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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group 1, claims 1-10, in the reply filed on 14 May 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 11- 23 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-10 are objected to because of the following informalities: claim 1 recites “indictor” instead of –indicator—in e.g. line 7. Various other claims contain the same misspelling and are not enumerated here. 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.
Claim(s) 1, 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pre-Grant Publication 2002/0183585 to Willems et al. (Willems hereinafter) in view of US Pre-Grant Publication 2015/0105701 to Mayer et al. (Mayer).
Regarding claim 1, Willems teaches a perfusion system comprising a device hub (20) configured to provide an indication (i.e. signals on 30a or 30b) that the hub is communicatively connected to an accessory device (any of 50a-g), and to provide a plurality of status indicators (see e.g. paragraph 74, “message priority… may be based on the logical address”) indicating a message without obtaining the contents thereof. Willems further teaches that the hub is configured to receive the indications (see paragraph 79), monitor the hub for the indicators, obtain the indicators (see again paragraph 79), select a first accessory device (e.g. bearing a safety message category C), obtain the contents of the message and adjust operation parameters of the pump device (paragraph 80). Willems, as previously discussed, teaches a perfusion device, not an infusion device. Mayer teaches another medical device generally and particularly teaches that an accessory may provide an infusion pump (see e.g. paragraph 240) which is controlled by electronic messages. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the application to use an infusion pump as taught by Mayer with the perfusion system of Willems in order to controllably medicate the patient as is commonly understood in the art regarding infusion systems.
Regarding claim 6, Willems teaches multiple messages which are identified based on their logical address, or status indicator (paragraph 74). Willems teaches that if a second message has a lower address (i.e. higher priority) it will be opened first without opening the first message.
Regarding claim 7, Willems teaches operational adjustment, and Mayer teaches infusion adjustment based on messages. Furthermore, at least during processing of the second message, Willems teaches ignoring the first message.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-5 and 8-10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
In claim 2, the provision of setup parameters via the device hub
In claim 4, the determining of priority based on a determined treatment profile
In claim 5, the authentication sensor and authentication value determination
In claim 8, the reception and provision of accessory parameters independent of the infusion device
In claim 9, the index of prioritization scheme based on a type of a first device, a type of a second device, and a treatment profile
The above features are not shown in or fairly suggested by the prior art of record in combination with the remaining limitations of those claims.
Conclusion
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 21 August 2026
Prosecution Insights