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 Objections
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 20, line 1, “wherein the wherein the” should be changed to –wherein the--. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-6,10-16,20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Isaacson et al 20200282140.
With regard to claim 1, Isaacson discloses a gravity infusion control system 100 (see fig. 1) comprising a drip chamber 134 containing an infusate configured to be fluidly coupled to a patient by IV tubing 162 extending therebetween, a mass change sensor (described in par. 41, how the liquid source 102 may hang from a hook connected to a load cell) configured to detect any of a change in weight or movement of the infusate in the drip chamber 134, and a drop detector (optical sensor described in paragraph 39) configured to detect drops of the infusate falling from the drip chamber 134.
With regard to claim 2, note that the system comprising a user interface 184 that controls a flow rate of the gravity infusion control system.
With regard to claim 3, note that the mass change sensor is a load cell. See paragraph 41.
With regard to claim 4, note that the drip chamber 134 may be coupled to the mass change sensor by a hook. See paragraph 41.
With regard to claim 5, note that an infusate fluid flow is directed through the IV tubing 162 by a pressure of gravity. See paragraph 2.
With regard to claim 6, note that the drop detector is an infrared light emitter 388 and receiver 392. See paragraphs 39 and 70.
With regard to claim 10, note that the system comprises one or more of an air in line detector, a leak detector, an external pressure module, a tamper resistance module, an information and control module, and a connectivity module. See paragraph 42 which discloses how a pressure sensor (pressure module) may be used with the disclosed system. Note also that an information and control module 184 is included with the system. See paragraph 50.
With regard to claim 11, note that Isaacson et al discloses a gravity infusion control system comprising, an intravenous administration set 170/184 coupled to a medical fluid reservoir 102, and a flow sensor 180 coupled to the intravenous administration set 170/184, the gravity infusion control system configured such that the flow sensor 180 can detect any change in mass or movement of the medical fluid reservoir. See paragraph 41 which discloses how the flow sensor may include a mass change sensor to detect a change in mass of the reservoir 102.
With regard to claim 12, note that the flow sensor comprises a mass change sensor (described in par. 41, how the liquid source 102 may hang from a hook connected to a load cell) and a drop detector (optical sensor described in paragraph 39).
With regard to claim 13, note that flow sensor is configured to detect any of a change in weight or movement of the medical fluid reservoir of the intravenous administration set. This is accomplished by the load cell’s ability to detect a change in mass of the reservoir 102.
With regard to claim 14, note that the mass change sensor is a load cell.
With regard to claim 15, note that the drop detector is an infrared light emitter 388 and receiver 392. See paragraphs 39 and 70.
With regard to claim 16, note that Isaacson et al discloses a method for providing a gravity infusion control system comprising, coupling a medical fluid reservoir 102 of an intravenous administration set 170/184 to a flow detection interface, wherein the flow detection interface comprises a flow sensor 180 configured to detect any of a change in mass or movement of the medical fluid reservoir (see paragraph 41, which discloses how the flow sensor may include a mass change sensor to detect a change in mass of the reservoir 102); selecting, using a processor (part of control interface 184), a flow rate through the intravenous administration set (see paragraphs 13 and 36), wherein the processor is coupled with the flow detection interface (flow sensor 180) and a flow control interface 184, such that the processor receives data from the flow sensor 180 to determine the presence of a fluid flow through a tubing of the intravenous administration set.
With regard to claim 20, note that the flow sensor comprises a mass change sensor (load cell, see paragraph 41) and a drop detector (optical sensor described in paragraph 39).
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 7-9,17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Isaacson et al 20200282140.
With regard to claims 7-9,17-19, Isaacson et al does not explicitly disclose the fluid flow rate to be the rates as recited in these claims. However, Isaacson et al do disclose in paragraph 9 that the flow rate may be adjusted to achieve a desired flow rate.
Further, it appears that one skilled in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in selecting the flow rate of Isaacson et al to be within the claimed ranges, as it only involves adjusting the flow rate to accommodate a desired rate, as taught by Isaacson et al. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to select the flow rate to be a rate as recited in these claims, as a matter of routine optimization, since it has been held that "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA1955).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS D LUCCHESI whose telephone number is (571)272-4977. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 800-430.
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, Eric Rosen can be reached at 571-270-7855. 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.
/NICHOLAS D LUCCHESI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772
Prosecution Insights