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 .
The following correspondence is a non-final Office Action for application no. 18/971,737 for a SELF ADJUSTING IV STAND, filed on 12/6/2024. Claims 1-20 are pending.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7, 8, 10-14, 17 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over David (U.S. Pat. 5,188,323) in view of Metzler et al. (U.S. Pat. 5,112,019).
Regarding claim 1, David teaches an intravenous stand assembly, comprising: a base; a stand coupled to the base, the stand comprising an internal channel (right channel, Figs. 4, 5) and a plurality of retainer channels (left channel, Figs. 4, 5); a pulley/belt assembly disposed within the internal channel of the stand, the pulley/belt assembly comprising a plurality of pulleys (41, 60; Fig. 3) and belts (at 63, 64; Fig. 3), wherein each of the plurality of belts is coupled to a separate one of the plurality of pulleys (Fig. 3); a plurality of retainers (14), each of the plurality of retainers disposed in one of the plurality of retainer channels and coupled to one of the plurality of belts; and an operating lever (35, 36) coupled to each of the plurality of belts, wherein for each of the plurality of belts, the operating lever is configured to move the belt relative to the coupled pulley to cause a corresponding retainer of the plurality of retainers to move along a corresponding retainer channel of the plurality of retainer channels (col. 5, lines 53-66), wherein each of the retainers of the plurality of retainers is separately moveable; but does not teach a drive coupled to each of the plurality of belts, wherein for each of the plurality of belts, the drive is configured to move the belt relative to the coupled pulley to cause a corresponding retainer of the plurality of retainers to move along a corresponding retainer channel of the plurality of retainer channels. Metzler, however, teaches a stand assembly having an automatic drive (72, 74, 76, 80) coupled to a belt (266), wherein for the belt, the drive is configured to move the belt relative to a coupled pulley (258, 260, 262) to cause a corresponding retainer (14) to move along a corresponding retainer channel (42) in order to electronically control the height of an IV container (16) to thereby control the infusion pressure in an IV tube. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to construct a drive coupled to each of the plurality of belts, wherein for each of the plurality of belts, the drive is configured to move the belt relative to the coupled pulley to cause a corresponding retainer of the plurality of retainers to move along a corresponding retainer channel of the plurality of retainer channels, in order to permit the quick and automatic adjustment of the plurality of retainers to facilitate adjusting the height of the retainers to the desired level, in view of Metzler.
[AltContent: textbox (Retainer channels)]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
200
216
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (channels)]
PNG
media_image2.png
636
396
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: textbox (Internal channel)]
[AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: textbox (stand)]
[AltContent: textbox (wheels)][AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: textbox (base)]
Regarding claim 2, David and Metzler teach the assembly of claim 1, wherein Metzler teaches an energy source (255, located in the bottom portion of the invention shown in Fig. 14) coupled to the drive, the energy source disposed within the base.
Regarding claim 3, David and Metzler teach the assembly of claim 1, wherein David teaches a plurality of wheels (33) coupled to the base.
Regarding claim 4, David and Metzler teach the assembly of claim 1, wherein David teaches a plurality of supports (31) coupled to the base; and a plurality of wheels coupled to the plurality of supports.
Regarding claim 7, David and Metzler teach the assembly of claim 1, wherein David teaches that each retainer channel extends between an end of the stand adjacent to the base to an opposing end of the stand.
Regarding claim 8, David and Metzler teach the assembly of claim 1, wherein David teaches that each retainer channel extends along a portion of a length of the stand, the portion having a length less than between an end of the stand adjacent to the base to an opposing end of the stand.
Regarding claim 10, David and Metzler teach the assembly of claim 1, wherein David teaches that the stand comprises a round shaped support (each wheel (33) can be regarded as a support that is round).
Regarding claim 11, David teaches an intravenous stand assembly, comprising: a base (25); a stand coupled to the base, the stand comprising an internal channel and a retainer channel (see figure above); a pulley/belt assembly disposed within the internal channel of the stand, the pulley/belt assembly comprising a pulley (41, 60) and belt (at 63, 64), a retainer (14) coupled to the belt, the retainer movably disposed within the retainer channel; an operating lever (35, 36) coupled to the belt, the operating lever configured to move the belt relative to the pulley to cause the retainer to move along the retainer channel, wherein the stand comprises a round shaped support (29) and the retainer channel is disposed within an outer perimeter of the round shaped support; but does not teach a drive coupled to the belt, the drive configured to move the belt relative to the pulley to cause the retainer to move along the retainer channel. Metzler, however, teaches a stand assembly having an automatic drive (72, 74, 76, 80) coupled to a belt (266), wherein for the belt, the drive configured to move the belt relative to the pulley to cause the retainer to move along the retainer channel in order to electronically control the height of an IV container (16) to thereby control the infusion pressure in an IV tube. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to construct a drive coupled to the belt, the drive configured to move the belt relative to the pulley to cause the retainer to move along the retainer channel in order to permit the quick and automatic adjustment of the retainer to facilitate adjusting the retainer to the desired height, in view of Metzler.
