DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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 –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-10, 12-14, and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Anderson et al. (US 2005/0074337).
In Reference to Claim 1
(See Anderson, Figures 2-8)Anderson et al. (Anderson) discloses:
One or more computing devices (220), comprising one or more processors (302), configured to:
receive a first signal associated with an electrical current supplied to a motor (202) driving a pump (102) (See Anderson, Paragraphs [0022]-[0028]);
determine a speed of the pump (102) based on the first signal comprising an occurrence of positive slope zero crossings (See Anderson, Paragraphs [0021]-[0028] & [0034]-[0043]);
determine a second signal based on the first signal and the speed of the pump (See Anderson, Paragraphs [0029] & [0058]-[0059]); and
supply the electrical current to the motor driving the pump based on the second signal. (See Anderson, Paragraphs [0029] & [0058]-[0059]).
The Examiner notes that a second signal controlling the pump is based on the first signal and pump speed to determine dispensing and/or malfunction state and the first signal includes zero slope crossings (i.e.-current changes from dropping to increasing and vice versa via threshold crossings).
In Reference to Claim 2
(See Anderson, Figures 2-8)
Anderson discloses:
wherein the pump is a peristaltic pump. (See Anderson, Paragraph [0002]).
In Reference to Claim 3
(See Anderson, Figures 2-8)
Anderson discloses:
wherein the one or more processors are further configured to dispense, by the peristaltic pump, fluid into a mixing chamber. (See Anderson, Paragraph [0002]).
In Reference to Claim 5
(See Anderson, Figures 2-8)
Anderson discloses:
wherein determining the second signal comprises filtering the first signal. (See Anderson, Paragraphs [0023]-[0024]).
In Reference to Claim 6
(See Anderson, Figures 2-8)
Anderson discloses:
wherein the one or more processors are further configured to identify one or more events associated with the first signal. (See Anderson, Paragraphs [0021]-[0028] & [0034]-[0043]).
In Reference to Claim 7
(See Anderson, Figures 2-8)
Anderson discloses:
wherein the one or more events comprise the occurrence of the positive slope zero crossings. (See Anderson, Paragraphs [0021]-[0028] & [0034]-[0043]).
In Reference to Claim 8
(See Anderson, Figures 2-8)
Anderson discloses:
wherein the one or more events comprise changes in current draw associated with roller compressions of the pump. (See Anderson, Paragraphs [0021]-[0028] & [0034]-[0043]).
In Reference to Claim 9
(See Anderson, Figures 2-8)
Anderson discloses:
wherein the speed of the pump is a rotational speed. (See Anderson, Paragraphs [0021]-[0028]).
In Reference to Claim 10
(See Anderson, Figures 2-8)
Anderson discloses:
wherein the speed of the pump is determined based on an occurrence of one or more events over a period of time. (See Anderson, Paragraphs [0021]-[0028]).
In Reference to Claim 12
(See Anderson, Figures 2-8)
Anderson discloses:
A method performed by one or more computing devices (220), the method comprising:
receive a first signal associated with an electrical current supplied to a motor (202) driving a pump (102) (See Anderson, Paragraphs [0022]-[0028]);
determine a speed of the pump (102) based on the first signal comprising an occurrence of positive slope zero crossings (See Anderson, Paragraphs [0021]-[0028] & [0034]-[0043]);
determine a second signal based on the first signal and the speed of the pump (See Anderson, Paragraphs [0029] & [0058]-[0059]); and
supply the electrical current to the motor driving the pump based on the second signal. (See Anderson, Paragraphs [0029] & [0058]-[0059]).
The Examiner notes that a second signal controlling the pump is based on the first signal and pump speed to determine dispensing and/or malfunction state and the first signal includes zero slope crossings (i.e.-current changes from dropping to increasing and vice versa via threshold crossings).
In Reference to Claim 13
(See Anderson, Figures 2-8)
Anderson discloses:
wherein the pump is a peristaltic pump. (See Anderson, Paragraph [0002]).
In Reference to Claim 14
(See Anderson, Figures 2-8)
Anderson discloses:
further comprising dispensing, by the peristaltic pump, fluid into a mixing chamber. (See Anderson, Paragraph [0002]).
In Reference to Claim 16
(See Anderson, Figures 2-8)
Anderson discloses:
wherein determining the second signal comprises filtering the first signal. (See Anderson, Paragraphs [0023]-[0024]).
In Reference to Claim 17
(See Anderson, Figures 2-8)
Anderson discloses:
further comprising identifying one or more events associated with the first signal. (See Anderson, Paragraphs [0021]-[0028] & [0034]-[0043]).
