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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/28/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because in FIG. 4, there is a box at the bottom of the drawing enclosing the sequence “2P3331/2P3332”. It is not clear to the examiner what this sequence is to represent, nor is it discussed in the specification. The examiner suggests removing the box from the drawings, or clarifying its significance in the specification.
The drawings are objected to because in FIG. 5, the reference numbers for “PCA pump” and “LVP pump” have been swapped. FIG. 5 incorrectly uses reference number 108 for “LVP pump” and reference number 102 for “PCA pump”. The examiner suggest switching the numbers to align with that stated in previous drawings and the specification.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation is:
The recitation, in claims 1 and 17, of “a communication interface configured to communicatively couple to each of the PCA pump and the infusion pump” has been interpreted as structurally an element capable of detecting how many pump stages are connected in series, providing connectivity between pumps provided in the pump stages, providing connectivity between the pumps in the pump stages and a network, and enabling the pumps to communicate with each other via USB connections, Ethernet connections, CAN connections, and/or serial connections ([0044]).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim 3 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 3 recites the limitation "the event message" in the second line of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 1, 5, 11-12, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamen et al. (United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2012/0185267 A1; herein, Kamen), and further in view of Halbert et al. (United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2007/0299389 A1; herein, Halbert) and Gray et al. (United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2015/0088094 A1; herein, Gray).
Regarding claim 1, Kamen discloses a system for intravenously or epidurally administering pain medication (FIG. 8, electronic patient-care system 800), the system comprising:
a pump configured to deliver a pain medication to a patient (FIG. 8, infusion pump 810. It is commonly understood by one of ordinary skill in the art that an infusion pump can be filled with any fluid for infusing into a patient, including liquid pain medication.);
an infusion pump configured to deliver a fluid to the patient (FIG. 8, infusion pump 830); and
a hub device (FIG. 8, hub 802) including at least one pump stage with connectors (FIG. 8, device docks 804) that enable the pump and the infusion pump to be removably connected to the hub device ([0370], [0375], a patient-care device, such as infusion pumps 810,830, can be plugged in, received, or docked to the device dock 804), the hub device including:
a communication interface configured to communicatively couple to each of the PCA pump and the infusion pump ([0367], “the hub 802 provides a communications interface between the monitoring-client dock 102 and device docks 804”. When infusion devices 810,830 are docked on dock 804, they are coupled to communications interface by way of dock 804.), and
a processor communicatively coupled to the communication interface ([0399], “a processor within a hub”).
Kamen does not explicitly disclose a patient-controlled analgesia ("PCA") pump, and the processor configured to: determine the PCA pump and the infusion pump are both communicatively connected to the communication interface, enable the PCA pump and the infusion pump to communicate with each other for a pain medication therapy, and enable the infusion pump to deliver the fluid to the patient when the infusion pump detects a period between periodic PCA pump boluses.
However, Halbert teaches a patient-controlled analgesia (“PCA”) pump (FIG. 1 and FIG. 2, patient-controlled analgesia ("PCA") pump 38). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pump disclosed by Kamen to specifically be a patient-controlled analgesia (“PCA”) pump as taught by Halbert in order to infuse the contents of a syringe into a patient as requested by the patient ([0031]).
Kamen in view of Halbert still does not disclose the processor configured to: determine the PCA pump and the infusion pump are both communicatively connected to the communication interface, enable the PCA pump and the infusion pump to communicate with each other for a pain medication therapy, and enable the infusion pump to deliver the fluid to the patient when the infusion pump detects a period between periodic PCA pump boluses. However, Gray teaches the processor (fluid flow manager 215 (215-1 and 215-2)) configured to: determine the PCA pump and the infusion pump are both communicatively connected to the communication interface ([0089], fluid flow manager 215 manages the delivery operations that are to be performed by each of the one or more fluid delivery pumps 225), enable the PCA pump and the infusion pump to communicate with each other for a pain medication therapy ([0092], fluid flow manager 215 generates control signals for the multiple pumps in a manner specific to the patient), and enable the infusion pump to deliver the fluid to the patient when the infusion pump detects a period between periodic PCA pump boluses ([0094], fluid flow manager 215 collects feedback from pumps that can be taken to modify infusion schedule). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the processor disclosed by Kamen to enable the pumps to communicate as taught by Gray in order to control a flow of fluid outputted from each of one or more fluid delivery pumps ([0090]).
