DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
The instant application having application No. 18/913,123 of MANDRO et al. for “OCCLUSION DETECTION SYSTEM AND METHOD” filed on October 11, 2024, which preliminarily Amended on September 17, 2025 has been examined.
Claims Status
Claims 1-15 are canceled.
Claims 16-33 are newly introduced and pending.
Drawings
Drawings Figures 1-2 submitted on October 11, 2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.121(d).
Double Patenting
The non-statutory 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 non-statutory 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 non-statutory 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 non-statutory 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 16-33 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,115,344 B2 in view of VOSS et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,080,653) hereinafter “Voss”.
Claims 16-33 are non-provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,115,344 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patented claims recite limitation of the pending claims except the pump assembly including a plunger assembly.
Voss, in the same endeavor, discloses an infusion pump that includes a compact drive motor mounted within a housing and coupled mechanically to a syringe piston plunger for purposes of advancing the plunger in a precision controlled manner to dispense a medication (shown in Figure 2 and described in Column 3, line 57 - Column 4, line 43).
In view of the above, having patented claims 1-15 system, method and computer program for the infusion pump assembly and having the well know system and method computer program for the infusion pump assembly including a plunger assembly, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in this art at the time of the claimed invention to incorporate the plunger assembly to modify patented claims 1-15, for the obvious advantages providing conventional means for precision controlled of dispensing infusible fluid/medication.
In view of the above, since the subject matters recited in claims 16-33 of the instant application was fully disclosed in and covered by patented claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,115,344 B2 in view of Voss, allowing claims 16-33 would result in an unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent.
This is a non-provisional non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have in fact been patented.
Claims 16-33 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 8,223,028 B2 in view of VOSS et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,080,653) hereinafter “Voss”.
Claims 16-33 are non-provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 8,223,028 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patented claims recite limitation of the pending claims except the pump assembly including a plunger assembly.
Voss, in the same endeavor, discloses an infusion pump that includes a compact drive motor mounted within a housing and coupled mechanically to a syringe piston plunger for purposes of advancing the plunger in a precision controlled manner to dispense a medication (shown in Figure 2 and described in Column 3, line 57 - Column 4, line 43).
In view of the above, having patented claims 1-15 system, method and computer program for the infusion pump assembly and having the well know system and method computer program for the infusion pump assembly including a plunger assembly, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in this art at the time of the claimed invention to incorporate the plunger assembly to modify patented claims 1-15, for the obvious advantages providing conventional means for precision controlled of dispensing infusible fluid/medication.
In view of the above, since the subject matters recited in claims 16-33 of the instant application was fully disclosed in and covered by patented claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 8,223,028 B2 in view of Voss, allowing claims 16-33 would result in an unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent.
This is a non-provisional non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have in fact been patented.
Claims 16-33 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-11 of U.S. Patent No. 11,628,247 B2 in view of VOSS et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,080,653) hereinafter “Voss”.
Claims 16-33 are non-provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-11 of U.S. Patent No. 11,628,247 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patented claims recite limitation of the pending claims except the pump assembly including a plunger assembly.
Voss, in the same endeavor, discloses an infusion pump that includes a compact drive motor mounted within a housing and coupled mechanically to a syringe piston plunger for purposes of advancing the plunger in a precision controlled manner to dispense a medication (shown in Figure 2 and described in Column 3, line 57 - Column 4, line 43).
In view of the above, having patented claims 1-11 system, method and computer program for the infusion pump assembly and having the well know system and method computer program for the infusion pump assembly including a plunger assembly, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in this art at the time of the claimed invention to incorporate the plunger assembly to modify patented claims 1-11, for the obvious advantages providing conventional means for precision controlled of dispensing infusible fluid/medication.
In view of the above, since the subject matters recited in claims 16-33 of the instant application was fully disclosed in and covered by patented claims 1-11 of U.S. Patent No. 11,628,247 B2 in view of Voss, allowing claims 16-33 would result in an unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent.
This is a non-provisional non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have in fact been patented.
Claims 16-33 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. 9,024,768 B2 in view of VOSS et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,080,653) hereinafter “Voss”.
