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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “activation mechanism for a user to activate the portable pump” in claim 13.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coulthard et al. (herein Coulthard) (US PG Pub 2015/0018784) in view of Braga et al. (herein Braga) (US 2014/0371697) in further view of Locke et al. (herein Locke) (US 2013/0144227).Regarding Claim 1:
In Figures 2 and 7-21, Coulthard discloses a portable pump (depicted as 110 in Figure 2 and 211 in Figure 7) for negative pressure wound therapy for drawing a vacuum (reduced pressure, see paragraph [0037]) from a wound site (108) via a tube (112), the portable pump (110) comprising: an inlet (227) configured to attach the tube from the wound site (see Figure 2 and paragraph [0068]); a canister (not shown) in fluid communication with said inlet for collecting fluids drained from the wound site (see
paragraphs [0087] which mentions that a canister may be coupled to the pump for fluid
collection); a manually-actuated pump mechanism (211) for creating the vacuum (creates reduced pressure, see paragraph [0089]), said manually-actuated pump mechanism comprising: a vacuum chamber (355) in fluid communication with said canister (as explained previously, the canister would be integrated with the reduced
pressure device and would have to at least indirectly fluidly communicate with the vacuum chamber); a piston (231) disposed in said vacuum chamber (see Figure 11); a pump handle (219) coupled to said piston so as to move said piston in said vacuum chamber between a first position (retracted position shown in Figure 18) and a second position (extended position shown in Figure 11) so as to create the vacuum, the pump handle moving between a retracted position and an extended position, wherein said piston is in the first position when said pump handle is in the retracted position (as seen Figure 18) and is in the second position when said pump handle is in the extended position (as seen in Figure 11); and a spring (243) disposed in said vacuum chamber for biasing said piston into the second position (as seen in Figure 11 and mentioned in paragraph [0071]) such that the spring compresses as said piston is moved from the second position to the first position (as seen in Figure 18 and mentioned in paragraph [0088]), wherein upon manually pumping said pump handle, said piston creates a vacuum so as to create the vacuum at the wound site and to draw any fluids from the wound site into said canister (see paragraphs [0087]-[0089]). Coulthard fails to explicitly disclose: a pressure sensor for sensing a pressure level in said canister.It is noted that Coulthard does disclose a pressure sensor for monitoring the pressure within the pump (110, see paragraph [0045]) but does not explicitly disclose that this pressure sensor is capable of monitoring the pressure within Coulthard’s canister. However, in Figures 1-4 Braga discloses a portable pump (canister assembly 240 with pump 360) wherein a pressure sensor (340) is provided for sensing a pressure level in a canister (242) (as mentioned in paragraph [0055]: “Transducer 340 is in fluid communication with the collection canister 242 to detect the vacuum level within the collection canister 242. In embodiments, the transducer 340 generates an electrical signal that varies as a function of vacuum level within the collection canister 242, and the signal is communicated to the processor 310. Logic associated with the transducer 340 and the pump 360 may reduce the speed of the pump 360 or stop operation of the pump 360 in response to the vacuum level detected by the transducer 340.”).Hence, based on Braga’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have included a pressure sensor for sensing a pressure level in Coulthard’s canister (as taught by Braga) and to integrate this pressure sensor with Coulthard’s controller (in the manner taught by Braga) in order to utilize the sensed pressure levels to take corrective actions such as reducing the pumping speed or stopping pump (see Braga’s paragraph [0055]). It is known in the art that these corrective actions can be implemented even by a manual user in response to a sensed pressure being at a predetermined threshold as further explained below. The controller herein is used to generate a signal direct the user to perform the corrective action (in further view of Locke below). Coulthard as modified by Braga fails to explicitly disclose a pressure level indicator for indicating the sensed pressure level in said canister.It is noted that Coulthard in paragraph [0045] does mention alarm indicators and display units both of which are extremely well known in the art to be tied to sensors and could be capable of displaying the sensed pressure level in the canister. Nevertheless, in paragraph [0051] Locke discloses a pressure level indicator (multi-colored LED indicators) for displaying different color lights in response to different sensed pressure levels (Each pressure sensor 132 develops a treatment pressure signal that is delivered to the controller 136 for monitoring. The microprocessor and memory or other aspects of controller 136 are used to monitor the treatment pressure signals to confirm compliance with the desired pressure range….Alternatively or in addition, separate multi-colored LED indicators may be included to provide a quick color indication of pressure and status at each of the plurality of patient-side ports 130. For example, the multi-colored LED indicators may be able to assume the colors green, yellow, and red. The controller 136 may be programmed to produce a green light when the pressure is between -75 mm Hg and -150 mm Hg. A yellow light may be signaled if the wound pressure declines (i.e., loses reduced pressure so that pressure is greater on an absolute pressure scale) indicating a dressing leak. A red light may be used to indicate the wound pressure is below a reduced pressure threshold (e.g., -40 mm Hg) and is not providing adequate therapy. A flashing red light may mean that an over pressure (e.g., more negative than -200 mm Hg) has been applied.).Hence, based on Locke’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have included a pressure level indicator (such as the multi-colored LED indicator taught by Locke) in Coulthard’s portable pump, in order to communicate with the added pressure sensor and to utilize a controller (such as Locke’s controller 136) associated with the pressure level indicator, in order to display visual indicators of the pressure level within the canister (that could be programmed as desired), since doing so would allow for the user actuating Coulthard’s pump to visually determine if the pumping action needed to be changed in response to the visually observed color displayed by the pressure level indicator. It is further noted that upon observation of a specific pressure color indicative of specific pressure threshold, the user manually actuating Coulthard’s pump would obviously stop pumping or reduce pumping speed to avoid damage to the system, as is extremely well known in the art. Regarding Claim 2:
In paragraph [0045], Coulthard also discloses the pressure sensor for determining a pressure level generated by the pump (110). Coulthard also mentions processing units, memory and databases (i.e., together forming controllers) and alarm indicators. Coulthard as modified is silent regarding an audio alarm and controller commands to the audio alarm.However, in paragraph [0046], Locke discloses: “The controller 136 includes a microprocessor and memory configured to monitor pressure for each of the plurality of pressure sensors 132 and to signal an alarm condition if the pressure leaves a desired range or goes below a minimum reduced pressure threshold (i.e., the absolute pressure rises above a threshold).” Furthermore, in paragraph [0052] Locke discloses: “The controller 136 may also optionally activate an audible alarm 152, but given tight quarters for many transportation operations, this feature may be turned off or not included.” This audible alarm (152) is associated with different pressure levels as mentioned in paragraph [0051]). Hence, based on Locke’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have added an audio alarm (as taught by Locke) to be associated with the previously added controller (taught by Locke, see rejection of claim 1) in order to generate an audible alarm when the sensed pressure in the canister is below a target pressure level (as mentioned in Locke’s paragraph [0046]) since doing so would provide an easily detectable audible warning that the pressure in the canister was insufficient.Regarding Claim 5:Claim 5 is broader in scope but is substantially similar to claim 1. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reasons presented above with respect to claim 1. Regarding Claim 6:Claim 6 is broader in scope but is substantially similar to claim 1. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reasons presented above with respect to claim 1.Regarding Claim 7:Claim 7 is broader in scope but is substantially similar to claim 2. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reasons presented above with respect to claim 2.