Regarding claim 12, David and Metzler teach the assembly of claim 11, wherein Metzler teaches an energy source (255, located in the bottom portion of the invention shown in Fig. 14) coupled to the drive, the energy source disposed within the base.
Regarding claim 13, David and Metzler teach the assembly of claim 11, wherein David teaches a plurality of wheels (33) coupled to the base.
Regarding claim 14, David and Metzler teach the assembly of claim 11, wherein David teaches a plurality of supports (31) coupled to the base; and a plurality of wheels coupled to the plurality of supports.
Regarding claim 17, David and Metzler teach the assembly of claim 11, wherein David teaches that each retainer channel extends between an end of the stand adjacent to the base to an opposing end of the stand.
Regarding claim 18, David and Metzler teach the assembly of claim 11, wherein David teaches that each retainer channel extends along a portion of a length of the stand, the portion having a length less than between an end of the stand adjacent to the base to an opposing end of the stand.
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.
Claim(s) 5, 6, 15 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over David (U.S. Pat. 5,188,323) in view of Metzler et al. (U.S. Pat. 5,112,019) in further view of Zin (U.S. Pat. 2016/0228639).
Regarding claims 5, 6, 15 and 16, David and Metzler teach the assembly of claims 1 and 11, but does not specifically teach a weight measurement assembly coupled to a first retainer of the plurality of retainers or the retainer, the weight measurement assembly configured to measure weight of a fluid within a fluid container hanging from the first retainer or retainer, the weight measurement assembly comprises a level sensor coupled to the retainer, the level sensor configured to measure an amount of flex of the retainer. Zin, however, teaches the use of a weight measurement assembly coupled to a retainer (hook, Fig. 3), the weight measurement assembly (110) configured to measure weight of a fluid within a fluid container hanging from the retainer, wherein the weight measurement assembly comprises a level sensor (liquid sensor or optical sensor) coupled to the retainer, the level sensor configured to measure various data including weight of the liquid container (Ringer bag) in order to measure the remainder of the liquid (Ringer). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to construct a weight measurement assembly coupled to a first retainer or retainer, the weight measurement assembly configured to measure weight of a fluid within a fluid container hanging from the first retainer or retainer, the weight measurement assembly comprises a level sensor coupled to the retainer, the level sensor configured to measure an amount of flex of the retainer as a component of weight, with a reasonable expectation of success, in view of Zin, in order to determine whether the liquid in the fluid container has been used and how much liquid is remaining.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over David (U.S. Pat. 5,188,323) in view of Zin (U.S. Pat. 2016/0228639).
Regarding claim 20, David teaches a method of operating an intravenous stand assembly, the method comprising: moving, by a pulley/belt assembly (41, 60/63, 64) of the IV stand assembly, a fluid container (15) coupled to a retainer (14) along a retainer channel (Figs. 4, 5) to a first height on a stand of the IV stand assembly, wherein the stand comprises a round shaped support (29) and the retainer channel is disposed within an outer perimeter of the round shaped support, and moving, by the pulley/belt assembly, the retainer and fluid container to a second height on the stand; but does not teach the step of monitoring, by a weight measurement assembly of the IV stand assembly, a weight of fluid in the fluid container; and moving, by the pulley/belt assembly, the retainer and fluid container to a second height on the stand based on the measured weight of the fluid in the fluid container. Zin, however, teaches the use of a weight measurement assembly (110) coupled to a retainer (Fig. 3), the weight measurement assembly configured to measure weight of a fluid within a fluid container hanging from the retainer (liquid sensor or optical sensor), in order to determine the amount of liquid (Ringer) in the container for use by the patient. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to monitor, by a weight measurement assembly of the IV stand assembly, a weight of fluid in the fluid container; and move, by the pulley/belt assembly, the retainer and fluid container to a second height on the stand based on the measured weight of the fluid in the fluid container, in view of Zin, in order to easily and quickly determine and adjust to the optimal height of the retainer to provide optimal flow of the fluid for the patient.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 9, as dependent on claim 1, of U.S. Patent No. 12,201,806. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because U.S. Patent No. 12,201,806 sets forth the intravenous (IV) stand assembly comprising a base, the structure of the stand comprising an internal channel and plurality of retainer channels, pulley/belt assembly comprising a plurality of pulleys and belts, plurality of retainers, drive coupled to each of the plurality of belts, and the operation of the stand assembly.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 19 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. USP 8336839, 9610399, 10299875, 10463784 (IV pole systems).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NKEISHA J. SMITH whose telephone number is (571)272-5781. The examiner can normally be reached Normal hours: M/Th 7-4; T 9-5; W 7-3; F 7-4.
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, Terrell McKinnon can be reached at 571-272-4797. 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.
/NKEISHA SMITH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3632
February 13, 2026