Regarding claim 5, in the modified system of Kamen, Kamen discloses the communication interface is further configured to provide at least one of a controller area network ("CAN") connection, an Ethernet connection, a serial connection, or a universal serial bus ("USB") connection between the PCA pump and the infusion pump ([0375]), “Additionally or alternatively, the device dock 804, the hub 802, and/or the monitoring client 1 communicate with each other using wired connections. Each of the hub 802, and the docks 804 and 806 may communicate with each other using, for example, a USB cable, an Ethernet cable, and/or via a wireless link.”).
Regarding claim 11, in the modified system of Kamen, the primary embodiment of Kamen does not disclose an intravenous ("IV") y-connector with an outlet end connected to the patient, a first inlet end connected to the PCA pump, and a second inlet end connected to the infusion pump. However, an alternative embodiment of Kamen teaches an intravenous ("IV") y-connector with an outlet end connected to the patient, a first inlet end connected to the PCA pump, and a second inlet end connected to the infusion pump (Annotated on FIG. 7 below, inlets are connected to infusion pump 7 and syringe pump 126, and outlet ends connected to patient 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified system disclosed by Kamen to incorporate an intravenous y-connector with an outlet connected to the patient and inlets connected to pumps as taught by an alternative embodiment of Kamen in order to minimizes that number of tubes connected to the patient (FIG. 7) while also making it easier to stop delivery of fluid if necessary ([0348]).
PNG
media_image1.png
375
391
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, in the modified system of Kamen, the primary embodiment of Kamen does not disclose the infusion pump includes at least one of a syringe pump, a linear peristaltic pump, a large volume pump ("LVP"), an ambulatory pump, or a multi-channel pump. However, an alternative embodiment of Kamen teaches the infusion pump includes at least one of a syringe pump, a linear peristaltic pump, a large volume pump ("LVP"), an ambulatory pump, or a multi-channel pump (FIG. 19, large volume pump 1406). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified system disclosed by Kamen to include a large volume pump as taught by the alternative embodiment of Kamen in order to hold more fluid within the infusion pump.
Regarding claim 17, Kamen discloses a hub apparatus (FIG. 8, hub 802) configured to connect to (i) pump for delivering a pain medication to a patient (FIG. 8, infusion pump 810. It is commonly understood by one of ordinary skill in the art that an infusion pump can be filled with any fluid for infusing into a patient, including liquid pain medication.), and (ii) an infusion pump for delivering a fluid to the patient (FIG. 8, infusion pump 830), the hub apparatus comprising:
a pump stage with connectors (FIG. 8, device docks 804) that enable each of the PCA pump and the infusion pump to be removably connected to the hub apparatus ([0370], [0375], a patient-care device, such as infusion pumps 810,830, can be plugged in, received, or docked to the device dock 804);
a communication interface configured to communicatively couple to each of the PCA pump and the infusion pump ([0367], “the hub 802 provides a communications interface between the monitoring-client dock 102 and device docks 804”. When infusion devices 810,830 are docked on dock 804, they are coupled to communications interface by way of dock 804.); and
a processor communicatively coupled to the communication interface ([0399], “a processor within a hub”).
Kamen does not disclose a patient-controlled analgesia (“PCA”) pump, and the processor configured to: determine the PCA pump and the infusion pump are both communicatively connected to the communication interface, enable the PCA pump and the infusion pump to communicate with each other for a pain medication therapy, and enable the infusion pump to deliver the fluid to the patient when the infusion pump detects a period between periodic PCA pump boluses.
