suggested by Burnett in view of Woodard and in further view of Stapleton so that each valve assembly of the cartridge comprises an actuator configured to engage with and move a valve body of a same valve assembly between an open position, in which the valve body is positioned to allow the discharge fluid to flow into a corresponding one of the plurality of tanks from the cartridge, and a closed position, in which the valve body is positioned to block the discharge fluid from flowing into the corresponding one of the plurality of tanks from the cartridge, with respect to claim 7, so that for each valve assembly of the cartridge, the valve body comprises a sloped surface against which the actuator is configured to engage in a sliding or rolling manner as the valve body moves between the open and closed positions, with respect to claim 8, so that each valve assembly comprises an arm that is attached to the actuator, for each valve assembly of the cartridge, the valve body comprises, at an end of the sloped surface that corresponds to the open position for the valve body when engaged by the actuator, a recess; the arm comprises, at a distal end thereof, a roller, and when the roller is engaged within the recess, the valve body is held in the open position until the actuator is energized to retract the arm, which disengages the roller from the recess, with respect to claim 9, and so that each valve assembly is configured to default to the valve body being in the closed position unless the roller is engaged within the recess, with respect to claim 10, so that the valve assembly maintains its open or closed state without requiring power as taught by Harris.
Regarding claims 23-26, Burnett in view of Woodard and in further view of Harris suggest the device of claim 18, but are silent with respect to the construction of the valve assembly.
Harris teaches a pinch valve assembly (Figs. 11-12, feat. 50; ¶0032-0033) for controlling fluid flow through tubes (Fig. 12, feats. 130a, 130b) by pinching them against an anvil plate (32). The pinch valve assembly comprises an actuator motor (Fig. 11, feat. 56; ¶0032) with a lead screw (58) comprising a carriage arm (57) with rollers (54a, 54b) at its distal end. The rollers (54a, 54b; ¶0032) engage the sloped cam surfaces (51a, 52b) on the backs of spring-loaded valve bodies (53a, 53b), which further comprise fingers (52a, 52b) to compress the tubes (130a, 130b).The cam surface (Fig. 11, feat. 51b) of one of the valve bodies (53b) defines a sloped recess (58b) which engages the corresponding roller (54b) to maintain the valve body (53b) in the open position (Fig. 11; ¶0032). As the actuator motor moves the carriage arm along the lead screw, the rollers slide or roll along the sloped cam surfaces of the valve bodies, and the valve bodies are moved between opened and closed positions in order to allow or block the flow of fluid through the tubes (¶0032). Harris teaches that such a valve assembly advantageously allows a given state to be maintained with no power (¶0032). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method suggested by Burnett in view of Woodard and in further view of Stapleton so that each valve assembly of the cartridge comprises an actuator that engages with a valve body of a same valve assembly, the method comprising using the actuator to move the valve body to between an open position, in which the valve body is positioned to allow the discharge fluid to flow into a corresponding one of the plurality of tanks from the cartridge, and a closed position, in which the valve body is positioned to block the discharge fluid from flowing into the corresponding one of the plurality of tanks from the cartridge, with respect to claim 23, so that for each valve assembly of the cartridge, the valve body comprises a sloped surface against which the actuator is configured to engage in a sliding or rolling manner as the valve body moves between the open and closed positions, with respect to claim 24, so that each valve assembly comprises an arm that is attached to the actuator, for each valve assembly of the cartridge, the valve body comprises, at an end of the sloped surface that corresponds to the open position for the valve body when engaged by the actuator, a recess; the arm comprises, at a distal end thereof, a roller, and when the roller is engaged within the recess, the valve body is held in the open position until the actuator is energized to retract the arm, which disengages the roller from the recess, with respect to claim 25, and so that each valve assembly is configured to default to the valve body being in the closed position unless the roller is engaged within the recess, with respect to claim 26, so that the valve assembly maintains its open or closed state without requiring power as taught by Harris.
Claims 12-13 and 28-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burnett in view of Woodard, in further view of Stapleton, and in further view of Bedingfield (US 2008/0200865 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Burnett in view of Woodard and in further view of Stapleton suggests the device of claim 1, but does not disclose a backlight configured to illuminate the discharge fluid through the window and a camera configured to detect the one or more optical characteristics of the discharge fluid through the window.
