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
Claim(s) 1, 2, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 18, 20, 25, 29, 32 and 34 objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, “during the engagement” should be corrected to “during engagement” since this term was not previously introduced.
In claim 2, lines 2-3, “the Cartesian coordinate system” should be corrected to “a Cartesian coordinate system” since this phrase was not previously introduced.
In claim 6, line 4, “saturation” should be corrected to “the saturation” since this term was introduced in line 2.
In claim 8 line 2, should recite “the output value (Sa)” since Sa is not an acronym.
In claim 8, line 3, “a patient” should be corrected to “the user” to match the language of the preamble of claim 1.
In claim 8, line 4, “the patient” should be corrected to “the user” and “the pump” should be corrected to “the pump device”.
In claim 9, lines 4 and 5, the term “the” should precede the phrase “engagement of the disposable part and the reusable part”.
In claim 9, line 8 should read “the engagement of the disposable part and the reusable part”.
In claim 9, line 9 should recite “the engagement of the disposable part and the reusable part”.
In claim 11, line 2 should recite “the engagement”.
In claim 12, line 6, a comma should be placed after the term “engaged”.
In claim 12, line 12 should be corrected to “diametrically, or axially, or both diametrically and axially” should be corrected to “diametrically, axially or both diametrically and axially” for grammatical correctness.
In claim 18, line 5, a comma should be inserted between “are engaged” and “the magnetic field sensed” for grammatical correctness.
In claims 20, 25 and 29, the phrase “the asymmetrical plate (AMP)” should be corrected to recite “the AMP” or the acronym should be removed from claims 4, 20, 25, 29 completely and the feature should be referred to as “the asymmetrical plate”.
In claim 20, line 4, the comma after “unconnected” should be removed. In line 5, the comma after “which” should be removed.
In claim 20, in line 6, the term “and” should be inserted after the semi-colon.
In claim 25, line 3, “the partial overlapping percentage being P[%], wherein P[%] is at least one of:” should be corrected to “the partial overlapping percentage (P[%])being at least one of:” for grammatical correctness.
In claim 25, line 4, “a magnetic attraction force” should be corrected to “the magnetic attraction force” since this term was previously introduced.
In claim 25, line 5, the comma should be removed.
In claim 25, line 6, “the magnetic field(s)” should recite “the one or more magnetic fields”.
In claim 25, line 8, the comma should be removed.
In claim 25, line 9, “saturation” should be corrected to “the saturation” since this term was introduced in line 7.
In claim 25, line 25, should recite “a” partial overlapping percentage instead of “the”.
In claim 29, line 1, the term “the” should be removed from “the design”.
In claim 29, line 2, “a magnetic attraction force” should be corrected to “the magnetic attraction force” since this term was previously introduced.
In claim 29, line 3, the comma should be removed.
In claim 29, line 4, “the magnetic field(s)” should recite “the one or more magnetic fields.
In claim 32, line 4, “the distance” should recite “a distance”.
In claim 32, lines 4-5, “the time” should recite “a time”.
In claim 32, lines 4-5, instead of commas around “D” and “T”, these should be placed in parentheses
In claim 34, line 3, “levodopa or carbidopa, or a combination of levodopa and carbidopa” should be corrected to “levodopa, carbidopa, or a combination of both levodopa and carbidopa” for grammatical correctness.
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.
Claim(s) 9, 11 and 32 is/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 9, line 10 recites “wherein Sth1>Snull and Sth2<Snull”. Claim 9 specifies a first condition where the output value (Sa) is compared to null value (Snull), and specifies a second condition where the output value (Sa) is compared to Sth1 and Sth2, with the term “or” in between the two conditions. Therefore, it is unclear how the term Snull can be compared to Sth1 and Sth2 in line 10 since the term Snull has no relation with the terms Sth1 and Sth2 if the second condition is chosen, and vice versa. Applicant is therefore suggested to amend claim 9 to overcome rejection.
Claim 11 is rejected by virtue of its dependency on claim 9.
Claim 11, line 3 recites “the engagement orientation”. Claim 11 depends on claim 9, however it is unclear if “the engagement orientation” of claim 11 is intended to refer to “a first engagement orientation” of claim 9 in line 5, “a second engagement orientation” of claim 9 in line 6, “a first engagement orientation” of claim 9 in line 7 or “a second engagement orientation” of claim 9 in lines 9-10. For the sake of examination, “the engagement orientation” of claim 11 is being interpreted to refer to “a first engagement orientation” of claim 9 in lines 5 and 7, and “a second engagement orientation” of lines 6 and 9-10. Applicant is therefore suggested to amend claim 11 to recite in line 3 “correctness of the engagement orientation being the first engagement orientation (‘SIDE-B’) or the second engagement orientation (‘SIDE-A’)” to overcome rejection.