Claims 16-33 are non-provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. 9,024,768 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patented claims recite limitation of the pending claims except the pump assembly including a plunger assembly.
Voss, in the same endeavor, discloses an infusion pump that includes a compact drive motor mounted within a housing and coupled mechanically to a syringe piston plunger for purposes of advancing the plunger in a precision controlled manner to dispense a medication (shown in Figure 2 and described in Column 3, line 57 - Column 4, line 43).
In view of the above, having patented claims 1-12 system, method and computer program for the infusion pump assembly and having the well know system and method computer program for the infusion pump assembly including a plunger assembly, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in this art at the time of the claimed invention to incorporate the plunger assembly to modify patented claims 1-12, for the obvious advantages providing conventional means for precision controlled of dispensing infusible fluid/medication.
In view of the above, since the subject matters recited in claims 16-33 of the instant application was fully disclosed in and covered by patented claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. 9,024,768 B2 in view of Voss, allowing claims 16-33 would result in an unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent.
This is a non-provisional non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have in fact been patented.
Claims 16-33 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. 9,849,235 B2 in view of VOSS et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,080,653) hereinafter “Voss”.
Claims 16-33 are non-provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. 9,849,235 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patented claims recite limitation of the pending claims except the pump assembly including a plunger assembly.
Voss, in the same endeavor, discloses an infusion pump that includes a compact drive motor mounted within a housing and coupled mechanically to a syringe piston plunger for purposes of advancing the plunger in a precision controlled manner to dispense a medication (shown in Figure 2 and described in Column 3, line 57 - Column 4, line 43).
In view of the above, having patented claims 1-12 system, method and computer program for the infusion pump assembly and having the well know system and method computer program for the infusion pump assembly including a plunger assembly, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in this art at the time of the claimed invention to incorporate the plunger assembly to modify patented claims 1-12, for the obvious advantages providing conventional means for precision controlled of dispensing infusible fluid/medication.
In view of the above, since the subject matters recited in claims 16-33 of the instant application was fully disclosed in and covered by patented claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. 9,849,235 B2 in view of Voss, allowing claims 16-33 would result in an unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent.
This is a non-provisional non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have in fact been patented.
Claims 16-33 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8 of U.S. Patent No. 10,314,969 B2 in view of VOSS et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,080,653) hereinafter “Voss”.
Claims 16-33 are non-provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8 of U.S. Patent No. 10,314,969 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patented claims recite limitation of the pending claims except the pump assembly including a plunger assembly.
Voss, in the same endeavor, discloses an infusion pump that includes a compact drive motor mounted within a housing and coupled mechanically to a syringe piston plunger for purposes of advancing the plunger in a precision controlled manner to dispense a medication (shown in Figure 2 and described in Column 3, line 57 - Column 4, line 43).
In view of the above, having patented claims 1-8 system, method and computer program for the infusion pump assembly and having the well know system and method computer program for the infusion pump assembly including a plunger assembly, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in this art at the time of the claimed invention to incorporate the plunger assembly to modify patented claims 1-8, for the obvious advantages providing conventional means for precision controlled of dispensing infusible fluid/medication.
In view of the above, since the subject matters recited in claims 16-33 of the instant application was fully disclosed in and covered by patented claims 1-8 of U.S. Patent No. 10,314,969 B2 in view of Voss, allowing claims 16-33 would result in an unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent.
This is a non-provisional non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have in fact been patented.
Claims 16-33 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8 of U.S. Patent No. 10,744,257 B2 in view of VOSS et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,080,653) hereinafter “Voss”.
Claims 16-33 are non-provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8 of U.S. Patent No. 10,744,257 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patented claims recite limitation of the pending claims except the pump assembly including a plunger assembly.
Voss, in the same endeavor, discloses an infusion pump that includes a compact drive motor mounted within a housing and coupled mechanically to a syringe piston plunger for purposes of advancing the plunger in a precision controlled manner to dispense a medication (shown in Figure 2 and described in Column 3, line 57 - Column 4, line 43).
