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 .
Notice to Applicant
This communication is in response to the amendment filed 10/14/2025. Claims 1-3, 6, 8-10, 13, 15-17, 17, and 20 have been amended. Claims 1-20 remain pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
A. Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues starting on page 9 of the response that Lamberg does not teach or suggest a request frame that includes a request frame identifier, the first unique identifier, and a request prompt, where the request prompt includes instructions to retrieve the other plurality of infusion pumps' unique identifier. Examiner respectfully disagrees that Lamberg does not teach or suggest a request frame that includes a request frame identifier, the first unique identifier, and a request prompt, and notes that Lamberg is not relied upon to teach where the request prompt includes instructions to retrieve the other plurality of infusion pumps' unique identifier.
With respect to claim 1, Jha, rather than Lamberg, is relied upon to teach wherein the request frame comprises a request frame identifier and a request prompt, as well as wherein the request prompt comprises instructions to retrieve the other plurality of infusion pumps' unique identifiers (see e.g. Figures 13A and 13B showing messages having message ID’s, and Figures 3, 10D, and 12A, and paragraphs 47, 71, and 72 which describe the request message having message type and command fields, i.e. request prompt, designating the request and causing the UIC to query its internal table of device identifiers).
Examiner likewise respectfully disagrees that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to combine Jha and Lamberg. Lamberg is in the same field of endeavor as and/or reasonably pertinent to Jha and the claimed invention, i.e. communication between devices using a CAN bus. While the devices in Lamberg are components of an elevator system, one of ordinary skill in the art of control area networks would still be motivated to apply the subject matter regarding CAN bus frames and address allocation to the CAN bus frames and address allocation methods in Jha. One would be motivated to combine the teachings of these references at least because Jha already discloses a plurality of devices communicating via a CAN bus as well as the devices transmitting request frames and being assigned unique identifiers over the CAN bus, and doing so by selecting a first unique identifier in a stored list of unique identifiers, transmit a request frame including the first unique identifier to the other plurality of devices connected to the controller area network, when a reject frame is not received within a time period from one of the plurality of devices, designate the first unique identifier as an identifier of the respective devices, when the reject frame is received within the time period from one of the plurality of devices, select a next unique identifier in the list of unique identifiers for transmission within another request frame to the other plurality of devices, wherein the reject frame comprises the first unique identifier and a reject prompt as taught by Lamberg would serve that same function in Jha, making the results predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143).
Examiner additionally notes that independent claim 15 of the present application and claims 16-20 depending therefrom do not actually recite the devices being infusion pumps.
The rejection under 35 USC 103 is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The previous rejection of claims 3, 10, and 17 under 35 USC 112(b) is withdrawn based on the amendment dated 10/14/2025.
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.
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, 4, 5, 7, 8, 11, 12, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jha et al (2021/0105206) in view of Kamen et al (US Patent Application Publication 2023/0102396), Lamberg (US 5,502,818), and Andrews (US 5,835,723).
With respect to claim 1, Jha discloses the claimed infusion pump system comprising:
a hub (Figure 1, [28], [32], [46], and [52] describe a UIC acting as a hub for a series of pumps PMC1, PMC2, etc; Claim 1 describes a controller, i.e. the hub) including:
a controller area network ([6], [12], and [44] describe the system communicating over a physical CAN bus; Figure 12A shows an example where PMC1 and PMC2 are connected via CAN bus), and
a network connector for communicatively coupling to the controller area network (Figures 1 and 3, [6], and [44] describe the devices including the UIC as communicating via physical busses including the CAN bus, i.e. a connector to the network must exist); and
a plurality of infusion pumps connected respectively to the hub (Figures 1 and 3, [6], [8], [32], and [44] describe the UIC as communicating with a plurality of infusion pump devices via the CAN bus), each infusion pump including a processor and a memory storing (i) a list of unique identifiers, and (ii) machine-readable instructions, which when executed (Figures 1, 3, 9, and 13, [7], [46], and [216] describe the pump devices as programmable devices communicating over the network, which requires machine readable instructions and a processor; Figures 1, 3, and 9, [28], and [155] describe the pump devices as having stored tables of unique destination IDs of other devices), cause the processor of the infusion pump to:
transmit a request frame to the hub via the controller area network (Figures 3, 10D, 12A, [44], [47], [51], and [71] describe modules, i.e. such as the pumps, submitting a device address request frame to the UIC, i.e. root device, via the network),
designate a first unique identifier as an identifier of the respective infusion pump (Figure 3, [44], [45], [47], and [51] describe modules, i.e. such as the pumps, submitting a request message to the UIC, i.e. root device, via the network and being assigned a unique logical address);
wherein the request frame comprises a request frame identifier (Figures 13A and 13B show messages having message ID’s), and a request prompt (Figures 3, 10D, and 12A, [47], [71], and [72] describe the request message having message type and command fields, i.e. request prompt, designating the request and causing the UIC to query its internal table of device identifiers),
wherein the request prompt comprises instructions to retrieve the other plurality of infusion pumps' unique identifiers (Figures 3, 10D, and 12A, [47], [71], and [72] describe the request message having message type and command fields, i.e. request prompt, designating the request and causing the UIC to query its internal table of device identifiers),
but does not expressly disclose:
the hub having a plurality of network connectors;
the plurality of infusion pumps connected respectively to one of the network controllers;
the infusion pump selecting the first unique identifier from the list of unique identifiers;
the request frame and transmitted to the other plurality of infusion pumps connected to the hub;
designate the first unique identifier as an identifier of the respective infusion pump when a reject frame is not received within a time period from one of the plurality of infusion pumps;
when the reject frame is received within the time period from one of the plurality of infusion pumps, select a next unique identifier in the list of unique identifiers for transmission within another request frame to the other plurality of infusion pumps;
the request frame comprising the first unique identifier;
wherein the reject frame comprises a reject frame identifier, the first unique identifier, and a reject prompt.
