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. Information Disclosure Statement Examiner notes: the Som et al. reference in the IDS filed on 10/11/2024 is listed incorrectly. Examiner provided the correct number above it. 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. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the appl icant regards as his invention. Claim(s) 1-13, 26-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 1 recites the limitation " the operation of a pump" in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 2-13 and 26-30 are rejected by virtue of depending on claim 1. Claim 4 recites the limitation " the controller" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Regarding claim 4, the phrase "the controlled operation of the pump" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether this limitation is the same as or different from the limitation “the operation of a pump” previously recited in claim 1. For the purpose of compact prosecution, they are interpreted to be the same. Regarding claim 5, the phrase "an operator" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether this limitation is the same as or different from the limitation “ an operator ” previously recited in claim 4 . For the purpose of compact prosecution, they are interpreted to be the same. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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. 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 – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale , or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 1-3, 6-7, 9-13, 26-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Som et al. (US 2019/0131009). Regarding claim 1 , Som discloses A system (100, figs. 1A-6 and pars. 0036-0063) for controlling an administration of a vasopressor agent (Examiner notes: the limitation “for controlling an administration of a vasopressor agent” is interpreted as functional limitation, and the limitation “a vasopressor agent” is not positively recited in claim 1. See par. 00 02 for the system being adaptive drug delivery system by auto-regulating the administration of fluids, medications, gases, and other substances for the treatment of patients. Therefore, system 100 is capable of auto-regulating the administration of vasopressor agent . See also par. 0059 disclosing the system delivering and dosing blood pressure medications ) comprising: at least one processing unit ( 116, fig. 1A and par s . 0036 and 0046-0048 ) ; and at least one non-transitory computer-readable memory (memory of 104 , pars. 0013 and 0046 ) communicatively coupled to the at least one processing unit (116) and comprising computer-readable program instructions executable by the at least one processing unit (par. 0036. See also fig. 2 and pars. 0044-0048 for how the system 100 monitoring vital levels of patient 110) for: receiving, by the at least one processing unit (116) , a current arterial pressure of a patient (See par. 0015 for sensor 1 8 2 of system 100 monitoring the patient’s blood pressure . See also fig. 6 and pars. 0055-0057 providing an example of system 100 used to monitor and alter the blood pressure of patient 650. See par . 0058 disclosing system being utilized to continuously or periodically measure patient inputs or vital signs via sensor 108 including but not limited to blood pressure ) ; determining, with the at least one processing unit (116) , based on a profile of the patient ( from electronic health record HER 126, par. 0045 ) , the profile including a lower pressure threshold and an upper pressure threshold (target parameters/target levels in pars. 0015-0017. See fig. 6 and par. 0057 providing an example of system 100 with target levels of blood pressure being set by care giver 102 or an AI component of system 100) , a dose parameter to be adjusted as a function of at least the current arterial pressure and a target arterial pressure (see pars. 0015-0017, see fig. 2 and pars. 0044-0048, and see also fig. 6 and par. 0057 providing an example of system 100 adjusting the patient’s blood pressure levels based on the actual blood pressure values and the desired blood pressure values) , and further as a function of the current arterial pressure relative to the lower pressure threshold and the upper pressure threshold (see pars. 0015-0017, see fig. 2 and pars. 0044-0048, and see also fig. 6 and par. 0057 providing an example of system 100 adjusting the patient’s blood pressure levels based on the actual blood pressure values and the desired blood pressure values) ; and controlling, with the at least one processing unit (116) , the operation of a pump (pars. 0038 and 0057) administering the vasopressor agent as a function of the dose parameter (Examiner notes: “the vasopressor agent” is not positively recited in claim 1. See fig. 6 and par. 0057 providing an example of system 100 controlling an operation of a pump to administering a blood pressure medication based on the actual blood pressure values and the desired blood pressure values) ; wherein the receiving, determining and controlling are performed continuously by the at least one processing unit (see figs. 2 and 6. See also par s . 0017, 0047, and 0058) . Regarding claim 2 , Som discloses The system of claim 1, wherein the profile of the patient includes a dosage range for the dosage parameter (see pars. 0015-0017 for the target parameters/target levels and see fig. 6 and par. 0057 for an example of system 100 with blood pressure range between 130/80 and 160/90) . Regarding claim 3 , Som discloses The system of claim 2, further comprising a system management device configured for selectively setting the dosage range, the system receiving the dosage range selectively set by an operator via the system management device (see pars. 0045-0046 for the dosage range being set based on patient-specific data) . Regarding claim 6 , Som discloses The system of claim 1, including adjusting the dose parameter as a function of a current measurement associated with the patient other than the current arterial pressure (see pars. 0045-0046 for the dosage range being set based on patient-specific data) . Regarding claim 7 , Som discloses The system of claim 1, including adjusting the dose parameter as a function of a point- of-care device measurement (see pars. 0045-0046 for the dosage range being set based on patient-specific data) . Regarding claim 9 , Som discloses The system of claim 1, wherein the system is communicatively coupled to a database (database of mobile electronic device in par. 0016) and the receiving of the arterial pressure is via the database (see par. 0016) . Regarding claim 10 , Som discloses The system of claim 1, further comprising an administration assistance system (administration assistance system of EHR system shown in fig. 1B) communicatively coupled to the at least one processing unit (116) , wherein the computer-readable program instructions are updated by the administration assistance system based on the profile of the patient (see figs. 1A-2 and pars. 0045-0046) . Regarding claim 1 1 , Som discloses The system of claim 1, further comprising a patient monitoring device (sensor module 108) communicatively coupled to the at least one processing unit (116) to send the current arterial pressure of the patient to the at least one processing unit (see fig. 2 and par. 0040 and 0044 ) . Regarding claim 12 , Som discloses The system of claim 1, further comprising the pump (pars. 0038 and 0057) , the pump being operatively connected to the at least one processing unit (see figs. 1A-2 and pars. 0038 and 0057) . Regarding claim 13 , Som discloses The system of claim 1, wherein the at least one processing unit (116) and the at least one non-transitory computer-readable memory (memory of 104, pars. 0013 and 0046) form a controller module of the system (104, see fig. 1A) . Regarding claim 26 , Som discloses The system according to claim 1, wherein determining the dose parameter includes modifying a dose rate as a function of a location of the current arterial pressure relative to the lower pressure threshold and the upper pressure threshold (see par s. 0047-0048 for the actual values of the physiological parameters of the patient are continuously compared with the target parameters to adjust the therapeutic supply. See also fig. 6 and par. 0057 providing an example of system 100 adjusting the patient’s blood pressure levels based on the actual blood pressure values and the desired blood pressure values) . Regarding claim 27 , Som discloses The system according to claim 26, wherein the lower pressure threshold and the upper pressure threshold delimit a lower zone and an upper zone respectively (target parameters/target levels in pars. 0015-0017. See fig. 6 and par. 0057 providing an example of system 100 with target levels of blood pressure being set by care giver 102 or an AI component of system 100) , with a target zone between the lower zone and the upper zone, and wherein modifying a dose rate includes modifying the dose rates as a function of the zones (see pars. 0047-0048 for the system adjusting the therapeutic supply based on the actual acquired parameters compared with the target parameters ) . Regarding claim 28 , Som discloses The system according to claim 1, wherein the lower pressure threshold and the upper pressure threshold are associated with a hypotension condition (Examiner notes: see par. 0045-0046 for the dosage range being set based on patient-specific data. The limitation “determining the lower pressure threshold and the upper pressure threshold” is interpreted as functional limitation. Therefore, depending on patient-specific data, the care provider can set the thresholds associated with a hypotension condition of the patient) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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. 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) 4-5, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Som et al. (US 2019/0131009) in view of Hayes et al. (US 2004/0111079) . Regarding claim 4 , Som discloses t he system of claim 1, as set forth above, except for further comprising a switch operatively connected between the controller and the pump configured for selectively overriding the controlled operation of the pump the system receiving overriding instructions from an operator via the switch. However, Hayes teaches a delivery system with an override switch (767, fig. 7) incorporated within the system to allow the pump to be manually operated (par. 0063). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Som system by adding an override switch, as taught by Hayes, for the purpose of allowing the pump to be manually operated as desired (par. 0063 of Hayes). Regarding claim 5 , Som in view of Hayes discloses t he system of claim 4 , Hayes further teaches wherein the switch is configured for selectively setting the dose parameter upon the controlled operation of the pump being overridden the system receiving a dose parameter setting from an operator via the switch (see par. 0063). Regarding claim 8 , Som discloses t he system of claim 1, as set forth above, except for wherein the system is communicatively coupled to a system management device, the system triggering an alarm via the system management device upon the current arterial pressure exiting a target pressure range inclusive of the target arterial pressure. However, Hayes teaches a delivery system communicatively coupled to a system management device, the system triggering an alarm via the system management device upon the current arterial pressure exiting the limits (pars. 0062-0063). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Som system by adding an alarm, as taught by Hayes, for the purpose of making the user aware that the limits have been reached (par. 0061 of Hayes). Claim (s) 29-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Som et al. (US 2019/0131009) in view of Lee et al. (US 2012/0323170). Regarding claim 29 , Som discloses the system according to claim 1. Som is silent about a network comprising a plurality of systems, a central controller comprising at least one processing unit, and at least one non-transitory computer-readable memory communicatively coupled to the at least one processing unit and comprising computer-readable program instructions executable by the at least one processing unit for: receiving data from the plurality of the systems, and outputting a suggested dose parameter specific to a patient associated with any one of the plurality of the system, for a specific one of the plurality of the system to control the operation of the pump based on the suggested dose parameter. However, Lee teaches a network (10, fig. 1) comprising a plurality of pump systems (14a-14c), a central controller (1 6 ) comprising at least one processing unit ( processing unit of 16 since 16 is a desktop computer, cell phone, PDA, tablet or the like – par. 0035 ) , and at least one non-transitory computer-readable memory (19) communicatively coupled to the at least one processing unit (see fig. 1 and pars. 0035-0041) and comprising computer-readable program instructions (see fig. 4) executable by the at least one processing unit for: receiving data from the plurality of the systems (see fig. 4) , and outputting a suggested dose parameter specific to a patient associated with any one of the plurality of the system, for a specific one of the plurality of the system to control the operation of the pump based on the suggested dose parameter (see fig. 4) . It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Som system by adding a network, as taught by Lee, for the purpose of providing a network allowing the nurse or other health care to deliver medicines to multiple patients. Regarding claim 30 , Som in view of Lee discloses the network according to claim 29, Som further discloses wherein the controller is further for training a machine-learning module from said data, whereby the suggested dose parameter is from a trained algorithm of the machine-learning module (see pars. 0045-0046 for the dosage range being set based on patient-specific data) . It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the central controller to have machine-learning module, as taught by Som, for the purpose of providing the nurse or other health care with a suitable range of treatment for a specific patient. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO 892 form . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT DUNG T ULSH whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-9894 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Friday 9am-6pm . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Bhisma Mehta can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-3383 . 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. /DUNG T ULSH/ Examiner, Art Unit 3783 /ALIREZA NIA/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3786