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 . Claims 1-16 are pending in this application.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 16 objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding Claim 1 the claim uses “a said” when referring to structures after the first recitation of the structure. This potentially leads to confusion in the claim. Proper language for reference to structure already established in the claim is “said” or “the”.
Regarding Claim 1, in Line 21 “a second connector” should be “said second connector”.
Regarding Claim 1, in line 15, “a body” should be “the body” to align with line 11 of claim 1.
Regarding Claim 1, in lines 27 and 28 “said port” should be “said at least one port”.
Regarding Claim 1, in Line 27 “a connected condition” should be “a second connected condition” to provide clarity that the connected condition is different from the “connected condition” in Lines 22-23.
Regarding Claim 1, in Line 28 “a medium through flow connection” should be “a second medium through flow connection” to provide clarity that the connected condition is different from the “medium through flow connection” in Line 24.
Regarding Claim 10, in Line 4 “a priming process” should be “the priming process”.
Regarding Claim 16, in Line 14 “a second instruction” should be “said second instruction”.
Regarding Claim 16, in Lines 3, 4 and 13, “a priming process” should be “the priming process”.
Appropriate correction is required.
It is noted that the claims contain a multitude of drafting errors/problems, which may be due to an error in translation. The above list is not meant to be exhaustive due to the condition of the claims. Examiner requests assistance in ensuring the drafting issues in the claims are addressed.
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 claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Such claim limitations are: “infusion means” in claims 1;
“transport means” in claims 1;
“inputting means” in claims 2 and 12;
“connecting means” in Claims 7 and 14;
“positioning means” in Claims 8 and 15;
“orienting means” in claims 8 and 15;
“outputting means” in claim 9;
“detection means” in Claim 15.
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) 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: “transport element” in claim 1;
“infusion element” in claim 1.
Because these claim limitation(s) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) they 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 these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (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 them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 12 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 1, the limitation
Regarding claim 12, the phrase "for example" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For the purposes of this examination the limitations following the phrase will not be considered a part of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 14, the phrase "optionally " renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For the purposes of this examination the limitations following the phrase will not be considered a part of the claimed invention.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the detection means" in Line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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) 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walsh (U.S. Patent No. 9,682,199), hereinafter Walsh, as evidenced by McLaughlin (U.S. Patent No. 8,310,415), hereinafter McLaughlin, in view of Sokolov (U.S. Patent No. 10,549,084), hereinafter Sokolov.
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Walsh discloses a system for selectively supplying at least one substance to a person (Figures 1-2) comprising:
a device, 110, for selectively supplying said at least one substance (Column 3, Lines 12-28 – the device is used to deliver a substance to a patient) contained in respective at least one reservoir (Column 3, Lines 12-28 – the cartridge of the device is a reservoir that contains the substance), said device comprising:
at least one receiving space for accommodating a said reservoir (Column 3, Lines 12-28 – the cartridge/reservoir is received in a space within the device),
at least one port (the opening of the cap, 150, is the at least one port) for connecting to a transport element, 180 and 210, and
a controller (Column 3, Lines 35-45 – the microprocessor is a controller for the device) for controlling said device such that a certain amount of a said substance is supplied and thereby infused into the body of the person (The limitation is a functional limitation which is performed by the claimed structure and does not imply any additional structure. The prior art discloses the claimed structure and thus would perform the same as the claimed structure thus meeting the functional limitation of the claim- Further Column 3, Lines 12-28 and 33-45 describe the microprocessor controlling the device/pump to provide the proper dosing to the patient and thus would control the device to provide a certain amount/dose of the substance),
- at least one infusion set, 180, 200, 210, a said at least one infusion set comprising:
- an infusion element, 200, comprising an infusion means for infusing a substance into a body of said person (Column 3, Lines 6-28 and 52-58 – the infusion element has a cannula that is inserted into the skin of the patient to provide the substance into the body), said infusion means comprising an inlet end for receiving said substance (Figure 1 – the infusion element, 200, has an inlet where the tubing from the connector, 210, will connect) and an outlet end for infusing said substance into said body (Column 3, Lines 6-28 and 52-58 – the infusion element has a cannula that has an outlet that provides the substance into the body of the patient), wherein said infusion element comprises a first connector, 200, for connecting to a second connector of a said transport element of the infusion set, 210, and
- a said transport element comprising a transport means, 180, a second connector, 210, arranged at an outlet end of the transport means (the second connector, 210, is at the end of the transport means, 180) that is connectable to a said first connector of a said infusion element (the second connector, 210, connects to the opposite connector, 200, which is the first connector of the infusion element) such that in a connected condition in which the second connector of the transport element is connected to the first connector of the infusion element a medium through flow connection is provided between the outlet end of the transport means and the inlet end of the infusion means for feeding the substance to the infusion means (Column 3, Lines 6-28 and 46-58 – the connection between the first connector and the second connector allow for the substance from the reservoir to flow through the tubing to the patient), and a third connector, 150, arranged at an inlet end of the transport means (the third connector, 150, is at the inlet end of the tube, 180) for connecting to a said port such that in a connected condition in which the third connector is connected to a said port a medium through flow connection is provided between a said reservoir accommodated in a said receiving space and the inlet end of the transport means for receiving a said substance from said reservoir (Column 3, Lines 6-28 and 46-58 – the connection from the third connector allows for the substance from the reservoir to flow through the tubing to the patient).