Claim(s) 3-4 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coulthard et al. (herein Coulthard) (US PG Pub 2015/0018784) in view of Braga et al. (herein Braga) (US 2014/0371697) in view of Locke et al. (herein Locke) (US 2013/0144227) in further view of Pan et al. (herein Pan) (US PG Pub 2013/0267917).Regarding Claim 3-4:Coulthard as modified by Braga and Locke fails to disclose a fluid level sensor in the canister. It is noted that in paragraph [0045], Coulthard also discloses the pressure sensor for determining a pressure level generated by the pump (110). Coulthard also mentions processing units, memory and databases (i.e., together forming controllers) and alarm indicators.However, in Figures 1-7 Pan discloses a similar portable pump (negative pressure wound therapy system 10) comprising: a fluid level sensor (38) in a canister (20, see paragraph [0039]) for sensing a level of fluid in said canister (as mentioned in paragraphs [0039]-[0042]), wherein a controller (microprocessor 51) is coupled to said fluid level sensor (see paragraph [0039]) for causing said audio alarm to generate an alarm when the sensed fluid level reaches a predetermined level (As mentioned in paragraph [0041], the fill sensor 38 indicates a level at which the canister is considered full indicating a predetermined fill level at which the fill sensors are installed. As mentioned in paragraph [0042] the alarm is both audible and visual. Further in paragraph [0043]: “If at step 46 the fill sensor 38 has been activated, the alarm is also triggered and the operation of the pump 11 is paused.”).Hence, based on Pan’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have included a fluid level sensor in Coulthard’s canister, that would be activated by Coulthard’s controller (as taught by Pan) when the fluid reached the level of the fluid sensor to indicate a predetermined fill level in the canister (as taught by Pan) and to further modify Coulthard’s controller to accept data from the added fluid level sensor and trigger an added audio alarm (based on Pan’s teachings), since doing so would warn the user to stop manual pumping as the canister’s predetermined fill level was reached and thereby shut down the pumping operation. Regarding Claim 8:Coulthard as modified by Braga and Locke fails to disclose that the audio alarm can be turned off with a push button. However, in Figures 1-7 Pan discloses a similar portable pump (negative pressure wound therapy system 10) wherein a button (control switch 19) can be used to turn on and off the electronics including the controller (51) and the audio alarm. Hence, based on Pan’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have incorporated a push button (type of control switch) to turn the electronics on or off and thereby silence the audio alarm via the controller which would no longer command the audio alarm to be on, since doing so would advantageously prevent battery drain or unnecessary operation during down time.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coulthard et al. (herein Coulthard) (US PG Pub 2015/0018784) in view of Braga et al. (herein Braga) (US 2014/0371697) in view of Locke et al. (herein Locke) (US 2013/0144227) in further view of Karpowicz et al. (herein Karpowicz) (US PG Pub 2011/077605).Regarding Claim 9:Coulthard as modified fails to disclose a gelling agent in the canister. However, in Figures 1-3 Karpowicz discloses a similar portable pump (10) wherein a gelling agent (disks 56) is provided in a canister (36) in order to allow the liquids aspirated from the wound to be turned into a gel, for ease of disposal and to prevent spilling, by the gelling agent in the disposable canister (see paragraph [0022]). Hence, based on Karpowicz’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have included a gelling agent (for example the gelling agent disks 56 taught by Karpowicz) in Coulthard’s canister in order to allow the liquids aspirated from the wound to be turned into a gel, for ease of disposal and to prevent spilling (see Karpowicz’s paragraph [0022]).
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coulthard et al. (herein Coulthard) (US PG Pub 2015/0018784) in view of Pan et al. (herein Pan) (US PG Pub 2013/0267917).Regarding Claim 10:
In Figures 2 and 7-21, Coulthard discloses a portable pump (depicted as 110 in Figure 2 and 211 in Figure 7) for negative pressure wound therapy for drawing a vacuum (reduced pressure, see paragraph [0037]) from a wound site (108) via a tube (112), the portable pump (110) comprising: an inlet (227) configured to attach the tube from the wound site (see Figure 2 and paragraph [0068]); a canister (not shown) in fluid communication with said inlet for collecting fluids drained from the wound site (see
paragraphs [0087] which mentions that a canister may be coupled to the pump for fluid
collection); and a manually-actuated pump mechanism (211) for creating the vacuum (creates reduced pressure, see paragraph [0089]).
