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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) filed on the record are in compliance with the content requirements of 37 CFR 1.97 and 37 CFR 1.98 and have been considered.
Drawing Objections
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following feature must be shown or canceled from claim 1:
The first and second ends of the first cavity, in particular “the first end fluidly coupled to the first port via a first conduit, the second end having a diameter less than the diameter of the first conduit.”
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description:
260 (see Fig. 2C) and D3 (see Fig. 2C).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 and all claims depending therefrom are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “the second end having a diameter less than the diameter of the first conduit” lacks clear antecedent basis for “the first conduit” since a first conduit has been recited twice (i.e., “a first portion, comprising: a first conduit…” and “the first end fluidly coupled to the first port via a first conduit”); for this reason, it would not have been apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art what specific “first conduit” was referring to in the cited limitation “the second end having a diameter less than the diameter of the first conduit”.
For the purpose of examination, the limitation “the first end fluidly coupled to the first port via a first conduit” will be interpreted to mean “the first end fluidly coupled to the first port via the first conduit”, thereby clearly defining that the claimed invention comprises a single “first conduit”.
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 1-4, 6-12 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Madden et al (U.S. Pub. 2022/0193323 A1, hereinafter “Madden”).
Regarding claim 1, Madden discloses a valve assembly 200 (see Fig. 3C) for fluid infusion during ophthalmic procedures, comprising:
a first portion 232 (see Fig. 3C), comprising:
a first conduit 236 (see Fig. 3C) having a first port 237 (see Fig. 3C); and
a first cavity 340 (see Fig. 3C) having a first end (top of cavity closer to the first conduit 236) and a second end opposite the first end, the first end fluidly coupled to the first port via the first conduit 236 (see Fig. 3C), the second end having a diameter less than the diameter of the first conduit (see annotated Fig. 3C, below);
a second portion 202 (see Fig. 3C), comprising:
a second conduit having a second port 209 (see Fig. 3C) and a third port 211 (see Fig. 3C); and
a second cavity 354 (see Fig. 3C) in fluid communication with the second port 209 and the third port 211, the second cavity adjacent to the first cavity, wherein two or more through channels couple the second cavity to the second port and the third port (see para [0038] and Fig. 3C, disclosing a base 338 which includes multiple ridges 342 extending from a lower surface thereof that form multiple through channels within the first cavity 340; further, intermediate conduit 360 couples the through channels to both the ports 209 and 211); and
a filter 222 (see Fig. 3C) partitioning the first cavity from the second cavity, the filter comprising a hydrophobic membrane partially defining the second cavity (see para [0033] disclosing that the filter 222 is a hydrophobic membrane; and see Fig. 3C, showing that the filter 222 is disposed between the first cavity 340 of the first portion 232 and the second cavity 354, thus partially defining both cavities).
PNG
media_image1.png
551
727
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Madden, Annotated Fig. 3C
Regarding claim 2, Madden discloses the valve assembly of claim 1, wherein the two or more through channels are circular, oval, or polygonal channels (see Madden at para [0041], disclosing that the channels are defined by the ridges 352 extending from an upper surface thereof into the second cavity 354, and the ridges may be annular or semi-annular in shape).
Regarding claim 3, Madden discloses the valve assembly of claim 2, wherein the two or more through channels are configured in a circumferential pattern around a center of a bottom surface of the second cavity (see Madden at Fig. 3C, showing the ridges 352, which form the channels, configured to be in the circumferential pattern around the center of the bottom surface of the second cavity).
Regarding claim 4, Madden discloses the valve assembly of claim 1, wherein the hydrophobic membrane is configured to prevent a flow of liquid from the second cavity into the first cavity while allowing bi-directional flow of gas therebetween (see Madden at para [0025]).
Regarding claim 6, Madden discloses the valve assembly of claim 1, wherein the first cavity further comprises one or more semi-annular or annular ridges 342 disposed therein, the one or more ridges defining one or more channels (see Madden at para [0041] and Fig. 3C).
Regarding claim 7, Madden discloses the valve assembly of claim 6, wherein the second cavity further comprises one or more semi-annular or annular ridges disposed therein, the one or more ridges defining one or more channels (see Madden at para [0041] and Fig. 3C).
Regarding claim 8, Madden discloses the valve assembly of claim 7, wherein the one or more ridges of the first cavity and the second cavity comprise at least ten or more semi-annular or annular ridges defining one or more channels (see Madden at Fig. 3B and 3C: the second cavity is shown in Fig. 3B to have three coaxial rows of ridges and eight ridges within each row, for a total of twenty-four ridges, and the first cavity is shown in Fig. 3C to have the same configuration of ridges as the second cavity).