Walsh does not disclose wherein the following parts of the system are defined to form at least one pair:
at least one second connector with a respective third connector, wherein at least one said infusion set is provided;
and in that said device is arranged to detect and/or be inputted with information indicating that said at least one pair is formed, and that the controller is arranged to control the device such that a priming function can only be performed if it is detected and/or inputted that said at least one pair is formed.
However, Sokolov teaches a system (Abstract – Figs. 4C, 5A and 8C) with a connector, 130, for a providing a fluid connection between a delivery system and the patient (Abstract – Figs. 4C, 5A and 8C – the fluid to the transport means, 208, passes through the connector, 130) and another connector, 214, at the outlet of a transport means, 208, that are parts of the system that are defined to form at least one pair (Figure 8C – the two connectors are connected together to form a pair):
the second connector with another connector (Figure 8C – the two connectors are connected together to form a pair), wherein at least one set is provided (at least one set for providing the fluid is provided);
and in that said device is arranged to detect and/or be inputted with information indicating that said at least one pair is formed (Column 11, Lines 2-21 – a sensor is provided to detect that one pair is formed), and that a controller is arranged to control the device such that a priming function can only be performed if it is detected and/or inputted that said at least one pair is formed (Column 11, Lines 31-67 and Column 17, Lines 22-27 – the system has a processing unit/controller that controls the system to prime the system when the pair is detected).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Walsh by making the third connector such that is forms a pair with the second connector such that the following parts of the system are defined to form at least one pair: at least one second connector with a respective third connector, wherein at least one said infusion set is provided; and in that said device is arranged to detect and/or be inputted with information indicating that said at least one pair is formed, and that the controller is arranged to control the device such that a priming function can only be performed if it is detected and/or inputted that said at least one pair is formed, as taught by Sokolov, in order to allow for automatic priming for easier fluid injections (Sokolov – Column 2, Lines 8-10).
Regarding Claim 2, Walsh in view of Sokolov disclose the invention as claimed and discussed above. Walsh further discloses said device comprises an inputting means, 120, 130 and 140, for inputting said information indicating that said at least one pair is formed (Column 3, Lines 35-45 – the touch screen and buttons are inputting means for inputting information into the device - The limitation is a functional limitation which is performed by the claimed structure and does not imply any additional structure. The prior art discloses the claimed structure and thus would perform the same as the claimed structure thus meeting the functional limitation of the claim – Further, as evidenced by Column 2, Lines 9-22 and 42-61 of McLaughlin, which is incorporated by reference into Walsh, the screen and buttons allows information to be input into the device which would make the invention capable of performing the claimed function).
Regarding Claim 3, Walsh in view of Sokolov disclose the invention as claimed and discussed above. Sokolov further discloses said device is arranged to optically detect if said at least one pair is formed (Column 7, Lines 16-33 – the sensor that detects the pair is formed is an optical sensor).
Thus the combination of Walsh in view of Sokolov as discussed above would result in the limitations of Claim 3.
Regarding Claim 4, Walsh in view of Sokolov disclose the invention as claimed and discussed above. Sokolov further discloses at least one of the parts of said at least one pair comprises a detectable feature (Column 7, Lines 16-33 – the connector, 130, has the sensor, which is a detectable feature of the pair).
