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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant amended claims 1, 3, 5, 7-8, 22, 40-42, and 45 and canceled claims 2, 6, 17, and 39. Claims 1, 3, 5, 7-9, 14-15, 22-23, 26-27, 40-43, and 45 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-8 of Applicant’s Remarks, filed 06/29/26, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-3, 5-6, 8-9, 14-15, 22-23, 26, and 39 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Locke ‘630, of claims 7 and 40 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Locke ‘630 in view of Pirzada, of claim 17 as unpatentable over Locke ‘630 in view of Robinson, of claims 42-43 as unpatentable over Budig in view of Locke ‘630, of claim 45 as unpatentable over Budig in view of Locke ‘630 and in further view of Locke ‘624 have been fully considered. In light of the amendments to the claims, new grounds of rejection have been made as indicated below.
Applicant argues, see page 7, that Locke ‘630 teaches a first chamber 932 and a second chamber 936 which extend from the wall 922 of the canister in contrast to the claimed invention. Please see annotated figure 10 below. However, the wall 922 extends from the reduced pressure port 918, and therefore the first 932 and second chambers 936, which collectively correspond to the claimed filter carrier, extend from and are suspended from the reduced pressure port 918.
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, 3, 5, 7-9, 14-15, 22-23, 26, and 40-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Locke et al. (US 2009/0306630 A1) in view of Pirzada et al. (US 2015/0306303 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Locke discloses a liquid-collection canister for collecting liquid from a tissue site to which reduced pressure treatment is applied (Fig. 1, feat. 102; ¶0035; Figs. 9-10, feat. 902; ¶0071-0075), the canister comprising: a canister body (904); a canister lid configured to be coupled with the canister body (906) and to define a liquid collection chamber with the canister body (910), the liquid collection chamber including one or more internal walls configured to collect and to be exposed to the liquid from the tissue site (Annotated Fig. 10, feat. A); a filter carrier suspended from the liquid collection chamber and separated from the internal walls (932, 936; ¶0072); a filter coupled to the filter carrier, the filter configured to allow gaseous communication with the liquid collection chamber and to prevent liquid from leaving the liquid collection chamber (950, 954; ¶0073); a reduced pressure port in fluid communication with the liquid collection chamber (918; ¶0072 and 0075); and wherein the filter carrier (Figs. 9-10, feats. 932, 936) is suspended in the liquid collection chamber (910) from the reduced pressure port (918).
Locke does not disclose a carrier fitting configured to fluidly couple the filter carrier to the reduced pressure port or that the filter carrier is suspended by the carrier fitting.
Pirzada teaches a container for suction drainage (Figs. 9A-14, feat. 100; ¶0043-0045) comprising an outflow port fitting (120) coupled to a suction pump (¶0045). The container further includes a filter (Figs. 13-14, feat. 140; ¶0045-0047) removably secured to the outflow port fitting (120) by a support frame (140) friction fit to the port (¶0047). A friction fit is an interference fit. Pirzada teaches that this configuration advantageously protects the suction pump from damage due to suctioned body fluids (¶0048-0050). Because Locke discloses a filter carrier suspended from the reduced pressure port, modifying the canister of Locke to include a fitting for removably securing the filter to the reduced pressure port as taught by Pirzada would cause the filter carrier to be suspended by the carrier fitting. 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 canister disclosed by Locke so that it includes a carrier fitting configured to fluidly couple the filter carrier to the reduced pressure port and so that the filter carrier is suspended by the carrier fitting in order to protect the negative pressure source from
PNG
media_image1.png
752
378
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Annotated Fig. 10: Adapted from Locke to show the:
A: One or more internal walls of the liquid collection chamber
B, C: Locations that the filter carriers are supported that make them cantilevers.)]damage due to suctioned wound exudate as taught by Pirzada.
Regarding claim 3, Locke in view of Pirzada suggests the canister of claim 1, and Locke further discloses that the reduced pressure port (Fig. 10, feat. 918) is disposed in the canister lid (906) and configured to fluidly couple the liquid collection chamber to a negative pressure source (¶0071). Regarding claim 5, Locke further discloses that the filter carrier (Fig. 10, feats. 932, 936) is configured to support the filter (950, 954) and to be positioned between the filter (950, 954) and the reduced pressure port (918).