Bedingfield teaches a medical fluid monitoring system (Fig. 2A, feat. 450; ¶0015-0016 and 0057-0062) comprising a backlight (462; ¶0061-0062) illuminating a transparent tube or conduit (452; ¶0058), such as a drainage tube, and a camera on the other side (464; ¶0060-0062). Bedingfield teaches that this allows for the simultaneous detection of flowrate and the presence, size, and shape of gas bubbles and particles in the fluid (¶0057). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device suggested by Burnett in view of Woodard and in further view of Stapleton so that it includes a backlight configured to illuminate the discharge fluid through the window and a camera configured to detect the one or more optical characteristics of the discharge fluid through the window in order to simultaneously detect flowrate and the presence, size, and shape of gas bubbles and particles in the fluid as taught by Bedingfield.
Regarding claim 13, Burnett in view of Woodard, in further view of Stapleton, and in further view of Bedingfield suggests the device of claim 12, and Burnett further discloses that the one or more optical characteristics comprise turbidity and/or total dissolved solids (¶0182).
Regarding claim 28, Burnett in view of Woodard and in further view of Stapleton suggests the method of claim 17, but does not disclose illuminating, using a backlight, the discharge fluid through the window; and detecting, using a camera, the one or more optical characteristics of the discharge fluid through the window.
Bedingfield teaches a medical fluid monitoring system (Fig. 2A, feat. 450; ¶0015-0016 and 0057-0062) comprising a backlight (462; ¶0061-0062) illuminating a transparent tube or conduit (452; ¶0058), such as a drainage tube, and a camera on the other side (464; ¶0060-0062). Bedingfield teaches that this allows for the simultaneous detection of flowrate and the presence, size, and shape of gas bubbles and particles in the fluid (¶0057). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method suggested by Burnett in view of Woodard and in further view of Stapleton so that it includes illuminating, using a backlight, the discharge fluid through the window; and detecting, using a camera, the one or more optical characteristics of the discharge fluid through the window in order to simultaneously detect flowrate and the presence, size, and shape of gas bubbles and particles in the fluid as taught by Bedingfield.
Regarding claim 29, Burnett in view of Woodard, in further view of Stapleton, and in further view of Bedingfield suggests the method of claim 28, and Burnett further discloses that the one or more optical characteristics comprise turbidity and/or total dissolved solids (¶0182).
Claims 14 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burnett in view of Woodard, in further view of Stapleton, in further view of Bedingfield, and in further view of Peret et al. (US 2016/0055397 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Burnett in view of Woodard, in further view of Stapleton, and in further view of Bedingfield suggests the device of claim 12, and Burnett further discloses that the cartridge (Figs. 10A-C, feat. 1022) is positioned within the upper shell (1018). Burnett in view of Woodard, in further view of Stapleton, and in further view of Bedingfield does not suggest that the upper shell is configured to block exterior light from entering the upper shell.
Peret teaches a flow rate monitoring and imaging system (Fig. 1, feat. 7; ¶0410-0418) comprising a transparent drip chamber (4), a backlight (18), and an image sensor or camera (11). Peret teaches that ambient light may cause inconsistencies in the images produced by the image sensor, and that the imaging system may be enclosed in a shell which blocks some wavelengths of ambient light in order to account for this (¶0448). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device suggested by Burnett in view of Woodard, in further view of Stapleton, and in further view of Bedingfield so that the upper shell is configured to block exterior light from entering the upper shell in order to prevent inconsistencies due to ambient light as taught by Peret.
Regarding claim 30, Burnett in view of Woodard, in further view of Stapleton, and in further view of Bedingfield suggests the method of claim 28, and Burnett further discloses that the cartridge (Figs. 10A-C, feat. 1022) is positioned within the upper shell (1018). Burnett in view of Woodard, in further view of Stapleton, and in further view of Bedingfield does not suggest that the upper shell is configured to block exterior light from entering the upper shell.
Peret teaches a flow rate monitoring and imaging system (Fig. 1, feat. 7; ¶0410-0418) comprising a transparent drip chamber (4), a backlight (18), and an image sensor or camera (11). Peret teaches that ambient light may cause inconsistencies in the images produced by the image sensor, and that the imaging system may be enclosed in a shell which blocks some wavelengths of ambient light in order to account for this (¶0448). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method suggested by Burnett in view of Woodard, in further view of Stapleton, and in further view of Bedingfield so that the upper shell is configured to block exterior light from entering the upper shell in order to prevent inconsistencies due to ambient light as taught by Peret.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARJUNA P CHATRATHI whose telephone number is (571)272-8063. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
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, Sarah Al-Hashimi can be reached at 5712727159. 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.
/ARJUNA P CHATRATHI/Examiner, Art Unit 3781
/JACQUELINE F STEPHENS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781
Prosecution Insights