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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 objected to because of the following informalities: "rhtough" should be "through". 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) 1-2, 6, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yaegashi (US 2008/0319544) in view of Pereira (US 2018/0361055).
Regarding claim 1, Yaegashi teaches a control method of an injection pump control system, comprising:
when a control switch is detected as being connected, a monitoring controller of a dual controller unit turning on a power source to start supplying power (monitor controller 13 turns on source to supply power through power circuit 18 as in par. [0032]);
a master controller of the dual controller unit transmitting communication signals to the monitoring controller (controller with processor 8 controls monitor controller 13), and controlling a data acquisition unit to collect operational data of an injection pump and determining whether the injection pump is operating normally according to the operational data (data exchanged between the monitor device and the controller as in Fig. 2 regarding pump as in par. [0032]), and controlling an alarm module of the injection pump to alarm when an abnormality is found (alarm circuit 20 controlled);
the monitoring controller continuously obtaining communication signals transmitted by the master controller (controller 13 obtains communication signals by the master controller 8), and cutting off the supply of power of the power source and transmitting an alarm signal when the communication signal is abnormal (par. [0047] abnormal state results in an alarm, so the user can act), and the alarm module alarming according to the alarm signal (alarm 20 alarming according to signal as in par. [0047]).Yaegashi is not explicit regarding the cutoff of the supply of power triggering an emergency source to be turned on to supply power to the alarm module.However, Pereira teaches backup power in case of power failure or disconnection (par. [0100]).It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Yaegashi with the power backup of Pereira to allow for backup power in case of failure.
Regarding claim 2, Yaegashi teaches wherein the data acquisition unit comprises a pressure detection sensor (par. [0028] pressure monitored) and an injection position detection device (rotation data as in par. [0045]);
controlling the data acquisition unit to collect operational data (par. [0028]) of the injection pump comprising:
detecting a pressure of a driving device on an injector of the injection pump through the pressure detection sensor (par. [0028]), and detecting an injection status of the injector through the injection position detection device (par. [0045] rotation data determining the state of the device).
Regarding claim 6, Yaegashi teaches an injection pump control system comprising:
a dual controller unit (processors 13 and 8), a dual power source unit (power circuits 12 and 18), a data acquisition unit (detector 30), a button control unit (interface unit 5 having buttons) and alarm module (alarm 20); wherein the dual controller unit comprises a monitoring controller and a master controller (master controller 8 and monitoring controller 13), and the dual power source unit comprises a power source (12);
the monitoring controller is connected to the master controller (13 connected to 8), the power source (18), the button control unit and the alarm module (module 20), respectively; the master controller is connected to the data acquisition unit (8 connected to 30), and the alarm module (8 connected to 20), respectively;
the button control unit comprises a control switch (switches as in par. [0028]), and the monitoring controller is connected to the control switch (8 connected to 5 as in at least Fig. 2), the monitoring controller turning on the power source to start supplying power when the control switch is connected (monitor controller 13 turns on source to supply power through power circuit 18 as in par. [0032]);
the master controller is configured to transmit communication signals to the monitoring controller (as in at least Fig. 2), and controls the data acquisition unit to collect operational data of the injection pump and determines whether the injection pump is operating normally according to the operational data (par. [0047] abnormal state results in an alarm, so the user can act), and controls the alarm module to alarm when an abnormality is found (alarm 20 alarming according to signal as in par. [0047]);
the monitoring controller continuously obtains the communication signals transmitted by the master controller (par. [0032]).Yaegashi is not explicit regarding an emergency source, the emergency source is connected to the power source and the alarm module, respectively. Yaegashi is further not explicit wherein the controller cuts off the supply of power of the power source and transmits an alarm signal when the communication signal is abnormal, wherein the cutoff of the supply of power triggers the emergency source to be turned on to supply power to the alarm module, and the alarm module alarms according to the alarm signal.However, Pereira teaches backup power in case of power failure or disconnection (par. [0100]).It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Yaegashi with the power backup of Pereira to allow for backup power in case of failure.
Regarding claim 10, Yaegashi teaches an injection pump (pump 1) comprising an injection pump control system as in claim 6 (see the above rejection).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yaegashi (US 2008/0319544) in view of Pereira (US 2018/0361055), in further view of Tashiro (WO 2015/012006).