Coulthard fails to disclose a fluid level sensor in the canister. It is noted that in paragraph [0045], Coulthard also discloses the pressure sensor for determining a pressure level generated by the pump (110). Coulthard also mentions processing units, memory and databases (i.e., together forming controllers) and alarm indicators.However, in Figures 1-7 Pan discloses a similar portable pump (negative pressure wound therapy system 10) comprising: a fluid level sensor (38) in a canister (20, see paragraph [0039]) for sensing a level of fluid in said canister (as mentioned in paragraphs [0039]-[0042]), wherein a controller (microprocessor 51) is coupled to said fluid level sensor (see paragraph [0039]) for causing an audio alarm to generate an alarm when the sensed fluid level reaches a predetermined level (as mentioned in paragraph [0041], the fill sensor 38 indicates a level at which the canister is considered full indicating a predetermined fill level at which the fill sensors are installed. As mentioned in paragraph [0042] the alarm is both audible and visual. Further in paragraph [0043]: “If at step 46 the fill sensor 38 has been activated, the alarm is also triggered and the operation of the pump 11 is paused.”).Hence, based on Pan’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have included a fluid level sensor in Coulthard’s canister, that would be activated by Coulthard’s controller (as taught by Pan) when the fluid reached the level of the fluid sensor to indicate a predetermined fill level in the canister (as taught by Pan) and to further modify Coulthard’s controller to accept data from the added fluid level sensor and trigger an added audio alarm (based on Pan’s teachings), since doing so would warn the user to stop manual pumping as the canister’s predetermined fill level was reached and thereby shut down the pumping operation. Regarding Claim 11:Coulthard as modified by Pan discloses the portable pump, wherein said manually-actuated pump mechanism comprises: a vacuum chamber (355) in fluid communication with said canister (as explained previously, the canister would be integrated with the reduced pressure device and would have to at least indirectly fluidly communicate with the vacuum chamber); a piston (231) disposed in said vacuum chamber (see Figure 11); a pump handle (219) coupled to said piston so as to move said piston in said vacuum chamber between a first position (retracted position shown in Figure 18) and a second position (extended position shown in Figure 11) so as to create the vacuum, the pump handle moving between a retracted position and an extended position, wherein said piston is in the first position when said pump handle is in the retracted position (as seen Figure 18) and is in the second position when said pump handle is in the extended position (as seen in Figure 11), wherein upon manually pumping said pump handle, said piston creates a vacuum so as to create the vacuum at the wound site and to draw any fluids from the wound site into said canister (see paragraphs [0087]-[0089]).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coulthard et al. (herein Coulthard) (US PG Pub 2015/0018784) in view of Pan et al. (herein Pan) (US PG Pub 2013/0267917) in view of Braga et al. (herein Braga) (US 2014/0371697) in further view of Locke et al. (herein Locke) (US 2013/0144227).Regarding Claim 12:Coulthard as modified by Pan fails to explicitly disclose: a pressure sensor for sensing a pressure level in said canister.It is noted that Coulthard does disclose a pressure sensor for monitoring the pressure within the pump (110, see paragraph [0045]) but does not explicitly disclose that this pressure sensor is capable of monitoring the pressure within Coulthard’s canister. However, in Figures 1-4 Braga discloses a portable pump (canister assembly 240 with pump 360) wherein a pressure sensor (340) is provided for sensing a pressure level in a canister (242) (as mentioned in paragraph [0055]: “Transducer 340 is in fluid communication with the collection canister 242 to detect the vacuum level within the collection canister 242. In embodiments, the transducer 340 generates an electrical signal that varies as a function of vacuum level within the collection canister 242, and the signal is communicated to the processor 310. Logic associated with the transducer 340 and the pump 360 may reduce the speed of the pump 360 or stop operation of the pump 360 in response to the vacuum level detected by the transducer 340.”).Hence, based on Braga’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have included a pressure sensor for sensing a pressure level in Coulthard’s canister (as taught by Braga) and to integrate this pressure sensor with Coulthard’s controller (in the manner taught by Braga) in order to utilize the sensed pressure levels to take corrective actions such as reducing the pumping speed or stopping pump (see Braga’s paragraph [0055]). It is known in the art that these corrective actions can be implemented even by a manual user in response to a sensed pressure being at a predetermined threshold as further explained below. The controller herein is used to generate a signal direct the user to perform the corrective action (in further view of Locke below). Coulthard as modified by Pan and Braga fails to explicitly disclose a pressure level indicator for indicating the sensed pressure level in said canister.It is noted that Coulthard in paragraph [0045] does mention alarm indicators and display units both of which are extremely well known in the art to be tied to sensors and could be capable of displaying the sensed pressure level in the canister. Nevertheless, in paragraph [0051] Locke discloses a pressure level indicator (multi-colored LED indicators) for displaying different color lights in response to different sensed pressure levels (Each pressure sensor 132 develops a treatment pressure signal that is delivered to the controller 136 for monitoring. The microprocessor and memory or other aspects of controller 136 are used to monitor the treatment pressure signals to confirm compliance with the desired pressure range….Alternatively or in addition, separate multi-colored LED indicators may be included to provide a quick color indication of pressure and status at each of the plurality of patient-side ports 130. For example, the multi-colored LED indicators may be able to assume the colors green, yellow, and red. The controller 136 may be programmed to produce a green light when the pressure is between -75 mm Hg and -150 mm Hg. A yellow light may be signaled if the wound pressure declines (i.e., loses reduced pressure so that pressure is greater on an absolute pressure scale) indicating a dressing leak. A red light may be used to indicate the wound pressure is below a reduced pressure threshold (e.g., -40 mm Hg) and is not providing adequate therapy. A flashing red light may mean that an over pressure (e.g., more negative than -200 mm Hg) has been applied.).Hence, based on Locke’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have included a pressure level indicator (such as the multi-colored LED indicator taught by Locke) in Coulthard’s portable pump, in order to communicate with the added pressure sensor and to utilize a controller (such as Locke’s controller 136) associated with the pressure level indicator, in order to display visual indicators of the pressure level within the canister (that could be programmed as desired), since doing so would allow for the user actuating Coulthard’s pump to visually determine if the pumping action needed to be changed in response to the visually observed color displayed by the pressure level indicator. It is further noted that upon observation of a specific pressure color indicative of specific pressure threshold, the user manually actuating Coulthard’s pump would obviously stop pumping or reduce pumping speed to avoid damage to the system, as is extremely well known in the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-20 are allowed.
Claim 13 recites a new limitation that states that the portable pump is shut down by locking the manually-actuated pump mechanism upon expiration of a predetermined time period after manipulation of said activation mechanism. Coulthard does not disclose any such locking structure capable of locking the manually-actuated pump mechanism based on elapsed time. Substantial impermissible hindsight reconstruction would be required to incorporate this structure and to change the controller logic to accommodate this function. Due to these reasons claims 13-20 are allowable.
As previously noted in the last office action: Claim 19 recites the limitation: “a check valve disposed between said vacuum chamber and said canister for preventing air from flowing from said vacuum chamber into said canister when said piston is moved from the first position to the second position and for allowing air to be drawn from said canister to said vacuum chamber when said piston is moved from the second position to the first position.” Coulthard fails to disclose such a check valve . Furthermore, Coulthard’s valve (421) is disposed between the external vacuum source and the charging chamber (355) and so is not disposed in the claimed location. Rearrangement of this valve would require substantial hindsight reconstruction. Furthermore, manipulation of this check valve based on piston position as claimed would also require additional hindsight reconstruction.
NOTE: A similar claim (claim 5) in parent application 16/949,354 was allowed for the reasons presented in a non-final office action mailed on 12/26/2023.