In view of the above, having patented claims 1-8 system, method and computer program for the infusion pump assembly and having the well know system and method computer program for the infusion pump assembly including a plunger assembly, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in this art at the time of the claimed invention to incorporate the plunger assembly to modify patented claims 1-8, for the obvious advantages providing conventional means for precision controlled of dispensing infusible fluid/medication.
In view of the above, since the subject matters recited in claims 16-33 of the instant application was fully disclosed in and covered by patented claims 1-8 of U.S. Patent No. 10,744,257 B2 in view of Voss, allowing claims 16-33 would result in an unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent.
This is a non-provisional non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 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.
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 –
(b) The invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.
Claims 16-17, 24 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by the prior art of MOBERG et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2007/0191770 A1) hereinafter “Moberg”.
As to claim 16, Moberg discloses a method (method described in Abstract, Paragraphs 0022 and 0028-0029), for an infusion pump assembly (infusion pump assembly [i.e. an infusion pump assembly], shown in Figures 4, 6 and described in Abstract, Paragraphs 0022, 0028 and 0074-0076), wherein the infusion pump assembly comprises a reservoir assembly (reservoir 406 [i.e. a reservoir assembly], described in Abstract, Paragraphs 0074-0076 and 0080) and a pump assembly (described in Abstract, Paragraphs 0022, 0028-0029, 0074-0076 and 0080), the pump assembly including a plunger assembly (the plunger slide 405, shown in Figures 4, 6 and described in Abstract, Paragraphs 0074, 0076 and 0077) and a motor assembly (motor 403), the method comprising: storing an infusible fluid (medication or other fluid, described in Paragraphs 0072) in the reservoir assembly (described in Paragraphs 0072); displacing the plunger assembly that is operably connected to the reservoir assembly in response to signals received by the motor assembly from a processing logic (motor 403 rotates in the gear box 501, the drive screw 404 drives the plunger slide 405 directly to obtain the axial displacement against the reservoir piston assembly 407 to deliver the predetermined amount of medication or liquid, described in Paragraphs 0076 and 0171); and dispensing the infusible fluid from the reservoir assembly through a cannula assembly (described in Paragraphs 0022, 0072 and 0081).
As to claim 17, Moberg’s disclosure as set forth above in claim 16, further Moberg discloses wherein the infusion pump assembly includes a processing logic which includes at least one microprocessor (electronic control circuitry 422 [i.e. microprocessor], shown in Figure 4 and described in Paragraph 0074) configured to interact with a memory system (shown in Figure 19 and control transfers to block 519 where the previous average baseline current value is retrieved from a storage location in memory (block 520), described in Paragraphs 0135 and 0139), the method further comprising: storing instruction sets and subroutines of an occlusion detection process on the memory system (shown in Figures 24, 25 and described in Paragraphs 0177-0179); and accessing and executing said instruction sets and subroutines via the connection between the processing logic and the at least one microprocessor (shown in Figures 4, 19 and an updated average baseline current is calculated. This updated value is then placed in the storage location, (block 520), where it will be available for the next current measurement and comparison at block 508, described in Paragraph 0139; See also Paragraphs 0177-0179 and 0183).
As to claim 24, Moberg discloses a computer program product (programming, described in Paragraphs 0131-0133) residing on a non-transitory computer readable medium in an infusion pump assembly having a plurality of instructions stored thereon which (shown in Figure 19 and described in Paragraphs 0131-0133), when executed by a processing logic (program loops, described in Paragraphs 0131-0133), cause the processing logic to perform operations (the program loops to the start for additional time to elapse or for the receipt of other control commands, described in Paragraph 0131, See also Paragraphs 0132-0139) comprising: storing an infusible fluid (medication or other fluid, described in Paragraphs 0072) in a reservoir assembly (reservoir 406 [i.e. a reservoir assembly], shown in Figures 4, 6 and described in Abstract, Paragraphs 0074-0076 and 0080); displacing a plunger assembly that is operably connected to the reservoir assembly in response to signals received by a motor assembly from the processing logic (motor 403 rotates in the gear box 501, the drive screw 404 drives the plunger slide 405 directly to obtain the axial displacement against the reservoir piston assembly 407 to deliver the predetermined amount of medication or liquid, described in Paragraphs 0076 and 0171); and dispensing the infusible fluid from the reservoir assembly through a cannula assembly (described in Paragraphs 0022, 0072 and 0081 See also Figures 24, 25 and Paragraphs 0177-0179 and 0183).
