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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 26 February 2026 acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the Schnidrig device does not include a canister that is capable of holding wound material. This is not found persuasive because the recitation of the holding material is a recitation intended use. The lack of unity requirement requires stated that Schnidrig device recites the canister (8, which is a container that holds material) and an electric component (30). In this case, Groups I-III do not make a contribution over Schnidrig since the technical features are recited in Schnidrig.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) being anticipated by Locke (US 2011/0288511).
Regarding claim 1, Locke discloses a modular therapy device (306), comprising:
a carrier (310, [0070]);
an electronic component (many components including 352, 378, 336, 353, 355, figure 7, [0070]) fixedly coupled to the carrier; and
a clinical body (308, [0070]) comprising a fluid driver (356 and 358, [0071]) and a canister (364 part of the “canister unit” 308) fluidly coupled to the clinical body (figure 7), the canister defining an internal cavity (364 cavity) configured to receive a volume of fluid therein ([0071]), the clinical body detachably coupled to the carrier ([0072]).
Regarding claim 2, Locke discloses wherein the electronic component is one of a plurality of electronic components including a control board (352) and a motor (353) electrically coupled to the control board ([0070], figure 7), the clinical body comprising a flow manifold (354) and the fluid driver (356 and 358) disposed within the flow manifold, the fluid driver detachably coupled to the motor ([0072], through 386 and 388).
Regarding claim 4, Locke discloses wherein the clinical body further comprises a fluid driver subassembly (354) including a flow manifold (384, working with 357, 388, 380 and 396) and the fluid driver (356 and 358) disposed within the flow manifold, wherein the canister is detachably coupled to the fluid driver subassembly ([0072]).
Regarding claim 5, Locke discloses wherein the clinical body further comprises a housing (354 houses both diaphragms) defining a first pressure chamber (chamber with 356) and a second pressure chamber (chamber with 358) that is fluidly isolated from the first pressure chamber ([0070-0071]), wherein the fluid driver is disposed within the first pressure chamber (both chambers have diaphragm), the electronic component comprising a pressure sensor that is detachably coupled to the second pressure chamber ([0054], the device includes the user interface driver or control that includes a sensor, [0072] device is detachable from each other).
Regarding claim 11, Locke discloses wherein the carrier and electrical component are disposable as waste electric and electronic equipment (WEEE) waste, and the clinical body is disposable as clinical waste independent from the WEEE waste (both the devices are made of electronic material and it follows naturally that the waste would be characterized as electric and electronic equipment).
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.
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.
Claims 3 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Locke in view of Hanson (US 2012/0172803).
Regarding claim 3, Locke does not disclose wherein the carrier is slidably engaged with the clinical body.
Hanson discloses a delivery system wherein the carrier is slidably engaged with the clinical body ([0013]).
Hanson provides a slidable carrier that attaches to the other part of the device to engage the two portions (abstract). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date to modify Locke by substituting the engagement of Locke with the sliding portions in Hanson in order to engage the two portions of the device. The substitution would not hinder the prior art device from operating as both are functionally equivalent.
Regarding claim 10, Locke discloses wherein the clinical body further comprises a plurality of fluid ports (357 and 388) and a negative pressure port (326) fluidly coupled to the canister but fails to disclose including a pressure sensing port configured to be fluidly coupled to a pressure sensor.
Hanson discloses a delivery system with a pressure sensing port (530) configured to be fluidly coupled to a pressure sensor ([0227]).
Hanson provides a sensor in order to sense the attachment of the portions of the device ([0227]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date to modify Locke with the device of Hanson in order to detect when the device is detected.
Claims 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Locke.
Regarding claim 6, Locke discloses wherein the clinical body further comprises a housing (354) defining a flow manifold (384, working with 357, 388, 380 and 396), wherein the fluid driver disposed within the housing (figure 7), but does not disclose wherein the canister is detachably coupled to the housing.
However, it has previously been held that making a structure removable is not novel if it was desirable to make the device removable (MPEP 2144.04VC). In this case, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date to modify Locke by making the canister removable from housing in order to separate the reservoir and remove fluid to prevent the fluid from overflowing.
Regarding claim 7, Locke discloses wherein the electronic component includes power subsystem (378), wherein the modular therapy device further comprises a base subassembly having a control board (352) that is coupled to the power subsystem, and wherein the carrier is detachably coupled to the base subassembly ([0072]).
Locke does not disclose in this embodiment a motor but discloses in another embodiment that the pump is a motor drive pump ([0097]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date to modify the embodiments of Locke to have a motor that is attached to the motor driven pump i.e., at the power subsystem in order to power the pump.
Regarding claim 8, Locke further comprising an expandable module (104, [0038]) detachably coupled to the base subassembly, the carrier, and the clinical body ([0038]).
Regarding claim 9, Locke discloses wherein the electronic component is includes power subsystem (378) and wherein the fluid driver is a pump (356 and 358) configured to be detachably coupled to the motor ([0072]).
Locke does not disclose in this embodiment a motor but discloses in another embodiment that the pump is a motor drive pump ([0097]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date to modify the embodiments of Locke to have a motor that is attached to the motor driven pump i.e., at the power subsystem in order to power the pump.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAI H WENG whose telephone number is (571)272-5852. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Rebecca Eisenberg can be reached at (571) 270-5879. 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.
/KAI H WENG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781
Prosecution Insights