However, Kamen teaches that it was old and well known in the art of infusion pump systems before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a hub comprise a plurality of controller area network connectors where a plurality of infusion pumps are connected respectively to one of the network controllers (Figures 117-120 and 149-151, [644]-[646], [701]-[704], and [709] show and describe a system having a hub connected to a plurality of infusion pumps via respective CAN bus connectors).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of infusion pump systems before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Jha to have the hub comprise a plurality of controller area network connectors with the plurality of infusion pumps connected respectively to one of the network controllers as taught by Kamen since the claimed invention is only a combination of these old and well known elements which would have performed the same function in combination as each did separately. In the present case Jha already discloses a hub connected to a plurality of infusion pumps, and connecting the pumps to the hub using a plurality of network connectors as taught by Kamen would serve that same function in Jha making the results predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143).
Lamberg further teaches that it was old and well known in the art of control area networks before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause a device of a plurality of devices connected to a controller area network (Column 1 lines 46-48 and Column 2 lines 24-25 and 33-42 describe the system having a CAN network comprising a plurality of connected nodes) to select a first unique identifier in a stored list of unique identifiers (Column 3 lines 38-43, Column 4 lines 10-14 and 26-30 and Claim 1 describe the node storing a list of potential identifiers and selecting an identifier from the list), transmit a request frame including the first unique identifier to the other plurality of devices connected to the controller area network (Figure 5, Figure 6 element 63, Figure 7, Column 3 lines 1-9, Column 4 lines 36-38, and Claim 1 describe a node transmitting a message proposing use of the selected unique identifier to the other nodes), when a reject frame is not received within a time period from one of the plurality of devices, designate the first unique identifier as an identifier of the respective devices (Figure 5, Column 4 lines 43-59, and Claim 1 describe the node waiting for a delay period, and if no reply is received indicating that the identifier is in use by another node, assigning itself the identifier and updating its table with the identifier), when the reject frame is received within the time period from one of the plurality of devices, select a next unique identifier in the list of unique identifiers for transmission within another request frame to the other plurality of devices (Figures 5 and 7, Column 2 lines 49-67, Column 3 lines 1-9, Column 5 lines 8-25, and Claim 1 describe the transmitting node receiving a reply of higher priority rejecting the proposed identifier and selecting a new unique identifier for repeating the process), and wherein the reject frame comprises the first unique identifier and a reject prompt (Figure 7 outlines a device node receiving a “does not accept” message that contains its own identifier; Column 2 line 61 – Column 3 line 9 and Column 5 lines 7-29 describe the “does not accept” message, where the “does not accept” state recorded in the message is construed as a reject prompt)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of controller area networks before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Jha to cause one of the plurality of devices connected to the controller area network to select a first unique identifier in a stored list of unique identifiers, transmit a request frame including the first unique identifier to the other plurality of devices connected to the controller area network, when a reject frame is not received within a time period from one of the plurality of devices, designate the first unique identifier as an identifier of the respective devices, and when the reject frame is received within the time period from one of the plurality of devices, select a next unique identifier in the list of unique identifiers for transmission within another request frame to the other plurality of devices, and wherein the reject frame comprises the first unique identifier and a reject prompt as taught by Lamberg since the claimed invention is only a combination of these old and well known elements which would have performed the same function in combination as each did separately. In the present case Jha already discloses a plurality of devices, i.e. infusion pumps, connected via a CAN bus as well as the devices requesting and being assigned unique identifiers over the CAN bus, and doing so using the above steps as taught by Lamberg would serve that same function in Jha, making the results predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143).
While Lamberg teaches a reject frame having the first unique identifier and a reject prompt, it does not expressly disclose the reject frame having a reject frame identifier.
However, Andrews further teaches that that it was old and well known in the art of network address allocation before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a reject frame identifier in a reject frame (Column 2 lines 1-29 and Column 12 lines 15-25 describe the system of dynamic address allocation in which a node transmits an address request message and, if the address is in use by another node, receives an acknowledgement message indicating its usage, i.e. a reject frame; Figure 6 element 606, Column 17 lines 53-56, and Column 18 lines 37-40 describe the acknowledgement message having an ID=1 in addition to the unique address 608).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of infusion pump systems before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Jha and Lamberg to include a reject frame identifier in a reject frame as taught by Andrews since the claimed invention is only a combination of these old and well known elements which would have performed the same function in combination as each did separately. In the present case the combination of Jha and Lamberg already teaches frames having identifiers (see e.g. Jha Figures 13A and 13B showing messages having message ID’s) as well as using reject frames, and including a reject frame identifier in a reject frame as taught by Andrews would serve that same function in Jha and Lamberg making the results predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143).
With respect to claim 2, Jha/Kamen/Lamberg/Andrews teach the system of claim 1. Jha does not expressly disclose wherein the processor is configured to generate a random number for use as the request frame identifier.
However, Lamberg teaches that it was old and well known in the art of control area networks before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to generate a random number for use as a request frame identifier (Column 2 lines 39-43 and Column 4 lines 36-43, and Claims 1-2 describe the system generating a random number and including the random number in the message to identify it in the event of a collision).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of controller area networks before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Jha, Kamen, Lamberg, and Andrews to generate a random number for use as a request frame identifier as taught by Lamberg to ensure a detectible message collision in the event that otherwise identical request messages are simultaneously sent by different devices (Column 2 lines 39-43 and Column 4 lines 36-43, and Claim 1 describe including the random number in the message in order to generate detectable collisions in the event of simultaneous identical messages).
It would additionally have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of controller area networks before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Jha, Kamen, Lamberg, and Andrews to generate a random number for use as a request frame identifier as taught by Lamberg since the claimed invention is only a combination of these old and well known elements which would have performed the same function in combination as each did separately. In the present case the combination of Jha, Kamen, Lamberg, and Andrews already teaches sending request messages (see citations above) as well as messages having message IDs (see e.g. Jha Figures 5, 13A, and 13B), and generating a random number for use as a request frame identifier as taught by Lamberg would serve that same function in Jha, Kamen, Lamberg, and Andrews, making the results predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143).
With respect to claim 4, Jha/Kamen/Lamberg/Andrews teach the system of claim 1. Jha does not expressly disclose wherein the time period is 0.5 seconds, 1 second, 2 seconds, 5 seconds, or 10 seconds.