Regarding claim 3, Yaegashi is not explicit regarding wherein the method further comprises:
when it is detected that a master control line of the injection pump is connected to a radio frequency host, the master controller controlling input equipment of the injection pump to stop responding to input operations and execute instructions transmitted by the radio frequency host.However, Tashiro teaches switching from wired to wireless communications (73a that switches between the wireless communication operation of the wireless communication).It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Yaegashi with the switching of Tashiro to prevent accidental control.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yaegashi in view of Pereira, in view of Tashiro, in view of Sutter (US 2021/0138163).
Regarding claim 4, Yaegashi is not explicit wherein the method further comprises:
when it is detected that a mute button is pressed, the master controller detecting a current output sound signal and correspondingly cutting off an output of the sound signal.However, Sutter teaches muting the sound level of alarms via a button to avoid confusion during a procedure (par. [0246]).It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art would modify Yaegashi with the mute functionality of Sutton, in order to reduce sound of various alerts to avoid confusion during a procedure.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yaegashi in view of Pereira, in view of Tashiro, in view of Sutter, in further view of Saadat (US 2019/0307331).
Regarding claim 5, Yaegashi is not explicit wherein before cutting off the supply of power of the power source and transmitting the alarm signal, the method further comprises:controlling a motor of the injection pump to gradually stop running according to a preset gradual-stop mode.However, Saadat teaches adjusting fluid flow by slowing a pump to cease fluid flow into the patient (par. [0113]).It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Yaegashi with the slowing/stopping of the pump as in Saadat, as a known way to stop fluid flow.
Claim(s) 7 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yaegashi in view of Pereira, in further view of Saadat.
Regarding claim 7, Yaegashi is silent wherein the monitoring controller and the master controller are respectively connected to a motor of the injection pump;
the monitoring controller is configured to control the motor to gradually stop running according to a preset gradual-stop mode when the communication signal is abnormal; and
the master controller is configured to control an operating status of the motor according the operational data of the injection pump collected by the data acquisition unit.However, Saadat teaches adjusting fluid flow by slowing a pump to cease fluid flow into the patient (par. [0113]).It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Yaegashi with the slowing/stopping of the pump as in Saadat, as a known way to stop fluid flow.
Regarding claim 11, Yaegashi teaches an injection pump (pump 1) comprising an injection pump control system as in claim 7 (see the above rejection).
Claim(s) 8 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yaegashi in view of Pereira, in further view of Saadat, in view of Tashiro.
Regarding claim 8, Yaegashi teaches wherein the master controller is further connected to a master interface of the injection pump (user interface 5 for pump 1), but is silent regarding the master controller is configured to control input equipment of the injection pump to stop responding to input operations and obtain instructions output by a radio frequency host when it is detected that the master interface is connected to the radio frequency host through a master control line.However, Tashiro teaches switching from wired to wireless communications (73a that switches between the wireless communication operation of the wireless communication).It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Yaegashi with the switching of Tashiro to prevent accidental control.
Regarding claim 12, Yaegashi teaches an injection pump (pump 1) comprising an injection pump control system as in claim 8 (see the above rejection).
Claim(s) 9 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yaegashi in view of Pereira, in further view of Saadat, in view of Tashiro, in view of Sutter.
Regarding claim 9, Yaegashi is not explicit regarding a mute switch, the master controller connected to the mute switch, when the mute switch is connected, the master controller detects a current output sound signal and correspondingly cuts off an output of the sound signal.However, Sutter teaches muting the sound level of alarms via a button to avoid confusion during a procedure (par. [0246]).It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art would modify Yaegashi with the mute functionality of Sutton, in order to reduce sound of various alerts to avoid confusion during a procedure.
Regarding claim 13, Yaegashi teaches an injection pump (pump 1) comprising an injection pump control system as in claim 9 (see the above rejection).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BO OUYANG whose telephone number is (571)272-8831. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 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, Joanne Rodden can be reached at 303-297-4276. 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.
/BO OUYANG/Examiner, Art Unit 3794
/MICHAEL F PEFFLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3794
Prosecution Insights