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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph [0001] should be amended to include the patent number and issue date of parent application 17,546,367.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 18, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
-Claim 1, line 11: please correct “to operation” to “to the operation”
-Claim 1, line 16: please correct “limits” to “limit”
-Claim 1, line 17: please correct “limits have” to “limit has”
-Claim 18, line 3: please correct “and” to “or”
-Claim 18, line 5: please correct “and” to “or”
-Claim 20, line 1: please correct “the transitioning” to “the transition”
-Claim 20, line 5: please correct “and” to “or”
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 14-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 13-19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,964,124 in view of Rebours (US 2008/0269678 A1).
Claim 13 of US Patent No. 11,964,124 teaches all of the features of claim 14 of the instant application, except operating an infusion pump coupled to the first and second fluid containers/syringes. However, Rebours teaches a computer-implemented method (see Fig. 1, par. [0023]-[0024]) comprising operating an infusion pump (see par. [0024], drivers 22+23 can be a pump) coupled to the first and second fluid containers/syringes (containers 24+26) (see par. [0023]-[0024]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify claim 13 of US Patent No. 11,964,124 to include operating an infusion pump coupled to the first and second fluid containers/syringes, as taught by Rebours, in order to provide the mechanism or force to deliver the fluid from the fluid containers/syringes (see Rebours par. [0023]-[0024]).
Claim 15 of the instant application is further recited in claim 14 of 11,964,124.
Claim 16 of the instant application is further recited in claim 15 of 11,964,124.
Claim 17 of the instant application is further recited in claim 16 of 11,964,124.
Claim 18 of the instant application is further recited in claim 17 of 11,964,124.
Claim 18 of the instant application is further recited in claim 18 of 11,964,124.
Claim 18 of the instant application is further recited in claim 19 of 11,964,124.
Claim 19 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,964,124. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 19 of the instant application is anticipated by claim 20 of US 11,964,124.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 are allowable over the prior art (note: claims 14-19 have double patenting rejections as described above).
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
In regards to independent claim 1, the prior art of record fails to disclose or render obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the system as claimed, specifically including the combination of the "processor configured to: receive one or more measurements for a patient vital sign; compare the one or more measurements to a first monitoring limit during operation of the first fluid container and without operation of the second fluid container; set a second monitoring limit for the patient vital sign that is more sensitive than the first monitoring limit during a transition period from the operation of the first fluid container to operation of the second fluid container; compare the one or more measurements to the second monitoring limit during the transition period; after disconnecting the first fluid container, returning to the first monitoring limit for the operation of the second fluid container; and cause the display to present an indication that one of the first monitoring limits or the second monitoring limits have been exceeded". The closest prior art of record is Fujii et al. (EP 2623141 A1) and Halbert et al. (US 2007/0299389 A1). Fujii teaches a system (see Figs. 1-2B) comprising: two fluid containers (pumps A and B) each containing a medication (see par. [0016]); a display (display unit 311); and a processor configured to: transition from operation of the first fluid container (pump A) to operation of the second fluid container (pump B) (see Fig. 1, see par. [0018]-[0020]); and generate an alert (see par. [0084]-[0085]). Halbert teaches a system (see Figs. 1-2) comprising a processor configured to: receive one or more patient vital signs having first monitoring limits during initial operation of the pump (see par. [0065]); set second monitoring limits of the one or more patient vital signs more sensitive than the first monitoring limits later in the operation of the pump (see par. [0065]); and generate an alert that one of the first monitoring limits or the second monitoring limits have been exceeded (see par. [0065]). However, neither Fujii nor Halbert teach that the processor is configured to: receive one or more measurements for a patient vital sign; compare the one or more measurements to a first monitoring limit during operation of the first fluid container and without operation of the second fluid container; set a second monitoring limit for the patient vital sign that is more sensitive than the first monitoring limit during a transition period from the operation of the first fluid container to operation of the second fluid container; compare the one or more measurements to the second monitoring limit during the transition period; after disconnecting the first fluid container, returning to the first monitoring limit for the operation of the second fluid container; and cause the display to present an indication that one of the first monitoring limits or the second monitoring limits have been exceeded.
Dependent claims 2-13 are allowable by virtue of their dependency on allowable claim 1.