In Reference to Claim 18
(See Anderson, Figures 2-8)
Anderson discloses:
A system comprising: one or more processors; and a memory coupled with the one or more processors, the memory storing executable instructions that when executed by the one or more processors cause the one or more processors to effectuate operations (See Anderson, Paragraph [0029]) comprising:
receive a first signal associated with an electrical current supplied to a motor (202) driving a pump (102) (See Anderson, Paragraphs [0022]-[0028]);
determine a speed of the pump (102) based on the first signal comprising an occurrence of positive slope zero crossings (See Anderson, Paragraphs [0021]-[0028] & [0034]-[0043]);
determine a second signal based on the first signal and the speed of the pump (See Anderson, Paragraphs [0029] & [0058]-[0059]); and
supply the electrical current to the motor driving the pump based on the second signal. (See Anderson, Paragraphs [0029] & [0058]-[0059]).
The Examiner notes that a second signal controlling the pump is based on the first signal and pump speed to determine dispensing and/or malfunction state and the first signal includes zero slope crossings (i.e.-current changes from dropping to increasing and vice versa via threshold crossings).
In Reference to Claim 19
(See Anderson, Figures 2-8)
Anderson discloses:
wherein the pump is a peristaltic pump. (See Anderson, Paragraph [0002]).
In Reference to Claim 20
(See Anderson, Figures 2-8)
Anderson discloses:
wherein fluid is dispensed into a mixing chamber. (See Anderson, Paragraph [0002]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claim(s) 4, 11, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson et al. (US 2005/0074337) in view of Seveik et al. (US 2017/0000291).
In Reference to Claim 4
Anderson discloses the claimed invention except:
wherein determining the second signal comprises amplifying the first signal.
Seveik et al. (Sev) discloses a peristaltic pump control system which monitors current. (See Sev, Abstract). Sev discloses amplifying the first signal. (See Sev, Paragraph [0110]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added the amplifier of Sev as both references are directed towards current monitoring pump control for peristaltic pumps. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the amplifier would have allowed for a more accurate pump signal by allowing for the signal to be supplied to convert the disturbances in the current from each occlusion to a pulse whose length in time is proportional to the time the tubing is occluded improving overall pump operational control. (See Sev, Paragraph [0110]).
In Reference to Claim 11
Anderson discloses the claimed invention except:
wherein the one or more processors are further configured to determine, based on the first signal, a flow rate associated with the speed of the pump.
Sev discloses a peristaltic pump control system which monitors current. (See Sev, Abstract). Sev discloses determining flow rate associated with speed of the pump based on the first signal (i.e.-current). (See Sev, Paragraph [0048]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determining flow rate of the pump as both references are directed towards current monitoring pump control for peristaltic pumps. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that determination of flow rate would optimize accurate and consistent flows for mixing improving control of the concentrations and dispensing. (See Sev, Paragraph [0048]).
In Reference to Claim 15
Anderson discloses the claimed invention except:
wherein determining the second signal comprises amplifying the first signal.
Sev discloses a peristaltic pump control system which monitors current. (See Sev, Abstract). Sev discloses amplifying the first signal. (See Sev, Paragraph [0110]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added the amplifier of Sev as both references are directed towards current monitoring pump control for peristaltic pumps. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the amplifier would have allowed for a more accurate pump signal by allowing for the signal to be supplied to convert the disturbances in the current from each occlusion to a pulse whose length in time is proportional to the time the tubing is occluded improving overall pump operational control. (See Sev, Paragraph [0110]).
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seveik et al. (US 2017/0000291) in view of Anderson et al. (US 2005/0074337).
In Reference to Claim 1
Seveik (Sev) discloses:
One or more computing devices, comprising one or more processors (See Sev, Paragraphs [0016] & [0024]), configured to:
receive a first signal associated with an electrical current supplied to a motor driving a pump (84) (See Sev, Paragraph [0048]);
determine a speed of the pump based on the first signal (See Sev, Paragraph [0072]);
determine a second signal based on the first signal and the speed of the pump (See Sev, Paragraphs [0048] & [0072]); and
supply the electrical current to the motor driving the pump (84) based on the second signal. (See Sev, Paragraphs [0048] & [0072]).
Sev discloses the claimed invention except:
The first signal comprising an occurrence of positive zero slope crossings.
