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 .
Claims 22-41 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 23 and 33 are objected to because of the following informalities: Each of the claims should conclude with a period and not a semicolon. Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 22-41 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-22 of U.S. Patent No. US 12036383 (hereinafter ‘383). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant application are anticipated by the claims in the ‘383 patent.
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) 22, 24-30, 32, 34-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Connelly et al. (US 6589229) in view of Kamen et al. (2012/0185267).
With respect to claim 22, Connelly discloses: An infusion pump alarm management system, comprising: a display (Fig. 21, “274”);
a control unit capable of docking with at least one infusion pump (col. 21, lines 25-29);
at least one data processor (Fig. 10, “132); and
at least one memory including computer program code, the at least one memory and the computer program code configured to, with the at least one data processor, cause the control unit to at least:
detect that a first infusion pump has been docked to the control unit (col. 21 ,lines 25-29);
establish a data link between the first infusion pump and the control unit upon detecting the first infusion pump being docked to the control unit (id.).
Connelly does not specifically disclose: adjust a behavior of the first infusion pump or the control unit based on the status of the first infusion pump being docked to or undocked from the control unit, wherein the behavior relates to management of an alarm condition.
However, Kamen discloses: adjust a behavior of the first infusion pump or the control unit based on the status of the first infusion pump being docked to or undocked from the control unit, wherein the behavior relates to management of an alarm condition ([0313], [0467], Abstract).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Kamen to prevent additional disturbance of the patient by sending the alarm to the remote communicator/control unit and not causing the alarm on the docking device itself.
With respect to claim 24 Kamen discloses: wherein the adjustment in behavior comprises a modification of an alarm-related user interface of the first infusion pump or the control unit ([0467]).
With respect to claim 25, Kamen discloses: wherein the modification of the user interface relates to an aspect of the user interface that enables a user to confirm or acknowledge an alarm condition ([0277]).
With respect to claim 26, Kamen discloses: wherein the adjustment in behavior relates to coordinating presentation of alarm status between the control unit and the first infusion pump ([0467], [0313]).
With respect to claim 27, Kamen discloses: wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are further configured to, with the at least one data processor, cause the control unit to take over responsibility for presenting an alarm signal from the first infusion pump (id.).
With respect to claim 28, Kamen discloses: wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are further configured to, with the at least one data processor, cause the control unit to rank multiple alarm signals ([0277], hard alarm and soft alarm are interpreted by examiner as a ranking of the alarms).
With respect to claim 29, Kamen discloses: wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are further configured to, with the at least one data processor, cause the control unit to display an alarm based on the ranking ([0292], “visually indicate” corresponds to “display”).
With respect to claim 30, Kamend discloses: wherein the adjustment in behavior relates to a division in alarm management between the control unit and the first infusion pump ([0313], infusion device does not sound the alarm).
With respect to claims 32, 34-40, they recite similar limitations as claims 22, 24-30, respectively, and are therefore rejected under the same citations and rationale.
Claim(s) 23 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Connelly et al. (US 6589229) in view of Kamen et al. (2012/0185267) further in view of Fathallah et al. (US 2006/0229557).
With respect to claim 23, Connelly and Kamen do not specifically disclose: wherein the behavior adjusts differently depending on whether the first infusion pump is coupled to the control unit wirelessly, electrically or mechanically.
However, Fathallah discloses: wherein the behavior adjusts differently depending on whether the first infusion pump is coupled to the control unit wirelessly, electrically or mechanically ([0108]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Fathallah to ensure the user is apprised of whether the device is connected wirelessly or not by displaying the wireless indicator image on the user interface.
With respect to claim 33, it recite similar limitations as claim 23 and is therefore rejected under the same citations and rationale.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 31 and 41 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if a terminal disclaimer according to the instructions included in this Office Action is filed and rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WISSAM RASHID whose telephone number is (571)270-3758. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 am-5:00 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, Aimee Li can be reached at (571)272-4169. 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.
/WISSAM RASHID/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2195