Regarding claim 7, Locke in view of Pirzada suggests the canister of claim 1. As discussed above, Pirzada teaches a filter (Figs. 13-14, feat. 140; ¶0045-0047) removably secured to the outflow port fitting (120) by a support frame (140) friction fit to the port (¶0047), which is a form of interference fit. Therefore, Locke in view of Pirzada further suggests that the carrier fitting is removably coupled to the reduced pressure port by an interference fit.
Regarding claim 8, Locke in view of Pirzada suggests the canister of claim 1, and Locke further discloses that the filter carrier (Fig. 10, feats. 932, 936) is suspended as a cantilever within the liquid collection chamber (Annotated Fig. 10, feats. B, C; filter carriers 932 and 936 are only supported at respective single ends B and C, and are therefore cantilevers), and wherein the filter carrier (932, 936) and the filter (950, 954) are not coupled to the internal walls of the liquid collection chamber (Annotated Fig. 10, feat. A). Regarding claim 9, Locke further discloses a collection port configured to fluidly couple the liquid collection chamber to the tissue site (Fig. 10, feat. 914; ¶0071). Regarding claim 14, Locke further discloses that the filter carrier comprises a planar shape configured to extend from a first end of the liquid collection chamber to a second end of the liquid collection chamber (Fig. 9, feats. 932, 936). Regarding claim 15, Locke further discloses that the filter carrier is configured to extend from the first end to the second end at an angle (Fig. 9, feats. 932, 936).
Regarding claim 22, Locke discloses a liquid-collection canister for collecting liquid from a tissue site (Fig. 1, feat. 102; ¶0035; Figs. 9-10, feat. 902; ¶0071-0075), comprising: a liquid collection chamber configured to collect the liquid from the tissue site (910); and a filter assembly configured to be positioned within the liquid collection chamber (922, 932, 936, 960, 964; ¶0072-0074) in fluid communication between the liquid collection chamber (910) and a reduced pressure port (918; ¶0074-0075) wherein at least a portion of the filter assembly is configured to reach opposite and transverse ends of the liquid collection chamber (Fig. 9: filter chambers 932 and 936 of the assembly each span from the left to the right of the chamber; Fig. 9: chamber 932 of the assembly reaches the top of the chamber and chamber 936 of the assembly reaches the bottom the chamber; Fig. 10: chamber 932 spans from the front to the back of the chamber), and wherein the filter assembly is suspended in the liquid collection chamber (910) from the reduced pressure port (918).
Locke does not disclose that the filter assembly is suspended by a carrier fitting.
Pirzada teaches a container for suction drainage (Figs. 9A-14, feat. 100; ¶0043-0045) comprising an outflow port fitting (120) coupled to a suction pump (¶0045). The container further includes a filter (Figs. 13-14, feat. 140; ¶0045-0047) removably secured to the outflow port fitting (120) by a support frame (140) friction fit to the port (¶0047). A friction fit is an interference fit. Pirzada teaches that this configuration advantageously protects the suction pump from damage due to suctioned body fluids (¶0048-0050). Because Locke discloses a filter assembly suspended from the reduced pressure port, modifying the canister of Locke to include a fitting for removably securing the filter to the reduced pressure port as taught by Pirzada would cause the filter carrier to be suspended by the carrier fitting. 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 canister disclosed by Locke so that the filter assembly is suspended by a carrier fitting in order to protect the negative pressure source from damage due to suctioned wound exudate as taught by Pirzada.
Regarding claim 23, Locke in view of Pirzada suggests the canister of claim 22, and Locke further discloses that the filter assembly comprises a filter carrier (Fig. 10, feats. 932, 936, 960, 964) and a filter coupled to the filter carrier (950, 954; ¶0073). Regarding claim 26, Locke further discloses that the filter is a gas permeable and liquid impermeable filter (950, 954; ¶0073-0075 and 0079), the filter assembly further comprising a charcoal filter coupled to the filter carrier (968; ¶0074).