However, routine optimization of a parameter within prior art conditions is not sufficient to support patentability. See MPEP § 2144.05(II). With respect to the time period being 0.5 seconds, 1 second, 2 seconds, 5 seconds, or 10 seconds, differences in the value of the time period will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating that such values are critical. See Id. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum values or ranges by routine experimentation. See Id, citing In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In the present case, the above cited prior art already teaches a time period having a random duration, and there is no evidence of the criticality of the durations claimed in the alternative. For example, Examiner notes paragraphs 9, 17, and 23 of Applicant’s specification which merely state that the time period may be 0.5 seconds, 1 second, 2 seconds, 5 seconds, or 10 seconds without providing further reason for selection of any specific duration. The particular values of 0.5 seconds, 1 second, 2 seconds, 5 seconds, or 10 seconds as recited, are merely the result of routine experimentation or optimization. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have the time period be any of 0.5 seconds, 1 second, 2 seconds, 5 seconds, or 10 seconds since the end result would be the same (i.e. a time period of some duration is monitored for receipt of a reject message).
With respect to claim 5, Jha/Kamen/Lamberg/Andrews teach the system of claim 1. Jha does not expressly disclose wherein the infusion pump includes at least one of a syringe pump, a PCA pump, a large volume pump, or a nutrition pump.
However, Kamen teaches that it was old and well known in the art of control area networks before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an infusion pump include at least one of a syringe pump and a large volume pump (Figure 19, [248], [469], and [471] describe the infusion pumps as including large volume pumps and syringe pumps).
It would additionally have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of controller area networks before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Jha, Kamen, Lamberg, and Andrews to have the infusion pumps include at least one of a syringe pump and a large volume pump as taught by Kamen since the claimed invention is only a combination of these old and well known elements which would have performed the same function in combination as each did separately. In the present case the combination of Jha, Kamen, Lamberg, and Andrews already teaches a plurality of infusion pumps, and having the infusion pump include at least one of a syringe pump and a large volume pump as taught by Kamen would serve that same function in Jha, Kamen, Lamberg, and Andrews, making the results predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143).
With respect to claim 7, Jha/Kamen/Lamberg/Andrews teach the system of claim 1. Jha does not expressly disclose wherein the infusion pumps further comprise a transceiver.
However, Kamen teaches that it was old and well known in the art of control area networks before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an infusion pump comprise a transceiver ([273], [279], [611], and [631] describe the infusion pumps as including transceivers).
It would additionally have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of controller area networks before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Jha, Kamen, Lamberg, and Andrews to have an infusion pump comprise a transceiver as taught by Kamen since the claimed invention is only a combination of these old and well known elements which would have performed the same function in combination as each did separately. In the present case the combination of Jha, Kamen, Lamberg, and Andrews already teaches a plurality of infusion pumps receiving and transmitting data, and having the infusion pump include transceiver as taught by Kamen would serve that same function in Jha, Kamen, Lamberg, and Andrews, making the results predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143).
With respect to claim 8, Jha discloses the claimed infusion pump system comprising:
a hub (Figure 1, [28], [32], [46], and [52] describe a UIC acting as a hub for a series of pumps PMC1, PMC2, etc; Claim 1 describes a controller, i.e. the hub) including:
a controller area network ([6], [12], and [44] describe the system communicating over a physical CAN bus; Figure 12A shows an example where PMC1 and PMC2 are connected via CAN bus), and
a network connector for communicatively coupling to the controller area network (Figures 1 and 3, [6], and [44] describe the devices including the UIC as communicating via physical busses including the CAN bus, i.e. a connector to the network must exist); and
a plurality of infusion pumps connected respectively to the hub (Figures 1 and 3, [6], [8], [32], and [44] describe the UIC as communicating with a plurality of infusion pump devices via the CAN bus), each infusion pump including a processor and a memory storing (i) a list of unique identifiers, and (ii) machine-readable instructions, which when executed (Figures 1, 3, 9, and 13, [7], [46], and [216] describe the pump devices as programmable devices communicating over the network, which requires machine readable instructions and a processor; Figures 1, 3, and 9, [28], and [155] describe the pump devices as having stored tables of unique destination IDs of other devices), cause the processor of the infusion pump to:
transmit a request frame to the hub via the controller area network (Figure 3, [47], and [51] describe modules, i.e. such as the pumps, submitting a request message to the UIC, i.e. root device, via the network),
designate a first unique identifier as an identifier of the respective infusion pump (Figure 3, [47], and [51] describe modules, i.e. such as the pumps, submitting a request message to the UIC, i.e. root device, via the network);
wherein the request frame comprises a request frame identifier (Figures 13A and 13B show messages having message ID’s), and a request prompt (Figures 3, 10D, and 12A, [47], [71], and [72] describe the request message having message type and command fields, i.e. request prompt, designating the request and causing the UIC to query its internal table of device identifiers),
wherein the request prompt comprises instructions to retrieve the other plurality of infusion pumps' unique identifiers (Figures 3, 10D, and 12A, [47], [71], and [72] describe the request message having message type and command fields, i.e. request prompt, designating the request and causing the UIC to query its internal table of device identifiers),
but does not expressly disclose:
the hub having a plurality of network connectors;
the plurality of infusion pumps connected respectively to one of the network controllers;
the infusion pump selecting the first unique identifier from the list of unique identifiers;
the request frame and transmitted to the other plurality of infusion pumps connected to the hub;
designate the first unique identifier as an identifier of the respective infusion pump when an error frame is not received within a time period from one of the plurality of infusion pumps;
when the error frame is received within the time period from one of the plurality of infusion pumps, select a next unique identifier in the list of unique identifiers for transmission within another request frame to the other plurality of infusion pumps;
the request frame comprising the first unique identifier;
wherein the error frame comprises a reject frame identifier, the first unique identifier, and an error prompt.
