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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
Claim(s) 1-3, 9-12, 14 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Pre-Grant Publication 2013/0303989 to Favreau (Favreau hereinafter).
Regarding claim 1, Favreau teaches a computer-implemented method for performing an infusion treatment (see paragraph 6), the method comprising: dispensing, by a pump (102) controlled by a controller (106), a fluid from a fluid supply (205) in a pulse (PWM) mode over a period by: determining a pulse volume (dosage command, paragraph 36) for a pulse, determining a pulse cycle time (PWM period times duty ratio, paragraph 37), and for the period: controlling a position of the pump to: perform a delay (i.e. during the 0 voltage portion, paragraph 37), and perform a pulse to dispense an amount of the fluid, the pulse performed for the pulse cycle time, calculating an overshoot or undershoot (at steps 814, 824) of the amount of the fluid dispensed relative to the pulse volume, adjusting the pulse cycle time (at 816) based on the calculated overshoot or undershoot, and repeating the dispensing until the period has elapsed. Furthermore, Favreau teaches starting a timer (to measure time interval, see paragraph 37), reading an encoder position (at 812), comparing to a target position (determined at 810 and compared at 814), and adjusting as claimed (steps 816, 818, 824, 826). The examiner notes that the limitation of “use the difference to increase” is broader in scope than, for instance “add the difference to the voltage level” or any explicit mathematical operation.
Regarding claim 3, Favreau teaches measuring position of the pump and motor prior to and after a pulse (at step 812).
Regarding claim 9, Favreau teaches that the pulse volume is determined based on a volume of the fluid to be delivered (dosage command, paragraph 36).
Regarding claim 10, Favreau teaches that the pulse cycle time is determined on a time period (i.e. duty cycle) associated with the infusion treatment.
Regarding claim 11, Favreau teaches measuring, via the controller, an encoder position (at 812) and comparing it to a target position (at 814), and adjusting the target position for the next stroke (step 822).
Regarding claim 12, Favreau teaches an infusion pump apparatus including a pump motor and controller (see e.g. paragraph 23). As discussed above with respect to claim 1, Favreau also teaches the controller configuration of claim 12.
Regarding claim 14, Favreau teaches measuring, via the controller, an encoder position (at 812) and comparing it to a target position (at 814), and adjusting the target position for the next stroke (step 822) and to determine the overshoot or undershoot.
Regarding claim 19, Favreau teaches that the pulse cycle time is determined on a time period (i.e. duty cycle) associated with the infusion treatment.
Regarding claim 20, Favreau teaches measuring, via the controller, an encoder position (at 812) and comparing it to a target position (at 814), and adjusting the target position for the next stroke (step 822).
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) 2, 5-8, 13, and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Favreau in view of US Pre-Grant Publication 2014/0088554 to Li et al. (Li).
Regarding claim 2, Favreau teaches the limitations of claim 1 from which claim 2 depends, but does not teach an IV bag. Li teaches another medical pump system generally, and particularly teaches that fluid reservoirs may be formed of compliant materials in order to eliminate any need to prime the source (paragraphs 4 and 5). Those of ordinary skill in the art will appreciate that in this context, a fluid reservoir formed of compliant materials is equivalent to an IV bag. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the application to use an IV bag as the fluid source of Favreau in order to eliminate any need for priming.
Regarding claims 5, 13 and 16, Favreau teaches the limitations of claim 1 from which claim 5 depends, but does not teach a PID operating parameter or controller. Li teaches that an apparatus of this type may be controlled by a PID loop (paragraph 66) in order to maintain a target parameter constant. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the application to use a PID loop as taught by Li in the apparatus of Favreau to adjust and keep constant the delivery rate. Thus provided, adjustment of duty ratio as taught by Favreau is adjustment of voltage based on a calculated PWM voltage.
Regarding claims 6 and 17, a PID loop control as taught by Li by definition includes some form of gain coefficient (e.g. Kp), even if the values are simply 1.0.
Regarding claims 7 and 18, the examiner notes that a PWM voltage supply cannot exceed its supply voltage. That is, a PWM voltage supply has a maximum voltage at 100% duty ratio. Since it cannot exceed this level, any steps taken in response to a voltage exceeding it are not performed and are effectively optional. That said, determining the duty ratio to apply as taught by Li involves comparison in the form of establishing a percentage of 100% duty ratio.
Regarding claim 8, Li teaches comparing speed to a minimum speed (i.e. the target speed) and either increasing or decreasing the PWM voltage to cause the speed to approach the target speed (see paragraph 54).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2 October 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the argument that Favreau does not teach voltage adjustment, the examiner is not persuaded. As is known in the art, adjustment of the duty ratio, which is directly taught by Favreau, also adjusts the effective voltage as seen by the load. See for instance paragraph 5 of US Pre-Grant Publication 2006/0198166 to Hirono. The examiner finds no exclusion of an effective voltage level as experienced by the motor from the controlled “voltage level of the pulse”. The examiner also notes that, as used in the claim, the term “pulse” may refer either to a singular switching cycle of the inverter producing the PWM signal (that is, zero voltage to full voltage and back to zero) or to a set of such cycles performed sequentially. Accordingly, the examiner continues to hold that the claimed invention is anticipated and/or obvious as discussed above. The examiner is open to discussion of possible clarifying amendments and terminology relative to this argument via the standard interview process, including interviews prior to a Request for Continued Examination if desired.
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 PHILIP E STIMPERT whose telephone number is (571)270-1890. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8a-4p.
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, Chelsea Stinson can be reached at 571-270-1744. 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.
/PHILIP E STIMPERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3783 14 January 2026