Thus the combination of Walsh in view of Sokolov as discussed above would result in the limitations of Claim 4.
Regarding Claim 5, Walsh in view of Sokolov disclose the invention as claimed and discussed above. Sokolov further discloses the parts of said at least one pair are arranged to be brought in contact with and/or connected to each other (Figure 8C – the two connectors/parts of the pair are configured such that they are both brough into contact with each other and connected to each other).
Thus the combination of Walsh in view of Sokolov as discussed above would result in the limitations of Claim 5.
Regarding Claim 6, Walsh in view of Sokolov disclose the invention as claimed and discussed above. Walsh in view of Sokolov, as discussed so far, do not disclose said parts are arranged to be brought in contact with and/or connected to each other in such a manner that said infusion element or infusion elements cannot be in a condition being able to infuse substance into the body.
However, Sokolov further teach the parts of said at least one pair are arranged to be brought in contact with and/or connected to each other (Figure 8C – the two connectors/parts of the pair are configured such that they are both brough into contact with each other and connected to each other) in such a manner that an infusion element or infusion elements cannot be in a condition being able to infuse substance into the body (Figure 8C – Column 11, Lines 31-67 – the connection between the two parts provides a connection of the transport means, 208, to a waste outlet, thereby making it such that an infusion element would not be connected to the transport means and thus not in a condition to infusion a substance into the body).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the invention of Walsh in view of Sokolov such that said parts are arranged to be brought in contact with and/or connected to each other in such a manner that said infusion element or infusion elements cannot be in a condition being able to infuse substance into the body, as taught by Sokolov, for the same reasons as discussed above for Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 7, Walsh in view of Sokolov disclose the invention as claimed and discussed above. Walsh in view of Sokolov, as discussed so far, do not disclose connecting means for connecting the parts of said at least one pair to each other and/or device.
However, Sokolov further teaches connecting means for connecting the parts of said at least one pair to each other (Figures 8C and 8D – the connection between the connector, 214, and connector, 130, is made by cooperating connecting means as shown specifically in Figure 8D).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the invention of Walsh in view of Sokolov to include connecting means for connecting the parts of said at least one pair to each other, as taught by Sokolov, for the same reasons as discussed above for Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 8, Walsh in view of Sokolov disclose the invention as claimed and discussed above. Walsh in view of Sokolov, as discussed so far, do not disclose positioning and/or orientating means for positioning and/or orientating said parts in a certain position and/or orientation with respect to each other and/or the device.
However, Sokolov further teaches positioning means (Figure 7A – the cooperating portion of the connector, 130, that is positioned between the cooperating portions, 60 and 214, of the connector, 214, make up the positioning means) for positioning said parts in a certain position with respect to each other (Figure 7A – the positioning means allows the positioning of the two connects such that the tubing, 208, and passageway, 58, are in alignment).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the invention of Walsh in view of Sokolov to include positioning means for positioning said parts in a certain position with respect to each other, as taught by Sokolov, for the same reasons as discussed above for Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 9, Walsh in view of Sokolov disclose the invention as claimed and discussed above. Walsh further discloses said device comprises an outputting means, 120, for outputting at least one instruction for the person (Column 3, Lines 33-45 – the screen displays information/instructions).
Regarding Claim 10, Walsh in view of Sokolov disclose the invention as claimed and discussed above. The limitations “the device is arranged to: - output a first instruction to the person to perform a priming process and/or be inputted by the person to start a priming process; - output a second instruction, said second instruction instructing the person to form said at least one pair, - detect and/or be inputted with information indicating that said at least one pair is formed; and - start the priming process after if it is detected or inputted that said at least one pair is formed” are functional limitations which is performed by the claimed structure and does not imply any additional structure. The prior art discloses the claimed structure, which in this case includes structure that is capable of outputting information/instructions, 120, detect a pair is made (the sensors for detecting a connection, as described in Sokolov) and thus would perform the same as the claimed structure thus meeting the functional limitations of the claim.
Regarding Claim 11, Walsh in view of Sokolov disclose the invention as claimed and discussed above. Walsh further discloses a use of the system according to Claim 1 (See rejection for Claim 1 above), comprising the steps of:
providing the system (Figure 1 – the system is provided).
Walsh in view of Sokolov as discussed so far, do not disclose b) forming said at least one pair; c) detecting and/or inputting information into the device indicating that said at least one pair is formed, and d) performing a priming process.
However, Sokolov further discloses b) forming said at least one pair (Figure 8C – the connector, 130, and connector, 214, form a pair); c) detecting information into the device indicating that said at least one pair is formed (Column 7, Lines 16-33 – the sensor detects that the pair is made and provides the information to the device), and d) performing a priming process (Column 11, Lines 31-67 – the system performs a priming process).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the invention of Walsh in view of Sokolov by including the steps of b) forming said at least one pair; c) detecting and/or inputting information into the device indicating that said at least one pair is formed, and d) performing a priming process, as taught by Sokolov, for the same reasons as discussed above for Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 12, Walsh in view of Sokolov disclose the invention as claimed and discussed above. Walsh further discloses wherein in step a) the system further comprises an inputting means, 120.
Walsh in view of Sokolov, as discussed so far, do not disclose the inputting means for inputting said information indicating that said at least one pair is formed, wherein step c) comprises the step of inputting said information indicating that said at least one pair is formed by using the inputting means.
However, Sokolov teaches an inputting means, 124, for inputting said information indicating that said at least one pair is formed (Column 6, Lines 49-63 – the inputting means is used for acknowledging that the connections/pair is formed), wherein step c) comprises the step of inputting said information indicating that said at least one pair is formed by using the inputting means (Column 6, Lines 49-63 – the inputting means is used for acknowledging that the connections/pair is formed).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the invention of Walsh in view of Sokolov by making the inputting means for inputting said information indicating that said at least one pair is formed, wherein step c) comprises the step of inputting said information indicating that said at least one pair is formed by using the inputting means, as taught by Sokolov, for the same reasons as discussed above for Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 13, Walsh in view of Sokolov disclose the invention as claimed and discussed above. Walsh in view of Sokolov, as discussed so far, do not disclose in step a) system said device said device is arranged to optically and/or electrically and/or electronically detect if said at least one pair is formed, wherein step d) comprises the step of optically and/or electrically and/or electronically detecting that said at least one pair is formed.
However, Sokolov teaches said device is arranged to optically detect if said at least one pair is formed (Column 7, Lines 16-33 – the sensor that detects the pair is formed is an optical sensor that is part of the system), and includes the step of optically detecting that said at least one pair is formed (Column 7, Lines 16-33 – the sensor that detects the pair is formed is an optical sensor that is part of the system).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Walsh in view of Sokolov such that in step a) system said device said device is arranged to optically detect if said at least one pair is formed, wherein step d) comprises the step of optically detecting that said at least one pair is formed, as taught by Sokolov, for the same reasons as discussed above for Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 14, Walsh in view of Sokolov disclose the invention as claimed and discussed above. Walsh in view of Sokolov, as discussed so far, do not disclose in step a) the parts of said at least one pair are arranged to be brought in contact with and/or connected to each other, wherein step b) is executed by bringing the parts into contact with each other and/or connecting the parts to each other.
However, Sokolov further teaches the parts of said at least one pair are arranged to be brought in contact with and/or connected to each other (Figure 8C – the two connectors/parts of the pair are configured such that they are both brough into contact with each other and connected to each other), wherein a step is executed by bringing the parts into contact with each other and/or connecting the parts to each other (Figure 8C – the two connectors/parts of the pair are configured such that they are both brough into contact with each other and connected to each other).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the invention of Walsh in view of Sokolov such that in step a) the parts of said at least one pair are arranged to be brought in contact with and/or connected to each other, wherein step b) is executed by bringing the parts into contact with each other and/or connecting the parts to each other, as taught by Sokolov, for the same reasons as discussed above for Claim 1.
Regarding claim 15, Walsh in view of Sokolov disclose the invention as claimed and discussed above. Walsh in view of Sokolov, as discussed so far, do not disclose in step a) the system further comprises positioning and/or orientating means for positioning and/or orientating said parts in a certain position and/or orientation with respect to each other and/or the device, wherein in step b) said parts are positioned an/or orientated in a certain position and/or orientation with respect to each other and/or the detection means using said positioning and/or orientating means.