However, Kamen teaches that it was old and well known in the art of infusion pump systems before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a hub comprise a plurality of controller area network connectors where a plurality of infusion pumps are connected respectively to one of the network controllers (Figures 117-120 and 149-151, [644]-[646], [701]-[704], and [709] show and describe a system having a hub connected to a plurality of infusion pumps via respective CAN bus connectors).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of infusion pump systems before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Jha to have the hub comprise a plurality of controller area network connectors with the plurality of infusion pumps connected respectively to one of the network controllers as taught by Kamen since the claimed invention is only a combination of these old and well known elements which would have performed the same function in combination as each did separately. In the present case Jha already discloses a hub connected to a plurality of infusion pumps, and connecting the pumps to the hub using a plurality of network connectors as taught by Kamen would serve that same function in Jha making the results predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143).
Lamberg further teaches that it was old and well known in the art of control area networks before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause a device of a plurality of devices connected to a controller area network (Column 1 lines 46-48 and Column 2 lines 24-25 and 33-42 describe the system having a CAN network comprising a plurality of connected nodes) to select a first unique identifier in a stored list of unique identifiers (Column 3 lines 38-43, Column 4 lines 10-14 and 26-30 and Claim 1 describe the node storing a list of potential identifiers and selecting an identifier from the list), transmit a request message including the first unique identifier to the other plurality of devices connected to the controller area network (Figure 5, Figure 6 element 63, Figure 7, Column 3 lines 1-9, Column 4 lines 36-38, and Claim 1 describe a node transmitting a message proposing use of the selected unique identifier to the other nodes), when an error message is not received within a time period from one of the plurality of devices, designate the first unique identifier as an identifier of the respective devices (Figure 5, Column 4 lines 43-59, and Claim 1 describe the node waiting for a delay period, and if no reply is received indicating that the identifier is in use by another node, assigning itself the identifier and updating its table with the identifier), when the error message is received within the time period from one of the plurality of devices, select a next unique identifier in the list of unique identifiers for transmission within another request message to the other plurality of devices (Figures 5 and 7, Column 2 lines 49-67, Column 3 lines 1-9, Column 5 lines 8-25, and Claim 1 describe the transmitting node receiving a reply of higher priority not accepting the proposed identifier, i.e. an error message, and selecting a new unique identifier for repeating the process), and wherein the error frame comprises the first unique identifier and an error prompt (Figure 7 outlines a device node receiving a “does not accept” message that contains its own identifier; Column 2 line 61 – Column 3 line 9 and Column 5 lines 7-29 describe the “does not accept” message, where the “does not accept” state recorded in the message is construed as an error prompt).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of controller area networks before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Jha to cause one of the plurality of devices connected to the controller area network to select a first unique identifier in a stored list of unique identifiers, transmit a request message including the first unique identifier to the other plurality of devices connected to the controller area network, when an error message is not received within a time period from one of the plurality of devices, designate the first unique identifier as an identifier of the respective devices, when the error message is received within the time period from one of the plurality of devices, select a next unique identifier in the list of unique identifiers for transmission within another request message to the other plurality of devices, and wherein the error frame comprises the first unique identifier and an error prompt as taught by Lamberg since the claimed invention is only a combination of these old and well known elements which would have performed the same function in combination as each did separately. In the present case Jha already discloses a plurality of devices, i.e. infusion pumps, connected via a CAN bus as well as the devices requesting and being assigned unique identifiers over the CAN bus, and doing so using the above steps as taught by Lamberg would serve that same function in Jha, making the results predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143).
While Lamberg teaches an error frame having the first unique identifier and an error prompt, it does not expressly disclose the reject frame having an error frame identifier.
However, Andrews further teaches that that it was old and well known in the art of network address allocation before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include an error frame identifier in an error frame (Column 2 lines 1-29 and Column 12 lines 15-25 describe the system of dynamic address allocation in which a node transmits an address request message and, if the address is in use by another node, receives an acknowledgement message indicating its usage, i.e. an error frame; Figure 6 element 606, Column 17 lines 53-56, and Column 18 lines 37-40 describe the acknowledgement message having an ID=1 in addition to the unique address 608).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of infusion pump systems before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Jha and Lamberg to include an error frame identifier in an error frame as taught by Andrews since the claimed invention is only a combination of these old and well known elements which would have performed the same function in combination as each did separately. In the present case the combination of Jha and Lamberg already teaches frames having identifiers (see e.g. Jha Figures 13A and 13B showing messages having message ID’s) as well as using error frames, and including an error frame identifier in an error frame as taught by Andrews would serve that same function in Jha and Lamberg making the results predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143).
Claim 9 recites limitations similar to those recited in claim 2, and is rejected on the same grounds set out above with respect to claim 2.
Claim 11 recites limitations similar to those recited in claim 4, and is rejected on the same grounds set out above with respect to claim 4.
Claim 12 recites limitations similar to those recited in claim 5, and is rejected on the same grounds set out above with respect to claim 5.
Claim 14 recites limitations similar to those recited in claim 7, and is rejected on the same grounds set out above with respect to claim 7.
Claims 3 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jha et al (2021/0105206) in view of Kamen et al (US Patent Application Publication 2023/0102396), Lamberg (US 5,502,818), and Andrews (US 5,835,723) as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of Hof et al (WO 2019/238436).
With respect to claim 3, Jha/Kamen/Lamberg/Andrews teach the system of claim 1. Jha does not expressly disclose wherein a second request frame is received in addition to the reject frame from the infusion pump, the second request frame including the first unique identifier, and wherein the processor is configured to: determine whether the request frame identifier or the reject frame identifier has a lower value, when the request frame identifier includes a lower value, transmit a frame to the infusion pump that transmitted to the second request frame and designate the first unique identifier as the identifier of the respective infusion pump, and when the request frame identifier includes a greater value, transmit the second reject frame to the infusion pump that transmitted to the second request frame, the second reject frame including the request frame identifier, and select a next unique identifier in the list of unique identifiers for transmission within a second request frame to the other plurality of infusion pumps.
