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
A preliminary amendment was filed on 01/22/2025. Claims 1-20 have been canceled, and new claims 21-40 have been added. Currently, claims 21-40 are pending and are being examined on the merits.
Priority
Priority from the following applications have been claimed in the instant application
PRO 62/401,019, filed 09/28/2016
PRO 62/563,889, filed 09/27/2017
PCT/US2017/053839, filed 09/27/2017
PCT/EP2018/075751
US application 16/333,948, filed 03/15/2019
US application 16/650,806, filed 03/25/2020
US application 17/457,647, filed 12/03/2021.
However, there does not appear to be support for the independent claims in items a-c and e, notably the limitation of determining whether the blockage could have been caused by motion of the housing.
Moreover, Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119 as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 17.457,647, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. As further described in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) below, the instant claims appear to rely on limitations that were not supported by the shared specification. Accordingly, claims 21-40 are not entitled to the benefit of the prior application
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 21 recites that the control circuitry detects a blockage of a fluid flow path based on pressure sensor measurements satisfying a pressure threshold, followed by determining if the blockage could have been caused by motion of the housing, and in response to the determination, either operate in the first mode where the pressure threshold is not adjusted, or the second mode where the pressure threshold is adjusted.
However, the instant specification appears to support a device that operates differently from the invention as claimed. The system of the instant specification appears to detect the error condition, determine cause of error condition from motion data, then either outputs an alert (paragraph 0133), and/or having the negative pressure source operate differently than prior to determining the cause of the error condition, regardless on if the cause was by motion (paragraph 0137), but does not appear to teach adjusting the pressure threshold based on a determination of the error. A pressure threshold is adjusted based on motion data prior to detecting an error condition, by adjusting alarm sensitivity based on the motion sensor determining being on a moving transportation environment (paragraph 0112). As such, the claimed invention does not appear to match the logic mapping of the invention supported by the instant specification and claim 21 therefore appears to constitute new matter.
Claims 26 and 34 recite similar limitations on detecting an error condition by analyzing a sensed pressure, determining error condition based on motion data, operating in one mode responsive to determining the cause was not motion, and operating in a different mode responsive to determining the cause was motion. However, as previously discussed, these modes appear to be alternated based on motion data gathered previously that determines if the user is on a moving transport. The determination of the cause of the error changes the operation of the source of negative pressure, but there does not appear to be support for one mode after determining the cause to not be motion, and another mode after determining the cause to be motion. Claims 26 and 34 therefore appear to constitute new matter.
Claims 33 and 40 further clarify the first mode of operation to be where a parameter of negative pressure wound therapy is set to a first value, and the second mode of operation includes the parameter being set to a second, different value. For similar reasons as recited with respect to claim 21 above, these claims also appear to contain new matter.
The remaining claims are rejected by virtue of being dependent on independent claims 21, 26, and 34.
Double Patenting
A non-statutory double patenting rejection was considered with respect to the claims in U.S. patent # 12,263,294 (previously copending application # 17/457,647, which the instant application is a continuation thereof). However, because examiner believes that the instant claims include new matter not mentioned in the shared specification, the instant claims and the patented claims would be patentably distinctly from one another.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Locke (WO 2017087157) discloses a negative pressure wound therapy device that detects an error based on sensing from an accelerometer
Klusmann (US 20170188946) teaches a negative pressure system that utilizes motion sensors to determine if a user is in a car.
Risk (US 20020198503) teaches a wound treatment apparatus that detects a blockage due to pressure readings.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDON W LEVY whose telephone number is (571)272-7582. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30AM- 4:00 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, Rebecca Eisenberg can be reached at 5712705879. 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.
/Brandon W. Levy/Examiner, Art Unit 3781
Prosecution Insights