However, Halbert teaches a patient-controlled analgesia (“PCA”) pump (FIG. 1 and FIG. 2, patient-controlled analgesia ("PCA") pump 38). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pump disclosed by Kamen to specifically be a patient-controlled analgesia (“PCA”) pump as taught by Halbert in order to infuse the contents of a syringe into a patient as requested by the patient ([0031]).
Kamen in view of Halbert still does not disclose the processor configured to: determine the PCA pump and the infusion pump are both communicatively connected to the communication interface, enable the PCA pump and the infusion pump to communicate with each other for a pain medication therapy, and enable the infusion pump to deliver the fluid to the patient when the infusion pump detects a period between periodic PCA pump boluses. However, Gray teaches the processor (fluid flow manager 215 (215-1 and 215-2)) configured to: determine the PCA pump and the infusion pump are both communicatively connected to the communication interface ([0089], fluid flow manager 215 manages the delivery operations that are to be performed by each of the one or more fluid delivery pumps 225), enable the PCA pump and the infusion pump to communicate with each other for a pain medication therapy ([0092], fluid flow manager 215 generates control signals for the multiple pumps in a manner specific to the patient), and enable the infusion pump to deliver the fluid to the patient when the infusion pump detects a period between periodic PCA pump boluses ([0094], fluid flow manager 215 collects feedback from pumps that can be taken to modify infusion schedule). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the processor disclosed by Kamen to enable the pumps to communicate as taught by Gray in order to control a flow of fluid outputted from each of one or more fluid delivery pumps ([0090]).
Regarding claim 18, in the modified system of Kamen, Kamen discloses the communication interface is further configured to provide at least one of a controller area network ("CAN") connection, an Ethernet connection, a serial connection, or a universal serial bus ("USB") connection between the PCA pump and the infusion pump ([0375]), “Additionally or alternatively, the device dock 804, the hub 802, and/or the monitoring client 1 communicate with each other using wired connections. Each of the hub 802, and the docks 804 and 806 may communicate with each other using, for example, a USB cable, an Ethernet cable, and/or via a wireless link.”).
Regarding claim 19, in the modified system of Kamen, Kamen discloses a network connectivity stage configured to house the communication interface and the processor (FIG. 8, [0373], “the hub 802 includes all of the safety-critical circuitry and software for communicating with the monitoring client 1”. It is commonly understood that components of the communications interface and processor are housed within the hub 802 as the hub 802 is the main point for connection between all components of the assembly. Therefore, one having ordinary skill in the art would be able to label the point of connection for the communications interface and processor as “a network connectivity stage”.).
Regarding claim 20, in the modified system of Kamen, Kamen discloses the pump stage is removably connected to the network connectivity stage and when connected, the pump stage is communicatively coupled to the network connectivity stage ([0375], Dock 804 is connected to hub 802, which houses network connectivity stage, either by wireless connections using antenna 816 or wired connections. It would be commonly understood that dock 804 can be removably connected to hub 802 by shutting off power to dock 804 or disconnecting wires.).
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamen in view of Halbert and Gray as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Krogh (United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2012/0310204 A1).
Regarding claim 2, in the modified system of Kamen, Kamen does not disclose the infusion pump is configured to detect the period between periodic PCA pump boluses using an event message received from the PCA pump, the event message indicative that the PCA pump is to administer or has administered a bolus of the pain medication. However, Krogh teaches the infusion pump is configured to detect the period between periodic PCA pump boluses using an event message received from the PCA pump ([0033], First fluid delivery system 110 has a receiver 136 and the second fluid delivery system 112 has a transmitter 180. A signal prior to initiation of the second fluid delivery system 112 to change fluid delivery is sent from the transmitter 180 and received by receiver 136.), the event message indicative that the PCA pump is to administer or has administered a bolus of the pain medication ([0033], “the second fluid delivery system 112, and in particular the transmitter 180, may be configured to provide a signal prior to initiation of the second fluid delivery system 112 to change fluid delivery to the patient 102”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified infusion pump disclosed by Kamen to detect an event message regarding a bolus from the PCA pump as taught by Krogh in order for fluid communication between the two pumps ([0033]).