However, Lamberg teaches that it was old and well known in the art of control area networks before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to
receive a second request frame in addition to a reject frame from a device, the second request frame including a same first unique identifier (Figure 7 outlines a device node receiving both a “does not accept” message and a proposal message that contains its own identifier; Column 5 lines 8-29 describes the device node receiving a “proposes” message containing its same unique identifier while it is also in a “proposes” state), and
determine whether the request frame or the reject frame has a lower priority (Figure 7 outlines the device node comparing the levels of the received message and its own message state, i.e. the priority of each message; Column 5 lines 8-29 and Claim 1 describe the device node receiving a “proposes” message containing its same unique identifier and determining whether its own message is of a higher level),
when the request frame has a greater priority, transmit a second reject frame to the device that transmitted to the second request frame and designate the first unique identifier as the identifier of the respective device (Figure 7 outlines the device node comparing the levels of the received message and its own message state, and sending an “I don’t accept” cancelation message if its message has higher priority; Column 5 lines 8-29 and Claim 1 describe the device node receiving a “proposes” message containing its same unique identifier and sending an “I don’t accept” cancelation message if its message has higher priority), and
when the request frame has a lower priority, transmit the second reject frame to the device that transmitted to the second request frame, the second reject frame including the request frame identifier, and select a next unique identifier in the list of unique identifiers for transmission within a second request frame to the other plurality of devices (Figure 7 outlines the device node comparing the levels of the received message and its own message state, and canceling its own message if it has a lower priority; Figure 5 outlines the process repeated after canceling its own message; Column 5 lines 8-29 describes the device node receiving a message containing its same unique identifier and canceling its own message if it has a lower priority; Column 3 lines 38-43, Column 4 lines 10-14 and 26-30 and Claim 1 describe the node selecting a new identifier from the list).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of controller area networks before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Jha, Kamen, Lamberg, and Andrews to receive a second request frame in addition to the reject frame from a device, the second request frame including the first unique identifier, determine whether the request frame identifier or the reject frame identifier has a lower value, when the request frame identifier includes a lower value, transmit a frame to the device that transmitted to the second request frame and designate the first unique identifier as the identifier of the respective device, and when the request frame identifier includes a greater value, transmit the second reject frame to the device that transmitted to the second request frame, the second reject frame including the request frame identifier, and select a next unique identifier in the list of unique identifiers for transmission within a second request frame to the other plurality of devices as taught by Lamberg since the claimed invention is only a combination of these old and well known elements which would have performed the same function in combination as each did separately. In the present case the combination of Jha, Kamen, Lamberg, and Andrews already teaches a plurality of devices, i.e. infusion pumps, connected to a network and requesting identifiers, and doing so using the above steps as taught by Lamberg would serve that same function in Jha, Kamen, Lamberg, and Andrews, making the results predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143).
While Lamberg teaches determining whether the frame or the second frame identifier has a lower priority, it does not expressly disclose doing this by the reject frame including a second frame identifier and determining whether the frame identifier or the second frame identifier has a lower value.
However, Hof teaches that it was old and well known in the art of control area networks before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a second frame include a second frame identifier and determine whether a first frame or a second frame has greater priority based on whether a first frame identifier or a second frame identifier is a lower value (Page 3 lines 13-31, Page 12 lines 10-12, and Page 13 lines 16-24 describe every message sent over a CAN network having an identifier, and determining the priority of each message by assigning higher priority to identifiers having lower numerical values).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of controller area networks before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Jha, Kamen, Lamberg, and Andrews to have a second frame include a second frame identifier and determine whether a first frame or a second frame has greater priority based on whether a first frame identifier or a second frame identifier is a lower value as taught by Hof since the claimed invention is only a combination of these old and well known elements which would have performed the same function in combination as each did separately. In the present case the combination of Jha, Kamen, Lamberg, and Andrews already teaches a plurality of infusion pumps, i.e. devices, as well as using frame priority to determine whether to designate a unique identifier as the identifier of the device or to select a next identifier, and determining a higher frame priority based on a lower frame identifier value as taught by Hof would serve that same function in Jha, Kamen, Lamberg, and Andrews, making the results predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143).
With respect to claim 10, Jha/Kamen/Lamberg teach the system of claim 8. Jha does not expressly disclose wherein a second request frame is received in addition to the error frame from the infusion pump, the second request frame including the first unique identifier, and wherein the processor is configured to: determine whether the request frame identifier or the error frame identifier has a lower value, when the request frame identifier includes a lower value, transmit a second error frame to the infusion pump that transmitted to the second request frame and designate the first unique identifier as the identifier of the respective infusion pump, and when the request frame identifier includes a greater value, transmit the second error frame to the infusion pump that transmitted to the second request frame, the second error frame including the request frame identifier, and select a next unique identifier in the list of unique identifiers for transmission within a second request frame to the other plurality of infusion pumps.
However, Lamberg teaches that it was old and well known in the art of control area networks before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to
receive a second request frame in addition to an error frame from a device, the second request frame including a same first unique identifier (Figure 7 outlines a device node receiving both a “does not accept” message and a proposal message that contains its own identifier; Column 5 lines 8-29 describes the device node receiving a “proposes” message containing its same unique identifier while it is also in a “proposes” state), and
determine whether the request frame or the error frame has a lower priority (Figure 7 outlines the device node comparing the levels of the received message and its own message state, i.e. the priority of each message; Column 5 lines 8-29 and Claim 1 describe the device node receiving a “proposes” message containing its same unique identifier and determining whether its own message is of a higher level),
when the request frame has a greater priority, transmit a second error frame to the device that transmitted to the second request frame and designate the first unique identifier as the identifier of the respective device (Figure 7 outlines the device node comparing the levels of the received message and its own message state, and sending an “I don’t accept” cancelation message if its message has higher priority; Column 5 lines 8-29 and Claim 1 describe the device node receiving a “proposes” message containing its same unique identifier and sending an “I don’t accept” cancelation message if its message has higher priority), and
when the request frame has a lower priority, transmit the second error frame to the device that transmitted to the second request frame, the second error frame including the message identifier, and select a next unique identifier in the list of unique identifiers for transmission within a second request frame to the other plurality of devices (Figure 7 outlines the device node comparing the levels of the received message and its own message state, and canceling its own message if it has a lower priority; Figure 5 outlines the process repeated after canceling its own message; Column 5 lines 8-29 describes the device node receiving a message containing its same unique identifier and canceling its own message if it has a lower priority; Column 3 lines 38-43, Column 4 lines 10-14 and 26-30 and Claim 1 describe the node selecting a new identifier from the list).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of controller area networks before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Jha, Kamen, Lamberg, and Andrews to receive a second request frame in addition to the error frame from a device, the second request frame including the first unique identifier, determine whether the request frame identifier or the error frame identifier has a lower value, when the request frame identifier includes a lower value, transmit a second error frame to the device that transmitted to the second request frame and designate the first unique identifier as the identifier of the respective device, and when the request frame identifier includes a greater value, transmit the second error frame to the device that transmitted to the second request frame, the second error frame including the request frame identifier, and select a next unique identifier in the list of unique identifiers for transmission within a second request frame to the other plurality of devices as taught by Lamberg since the claimed invention is only a combination of these old and well known elements which would have performed the same function in combination as each did separately. In the present case the combination of Jha, Kamen, Lamberg, and Andrews already teaches a plurality of devices, i.e. infusion pumps (see citations to Jha above with respect to claim 1), connected to a network and requesting identifiers, and doing so using the above steps as taught by Lamberg would serve that same function in Jha, Kamen, Lamberg, and Andrews, making the results predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143).