Regarding claim 40, Locke in view of Pirzada suggests the canister of claim 22. As discussed above, Pirzada teaches a filter (Figs. 13-14, feat. 140; ¶0045-0047) removably secured to the outflow port fitting (120) by a support frame (140) friction fit to the port (¶0047), which is a form of interference fit. Therefore, Locke in view of Pirzada further suggests that the carrier fitting is configured to fluidly couple the filter assembly to the reduced pressure port, and wherein the carrier fitting is removably coupled to the reduced pressure port by an interference fit.
Regarding claim 41, Locke in view of Pirzada suggests the canister of claim 22, and Locke further discloses that the filter assembly (Fig. 10, feats. 932, 936, 960, 964) is suspended as a cantilever within the liquid collection chamber (Annotated Fig. 10, feats. B, C; filter carriers 932 and 936 are only supported at respective single ends B and C, and are therefore cantilevers), and wherein the filter assembly (932, 936, 960, 964) is not coupled to the internal walls of the liquid collection chamber (Annotated Fig. 10, feat. A).
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Locke in view of Pirzada and in further view of Robinson (WO 2007/030103 A1).
Regarding claim 27, Locke in view of Pirzada suggests the canister of claim 23, but does not disclose that the filter carrier comprises a thermoformed closed-cell foam.
Robinson teaches a disposable fluid collection apparatus for use during surgery (Figs. 1 and 11; Page 1, lines 13-16; Page 3, lines 5-14; Page 7, line 24 – Page 8, line 20) comprising an absorbent upper portion (28) and a supporting frame portion (22). Robinson teaches that the frame portion may be made of a closed-cell foam, so that it is light-weight, non-absorbent, and inexpensive (Page 7, lines 24-30), and vacuum formed, so that it may be inexpensively manufactured (Page 7, line 24 – Page 8, line 3). Vacuum forming is a form of thermoforming. 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 invnetion to modify the canister suggested by Locke in view of Pirzada so that the filter carrier comprises a thermoformed closed-cell foam so that it is light-weight, non-absorbent, and inexpensive as taught by Robinson.
Claims 42-43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Budig (WO 2009/003886 A1) in view of Locke and in further view of Pirzada.
Regarding claim 42, Budig discloses a system for collecting liquid from a tissue site to which reduced pressure treatment is applied (Figs. 1a-c, feat. 100; Page 10, line 20 – Page 12, line 20), the system comprising: a liquid collection canister (108; Page 10, line 20 – Page 11, line 17), comprising: a canister body (Annotated Fig. 1a, feat. A) comprising a collection port (Annotated Fig. 1a, feat. B) and a first sensing port (Annotated Fig. 1a, feat. C); a canister lid (Annotated Fig. 1a, feat. D) configured to define a liquid collection chamber relative to the canister body (114), the canister lid comprising a reduced pressure port (116) and a second sensing port (Annotated Fig. 1a, feats. E and 126; Page 10, line 20 – Page 11, line 17), the second sensing port configured to be fluidly coupled to the first sensing port (Annotated Fig. 1a, feats. C and E); a dressing fluidly coupled to the collection port and the first sensing port (Fig. 1a, feats. 106 and 112; Page 10, line 20 – Page 11, line 11); and a reduced pressure source fluidly coupled to the reduced pressure port (104).
Budig does not disclose a filter carrier configured to be coupled to the reduced pressure port and to be suspended as a cantilever from the reduced pressure port across the liquid collection chamber by a fitting fluidly coupled to the reduced pressure port or a filter coupled to the filter carrier, the filter configured to allow gaseous communication and prevent liquid from leaving the canister body.
