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 .
Notice to Applicant
This communication is in response to the Request for Continued Examination (RCE) filed 8/14/16. Claims 1, 7, 11, 17, and 19 have been amended. Claims 6 and 16 are cancelled. Claims 1-5, 7-15, and 17-20 are pending.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7/6/26 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-5, 7-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 11-15, 17, and 18 are directed to a method (i.e., a process), claims 1-5 and 7-10 are directed to a system (i.e., a machine), and claims 19 & 20 are directed to a non-transitory machine-readable medium (i.e., a machine). Accordingly, claims 1-5, 7-15, and 17-20 are all within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A - Prong One:
Regarding Prong One of Step 2A, the claim limitations are to be analyzed to determine whether, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, they “recite” a judicial exception or in other words whether a judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claims. An “abstract idea” judicial exception is subject matter that falls within at least one of the following groupings: a) certain methods of organizing human activity, b) mental processes, and/or c) mathematical concepts.
Representative independent claim 11 includes limitations that recite at least one abstract idea. Specifically, independent claim 11 recites:
11. A machine-implemented method for automatic transferring infusion parameters between infusion devices, comprising, under control of one or more electronic devices: identifying that a new infusion device moved into a predetermined area associated with an active infusion device based on signals transmitted between the new and active infusion devices, the active infusion device currently performing an ongoing infusion of a medication to a patient; determining, responsive to identifying the new infusion device moving into the predetermined area with the active infusion device, that an orientation of the new infusion device is indicative of the new infusion device arriving to replace or supplement the active infusion device, the orientation being determined based on detecting a distance between the new infusion device and the active infusion device and detecting a motion of the new infusion device relative to the active infusion device and matching the distance and motion to a predetermined pattern associated with an intent to replace or supplement one infusion device with another; responsive to determining the orientation and matching the distance and motion to the predetermined pattern, automatically programming the new infusion device with settings currently being used by the active infusion device in the ongoing infusion of the medication to the patient, without user input of the settings; and activating the new infusion device to initiate a new infusion or to continue the ongoing infusion of the medication based on the automatically programmed settings.
The Examiner submits that the foregoing underlined limitations constitute “certain methods of organizing human activity” because identifying that a new infusion device moved into a predetermined area associated with an active infusion device; performing an ongoing infusion of a medication to a patient; determining, responsive to identifying the new infusion device moving into the predetermined area with the active infusion device, that an orientation of the new infusion device is indicative of the new infusion device arriving to replace or supplement the active infusion device, the orientation being determined based on detecting a distance between the new infusion device and the active infusion device and detecting a motion of the new infusion device relative to the active infusion device and matching the distance and motion to a predetermined pattern associated with an intent to replace or supplement one infusion device with another; responsive to determining the orientation and matching the distance and motion to the predetermined pattern, programming the new infusion device with settings currently being used by the active infusion device in the ongoing infusion of the medication to the patient; and activating the new infusion device to initiate a new infusion or to continue the ongoing infusion of the medication based on the settings amount to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions), at the currently claimed high level of generality.
Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
Step 2A - Prong Two:
Regarding Prong Two of Step 2A, it must be determined whether the claim as a whole integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. It must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
The limitations of claims 1, 11, and 19, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers certain methods of organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting one or more electronic devices, infusion devices, one or more processors, a non-transitory machine-readable medium, and an electronic device to perform the limitations, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being certain methods of organizing human activity. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers certain methods of organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the one or more electronic devices, infusion devices, one or more processors, non-transitory machine-readable medium, and an electronic device are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions of transmitting signals, identifying data, determining data, detecting, matching data, programming, and activating) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (see MPEP § 2106.05). Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Claims 2-5, 7-10, 12-15, 17, 18, and 20 are ultimately dependent from Claim(s) 1, 11, and 19 and include all the limitations of Claim(s) 1, 11, and 19. Therefore, claim(s) 2-5, 7-10, 12-15, 17, 18, and 20 recite the same abstract idea. Claims 2-5, 7-10, 12-15, 17, 18, and 20 describe further limitations regarding identify the new care area for the new infusion device; determine infusion pump parameters associated with the new care area; program the new infusion device with the infusion pump parameters associated with the new care area responsive to determining the orientation; wherein the infusion pump parameters include one or more hard or soft limits on one or more infusion settings corresponding to the settings currently being used by the active infusion device in the ongoing infusion of the medication to the patient; determine that the new infusion device is authorized for the new care area; determine that one or more parameters associated with the new infusion device are restricted from being used in the new care area; providing a request to confirm override of on the restriction; receiving a confirmation to override the restriction; programming, responsive to receiving the confirmation, the new infusion device administer the medication in the new care area according to the one or more parameters without the restriction; identify a third infusion device in the predetermined area; determining the distance and motion is more aligned with replacing or supplementing the active infusion device than the third infusion device; confirmation to program the new infusion device with parameters for the patient; wherein the settings currently being used by the active infusion device in the ongoing infusion of the medication to the patient are automatically transferred; and identify the new and active infusion devices in the predetermined area and configured to determine the orientation of the new infusion device. These are all just further describing the abstract idea recited in claims 1, 11, and 19, without adding significantly more. In particular, the user interface, locator device, server, and memory are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions of displaying data, prompting, identifying/determining data, and transferring data) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Step 2B:
Regarding Step 2B, independent claims 1, 11, and 19 do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for reasons the same as those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations directed to signals transmitted between devices, all of which the Examiner submits merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea or are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality), the Examiner further submits that such steps are not unconventional as they merely consist of receiving and transmitting data over a network. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
The dependent claims do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the dependent claims do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Therefore, claims 1-5, 7-15, and 17-20 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Subject Matter Free of Prior Art
The closest prior art of record, Bazargan et al. (WO 2021/262475 A1) and Tieck et al. (US 2016/0015957 A1), do not teach or fairly suggest in independent claims 1, 11, and 19: determine, responsive to identifying the new infusion device moving into the predetermined area with the active infusion device, that an orientation of the new infusion device is indicative of the new infusion device arriving to replace or supplement the active infusion device, the orientation being determined based on detecting a distance between the new infusion device and the active infusion device and detecting a motion of the new infusion device relative to the active infusion device and matching the distance and motion to a predetermined pattern associated with an intent to replace or supplement one infusion device with another; responsive to determining the orientation and matching the distance and motion to the predetermined pattern, automatically program the new infusion device with settings currently being used by the active infusion device in the ongoing infusion of the medication to the patient, without user input of the settings.
Dependent claims 2-5, 7-10, 12-15, 17, 18, and 20 are free of prior art, through dependency.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/6/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments will be addressed hereinbelow in the order in which they appear in the response filed 7/6/26.
(1) Reconsideration and withdrawal of the § 101 rejection are respectfully requested.
(A) As per the first argument, see 101 rejection above. The Examiner submits that the foregoing underlined limitations in the 101 rejection above constitute “certain methods of organizing human activity” because identifying that a new infusion device moved into a predetermined area associated with an active infusion device; performing an ongoing infusion of a medication to a patient; determining, responsive to identifying the new infusion device moving into the predetermined area with the active infusion device, that an orientation of the new infusion device is indicative of the new infusion device arriving to replace or supplement the active infusion device, the orientation being determined based on detecting a distance between the new infusion device and the active infusion device and detecting a motion of the new infusion device relative to the active infusion device and matching the distance and motion to a predetermined pattern associated with an intent to replace or supplement one infusion device with another; responsive to determining the orientation and matching the distance and motion to the predetermined pattern, programming the new infusion device with settings currently being used by the active infusion device in the ongoing infusion of the medication to the patient; and activating the new infusion device to initiate a new infusion or to continue the ongoing infusion of the medication based on the settings amount to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions), at the currently claimed high level of generality. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the one or more electronic devices, infusion devices, one or more processors, non-transitory machine-readable medium, and an electronic device are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions of transmitting signals, identifying data, determining data, detecting, matching data, programming, and activating) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Regarding the additional limitations directed to signals transmitted between devices, all of which the Examiner submits merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea or are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality), the Examiner further submits that such steps are not unconventional as they merely consist of receiving and transmitting data over a network. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). Furthermore, Applicant argues features that have not been claimed (e.g., machine-implemented medical-device control sequence and applying machine-detected spatial and motion conditions). In addition, note that the independent claims lack detail regarding the specific technology used to perform the steps of the claims. For example, claim 1 merely recites a generic “one or more processors,” claim 11 recites a generic “one or more electronic devices,” and claim 19 recites a generic “electronic device” used to perform the steps.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LENA NAJARIAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7072. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30 am-6 pm.
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, Mamon Obeid can be reached at (571)270-1813. 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.
/LENA NAJARIAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3687
Prosecution Insights