While Lamberg teaches determining whether the frame or the second frame identifier has a lower priority, it does not expressly disclose doing this by the error frame including a second frame identifier and determining whether the frame identifier or the second frame identifier has a lower value.
However, Hof teaches that it was old and well known in the art of control area networks before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a second frame include a second frame identifier and determine whether a first frame or a second frame has greater priority based on whether a first frame identifier or a second frame identifier is a lower value (Page 3 lines 13-31, Page 12 lines 10-12, and Page 13 lines 16-24 describe every message sent over a CAN network having an identifier, and determining the priority of each message by assigning higher priority to identifiers having lower numerical values).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of controller area networks before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Jha, Kamen, Lamberg, and Andrews to have a second frame include a second frame identifier and determine whether a first frame or a second frame has greater priority based on whether a first frame identifier or a second frame identifier is a lower value as taught by Hof since the claimed invention is only a combination of these old and well known elements which would have performed the same function in combination as each did separately. In the present case the combination of Jha, Kamen, Lamberg, and Andrews already teaches a plurality of infusion pumps, i.e. devices, as well as using frame priority to determine whether to designate a unique identifier as the identifier of the device or to select a next identifier, and determining a higher frame priority based on a lower frame identifier value as taught by Hof would serve that same function in Jha, Kamen, Lamberg, and Andrews, making the results predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143).
Claims 6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jha et al (2021/0105206) in view of Kamen et al (US Patent Application Publication 2023/0102396), Lamberg (US 5,502,818), and Andrews (US 5,835,723)as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of Deivasigamani et al (US Patent Application Publication 2015/0084749).
With respect to claim 6, Jha/Kamen/Lamberg/Andrews teach the system of claim 1. Jha further discloses:
a device comprising an infusion pump transmitting a frame to others of a plurality of infusion pumps (Figures 1 and 9, [12], [28], [33], and [50] describe infusion pumps sending messages to other infusion pumps over a CAN bus);
but does not expressly disclose:
wherein the next unique identifier in the list of unique identifiers for transmission within another request frame to the other plurality of infusion pumps is equal to the first unique identifier plus one.
However, Deivasigamani teaches that it was old and well known in the art of control area networks before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a next unique identifier in a list of unique identifiers for transmission within another request frame to a plurality of other devices is equal to the first unique identifier plus one (Figure 5, [43], [48], [53], and [54] describe a device selecting a next identifier from a pool of available identifiers equal to the previously attempted identifier plus one and transmitting the new identifier in a request to other devices on a controller area network).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of controller area networks before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Jha, Kamen, Lamberg, and Andrews to select the next unique identifier in a list of unique identifiers for transmission within another request frame to the plurality of other devices is equal to the first unique identifier plus one as taught by Deivasigamani since the claimed invention is only a combination of these old and well known elements which would have performed the same function in combination as each did separately. In the present case the combination of Jha, Kamen, Lamberg, and Andrews already teaches a device comprising an infusion pump sending frame to other infusion pumps as well as a device selecting a next unique identifier in a list of unique identifiers for transmission within another request frame to a plurality of other devices (see citations to Lamberg above with respect to claim 1), and having the next unique identifier selected in the list of unique identifiers for transmission within another request frame to the plurality of other devices be equal to the first unique identifier plus one as taught by Deivasigamani would serve that same function in Jha, Kamen, Lamberg, and Andrews, making the results predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143).
Claim 13 recites limitations similar to those recited in claim 6, and is rejected on the same grounds set out above with respect to claim 6.
Claims 15, 16, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lamberg (US 5,502,818) in view of Kamen et al (US Patent Application Publication 2023/0102396), and Andrews (US 5,835,723).