Locke teaches a negative pressure wound therapy system (Fig. 1, feat. 100; ¶0035) comprising a liquid collection canister (Fig. 1, feat. 102; ¶0035; Figs. 9-10; ¶0071-0075) comprising a filter carrier (Figs. 9-10, feats. 932, 936, 960, 964) comprising liquid-gas separation filters (950, 954; ¶0079). The filter carrier is coupled to and in fluid communication with a reduced pressure port (918; ¶0071 and 0074-0075), and spans the interior of the liquid collection canister (Fig. 9). The filter carrier is supported by the reduced pressure port (918), and is therefore a cantilever. Locke teaches that such a filter carrier and filter allows the transmission of reduced pressure regardless of orientation and at high liquid levels (¶0075). 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 system disclosed by Budig so that it comprises a filter carrier configured to be coupled to the reduced pressure port and to be suspended as a cantilever from the reduced pressure port across the liquid collection chamber by the reduced pressure port and a filter coupled to the filter carrier, the filter configured to allow gaseous communication and prevent liquid from leaving the canister body in order to allow the transmission of reduced pressure regardless of orientation and at high liquid levels as taught by Locke.
PNG
media_image3.png
619
749
media_image3.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Annotated Fig. 1a: Adapted from Budig to show:
A: the canister body
B: the collection port
C: the first sensing port
D: the canister lid
E: the second sensing port)]Budig in view of Locke does not disclose that the filter carrier is suspended by a fitting fluidly coupled to the reduced pressure port.
Pirzada teaches a container for suction drainage (Figs. 9A-14, feat. 100; ¶0043-0045) comprising an outflow port fitting (120) coupled to a suction pump (¶0045). The container further includes a filter (Figs. 13-14, feat. 140; ¶0045-0047) removably secured to the outflow port fitting (120) by a support frame (140) friction fit to the port (¶0047). A friction fit is an interference fit. Pirzada teaches that this configuration advantageously protects the suction pump from damage due to suctioned body fluids (¶0048-0050). Because Budig in view of Locke suggests a filter carrier suspended from the reduced pressure port, modifying the system of Budig in view of Locke to include a fitting for removably securing the filter to the reduced pressure port as taught by Pirzada would cause the filter carrier to be suspended by the carrier fitting. 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 system suggested by Budig in view of Locke so that the filter carrier is suspended by a fitting fluidly coupled to the reduced pressure port in order to protect the negative pressure source from damage due to suctioned wound exudate as taught by Pirzada.
Regarding claim 43, Budig in view of Locke and in further view of Pirzada suggests the system of claim 42. Locke further teaches that the filter carrier (Figs. 9-10, feats. 932, 936, 960, 964) extends from the lid of a canister (Figs. 9-10, feat. 906; ¶0071-0072) to the other side of the body (904) at an angle (Fig. 9). Therefore, Budig in view of Locke and in further view of Pirzada further suggests that the filter carrier is configured to extend from the canister lid to the canister body at an angle.
Claim 45 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Budig in view of Locke (hereinafter referred to as Locke 2009), in further view of Pirzada, and in further view of Locke et al. (US 2012/0046624 A1) (hereinafter referred to as Locke 2012).
Regarding claim 45, Budig in view of Locke 2009 and in further view of Pirzada suggests the system of claim 42. Budig in view of Locke 2009 and in further view of Pirzada does not disclose that the filter carrier comprises an elongate body and a fitting, the fitting configured to suspend the elongate body in the liquid collection chamber and to fluidly couple the elongate body to the reduced pressure port.
Locke 2012 teaches a negative pressure wound therapy system (Fig. 1, feat. 100; ¶0028) comprising a liquid collection canister (Fig. 1, feat. 102; ¶0028; Figs. 7-8, feat. 720; ¶0059-0064) with a reduced pressure port (710; ¶0060) in fluid communication with a liquid-gas separation filter (700; ¶0061-0064). The liquid-gas separation filter comprises an elongate body (¶0061) and is suspended from the reduced pressure port (710) by a fitting (701; ¶0064) which advantageously provides a secure, leak-free connection (¶0064). 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 system suggested by Budig in view of Locke 2009 and in further view of Pirzada so that the filter carrier comprises an elongate body and a fitting, the fitting configured to suspend the elongate body in the liquid collection chamber and to fluidly couple the elongate body to the reduced pressure port as taught by Lock 2012 in order to provide a secure, leak-free connection between the filter carrier and the reduced pressure port.
Conclusion
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 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
/ANDREW J MENSH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781
Prosecution Insights