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 .
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 11672891. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Claim 1 of the instant application is substantially same as claim 1 of US’891. Differentiating limitation is that the instant claim 1 recites “the blood processing apparatus according to a separation process” whereas claim 1 of US’891 recites “the blood processing apparatus according to a centrifugal separation process”.
Instant claims 2-4 are same as claims 2-4 of US’891.
Claim 5 of the instant application is substantially same as claim 5 of US’891. Differentiating limitation is that the instant claim 5 recites “the blood processing apparatus according to a separation process” whereas claim 5 of US’891 recites “the blood processing apparatus according to a centrifugal separation process”.
Instant claims 6-10 are same as claims 6-10 of US’891.
Claim 11 of the instant application is substantially same as claim 11 of US’891. Differentiating limitation is that the instant claim 11 recites “the blood processing apparatus according to a separation process” whereas claim 11 of US’891 recites “the blood processing apparatus according to a centrifugal separation process”.
Instant claims 12-15 are same as claims 12-15 of US’891.
Claim 16 of the instant application is substantially same as claims 5 and 11 of US’891. Differentiating limitation is that the instant claim 16 recites “the blood processing apparatus according to a separation process” whereas claim 5 of US’891 recites “the blood processing apparatus according to a centrifugal separation process”; and claim 16 of the instant application do not include “air detector sensor” whereas claim 5 of US’891 includes air detector sensor.
Limitations of claims 17-20 of the instant application are present in claims 6-10 and 12-15 of US’891.
Allowable Subject Matter
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 1-20 are allowable over prior arts US 2013/0334139, US 2013/0267884, and US 2014/0291248.
US’139 teaches systems and methods employing membrane separation device in blood processing procedures (abstract), the system is configured to receive a processing flow circuit that includes one or more storage containers and includes a controller with a user interface that is programmed to facilitate the provision of identifying information on the one or more storage containers of the processing circuit based on donor identification data associated with the source container. The controller is configured to prompt the user to load the one or more storage containers of the processing circuit onto the blood processing system; prompt the user to retrieve identifying information for the one or more storage containers of the processing kit; prompt the user to retrieve donor identification data associated with the source container; associate the donor identification data with the one or more storage containers; process the fluid in the source container into a blood product that is received in the one or more storage containers of the processing circuit; and compare the donor identification data and the storage container data or prompt the user to retrieve the identifying information associated with the storage containers of the processing circuit and compare it to the donor identification data to verify the storage container data (refer [0018]). However, US’139 does not teach that the processing circuit configured to receive an activation from the operator to switch on the blood processing system; conduct self-checks on the blood processing apparatus; receive input data for a value of a process parameter from the touch screen; verify that the value is within a preset range for the value; prior to operating the blood processing apparatus according to a centrifugal separation process, store a pre-process calculation of a volume of the blood component to be collected in the product container and provide an indication of the volume to an operator via the touch screen; prompt the operator to mount the disposable fluid circuit; automatically check to determine whether the disposable fluid circuit is installed; prime tubing of the disposable fluid circuit with a fluid; commence the centrifugal separation process on the biological fluid; check the air detector sensor for a fluid/air interface; weigh the product container during the centrifugal separation process; process the biological fluid until the volume of the blood component to be collected is collected; and upon completion of the centrifugal separation process, prompt the operator. US’884 and US’248 fail to remedy deficiencies of US’139.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PRANAV PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-5142. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6AM-4PM.
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, Bobby Ramdhanie can be reached at (571) 270-3240. 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.
/PRANAV N PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777