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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Lines 14-18 have been amended to recite “the control unit configured to determine whether the input unit is blocked when the sensor detects that the cover is opened, and to block the input unit when the input unit is not blocked and the cover is detected to be opened, and when the change of position of the main part detected by the position sensor exceeds a predetermined threshold, to determine whether the input unit is blocked, and, when the input unit is not blocked, to block the input unit” but this wording is confusing and cumbersome. It is suggested to amend lines 14-18 to recite “the control unit configured to determine whether the input unit is blocked when the sensor detects that the cover is opened, and to block the input unit when the input unit is not blocked and the cover is detected to be opened, and the control unit configured to determine whether the input unit is blocked when the change of position of the main part detected by the position sensor exceeds a predetermined threshold, when the input unit is not blocked”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 11, 13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kutsuzawa (PG PUB 2006/0140798) in view of Kamen et al. (PG PUB 2013/0184676) and Bhandar et al. (PG PUB 2019/0351138).
Re claim 1, Kutsuzawa discloses a device 1 (shown with the cover open in Fig 1 and the cover closed in Fig 2; it is noted that all reference characters cited below refer to Fig 1 and/or Fig 2 unless otherwise noted) for administering a medical liquid (it is noted that the italicized text constitutes a function limitation and, therefore, “a medical liquid” is not a part of the claimed invention; this limitation is met in view of Para 1), the device comprising: a main part (the entirety of device 1 except for door 4) which has a receiving region (the space extending between upper and lower grooves 3m,3m in Fig 1; Para 26) and a drive 100 (Para 26, “pump mechanism 100”), the receiving region being configured for at least partly receiving a hollow body containing a liquid (it is noted that the italicized text constitutes a functional limitation and, therefore, “a hollow body containing a liquid” is not a part of the claimed invention; this limitation is met in view of Para 26), and the drive being configured for acting on the hollow body such that the liquid is conveyed (it is noted that the italicized text constitutes a functional limitation and, therefore, “the hollow body” and “the liquid” are not a part of the claimed invention; this limitation is met in view of Para 26); a control unit (labeled “CPU” in Fig 6) for controlling the drive (as seen in Fig 6); a cover 4 which is movably connected to the main part (via hinges 65, Para 28) and which covers an exterior of the receiving region in a closed position (as seen in Fig 1); an input unit 1000 for manually inputting commands on the control unit (via at least switches 22; Para 31,35), the input unit provided on the cover in an arrangement that allows a manual input to be entered on the input unit from outside the cover when the cover is in a closed position (as seen in Fig 2; Para 31,34); and a sensor 63 (Fig 6; “door switch”, Para 37) configured for detecting whether the cover is in the closed position (Para 37; seen in Fig 7 at step S102 that determines the door is not opened), the control unit configured to determine whether the input unit is blocked when the sensor detects that the cover is opened and to block the input unit when the input unit is not blocked and the cover is detected to be opened (Para 37, “when the door switch 63 (see FIG. 6) determines that the door is opened […], any operation of the operation switch panel is prohibited to prevent setting an input”). Kutsuzawa does not disclose that the input unit is “manually blockable” nor that the device includes a position sensor configured for detecting a change of position of the main part; since Kutsazawa does not disclose such a position sensor, it also does not disclose that the control unit is configured to determine whether the input unit is blocked when the change of position of the main part detected by the position sensor exceeds a predetermined and to block the input unit when the input unit is not blocked.
Kamen, however, teaches a medical liquid administration device 500 (Fig 28; it is noted that all reference characters cited below refer to Fig 28 unless otherwise noted) comprising an input unit 514 (“touch screen”, Para 191) for manually inputting commands (Para 191), wherein the input unit is manually blockable (via “lock” button 516, Para 191) for the purpose of avoiding inadvertent commands from being issued to the device via the input unit (Para 191). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Kutsuzawa to include the input unit as one that is manually blockable (by the including of a lock button), as taught by Kamen, for the purpose of avoiding inadvertent commands from being issued to the device via the input unit (Para 191). Kamen does not disclose a position sensor configured for detecting a change of position of the main part nor a control unit that is configured to determine whether the input unit is blocked when the change of position of the main part detected by the position sensor exceeds a predetermined and to block the input unit when the input unit is not blocked.
Bhandar, however, teaches an administration device 100 (Fig 1A,1C) comprising a main part 110 (Fig 1C), a cover 120 (Fig 1C), a position sensor (“Hall effect sensor in the pump 100”, Para 62) which is configured for detecting a change of position of the main part (relative to the cover, Para 62), and a control unit configured to determine, when the change of position exceeds a predetermined threshold (representing a distance of the Hall effect sensor to a magnet 188 of the cover, Para 62), that the cover is open (i.e. the main part is further away from the cover) (Para 77) for the purpose of automatically determining when the cover is open or closed (Para 77). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Kutsuzawa/Kamen to include a position sensor configured for detecting a change of position of the main part in order to determine that the cover is open, as taught by Bhandar, for the purpose of automatically determining when the cover is open or closed (Para 77). Since Kutsuzawa sets forth that the cover being open automatically results in the input unit being blocked, when the position sensor detects that the cover is open (that is, when the main part is further away from the cover), the control unit will determine that the input unit is blocked, and when the input unit is not blocked, will block the input unit.