In regards to independent claim 14, the prior art of record fails to disclose or render obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the computer-implemented method as claimed, specifically including the combination of the "receiving, from one or more vital sign monitors, one or more patient vital signs having first monitoring limits during dispensing the medical fluid from the first fluid container only; setting, by a processor, second monitoring limits of the one or more patient vital signs more sensitive than the first monitoring limits during a transition period from dispensing the medical fluid from the first fluid container only to dispensing the medical fluid from the second fluid container only; and generating an alert that one of the first monitoring limits or the second monitoring limits have been exceeded". The closest prior art of record is Fujii et al. (EP 2623141 A1) and Halbert et al. (US 2007/0299389 A1). Fujii teaches a computer-implemented method (see Figs. 1-2B) comprising: operating an infusion pump (pump housing) coupled to two fluid containers (pumps A and B) each containing a medication (see par. [0016]); a display (display unit 311); and transitioning from dispensing the medication from the first fluid container (pump A) to dispensing the medication from the second fluid container (pump B) (see Fig. 1, see par. [0018]-[0020]); and generating an alert (see par. [0084]-[0085]). Halbert teaches a computer-implemented method (see Figs. 1-2) comprising receiving, from one or more vital sign monitors, one or more patient vital signs having first monitoring limits during initial operation of the pump (see par. [0065]); setting, by a processor, second monitoring limits of the one or more patient vital signs more sensitive than the first monitoring limits later in the operation of the pump (see par. [0065]); and generating an alert that one of the first monitoring limits or the second monitoring limits have been exceeded (see par. [0065]). However, neither Fujii nor Halbert teach receiving, from one or more vital sign monitors, one or more patient vital signs having first monitoring limits during dispensing the medical fluid from the first fluid container only; setting, by a processor, second monitoring limits of the one or more patient vital signs more sensitive than the first monitoring limits during a transition period from dispensing the medical fluid from the first fluid container only to dispensing the medical fluid from the second fluid container only; and generating an alert that one of the first monitoring limits or the second monitoring limits have been exceeded.
Dependent claims 15-18 are allowable over the prior art by virtue of their dependency on allowable claim 14.
In regards to independent claim 19, the prior art of record fails to disclose or render obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the infusion pump as claimed, specifically including the combination of the "receive one or more patient vital signs having first monitoring limits; set second monitoring limits of the one or more patient vital signs more sensitive than the first monitoring limits during a transition from administering a medical fluid from a first fluid container coupled to the infusion pump to administering the medical fluid from a second fluid container coupled to the infusion pump; and provide an alert that one of the first monitoring limits or the second monitoring limits have been exceeded". The closest prior art of record is Fujii et al. (EP 2623141 A1) and Halbert et al. (US 2007/0299389 A1). Fujii teaches an infusion pump (see Figs. 1-2B) comprising processing circuitry and non-transitory machine-readable media, the non-transitory machine-readable media storing instructions that, when executed by the processing circuitry cause the processing circuitry to: transition from administering a medication from a first fluid container (pump A) coupled to the infusion pump (pump housing) to dispensing the medication from a second fluid container (pump B) coupled to the infusion pump (pump housing) (see Fig. 1, see par. [0018]-[0020]); and provide an alert (see par. [0084]-[0085]). Halbert teaches an infusion pump (see Figs. 1-2) comprising processing circuitry and non-transitory machine-readable media, the non-transitory machine-readable media storing instructions that, when executed by the processing circuitry cause the processing circuitry to: receive one or more patient vital signs having first monitoring limits during initial operation of the pump (see par. [0065]); set second monitoring limits of the one or more patient vital signs more sensitive than the first monitoring limits later in the operation of the pump (see par. [0065]); and provide an alert that one of the first monitoring limits or the second monitoring limits have been exceeded (see par. [0065]). However, neither Fujii nor Halbert teach receive one or more patient vital signs having first monitoring limits; set second monitoring limits of the one or more patient vital signs more sensitive than the first monitoring limits during a transition from administering a medical fluid from a first fluid container coupled to the infusion pump to administering the medical fluid from a second fluid container coupled to the infusion pump; and provide an alert that one of the first monitoring limits or the second monitoring limits have been exceeded.
Dependent claim 20 is allowable over the prior art by virtue of its dependency on allowable claim 19.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AVERY SMALE whose telephone number is (571)270-7172. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 8-4 ET.
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, Kevin Sirmons can be reached at (571) 272-4965. 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.
/AVERY SMALE/Examiner, Art Unit 3783
/KAMI A BOSWORTH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3783
Prosecution Insights