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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the display” in the third-to-last line should read “the first display” to be in proper antecedent form. The Examiner notes that this is not an indefiniteness issue (and thus does not give rise to a 112(b) rejection) since within the context of the claim it is clear that “the display” is in fact referring to the first display (specifically because the claim earlier specified that the “visual parameter arrays” are on the first display). Nevertheless, to help avoid any confusion and to present the limitation in a more proper form, appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-4, 8-9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by US 2008/0221495 A1 to Steffens et al. (hereinafter “Steffens”).
Regarding Claim 1, Steffens teaches a cardiac pump system (see e.g. Para. 18), comprising:
a cardiac pump (see e.g. Para. 18) coupled to a console (10), the console comprising:
a first display (main screen 38, shown in e.g. FIGS. 6-10) including a first visual representation (see e.g representations of various parameters such as flow, pump speed, etc. in FIGS. 6-10) of a first parameter (see e.g representations of various parameters such as flow, pump speed, etc. in FIGS. 6-10) of the cardiac pump system;
wherein the first display includes a first status indicator (48) and a second status indicator (50) corresponding to the first parameter;
wherein the first display is configured to display the first status indicator (48) when the first parameter satisfies a first condition (see e.g. Para. 24 describing the normal/green status), and wherein the first display is configured to display the second status indicator (50) when the first parameter satisfies a second condition (see e.g. Paras. 25-26 describing the alert/yellow status).
Regarding Claim 2, see second display (settings display 40) in FIG. 5.
Regarding Claim 3, see e.g. Paras. 27-28 describing the alarm/red status, and third indicator (52).
Regarding Claim 4, as seen in e.g. FIGS. 6-10, multiple representations of multiple parameters (e.g. flow + pump speed) are shown.
Regarding Claim 8, see e.g. Para. 19 describing the general processing aspects of the console. The updating of status indicators 48+50+52 is discussed in e.g. Paras. 24-28.
Regarding Claim 9, the first display (38) is not dependent on the second display (40) for its ongoing display, e.g. if display 40 has some malfunction, there is no indication that display 38 could not show information. As such, this limitation is met.
Regarding Claim 11, see e.g. FIGS. 6-10 showing words used for parameter representations (e.g. “pump speed”).
Regarding Claim 12, see e.g. pump speed in FIGS. 6-10.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 5-7, 10 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steffens in view of US 2017/0100082 A1 to Mckeown et al. (hereinafter “Mckeown”).
Regarding Claim 5, Steffens teaches that the first display includes representations of first and second parameters as discussed above. However, Steffens’ status indicators 48+50+52 are shared for all parameters, and thus Steffens fails to teach fourth, fifth, and sixth status indicators corresponding to the second parameter. However, this arrangement of indicators was known in the art in a similar context. Mckeown shows a GUI having simultaneous display of multiple parameters which each have their own status indicators of normal/green, alert/yellow, and alarm/red (see e.g. FIG. 4 and Paras. 65-68). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of Applicant's effective filing date to modify Steffens to provide three status indicators for each parameter, akin to that shown in Mckeown, because doing so would advantageously allow for multiple statuses to be evaluated more conveniently and quickly.
Regarding Claim 6, Steffens describes that when one status indicator is enabled, the other two can be disabled (unlit or colorless). See e.g. Para. 24: “As shown, illumination of the green light bar 48 of the system status indicator 42 indicates all systems are functioning normally and (as applicable) safety devices are enabled. In this normal state, light bars 50 and 52 are unlit or colorless” and Para. 25: “illumination of the yellow light bar 50 of the system status indicator 42, as illustrated. Light bars 48 and 52 are preferably unlit or colorless, as illustrated” and Para. 27: “illumination of the red light bar 52 of the system status indicator 42, as illustrated. Light bars 48 and 50 are preferably unlit or colorless, as illustrated.”
Regarding Claim 7, as discussed above, both Steffens and Mckeown show different colors (green, yellow and red) for three different statuses.
Regarding Claim 10, the Examiner takes official notice that icons are known GUI representations which are well known to be interchangeable with words or other representations as desired. Furthermore, using an icon as the visual representation amounts to a merely unpatentable aesthetic design choice. See MPEP § 2144.04(I). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of Applicant's effective filing date to further modify Steffens to have the first visual representation include an icon since it was a known suitable representation for use in a GUI, and/or because it would amount to a merely unpatentable aesthetic design choice.
Regarding Claims 13-18, these claims only recite purely aesthetic modifications, specifically the positioning and/or alignment of visual features in the GUI, and thus merely recite limitations that are unpatentable aesthetic design choices. See MPEP § 2144.04(I).
Regarding Claim 19, in addition to what was discussed with regard to claim 1 above (some of which is shared with claim 19), this claim only adds purely aesthetic modifications, specifically concerning the alignment and motion of visual features, and thus merely recite limitations that are unpatentable aesthetic design choices. See MPEP § 2144.04(I).
Regarding Claim 20, in addition to what was discussed with regard to claims 1 and 2 above (some of which is shared with claim 20), this claim only adds purely aesthetic modifications, specifically concerning the alignment of visual features, and thus merely recite limitations that are unpatentable aesthetic design choices. See MPEP § 2144.04(I).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN R DOWNEY whose telephone number is (571)270-7247. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-5:00pm 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, NIKETA PATEL can be reached at (571)-272-4156. 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.
/JOHN R DOWNEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3792