Claim 20 is allowable by virtue of its dependence on claim 19. A similar claim (claim 6) in parent application 16/949,354 was allowed for the reasons presented in the non-final office action mailed on 12/26/2023.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the rejection of claim 1 citing the teachings of Coulthard in view of Braga and Locke, the applicant has argued that both Braga and Locke are related to automatic feedback control type pump systems and so there would be no reason to incorporate their teachings to add a pressure level sensor (per Braga) and to add a pressure level indicator (per Locke) in Coulthard’s manually-actuated pump system. However, this argument is not persuasive because the applicant has not explained specifically why a manual user could not benefit from the presence of a pressure sensor and pressure level indicator to carry out the same corrective actions presented in the automatic pump systems of Braga and Locke. Whether the pumping action is manual or automatic, it is extremely well known in the art that overpressure can greatly damage pump components and so it is desirable to avoid such overpressure conditions even in a manual pumping system. Since a human user would not accurately be able to gauge an overpressure condition, it would be beneficial to use a pressure sensor with a pressure level indicator pre-programmed to certain pressure thresholds to provide the user with visual cues as to an overpressure condition that would be detrimental to the system. Based on these visual cues (as previously explained), the user could cease or reduce the pumping speed as is well known in the art.
Additionally, as stated in MPEP 2144.04, III, with regards to automating a manual activity, The court held that broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art (In reVenner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958). In this case, it is extremely well known in the art that overpressure is detrimental to as system whether it is manual or automatic and so when the general conditions are known in the prior art, one of ordinary skill would logically arrive at the same course of action regardless of whether the system is implemented in an automatic pump or a manual pump. It is also noted that the claim itself only discloses a pressure sensor and a pressure-level indicator and is not related to corrective actions based on the sensed pressure. Adding a pressure sensor and a pressure level indicator is within the skill of one well versed in the art regardless of the corrective actions also implemented. It is further noted that Coulthard does disclose a pressure sensor (110, see paragraph [0045]) so there is scope for pressure monitoring even in a manual pump. It is also noted that both Braga and Locke are related to broadly analogous pumps in wound therapy systems and so would operate in similar conditions.
The aforementioned arguments are also not persuasive because, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
In response to applicant' s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, as explained above and previously explained in the rejection of claim 1, one of ordinary skill would arrive at the same conclusion regarding undesirable overpressure in the canister and so to avoid such overpressure, the pressure sensor and the pressure level indicator would be adopted to allow the user to implement corrective actions.
Similar arguments are presented with respect to claim 5 and so the responses above apply to this claim as well.
With respect to the rejection of claim 10 citing the teachings of Coulthard in view of Pan, once again the applicant has argued that Pan is related to an automatic pumping system and its teachings would not be incorporated into Coulthard’s manual pumping system. Specifically the applicant has argued: “However, Pan discloses a device with an automatic pump that pumps on its own generally unsupervised. The need for a fluid sensor alarm in an automated system is clear since no one is monitoring the device and it is intended to operate this way. On the other hand, a user would have to operate the manual pump of Coulthard and could visually see the fluid level in the canister before pumping in order to readily determine on their own that the canister if full and they should not manually pump any more. Accordingly, there is not the same need for an alarm in Coulthard as there is in Pan and one skilled in the art would not have been motivated based on Pan to modify Coulthard in the manner contemplated solely by the Examiner.”
This is a merely speculative argument by applicant’s counsel. There is no mention of the type of canister used by Coulthard and so there is no clear indication that the user would be able to visually monitor the fill level of the canister and in response stop the pumping action of prevent overfilling the canister. Hence without visual cues the user could be altered regarding an overfill condition and this could potentially prevent leakage from the canister or other damage to the canister. It is also noted that even if the user were able to visually monitor the filling condition, it is desirable to also provide an alarm warning regarding an overfill condition (as taught by Pan) since this also ensures that the user does not accidently continue pumping due to inattentiveness or carelessness.
Due to these reasons, the arguments presented with respect to claims 1-12 are not persuasive.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 DOMINICK L PLAKKOOTTAM whose telephone number is (571)270-7571. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 12 pm -8 pm ET.
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, Essama Omgba can be reached at 469-295-9278. 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.
/DOMINICK L PLAKKOOTTAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
Prosecution Insights