As to claim 29, Moberg discloses an infusion pump assembly configured to perform operations (described in Abstract, Paragraphs 0022 and 0028-0029) comprising: storing an infusible fluid (medication or other fluid, described in Paragraphs 0072) in a reservoir assembly (reservoir 406 [i.e. a reservoir assembly], shown in Figures 4, 6 and described in Abstract, Paragraphs 0074-0076 and 0080); displacing a plunger assembly that is operably connected to the reservoir assembly in response to signals received by a motor assembly from a processing logic (motor 403 rotates in the gear box 501, the drive screw 404 drives the plunger slide 405 directly to obtain the axial displacement against the reservoir piston assembly 407 to deliver the predetermined amount of medication or liquid, described in Paragraphs 0076 and 0171); and dispensing the infusible fluid from the reservoir assembly through a cannula assembly (described in Paragraphs 0022, 0072 and 0081).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained through the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
Claims 19, 23, 28 and 33 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over the prior art of MOBERG et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2007/0191770 A1) hereinafter “Moberg” in view of the prior art of LAYMAN et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,712,795) hereinafter “Layman”.
As to claim 19, Moberg’s disclosure as set forth above in claim 16, but Moberg does not expressly disclose wherein the infusion pump assembly includes a battery assembly configured to power the infusion pump assembly, the method further comprising: comparing an actual voltage level of the battery assembly to a minimum voltage requirement to determine if the actual voltage level meets the minimum voltage requirement; if the actual voltage level does not meet the minimum voltage requirement, initiating an alarm sequence on the infusion pump assembly, wherein the alarm sequence includes any combination of visual-based, audible-based and/or vibration-based alarms.
However, Moberg discloses that Referring to FIG. 19, at block 508 the value of the average baseline current is retrieved from a storage location in memory represented by block 520. This value is compared with the current measured at the present time and a determination is made whether the present current exceeds the average baseline by a certain amount. If it does not, then the pump continues to run and control loops to block 504 where the amount of medication delivery is again measured. On the other hand, if the present current exceeds the average baseline by a selected amount, then the pump motor is stopped and an alarm indication, audible, tactile and/or visible, is given (blocks 509 and 510). (shown in steps 508-510 of Figure 19 and described in Paragraph 0135).
Further, Layman, in similar field of endeavor, discloses when the battery pack of ten cells reaches 12.1 V, a low battery warning indication is provided. When the battery pack reaches 11.45 V, a battery depleted alarm is provided. When the battery pack reaches 10.25 V, power to the instrument motor and control circuits is turned off and a backup alarm indication is activated (shown in Figure 3 and described in Column 8, line 51-Column 9, line 15).
Thus, given the system, method and a computer program product of Moberg that monitors current and provide an alarm and having the teaching of Layman disclosing a voltage monitoring and providing alarm for an infusion pump that is also well-known and conventional in the art, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in this art at the time of the claimed invention to modify Moberg’s current monitoring that provide alarm by incorporating the teaching of Layman such that the system, method and a computer program product of Moberg to provide wherein the infusion pump assembly includes a battery assembly configured to power the infusion pump assembly, the method further comprising: comparing an actual voltage level of the battery assembly to a minimum voltage requirement to determine if the actual voltage level meets the minimum voltage requirement; if the actual voltage level does not meet the minimum voltage requirement, initiating an alarm sequence on the infusion pump assembly, wherein the alarm sequence includes any combination of visual-based, audible-based and/or vibration-based alarms, which is providing a commonly employed conventional circuit design option that may be achieved by simple substitution and routine experimentation without involving an inventive step.
As to claim 23, Moberg’s disclosure as set forth above in claim 16, but Moberg does not expressly disclose wherein the infusion pump assembly includes a battery assembly configured to power the infusion pump assembly, the method further comprising: comparing an actual voltage level of the battery assembly to a minimum voltage requirement to determine if the actual voltage level meets the minimum voltage requirement; and if the actual voltage level does not meet the minimum voltage requirement, initiating an alarm sequence on the infusion pump assembly.
