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 .
Response to Arguments
I. Claim Objection
Applicant’s amendment to claim 20 has successfully overcome the previous objection. That objection is now withdrawn.
II. Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102
Applicant’s remarks concerning the § 102 rejections are persuasive in view of the claim amendments. Those rejections are now withdrawn.
III. Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103
No specific remarks were made concerning the § 103 rejections. Those rejections have been updated below in view of the claim amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2008/0221495 A1 to Steffens et al. (hereinafter “Steffens”) in view of US 2017/0100082 A1 to Mckeown et al. (hereinafter “Mckeown”).
Regarding Claims 1, 5, 19 and 20, 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 plurality of visual parameter arrays configured to display information relating to a plurality of parameters (see e.g representations of various parameters such as flow, pump speed, etc. in FIGS. 6-10) of the cardiac pump system;
wherein a first visual parameter array (e.g. “Flow” section in combination with the status bar 44 in FIGS. 6-10) of the plurality of visual parameter arrays includes a first visual parameter representation (e.g. one of the representations in the “Flow” section, such as the bar or the numerical display ) corresponding to a first parameter (e.g. flow) and a first plurality of status indicators (48+50+52, collectively 44), including at least a first status indicator (e.g. 48) corresponding to a first condition of the first parameter (see e.g. Para. 24 describing the normal/green status) and a second status indicator (e.g. 50) corresponding to a second condition of the first parameter (see e.g. Paras. 25-26 describing the alert/yellow status)
wherein the first plurality of status indicators are arranged at different positions along a first (see 48+50+52, collectively 44, in FIGS. 6-10);
wherein a change in the first parameter causes a change in position of an active status indicator (e.g. from 48 to 50, or from 50 to 52, etc.) along the first (see 48+50+52, collectively 44, in FIGS. 6-10 and Paras. 22-26)
Steffens fails to specifically teach:
(1) the status indicators are arranged along a vertical axis;
(2) wherein the first visual parameter representation is positioned along the first vertical axis between at least two of the first plurality of status indicators;
(3) fourth, fifth, and sixth status indicators corresponding to the second parameter (per claim 5).
Concerning (1) above, Steffens shows the status indicators 44 along a horizontal axis rather than a vertical axis. However, either a horizontal or vertical axis would achieve the same functionality. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of Applicant's effective filing date to modify Steffens to arrange the status indicators vertically instead of horizontally because choosing a vertical axis instead of Steffens’ horizontal axis would amount to a merely unpatentable aesthetic design choice with no change in functionality. See MPEP § 2144.04(I); additionally, or alternatively, such a modification would amount to a merely unpatentable re-arrangement of UI elements that achieves the exact same functionality.
Concerning (2) and (3) above, 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, and in which the parameter representation is between the status indicators (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. Mckeown doesn’t show the representation and status indicators all positioned on a “vertical axis” (e.g. each parameter having its own vertical axis) but such an arrangement would have been obvious for the reasons indicated in the paragraph immediately above.
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 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 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 10, the Examiner previously took official notice that icons are known GUI representations which are well known to be interchangeable with words or other representations as desired. Applicant’s subsequent reply did not traverse the Examiner's assertion of official notice; therefore, the facts under official notice are now taken to be admitted prior art. See MPEP § 2144.03(C). 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 Claim 11, see e.g. FIGS. 6-10 showing words used for parameter representations (e.g. “flow” or “pump speed”).
Regarding Claim 12, see e.g. pump speed in FIGS. 6-10.
Regarding Claims 13-18, these claims only recite additional 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). Additionally, or alternatively, the additional limitations in these claims amount to merely unpatentable re-arrangements of UI elements with no change in functionality.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Schwarz et al. ‘086: see e.g. the abstract, claim 1 and FIGS. 2-7.
Curran et al. ‘879: see e.g. the abstract and FIG. 1.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights