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
Claims 1-2, 5, 9, 12-13, 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In lines 4, 6, 7, 10 of claim 1, please spell out what “/” means.
In the last 3 lines of claim 1, “used for at least one of (i)… (ii)…or (iv)..etc. it is unclear if there (iii) is messed or just a typo. The examiner will interpret as a typo.
In line 3 of claim 2, please spell out what “/” means.
In line 2 of claim 5, please spell out what “/” means.
In line 2 of claim 9, please spell out what “/” means.
In lines 5, 7 of claim 12, please spell out what “/” means.
In lines 1, 4 of claim 13, please spell out what “/” means.
In the last 3 lines of claim 13, “used for at least one of (i)… (ii)…or (iv)..etc. it is unclear if there (iii) is messed or just a typo. The examiner will interpret as a typo.
In lines 3, 5 of claim 15, please spell out what “/” means.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 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 "logic" in line 6. It is unclear if it means “an instruction stored in the control unit or it mean a logical comparison element. Note: for the purpose of examination the examiner will interpret the limitation such as “an instruction logarithm stored inside the control unit or stored a smart phone ” see ¶0032-¶0036 of the current specification.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "an application" in line 2. It is unclear if it means “a graphical user interface stored in the smart phone” or it means “the smart phone can be used as a tool for an entry input in the control unit ”. Note: for the purpose of examination the examiner will interpret the limitation such as “graphical user interface stored in the smart phone” see ¶0023 of the current specification.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "logic" in line 8. It is unclear if it means “an instruction stored in the control unit or it mean a logical comparison element. Note: for the purpose of examination the examiner will interpret the limitation such as “an instruction logarithm stored inside the control unit or stored a smart phone ” see ¶0032-¶0036 of the current specification.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "smart device" in line 1. It is unclear if it is referring to the limitation in line 3 of claim 12 or it is referring to new limitation . Note: for the purpose of examination the examiner will interpret the limitation is referring to the limitation in claim 12..
Claim 15 recites the limitation "an application" in line 3. It is unclear if it means “a graphical user interface stored in the smart device” or it means “the smart device can be used as a tool for an entry input in the control unit ”. Note: for the purpose of examination the examiner will interpret the limitation such as “graphical user interface stored in the smart phone” see ¶0023 of the current specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 10-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yu et al. (US 20100010423 A1 )(“Yu”).
Re claim 1, Yu discloses a peritoneal dialysis ("PD") system (Figs. 1-29, abstract, ¶0064) comprising: a PD machine (10) including a control unit storing a treatment prescription (APD controller, ¶0086) that provides at least one parameter for performing a PD treatment using the PD machine (¶0018); at least one sensor having an output indicative of a fluid/caloric intake by a PD patient (UF line by measuring fill and drain fluid volumes, ¶0082, ¶0174 or feature 22 /bio-impedance sensor, ¶0069, ¶0182, ¶0220, it is senses weight or blood pressure ¶00220); and logic configured to determine that the PD patient has performed a fluid/caloric intake based on the output from the at least one sensor (¶0010, ¶0200), the determination of the fluid/caloric intake used for at least one of (i) choosing one of a plurality of treatment prescriptions stored by the control unit for an upcoming treatment (¶0028, ¶0200), (ii) determining if a treatment prescription needs updating (¶0200), or (iv) developing a fluid/caloric intake trend (¶0024).
Re claim 2, Yu discloses which includes a cloud/mobile network in operable communication with the control unit (¶0011, ¶0068), and wherein the logic is implemented at the cloud/mobile network (¶0068).
Re claim 3, Yu discloses wherein the logic is implemented at the control unit of the PD machine (¶0011, ¶0126).
Re claim 4, Yu discloses which includes a smart device in operable communication with the at least one sensor (¶0068, cell phone), the smart device including an application configured to cooperate with the at least one sensor (¶0068, communication and software).
Re claim 5, Yu discloses wherein the application is configured to at least one of(i) provide information to the PD patient concerning the fluid/caloric intake and/or operation of the at least one sensor (¶0068, ¶0067, ¶0086) or (ii) receive information from the PD patient concerning the fluid/caloric intake (¶0068, ¶0067, ¶0086).
Re claim 6, Yu discloses wherein the logic is implemented by the application (¶0068).
Re claim 7, Yu discloses wherein the at least one sensor is configured to be worn by the PD patient (can be with blood pressure cuff that can be worn, ¶0182).
Re claim 10, Yu discloses which is configured to prompt the PD patient to perform a reference fluid/caloric intake to obtain a reference output from the at least one sensor (¶0068, ¶0136).
Re claim 11, Yu discloses wherein the reference fluid/caloric intake is of a known quantity, and wherein the logic is configured to determine a quantity of the fluid/caloric intake that the PD patient has consumed by comparing the output from the at least one sensor to the reference output and knowing the known quantity (¶0136).
Re claim 12, Yu discloses a peritoneal dialysis ("PD") system (Figs. 1-29, abstract, ¶0064) comprising: at least one sensor (UF line by measuring fill and drain fluid volumes, ¶0082, ¶0142, or feature 22 /bio-impedance sensor, ¶0069, ¶0182, ¶0220, it is senses weight or blood pressure ¶00220); a PD machine (10) including a control unit (APD controller, ¶0086), the control unit or a patient smart device (¶0068, cell phone) in communication with the control unit (¶0068) configured to prompt a PD patient to perform a reference fluid/caloric intake (target amount, ¶0144) to obtain a reference output from the at least one sensor (¶0068, ¶0142, ¶0144), the reference output including a known intake quantity (target amount, ¶0144); and logic configured to determine a quantity of a fluid/caloric intake that the PD patient has consumed by comparing an output from the at least one sensor (¶0010, ¶0200) to the reference output and knowing the known quantity (¶0144).
Re claim 13, Yu discloses wherein the determination of the quantity of the fluid/caloric intake is used for at least one of (i) choosing one of a plurality of treatment prescriptions stored by the control unit for an upcoming treatment (¶0028, ¶0200), (ii) determining if a treatment prescription needs updating (¶0200), or (iv) developing a fluid/caloric intake trend (¶0024).
Re claim 14, Yu discloses wherein the logic is implemented at (i) a cloud/mobile network in operable communication with the control unit (¶0011, ¶0068) or (ii) the control unit of the PD machine (¶0011, ¶0068).
Re claim 15, Yu discloses which includes a smart device (¶0068, cell phone) in operable communication with the at least one sensor (¶0068), the smart device including an application configured to at least one of the application is configured to at least one of(i) provide information to the PD patient concerning the fluid/caloric intake and/or operation of the at least one sensor (¶0068, ¶0067, ¶0086) or (ii) receive information from the PD patient concerning the fluid/caloric intake (¶0068, ¶0067, ¶0086).
Re claim 16, Yu discloses wherein the logic is implemented by the application (¶0068).
Re claim 17, Yu discloses wherein the at least one sensor is configured to be worn by the PD patient (can be with blood pressure cuff that can be worn, ¶0182).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 8-9, 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu in view of Plahey et al. (US 20190083692 A1) (“ Plahey”).
Re claim 8, Yu fails to disclose wherein the at least one sensor includes at least one of a motion sensor, microphone or blood sugar sensor.
However, Plahey discloses a PD dialysis (Fig. 1-5) and wherein the at least one sensor includes at least one of a motion sensor, microphone or blood sugar sensor (340 can be a motion sensor or a microphone/audio sensor, ¶0041).
Thus, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modify the at least one sensor of Yu so that the at least one sensor includes at least one of a motion sensor, microphone or blood sugar sensor as taught by Plahey for the purpose of using an art recognizing sensor for improving the dialysis treatment (Plahey, ¶0041).
Re claim 9, Yu fails to disclose wherein an output from the motion sensor is used to detect a fluid/caloric intake movement and an output from the microphone is used to detect a swallowing sound.
However, Plahey discloses a PD dialysis (Fig. 1-5) and wherein the at least one sensor includes at least one of a motion sensor, microphone or blood sugar sensor (340 can be a motion sensor or a microphone/audio sensor, ¶0041) and wherein an output from the motion sensor is used to detect a fluid/caloric intake movement (flow rate, ¶0041)and an output from the microphone is used to detect a swallowing sound.
Thus, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modify the at least one sensor of Yu so that an output from the motion sensor is used to detect a fluid/caloric intake movement and an output from the microphone is used to detect a swallowing sound as taught by Plahey for the purpose of using an art recognizing sensor for improving the dialysis treatment (Plahey, ¶0041).
Re claim 18, Yu fails to disclose wherein the at least one sensor includes at least one of a motion sensor, microphone or blood sugar sensor.
However, Plahey discloses a PD dialysis (Fig. 1-5) and wherein the at least one sensor includes at least one of a motion sensor, microphone or blood sugar sensor (340 can be a motion sensor or a microphone/audio sensor, ¶0041).
Thus, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modify the at least one sensor of Yu so that the at least one sensor includes at least one of a motion sensor, microphone or blood sugar sensor as taught by Plahey for the purpose of using an art recognizing sensor for improving the dialysis treatment (Plahey, ¶0041).
Re claim 19, Yu fails to disclose wherein an output from the motion sensor is used to detect a fluid/caloric intake movement.
However, Plahey discloses a PD dialysis (Fig. 1-5) and wherein the at least one sensor includes at least one of a motion sensor, microphone or blood sugar sensor (340 can be a motion sensor or a microphone/audio sensor, ¶0041) and wherein an output from the motion sensor is used to detect a fluid/caloric intake movement (flow rate, ¶0041)and an output from the microphone is used to detect a swallowing sound.
Thus, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modify the at least one sensor of Yu so that an output from the motion sensor is used to detect a fluid/caloric intake movement as taught by Plahey for the purpose of using an art recognizing sensor for improving the dialysis treatment (Plahey, ¶0041).
Re claim 20, Yu fails to disclose wherein an output from the microphone is used to detect a swallowing sound.
However, Plahey discloses a PD dialysis (Fig. 1-5) and wherein the at least one sensor includes at least one of a motion sensor, microphone or blood sugar sensor (340 can be a motion sensor or a microphone/audio sensor and it capable to detect sound such as swallowing sound ¶0041).
Thus, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modify the at least one sensor of Yu so that the at least one sensor includes at least one of a motion sensor, microphone or blood sugar sensor as taught by Plahey for the purpose of using an art recognizing sensor for improving the dialysis treatment (Plahey, ¶0041).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAMZA A. DARB whose telephone number is (571)270-1202. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-5:00 M-F (EST).
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, Chelsea Stinson can be reached at (571) 270-1744. 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.
/HAMZA A DARB/ Examiner, Art Unit 3783
/CHELSEA E STINSON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3783
Prosecution Insights