Claim 32 recites in line 6 “that value”. It is unclear what claim 32 is intended to refer to by “that value”. Applicant is therefore suggested to amend claim 32 to overcome rejection.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-12, 18, 20, 25 and 29-34 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the objections of claims 1, 2, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 18, 20, 25, 29, 32 and 34 and rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ) of claims 9, 11 and 32 as set forth in this Office Action.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Upon consideration of the prior art of record, the limitations recited in independent claim 1 are not taught or suggested by prior art and therefore define allowable subject matter.
Regarding claim 1, Alderette (US 20150008905 A1) discloses a pump device (fluid infusion device 100 in Fig. 1) for delivering fluid medicament(s) to a user (fluid infusion device for delivering a medication fluid to the body of a user [0002]), the pump device comprising:
a reusable part (durable component 102 in Fig. 1) comprising:
a magnetic field sensor (sensor 136 in detection system 122 in Fig. 2; sensor 136 observes a magnetic field [0054]) having a magnetic field sensing area (sensor 136 observe magnetic field emitted by magnetic source on a central plane [0054]);
a magnet (magnet 118 in Fig. 1) said magnet magnetized to produce one or more magnetic fields in direction(s) (comprises a suitable source of a magnetic field [0043]), and
a controller to read an output value of the magnetic field sensor (processor 138 in Fig. 4; processor 138 read analog signals from sensor 136 [0054]); and
a disposable part (single use component 104 in Fig. 1) magnetically engageable with the reusable part (magnet 118 is attracted to attractive source 114 when durable component 102 is coupled to single use component 104 [0043]), the disposable part comprising:
a metal plate (attractive source 114 in Fig. 3; attractive source 114 comprises a metal [0039]) configured to be magnetically attractable to the magnet to magnetically engage the disposable part with the reusable part (magnet 118 is attracted to attractive source 114 when durable component 102 is coupled to single use component 104 [0043]),
wherein the controller is configured to determine an engagement state between the disposable part and the reusable part from an output value (Sa) of the magnetic field sensor corresponding to the sensed net magnetic field (alignment control module (206 in Fig. 5) can output connection data that indicates whether the consumable component is coupled to the durable component based on the contact data and the sensor data [0009]; it is interpreted that control module 200 which is performed by processor 138 is in communication with alignment control module 206 which is included in control module 200 [0057]).
However, Alderette failed to explicitly disclose the magnet circumferentially surrounding the magnetic field sensor, the one or more magnetic fields being in direction(s) that zero out a net magnetic field that is sensed by the magnetic field sensor and, the metal plate, during engagement with the magnet, being configured to magnetically deflect one or more of the one or more magnetic fields at the magnetic field sensing area such that the net magnetic field sensed by the magnetic field sensor is greater than zero.
Kirkpatrick (US 20120053521 A1) teaches in Fig. 4B that two magnetic fields of opposite polarity and equal strength results in no net magnetic field and no attractive force applied to magneto-sensitive element 26 [0032].
Fridez (US 20240075202 A1) teaches a controller capable of determining if a cap is coupled to a pump by using sensor 316 to sense strength of magnetic field based on first and second predetermined range. If the magnetic field is within a predetermined range, the controller will indicate that the cap is in the initialization position. If the magnetic field is within a second predetermined range, the controller will indicate that the cap is in the dosing position. As the cap moves from the initialization position to the dosing position, the magnet is moved closer to the cap, thereby increasing the strength of the sensed magnetic field [0343]. One of ordinary skill in the art recognizes the initialization position as the position where the magnetic field is weakest (zero or near zero) and the dosing position as the position where the magnetic field is greater than the magnetic field sensed at initialization position.
However, the sensors in Alderette and Fridez are located outside of the magnets, as seen in Fig. 2 of Alderette and Fig. 32A of Fridez. Furthermore, the plate (magnetic sensing element 26) of Kirkpatrick is seen in Fig. 4A-4B to be in engagement with the magnet to generate magnetic field and generate a no net magnetic field when not in contact with the magnet. Kirkpatrick fails to teach the plate at any point deflecting the magnetic field.
Therefore, Alderette, Kirkpatrick and Fridez in combination fail to teach the magnet circumferentially surrounding the magnetic field sensor and the metal plate magnetically deflecting one or more of the one or more magnetic fields at the magnetic field sensing area.
Conclusion
The prior art of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
US 20240066210 A1 (Yang) – related to a device with magnetic component and sensor.
US 20100010443 A1 (Morgan) – related to an infusion device sensor to detect magnetic field from a source.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHMOOD FAROOQ whose telephone number is (571)272-7276. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 7:30-5:00p 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, Kevin Sirmons can be reached at (571) 272-4965. 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.
/M.F./Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3783
/KAMI A BOSWORTH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3783
Prosecution Insights