Regarding claim 3, in the modified system of Kamen, Kamen does not disclose the PCA pump generates the event message after reaching a programmed scheduled bolus or receiving an input from a patient controller. However, Krogh teaches the PCA pump generates the event message after reaching a programmed scheduled bolus or receiving an input from a patient controller ([0028], The first and second fluid delivery systems 110,112 are configured to delivery fluid at separate flow rates. Therefore, the signal sent from the second fluid delivery system has been programmed to provide a bolus at a specific rate.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified PCA pump disclosed by Kamen to generate an event message after reaching a programmed schedule bolus as taught by Krogh in order to avoid preemptively sending an alert ([0033]).
Regarding claim 4, in the modified system of Kamen, Kamen does not disclose the infusion pump is further configured to detect the period between periodic PCA pump boluses after receiving a bolus schedule that is indicative of times that the PCA pump is to administer a bolus of the pain medication. However, Krogh teaches the infusion pump is further configured to detect the period between periodic PCA pump boluses after receiving a bolus schedule that is indicative of times that the PCA pump is to administer a bolus of the pain medication ([0037], information regarding the first medication delivered to the patient 102 by the first fluid delivery system 110 and the delivery rate of the first medication may be communicated from the first delivery system 110 to the second delivery system 112. Delivery rate may include timestamp information.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified infusion pump disclosed by Kamen to detect periodic bolus information as taught by Krogh in order to inform the infusion pump of unsafe times to activate infusion ([0030]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamen in view of Halbert and Gray as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Callicoat et al. (United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2013/0297222 A1; herein, Callicoat).
Regarding claim 6, in the modified system of Kamen, Kamen does not disclose the fluid is saline. However, Callicoat teaches the fluid is saline ([0071], saline is part of the first disposable subsystem 408 as it may contact fluids). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified system disclosed by Kamen to include saline as taught by Callicoat in order to periodically clean tubular components of the infusion system.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-10 and 13-16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record fails to disclose or make obvious the claimed invention including the following features:
Regarding claim 7, an infusion pump that can detect its removal from a hub device and cause an alert to be generated regarding the disconnection.
Regarding claim 8, an infusion pump that can detect a removal of a PCA pump from a hub device or receive a message indicative that a PCA pump has been removed, and cause an alert to be generated regarding the disconnection.
Regarding claim 9, a PCA pump that can detect its removal from a hub device and cause an alert to be generated regarding the disconnection.
Regarding claim 10, a PCA pump that can detect a removal of an infusion pump from a hub device or receive a message indicative that an infusion pump has been removed, and cause an alert to be generated regarding the disconnection.
Regarding claim 13, an infusion pump that can detect that a PCA pump has started pain medication therapy and cause an alert to be generated indicative that the infusion pump has not yet been started.
Regarding claim 14, a PCA pump that can detect that an infusion pump has started pain medication therapy and cause an alert to be generated indicative that the PCA pump has not yet been started.
Regarding claim 15, an infusion pump that can detect that a PCA pump has not been connected to a hub device and cause an alert to be generated that the PCA pump should be connected.
Regarding claim 16, a PCA pump that can detect that an infusion pump has not been connected to a hub device and cause an alert to be generated that the infusion pump should be connected.
The combination of the claimed limitations is novel and found to be allowable over the prior art. The cited references taken alone or in combination do not anticipate or make obvious the Applicant’s claimed invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
De La Huerga (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0038392 A1) is considered relevant prior art with regards to an apparatus for controlling IV medication delivery having multiple delivery parameters and pumps.
Kamen et al. (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0296745 A1) is considered relevant prior art with regards to an infusion system for electronic monitoring patient care having multiple infusion pumps.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Evelyn A Thoman whose telephone number is (571)272-8496. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 a.m-4:30 p.m..
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, Michael Tsai can be reached at 571-270-5246. 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.
/EVELYN A THOMAN/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3783
/MICHAEL J TSAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3783
Prosecution Insights