Re claim 2, Kutsuzawa discloses that the control unit is configured to unblock the input unit after an opening of the cover that causes blocking of the input unit when the sensor detects that the cover is closed (Fig 7; Para 37).
Re claim 3, Kutsuzawa as modified by Kamen in the rejection of claim 1 above discloses all the claimed features with Kamen teaching that the control unit is configured to maintain the input unit in a blocked condition after a blocking of the input unit which is not caused by an opening of the cover and after an opening of the cover when the sensor detects that the cover is closed (Para 191). The motivation cited in the rejection of claim 1 above also applies to this claim.
Re claim 5, Kutsuzawa/Kamen/Bhandar disclose all the claimed features with Bhandar teaching the main part 110 (Fig 1C) having a receiving region 180 (Fig 1C) and a sensor 174a (Fig 1C) configured to detect whether a hollow body is received in the receiving region (Para 80), and the control unit being configured to provide power to the device only when the sensor detects that the hollow body is received in the receiving region (Para 80) for the purpose of ensuring administration is not initiated without the hollow body in place (Para 80). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Kutsuzawa/Kamen to include a sensor configured to detect whether a hollow body is received in the receiving region and provide the control unit such that it only operates if the sensor detects that the hollow body is received in the receiving region, as taught by Bhandar, for the purpose of ensuring administration is not initiated without the hollow body in place (Para 80). Since the device could not operate unless the sensor detects that a hollow body is received in the receiving region, the control unit could only carry out unblocking and/or blocking of the input unit depending on a position of the cover when the sensor detects that the hollow body is received in the receiving region.
Re claim 11, Kutsuzawa discloses that the control unit is configured to block the input unit after unblocking and after a subsequent expiry of a time interval in which no manual input is carried out on the input unit (the input unit will be blocked every time the door is open (i.e. even after it has been closed and unblocked) and will remain blocked while the door remains open).
Re claim 13, Kutsuzawa discloses all the claimed features except that the input unit includes a blockable touch-sensitive screen. Kamen, however, teaches an input unit 514 that includes blockable touch-sensitive screen (Para 191) for the purpose of providing the device with an ability to update and change the commands that are available for controlling the device (Para 454). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Kutsuzawa to include a blockable touch-sensitive screen, as taught by Kamen, for the purpose of providing the device with an ability to update and change the commands that are available for controlling the device (Para 454).
Re claim 16, Kutsuzawa discloses a locking device 7+59 configured for locking the cover in the closed position (Para 26).
Claims 4 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kutsuzawa (PG PUB 2006/0140798)/Kamen et al. (PG PUB 2013/0184676)/Bhandar et al. (PG PUB 2019/0351138) in view of LeCocq (US Pat 4,553,958).
Re claims 4 and 20, Kutsuzawa/Kamen/Bhandar disclose all the claimed features except that the control unit is configured to cancel a manual input that is started prior to an opening/before unlocking of the cover and continues when the cover is opened/unlocked. LeCocq, however, teaches an administration device (Fig 2) comprising a control unit that is configured to cancel a manual input that is started prior to an opening/unlocking of a cover and continues when the cover is opened/unlocked (Fig 7B, steps 372-386; Col 10, Lines 45-51) for the purpose of ensuring that administration is halted when the door is opened (Col 10, Lines 45-51). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify Kutsuzawa/Kamen/Bhandar to include the control unit such that it is configured to cancel a manual input that is started prior to an opening/before unlocking of the cover and continues when the cover is opened/unlocked, as taught by LeCocq, for the purpose of ensuring that administration is halted when the door is opened (Col 10, Lines 45-51).
Claims 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kutsuzawa (PG PUB 2006/0140798)/Kamen et al. (PG PUB 2013/0184676)/Bhandar et al. (PG PUB 2019/0351138) in view of Ueda et al. (PG PUB 2014/0100526).
Re claim 17, Kutsuzawa/Kamen/Bhandar disclose all the claimed features except explicitly disclosing that the sensor is configured for detecting whether the cover is locked in the closed position. Ueda, however, teaches an administration device 1 (with cover 12 closed in Fig 1 and opened in Fig 2) comprising a main part 11 (Fig 1), a cover 12 (Fig 1,2), a locking device 132 (Fig 2) for locking the cover in a closed position on the main part (Para 101), and a sensor 6 (Fig 2) configured for detecting whether the cover is locked in a closed position (Para 101) the purpose of starting and stopping delivery automatically (Para 119-121). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Kutsuzawa/Kamen/Bhandar to include the sensor such that it detects whether the cover is locked in the closed position, as taught by Ueda, for the purpose of starting and stopping delivery automatically (Para 119-121).