Regarding claim 9, Madden discloses a fluid infusion system for ophthalmic procedures, comprising:
a surgical console 100 (see Fig. 1), comprising:
a first fluid line 114 (see Figs. 1 and 4C) coupled to a gas fluid source 480 (see Fig. 4C); and
a second fluid line 116 (see Figs. 1 and 4C) coupled to a liquid fluid source 470 (see Fig. 4C); and
a valve assembly 200 (see Fig. 3C) fluidly coupled to the first fluid line and the second fluid line 116, the valve assembly comprising:
a first conduit 236 (see Fig. 3C) having a first port 237 (see Fig. 3C) directly coupled to the first fluid line 114 (see Fig. 3C); and
a second conduit having a distal end and a proximal end, wherein the proximal end has a second a second port 209 (see Fig. 3C) directly coupled to the second fluid line 116 (see Fig. 3C) and the distal end has a third port 211 (see Fig. 3C) coupled to a third fluid line 108 (see Fig. 3C); wherein:
the first and second conduit are coupled to an intermediary cavity (combination of cavity portions 340 and 354; see Fig. 3C) and are in fluid communication with each other through two or more channels (formed by the aforementioned ridges 352 and 342);
and the surgical console controls flow rates of fluids through the first fluid line, the second fluid line, the third fluid line (see para [0008]), and the valve assembly (see para [0045]); and
a filter 222 (see Fig. 3C) disposed within the intermediary cavity, the filter partitioning the first conduit from the second conduit (by being disposed between the first cavity portion 340 and the second cavity portion 354).
Regarding claim 10, Madden discloses the fluid infusion system of claim 9, wherein the two or more channels are circular, oval, or polygonal channels (see para [0041], disclosing that the channels are defined by the ridges 352 extending from an upper surface thereof into the second cavity portion 354, and the ridges may be annular or semi-annular in shape).
Regarding claim 11, Madden discloses the fluid infusion system of claim 10, wherein the two or more channels are configured in a circumferential pattern around a center of a bottom surface of the intermediary cavity (see Fig. 3C, showing the ridges 352, which form the channels, configured to be in the circumferential pattern around the center of the bottom surface of the second cavity portion 354).
Regarding claim 12, Madden discloses the fluid infusion system of claim 9, wherein the filter comprises a hydrophobic membrane disposed on a side thereof and configured to prevent the flow of liquid from the second conduit into the first conduit while allowing bi-directional flow of gases therebetween (see para [0025]).
Regarding claim 14, Madden discloses the fluid infusion system of claim 9, wherein the intermediary cavity further comprises one or more semi-annular or annular ridges 342 disposed on a top surface and a bottom surface (annular ridges 352) adjacent to one another, the one or more ridges defining one or more channels (see para [0038]).
Regarding claim 15, Madden discloses the fluid infusion system of claim 14, wherein the one or more ridges comprise at least ten or more semi-annular or annular ridges defining one or more channels (see Fig. 3B and 3C; the second cavity is shown in Fig. 3B to have three coaxial rows of ridges and eight ridges within each row, for a total of twenty-four ridges, and the first cavity is shown in Fig. 3C to have the same configuration of ridges as the second cavity).
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 5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Madden in view of Kent (U.S. Pat. 7,238,224 B2, hereinafter “Kent”).
Regarding claim 5, it is noted that Madden does not appear to disclose the valve assembly of claim 1, wherein the filter is configured to translate upwards in response to a fluid entering the second cavity from the second conduit, and subsequently translate downwards against the fluid in response to a gas entering the first cavity from the first conduit.
Kent discloses a fluid delivery device comprising a fluid-gas separator including a gas-permeable membrane to allow the separation of fluid and gas flowing through the fluid delivery device, and teaches that the membrane may be configured to flex or otherwise move in response to fluid pressure within a cavity where the membrane is located, thereby permitting fluid to flow within the cavity and through the membrane (see col. 4, lines 14-20).
A skilled artisan would have found it obvious at the time of the invention to modify the device of Madden, according to the teaching in Kent, thereby permitting the membrane may be configured to flex or otherwise move in response to fluid pressure within a cavity where the membrane is located, as doing so would have been expected to permit fluid to flow through the cavity and the membrane with a reasonable expectation of success (see Kent at col. 4, lines 14-20). A skilled artisan would have recognized that fluid entering the second cavity from the second conduit would force the filter to flex upward, while gas entering the first cavity from the first conduit would force the filter to flex downward.
Regarding claim 13, it is noted that Madden does not appear to disclose the fluid infusion system of claim 9, wherein the filter is configured to translate upwards in response to a fluid entering the intermediary cavity from the second fluid line via the second conduit, and subsequently translate downwards against the fluid in response to a gas entering the intermediary cavity from the first fluid line via the first conduit.
Kent discloses a fluid delivery device comprising a fluid-gas separator including a gas-permeable membrane to allow the separation of fluid and gas flowing through the fluid delivery device, and teaches that the membrane may be configured to flex or otherwise move in response to fluid pressure within a cavity where the membrane is located, thereby permitting fluid to flow within the cavity and through the membrane (see col. 4, lines 14-20).
A skilled artisan would have found it obvious at the time of the invention to modify the device of Madden, according to the teaching in Kent, thereby permitting the membrane may be configured to flex or otherwise move in response to fluid pressure within a cavity where the membrane is located, as doing so would have been expected to permit fluid to flow through the cavity and the membrane with a reasonable expectation of success (see Kent at col. 4, lines 14-20). A skilled artisan would have recognized that the membrane would flex upwards in response to a fluid entering the intermediary cavity from the second fluid line via the second conduit, and subsequently flex downwards against the fluid in response to a gas entering the intermediary cavity from the first fluid line via the first conduit.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT J MEDWAY whose telephone number is (571)270-3656. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 8:30 AM to 5:00 PM.
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, Chelsea Stinson can be reached at (571) 270-1744. 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.
/SCOTT J MEDWAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3783 09/17/2026
Prosecution Insights