However, Moberg discloses that Referring to FIG. 19, at block 508 the value of the average baseline current is retrieved from a storage location in memory represented by block 520. This value is compared with the current measured at the present time and a determination is made whether the present current exceeds the average baseline by a certain amount. If it does not, then the pump continues to run and control loops to block 504 where the amount of medication delivery is again measured. On the other hand, if the present current exceeds the average baseline by a selected amount, then the pump motor is stopped and an alarm indication, audible, tactile and/or visible, is given (blocks 509 and 510). (shown in steps 508-510 of Figure 19 and described in Paragraph 0135).
Further, Layman, in similar field of endeavor, discloses when the battery pack of ten cells reaches 12.1 V, a low battery warning indication is provided. When the battery pack reaches 11.45 V, a battery depleted alarm is provided. When the battery pack reaches 10.25 V, power to the instrument motor and control circuits is turned off and a backup alarm indication is activated (shown in Figure 3 and described in Column 8, line 51-Column 9, line 15).
Thus, given the system, method and a computer program product of Moberg that monitors current and provide an alarm and having the teaching of Layman disclosing a voltage monitoring and providing alarm for an infusion pump that is also well-known and conventional in the art, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in this art at the time of the claimed invention to modify Moberg’s current monitoring that provide alarm by incorporating the teaching of Layman such that the system, method and a computer program product of Moberg to provide wherein the infusion pump assembly includes a battery assembly configured to power the infusion pump assembly, the method further comprising: comparing an actual voltage level of the battery assembly to a minimum voltage requirement to determine if the actual voltage level meets the minimum voltage requirement; and if the actual voltage level does not meet the minimum voltage requirement, initiating an alarm sequence on the infusion pump assembly, which is providing a commonly employed conventional circuit design option that may be achieved by simple substitution and routine experimentation without involving an inventive step.
As to claim 28, Moberg’s disclosure as set forth above in claim 24, but Moberg does not expressly disclose wherein the infusion pump assembly includes a battery assembly configured to power the infusion pump assembly, the computer program product further comprising instructions for: comparing an actual voltage level of the battery assembly to a mm1mum voltage requirement to determine if the actual voltage level meets the minimum voltage requirement; and if the actual voltage level does not meet the minimum voltage requirement, initiating an alarm sequence on the infusion pump assembly.
However, Moberg discloses that Referring to FIG. 19, at block 508 the value of the average baseline current is retrieved from a storage location in memory represented by block 520. This value is compared with the current measured at the present time and a determination is made whether the present current exceeds the average baseline by a certain amount. If it does not, then the pump continues to run and control loops to block 504 where the amount of medication delivery is again measured. On the other hand, if the present current exceeds the average baseline by a selected amount, then the pump motor is stopped and an alarm indication, audible, tactile and/or visible, is given (blocks 509 and 510). (shown in steps 508-510 of Figure 19 and described in Paragraph 0135).
Further, Layman, in similar field of endeavor, discloses when the battery pack of ten cells reaches 12.1 V, a low battery warning indication is provided. When the battery pack reaches 11.45 V, a battery depleted alarm is provided. When the battery pack reaches 10.25 V, power to the instrument motor and control circuits is turned off and a backup alarm indication is activated (shown in Figure 3 and described in Column 8, line 51-Column 9, line 15).
Thus, given the system, method and a computer program product of Moberg that monitors current and provide an alarm and having the teaching of Layman disclosing a voltage monitoring and providing alarm for an infusion pump that is also well-known and conventional in the art, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in this art at the time of the claimed invention to modify Moberg’s current monitoring that provide alarm by incorporating the teaching of Layman such that the system, method and a computer program product of Moberg to provide wherein the infusion pump assembly includes a battery assembly configured to power the infusion pump assembly, the computer program product further comprising instructions for: comparing an actual voltage level of the battery assembly to a mm1mum voltage requirement to determine if the actual voltage level meets the minimum voltage requirement; and if the actual voltage level does not meet the minimum voltage requirement, initiating an alarm sequence on the infusion pump assembly, which is providing a commonly employed conventional circuit design option that may be achieved by simple substitution and routine experimentation without involving an inventive step.