Re claim 18, Kutsuzawa/Kamen/Bhandar as modified by Ueda in the rejection of claim 17 above (which teaches that locking corresponds to the door being closed and unlocking corresponds to the door being open) discloses that the control unit is configured to unblock the input unit after unlocking and opening of the cover and after blocking of the input unit which is caused by unlocking when the sensor detects that the cover is closed and locked (Fig 7; Para 37).
Re claim 19, Kutsuzawa/Kamen/Bhandar as modified by Ueda in the rejection of claim 17 (which teaches that the locking corresponds to the door being closed and unlocking corresponds to the door being open) discloses all the claimed features with Kamen teaching that the control unit is configured to maintain the input unit in a blocked condition after a blocking of the input unit, which is not caused by an unlocking of the cover and after an unlocking of the cover when the sensor detects that the cover is locked (Para 191). The motivation cited in the rejection of claim 1 above also applies to this claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “Bhandar does not describe that the control unit is configured to unblock/block the input unit depending on a position of the cover only when the sensor detects that the hollow body with liquid is received in the receiving region” as recited in claim 5 (see the first paragraph on page 12 of the Reply). The Examiner respectfully disagrees since Para 80 explicitly recites “After each of the above sensors confirms that IV tube 160, door 120 and valve (e.g. valves 176a,176b) are loaded and/or positioned, the pump 100 provides power to energize the solenoid (block 516). Then the solenoid is activated to automatically eject the slide clamp 115 (block 518). Once the slide clamp 115 is ejected, the pump 100 may initiate an infusion (block 520)” which sets forth that the power is only provided to the device if one sensor detects the IV tube in the receiving region and another sensor detects the door being closed. Until power is provided to the device, the control unit could not carry out blocking/unblocking. Therefore, the readings of the sensors control the control unit. Therefore, this argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “Bhandar does not further sense whether a hollow body is in the receiving region 180 as alleged in the Official Action and as recited in dependent claim 5” (see the first paragraph on page 12 of the Reply). The Examiner respectfully disagrees since Para 80 explicitly recites “the IV tube 160 is loaded, which is configured by a pressure sensor (e.g. pressure sensors 174a,174b)” and Para 77 explicitly recites “Pressure sensors (e.g. pressure sensors 174a,174b) may confirm proper IV tube loading”). Therefore, this argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “Bhandar’s Hall effect sensors may be used to detect that the door 120 is open, aa position sensor does not detect a change of position of the main part” as required by claim (see the second paragraph on page 12 of the Reply). The Examiner respectfully disagrees because the sensors detect the change of position between the main part 110 and cover 120. The claim does not set forth the frame of reference and, therefore, sensor detects movement of the main part 110 relative to the cover 120 when the cover is the frame of reference. Therefore, this argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the control unit of Bhandar is “NOT further configured to determine when the change of position of the main part detected by the position sensor exceeds a predetermined threshold and, if so, to determine whether the input unit is blocked, and, when the input unit is not blocked, to block the input unit. Rather, Bhandar simply checks that the door 120 is closed and latched before initiating the solenoid to eject the slide clamp 115 to initiate an infusion” and “does not further suggest conditioning the determination of whether the input unit is blocked based on a change of position of the main part detected by the position sensor as exceeding a predetermined threshold” as recited in claim 1 (see the second paragraph on page 12 of the Reply). The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The threshold in Bhandar is defined by the distance between the Hall effect sensor and a magnet 188 in the cover and the open position is defined when that distance exceeds a distance that considers the cover to be closed (i.e. threshold). Additionally, the rejection of claim 1 does not posit that Bhandar uses that determination to control blocking of the input unit; rather, the rejection sets forth that this teaching when applied to Kutsuzawa – which sets forth that the cover being open automatically results in the input unit being blocked – provides for Bhandar to determine when the cover is open and Kutsuzawa to block input when the cover is open. Therefore, this argument is not persuasive.
Applicant asserts that “there would have been no teaching to modify Katsuzawa in view of Kamen” (see the third paragraph on page 12 of the Reply) but does not elaborate on this assertion. The Examiner respectfully disagrees since Para 191 of Kamen explains that the provision of an input unit that is manually blockable ensures the avoidance of inadvertent commands being issued to the device via the input unit (Para 191). Therefore, this argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues that LeCocq (as cited in the rejections of claims 4 and 20) does not teach a control unit configured to cancel a manual input that is started prior to an opening of the cover and continues when the cover is opened as claimed. Specifically, Applicant argues that LeCocq teaches turning off an LCD element indicating that the door is open once the door is closed and does not describe what happens to the LCD element when the door is open. The Examiner respectfully disagrees because LeCocq teaches turning off the LCD element when the door is closed; since the LCD element turns off when the door is closed, it cancels the input that caused the LCD to turn on in the first place. Therefore, this argument is not persuasive.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 KAMI A BOSWORTH whose telephone number is (571)270-5414. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8 am - 4 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, Kevin Sirmons can be reached at (571)272-4965. 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.
/KAMI A BOSWORTH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3783
Prosecution Insights