However, Sokolov further teaches the system comprises positioning means (Figure 7A – the cooperating portion of the connector, 130, that is positioned between the cooperating portions, 60 and 214, of the connector, 214, make up the positioning means) for positioning said parts in a certain position with respect to each other (Figure 7A – the positioning means allows the positioning of the two connects such that the tubing, 208, and passageway, 58, are in alignment), wherein in a step said parts are positioned in a certain position with respect to each other using said positioning means (Figure 7A – the positioning means allows the positioning of the two connects such that the tubing, 208, and passageway, 58, are in alignment as shown in Figure 7A).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the invention of Walsh in view of Sokolov such that in step a) the system comprises positioning means for positioning said parts in a certain position with respect to each other, wherein step b) said parts are positioned in a certain position with respect to each other using said positioning means, as taught by Sokolov, for the same reasons as discussed above for Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 16, Walsh in view of Sokolov disclose the invention as claimed and discussed above. Walsh in view of Sokolov, as discussed so far, do not disclose in step a) a the system is arranged to: - output a first instruction to the person to perform a priming process and/or be inputted by the person to start a priming process; - output a second instruction, said second instruction instructing the person to form said at least one pair, - detect and/or be inputted with information indicating that said at least one pair is formed; and - start the priming process after if it is detected or inputted that said at least one pair is formed; further comprising the steps of: el) outputting a first instruction, said first instruction instructing the person to perform a priming process, and/or e2) inputting to start a priming process; f) outputting a second instruction, said second instruction instructing the person to form said at least one pair; wherein steps c) and d) are performed after steps el) and/or e2) and f).
However, Walsh teaches a step of the system is arranged to:
- output a first instruction to the person to perform a priming process (Column 5, Lines 31-38 – the device outputs instructions to the person and as evidenced by Column 2, Lines 9-22 and 42-61 of McLaughlin, which is incorporated by reference into Walsh, the system displays instructions that include the pump needing to be primed);
- output a second instruction, said second instruction instructing the person to form said at least one pair (Column 5, Lines 31-38 – the device displays the steps to perform the priming process which includes forming a pair of the connectors, 460 and 470),
- detect indicating that said at least one pair is formed (Column 5, Lines 8-38 – the system detects that a pair of connectors is formed); and
- start the priming process after if it is detected that said at least one pair is formed (Column 5, Lines 8-38 – the priming process is stated after the steps are completed which includes detecting that at least one pair is formed);
further comprising the steps of:
el) outputting a first instruction, said first instruction instructing the person to perform a priming process (Column 5, Lines 31-38 – the device outputs instructions to the person and as evidenced by Column 2, Lines 9-22 and 42-61 of McLaughlin, which is incorporated by reference into Walsh, the system displays instructions that include the pump needing to be primed);
f) outputting a second instruction (Column 5, Lines 31-38 – the device displays the steps to perform the priming process which includes forming a pair of the connectors, 460 and 470), said second instruction instructing the person to form said at least one pair (Column 5, Lines 31-38 – the device displays the steps to perform the priming process which includes forming a pair of the connectors, 460 and 470);
wherein steps of making a pair of connectors and priming are performed after el) and f) (Column 5, Lines 8-38 – the making of a pair of connectors and priming step will occur after a display of instructions of the steps to prime the system, which includes making the pair of connectors, thus those steps will occur after steps e1 and f).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the invention of Walsh in view of Sokolov by making in step a) the system is arranged to: - output a first instruction to the person to perform a priming process; - output a second instruction, said second instruction instructing the person to form said at least one pair, - detect information indicating that said at least one pair is formed; and - start the priming process after if it is detected or inputted that said at least one pair is formed; further comprising the steps of: el) outputting a first instruction, said first instruction instructing the person to perform a priming process; f) outputting a second instruction, said second instruction instructing the person to form said at least one pair; wherein steps c) and d) are performed after steps el) and f), as taught by Walsh, in order to allow the user to be reminded of the steps to be taken to initiate the priming process (Walsh – Column 5, Lines 31-38).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Damiano (U.S. Pre-grant Publication 2021/0030949) shows a system with a device that provides two different substances to a patient.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE ROBERT THOMAS whose telephone number is (571)272-4813. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-4pm EST.
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, Devon Kramer can be reached at (571)272-7118. 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.
/KYLE ROBERT THOMAS/Examiner, Art Unit 3741