As to claim 33, Moberg’s disclosure as set forth above in claim 29, but Moberg does not expressly disclose wherein the infusion pump assembly includes a battery assembly configured to power the infusion pump assembly and the infusion pump assembly is further configured to perform operations comprising: comparing an actual voltage level of the battery assembly to a mm1mum voltage requirement to determine if the actual voltage level meets the minimum voltage requirement; and if the actual voltage level does not meet the minimum voltage requirement, initiating an alarm sequence on the infusion pump assembly.
However, Moberg discloses that Referring to FIG. 19, at block 508 the value of the average baseline current is retrieved from a storage location in memory represented by block 520. This value is compared with the current measured at the present time and a determination is made whether the present current exceeds the average baseline by a certain amount. If it does not, then the pump continues to run and control loops to block 504 where the amount of medication delivery is again measured. On the other hand, if the present current exceeds the average baseline by a selected amount, then the pump motor is stopped and an alarm indication, audible, tactile and/or visible, is given (blocks 509 and 510). (shown in steps 508-510 of Figure 19 and described in Paragraph 0135).
Further, Layman, in similar field of endeavor, discloses when the battery pack of ten cells reaches 12.1 V, a low battery warning indication is provided. When the battery pack reaches 11.45 V, a battery depleted alarm is provided. When the battery pack reaches 10.25 V, power to the instrument motor and control circuits is turned off and a backup alarm indication is activated (shown in Figure 3 and described in Column 8, line 51-Column 9, line 15).
Thus, given the system, method and a computer program product of Moberg that monitors current and provide an alarm and having the teaching of Layman disclosing a voltage monitoring and providing alarm for an infusion pump that is also well-known and conventional in the art, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in this art at the time of the claimed invention to modify Moberg’s current monitoring that provide alarm by incorporating the teaching of Layman such that the system, method and a computer program product of Moberg to provide wherein the infusion pump assembly includes a battery assembly configured to power the infusion pump assembly and the infusion pump assembly is further configured to perform operations comprising: comparing an actual voltage level of the battery assembly to a mm1mum voltage requirement to determine if the actual voltage level meets the minimum voltage requirement; and if the actual voltage level does not meet the minimum voltage requirement, initiating an alarm sequence on the infusion pump assembly, which is providing a commonly employed conventional circuit design option that may be achieved by simple substitution and routine experimentation without involving an inventive step.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Publication No. 2007/0149926 A1 of Moberg et al, discloses a system of detecting a malfunction with a force sensor in an infusion pump having a motor to drive a plunger slide into a reservoir, the system comprising: means for taking current measurements to the motor; means for detecting when the plunger slide is seated in the reservoir based on the current measurements; and means for detecting a problem with the force sensor when the force sensor independently fails to register a value indicating that the plunger slide is seated in the reservoir.
U.S. Publication No. 2008/0294108 A1 of Briones et al, discloses an infusion pump system may include a construction that is resistant to external contaminants, such as precipitation, water splashes, sweat and the like. In particular embodiments, the infusion pump system can include a pump device that is removably attached to a controller device to provide an electrical connection therebetween. In such circumstances, the infusion pump system can be assembled as a sealed construction that protects the electrical connection between the pump device and the removable controller device.
U.S. Publication No. 2009/0076461 A1 of Susi et al, discloses a remote control or monitoring of the pump occurring in a control room. In one exemplary embodiment, the pump is used in an MRI environment. In another exemplary embodiment, the pump is used in a hyperbaric chamber. The pump may monitor one or more physiological parameters and transmit them to the remote. The pump may also transmit information relating to the pump's operation. The pump may send the device and/or physiological data using one or more packets. The packets may consist of low priority sequential packets and high-priority asynchronous packets. The high-priority packets may enable the real-time monitoring of a patient's heart beat or other physiological parameter.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SISAY YACOB whose telephone number is (571)272-8562. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:30-07:00 ET.
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, BRIAN A ZIMMERMAN can be reached at (571) 272-3059. 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.
/SISAY YACOB/ February 01, 2026 Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686