With respect to claim 15, Lamberg discloses the claimed networked device system comprising:
a controller area network (Column 1 lines 46-48 and Column 2 lines 24-25 and 33-42 describe the system having a CAN network comprising a plurality of nodes), and
a plurality of devices connected respectively to the network (Column 2 lines 33-42 describe the nodes being connected to the network), each device including a processor and a memory storing (i) a list of unique identifiers, and (ii) machine-readable instructions, which when executed (Figure 2 element 23 and Figure 5, Column 3 lines 19-22, and Figure 4 lines 14-21 describe the nodes having a CAN-chip, i.e. a processor, as well as software, which requires memory and machine-readable instructions. Examiner notes that some form of processor, memory, and machine-readable instructions are required to execute software and interface with a network), cause the processor of the device to:
select a first unique identifier in the list of unique identifiers (Column 3 lines 38-43, Column 4 lines 10-14 and 26-30 and Claim 1 describe the node storing a list of potential identifiers and selecting an identifier from the list),
transmit a request frame including the first unique identifier to the plurality of devices connected to the hub via the controller area network (Figure 5, Figure 6 element 63, Figure 7, Column 3 lines 1-9, Column 4 lines 36-38, and Claim 1 describe a node transmitting a message proposing use of the selected unique identifier to the other nodes),
when a reject frame is not received within a time period from one of the plurality of devices, designate the first unique identifier as an identifier of the respective device (Figure 5, Column 4 lines 43-59, and Claim 1 describe the node waiting for a delay period, and if no reply is received indicating that the identifier is in use by another node, assigning itself the identifier and updating its table with the identifier), and
when the reject frame is received within the time period from one of the plurality of devices, select a next unique identifier in the list of unique identifiers for transmission within another request frame to the other plurality of devices (Figures 5 and 7, Column 2 lines 49-67, Column 3 lines 1-9, Column 5 lines 8-25, and Claim 1 describe the transmitting node receiving a reply of higher priority rejecting the proposed identifier and selecting a new unique identifier for repeating the process);
wherein the request frame comprises a request frame identifier (Column 2 lines 39-43 and Column 4 lines 36-43, and Claims 1-2 describe the system generating a random number and including the random number in the message to identify it in the event of a collision), the first unique identifier (Figure 5, Figure 6 element 63, Figure 7, Column 3 lines 1-9, Column 4 lines 36-38, and Claim 1 describe a node transmitting a message proposing use of the selected unique identifier to the other nodes), and a request prompt (Figures 5-7, Column 2 lines 61-63, and Column 4 lines 36-38 describe the request frame including an “I propose” state, i.e. a request prompt),
wherein the reject frame comprises the first unique identifier, and a reject prompt (Figure 7 outlines a device node receiving a “does not accept” message that contains its own identifier; Column 2 line 61 – Column 3 line 9 and Column 5 lines 7-29 describe the “does not accept” message, where the “does not accept” state recorded in the message is construed as a reject prompt);
but does not expressly disclose:
a hub including the controller area network, network connectors for communicatively coupling to the controller area network, and the plurality of devices connected respectively to one of the network connectors of the hub;
wherein the request prompt comprises instructions to retrieve the other plurality of devices’ unique identifiers; and
the reject frame comprising a reject frame identifier.
However, Kamen teaches that it was old and well known in the art of infusion pump systems before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a hub comprise a controller area network and network connectors for communicatively coupling to the controller area network, where a plurality of devices are connected respectively to one of the network controllers (Figures 117-120 and 149-151, [625], [626], [636], [637], [644], [701]-[704], and [709] show and describe a system having a hub with a CAN bus connected to a plurality of infusion pumps via respective CAN bus connectors).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of infusion pump systems before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Lamberg to include a hub comprising a plurality of controller area network connectors with the plurality of devices connected respectively to one of the network controllers as taught by Kamen since the claimed invention is only a combination of these old and well known elements which would have performed the same function in combination as each did separately. In the present case Lamberg already discloses a controller area network as well as a plurality of devices connected to the network, and including a hub as part of the controller area network and connecting the pumps to the hub using a plurality of network connectors as taught by Kamen would serve that same function in Lamberg making the results predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143). Examiner notes that the claim does not limit the scope of what constitute a “hub” or its physical relationship with the devices beyond being coupled to the devices via network connectors, and does not require that the hub physically house the devices or that the devices cannot be physically remote from the hub.
Andrews further teaches that that it was old and well known in the art of network address allocation before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a request prompt comprise instructions to retrieve devices’ unique identifiers (Column 2 lines 1-29 and Column 12 lines 15-25 describe the system of dynamic address allocation in which a node transmits an address request message, i.e. a request frame, and if the address is in use by another node, receives an acknowledgement message indicating its usage, i.e. a reject frame; Column 10 lines 59-67, Column 11 lines 51-55, Column 13 lines 49-55 and accompanying pseudocode, and Column 29 line 1 – Column 30 line 14 describe various functions of the address request which retrieve allocated addresses of other devices) and to include a reject frame identifier in a reject frame (Figure 6 element 606, Column 17 lines 53-56, and Column 18 lines 37-40 describe the acknowledgement message having an ID=1 in addition to the unique address 608).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of infusion pump systems before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Lamberg to have a request prompt comprise instructions to retrieve devices’ unique identifiers and to include a reject frame identifier in a reject frame as taught by Andrews since the claimed invention is only a combination of these old and well known elements which would have performed the same function in combination as each did separately. In the present case Lamberg already discloses a request frame having a request prompt as well as using reject frames, and having the request prompt comprise instructions to retrieve devices’ unique identifiers and including a reject frame identifier in a reject frame as taught by Andrews would serve that same function in Lamberg making the results predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143).
With respect to claim 16, Lamberg/Kamen/Andrews teach the system of claim 15. Lamberg further discloses:
wherein the processor is configured to generate a random number for use as the request frame identifier (Column 2 lines 39-43 and Column 4 lines 36-43, and Claims 1-2 describe the system generating a random number and including the random number in the message to identify it in the event of a collision).
With respect to claim 18, Lamberg/Kamen/Andrews teach the system of claim 15. Lamberg does not expressly disclose wherein the time period is 0.5 seconds, 1 second, 2 seconds, 5 seconds, or 10 seconds.
However, routine optimization of a parameter within prior art conditions is not sufficient to support patentability. See MPEP § 2144.05(II). With respect to the time period being 0.5 seconds, 1 second, 2 seconds, 5 seconds, or 10 seconds, differences in the value of the time period will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating that such values are critical. See Id. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum values or ranges by routine experimentation. See Id, citing In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In the present case, the above cited prior art already teaches a time period having a random duration, and there is no evidence of the criticality of the durations claimed in the alternative. For example, Examiner notes paragraphs 9, 17, and 23Applicant’s specification which merely state that the time period may be 0.5 seconds, 1 second, 2 seconds, 5 seconds, or 10 seconds without providing further reason for selection of any specific duration. The particular values of 0.5 seconds, 1 second, 2 seconds, 5 seconds, or 10 seconds as recited, are merely the result of routine experimentation or optimization. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have the time period be any of 0.5 seconds, 1 second, 2 seconds, 5 seconds, or 10 seconds since the end result would be the same (i.e. a time period of some duration is monitored for receipt of a reject message).
With respect to claim 19, Lamberg/Kamen/Andrews teach the system of claim 15. Lamberg does not expressly disclose wherein the device further comprises a transceiver.
However, Kamen teaches that it was old and well known in the art of control area networks before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a device comprise a transceiver ([273], [279], [611], and [631] describe the infusion pumps as including transceivers).
It would additionally have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of controller area networks before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Lamberg, Kamen, and Andrews to have a device comprise a transceiver as taught by Kamen since the claimed invention is only a combination of these old and well known elements which would have performed the same function in combination as each did separately. In the present case the combination of Lamberg, Kamen, and Andrews already teaches a plurality of devices receiving and transmitting data, and having the device include transceiver as taught by Kamen would serve that same function in Lamberg, Kamen, and Andrews, making the results predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lamberg (US 5,502,818) in view of Kamen et al (US Patent Application Publication 2023/0102396) and Andrews (US 5,835,723) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Hof et al (WO 2019/238436).
With respect to claim 17, Lamberg/Kamen/Andrews teach the system of claim 15. Lamberg further discloses:
wherein a second request frame is received in addition to the reject frame from the device, the second request frame including the first unique identifier (Figure 7 outlines a device node receiving both a “does not accept” message and a proposal message that contains its own identifier; Column 5 lines 8-29 describes the device node receiving a “proposes” message containing its same unique identifier while it is also in a “proposes” state), and wherein the processor is configured to:
determine whether the request frame or the reject frame has a lower priority (Figure 7 outlines the device node comparing the levels of the received message and its own message state, i.e. the priority of each message; Column 5 lines 8-29 and Claim 1 describe the device node receiving a “proposes” message containing its same unique identifier and determining whether its own message is of a higher level),
when the request frame has a greater priority, transmit a second reject frame to the device that transmitted to the second request frame and designate the first unique identifier as the identifier of the respective device (Figure 7 outlines the device node comparing the levels of the received message and its own message state, and sending an “I don’t accept” cancelation message if its message has higher priority; Column 5 lines 8-29 and Claim 1 describe the device node receiving a “proposes” message containing its same unique identifier and sending an “I don’t accept” cancelation message if its message has higher priority), and
when the request frame has a lower priority, transmit the second reject frame to the device that transmitted to the second request frame, the second reject frame including the request frame identifier, and select a next unique identifier in the list of unique identifiers for transmission within a second request frame to the other plurality of devices (Figure 7 outlines the device node comparing the levels of the received message and its own message state, and canceling its own message if it has a lower priority; Figure 5 outlines the process repeated after canceling its own message; Column 5 lines 8-29 describes the device node receiving a message containing its same unique identifier and canceling its own message if it has a lower priority; Column 3 lines 38-43, Column 4 lines 10-14 and 26-30 and Claim 1 describe the node selecting a new identifier from the list);
but does not expressly disclose:
determining whether the request frame or the reject frame identifier has a lower priority by the reject frame including a reject frame identifier and determining whether the request frame identifier or the reject frame identifier has a lower value.
However, Hof teaches that it was old and well known in the art of control area networks before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a second message include a second message identifier and determine whether a first message or a second message has greater priority based on whether a first message identifier or a second message identifier is a lower value (Page 3 lines 13-31, Page 12 lines 10-12, and Page 13 lines 16-24 describe every message sent over a CAN network having an identifier, and determining the priority of each message by assigning higher priority to identifiers having lower numerical values).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of controller area networks before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Lamberg, Kamen, and Andrews to have a second message include a second message identifier and determine whether a first message or a second message has greater priority based on whether a first message identifier or a second message identifier is a lower value as taught by Hof since the claimed invention is only a combination of these old and well known elements which would have performed the same function in combination as each did separately. In the present case the combination of Lamberg, Kamen, and Andrews already teaches a plurality of infusion pumps, i.e. devices, as well as using message priority to determine whether to designate a unique identifier as the identifier of the device or to select a next identifier, and determining a higher message priority based on a lower message identifier value as taught by Hof would serve that same function in Lamberg, Kamen, and Andrews, making the results predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lamberg (US 5,502,818) in view of Kamen et al (US Patent Application Publication 2023/0102396) and Andrews (US 5,835,723) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Deivasigamani et al (US Patent Application Publication 2015/0084749).
With respect to claim 20, Lamberg/Kamen/Andrews teach the system of claim 15. Lamberg further discloses:
wherein the next unique identifier in the list of unique identifiers is selected for transmission within another request frame to the other plurality of devices (Figures 5 and 7, Column 2 lines 49-67, Column 3 lines 1-9, Column 5 lines 8-25, and Claim 1 describe the transmitting node receiving a reply of higher priority rejecting the proposed identifier and selecting a new unique identifier for repeating the process);
but does not expressly disclose:
the next unique identifier being equal to the first unique identifier plus one.
However, Deivasigamani teaches that it was old and well known in the art of control area networks before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a next unique identifier from a list of unique identifiers equal to the first unique identifier plus one (Figure 5, [43], [48], [53], and [54] describe a device selecting a next identifier from a pool of available identifiers equal to the previously attempted identifier plus one and transmitting the new identifier in a request to other devices on a controller area network).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of controller area networks before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Lamberg, Kamen, and Andrews to select the next unique identifier in a list of unique identifiers for transmission within another request frame to the plurality of other devices is equal to the first unique identifier plus one as taught by Deivasigamani since the claimed invention is only a combination of these old and well known elements which would have performed the same function in combination as each did separately. In the present case the combination of Lamberg, Kamen, and Andrews already teaches selecting the next unique identifier in the list of unique identifiers for transmission within another request frame to the other plurality of devices, and selecting a next unique identifier equal to the first unique identifier plus one as taught by Deivasigamani would serve that same function in Lamberg, Kamen, and Andrews, making the results predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kolblin et al (US 6,216,172);
Voss, SAE J1939 Address Claim Procedure – SAE J1939/81 Network Management.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM G LULTSCHIK whose telephone number is (571)272-3780. The examiner can normally be reached 9am - 5pm.
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, Fonya Long can be reached at (571) 270-5096. 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.
/Gregory Lultschik/Examiner, Art Unit 3682