Anderson et al. (Anderson) discloses a peristaltic pump control system. (See Anderson, Abstract). Anderson discloses a current signal pump control based on an occurrence of positive zero slope crossings. (See Anderson, Paragraphs [0021]-[0028] & [0034]-[0043]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the positive zero slope crossings control of Anderson, as both references are directed towards peristaltic pump control systems. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that monitoring a current between threshold crossings would have improved the quantity control by allowing for consistent pump speed and product delivery amount even with change in battery performance. (See Anderson, Paragraphs [0004]-[0005]).
In Reference to Claim 2
The Sev-Anderson combination discloses:
Wherein the pump (84) is a peristaltic pump. (See Sev, Paragraphs [0007], [0067] & [0072]).
In Reference to Claim 3
The Sev-Anderson combination discloses:
Wherein the one or more processors are further configured to dispense, by the peristaltic pump, fluid into a mixing chamber. (See Sev, Paragraph [0067]).
In Reference to Claim 4
The Sev-Anderson combination discloses:
Wherein determining the second signal comprises amplifying the first signal. (See Sev, Paragraph [0110]).
The Examiner notes that the first signal is pump speed based upon a filtered/amplified current.
In Reference to Claim 5
The Sev-Anderson combination discloses:
Wherein determining the second signal comprises filtering the first signal. (See Sev, Paragraph [0110]).
The Examiner notes that the first signal is pump speed based upon a filtered/amplified current.
In Reference to Claim 6
The Sev-Anderson combination discloses:
Wherein the one or more processors are further configured to identify one or more events associated with the first signal. (See Sev, Paragraph [0048]).
In Reference to Claim 7
The Sev-Anderson combination discloses:
wherein the one or more events comprise the occurrence of the positive slope zero crossings. (See Anderson, Paragraphs [0021]-[0028] & [0034]-[0043]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the positive zero slope crossings control of Anderson, as both references are directed towards peristaltic pump control systems. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that monitoring a current between threshold crossings would have improved the quantity control by allowing for consistent pump speed and product delivery amount even with change in battery performance. (See Anderson, Paragraphs [0004]-[0005]).
In Reference to Claim 8
The Sev-Anderson combination discloses:
Wherein the one or more events comprise changes in current draw associated with roller compressions of the pump. (See Sev, Paragraphs [0067]-[0073]).
The Examiner notes that current draw is measured as an event and is associated with the pump and thus the roller compression of the pump.
In Reference to Claim 9
The Sev-Anderson combination discloses:
Wherein the speed of the pump is a rotational speed. (See Sev, Paragraph [0072] w/respect to RPM).
In Reference to Claim 10
The Sev-Anderson combination discloses:
Wherein the speed of the pump is determined based on an occurrence of one or more events over a period of time. (See Sev, Paragraph [0048]).
In Reference to Claim 11
The Sev-Anderson combination discloses:
Wherein the one or more processors are further configured to determine, based on the first signal, a flow rate associated with the speed of the pump. (See Sev, Paragraph [0048]).
In Reference to Claim 12
Sev discloses:
A method performed by one or more computing devices (See Sev, Paragraphs [0016] & [0024]), the method comprising:
receiving a first signal associated with an electrical current supplied to a motor driving a pump (84) (See Sev, Paragraph [0048]);
determining a speed of the pump based on the first signal (See Sev, Paragraph [0072]);
determining a second signal based on the first signal and the speed of the pump (84), (See Sev, Paragraphs [0048] & [0072]); and
supply the electrical current to the motor driving the pump (84) based on the second signal. (See Sev, Paragraphs [0048] & [0072]).
Sev discloses the claimed invention except:
The first signal comprising an occurrence of positive zero slope crossings.
Anderson et al. (Anderson) discloses a peristaltic pump control system. (See Anderson, Abstract). Anderson discloses a current signal pump control based on an occurrence of positive zero slope crossings. (See Anderson, Paragraphs [0021]-[0028] & [0034]-[0043]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the positive zero slope crossings control of Anderson, as both references are directed towards peristaltic pump control systems. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that monitoring a current between threshold crossings would have improved the quantity control by allowing for consistent pump speed and product delivery amount even with change in battery performance. (See Anderson, Paragraphs [0004]-[0005]).
In Reference to Claim 13
The Sev-Anderson combination discloses:
Wherein the pump (84) is a peristaltic pump. (See Sev, Paragraphs [0007], [0067] & [0072]).
In Reference to Claim 14
The Sev-Anderson combination discloses:
Wherein the one or more processors are further configured to dispense, by the peristaltic pump, fluid into a mixing chamber. (See Sev, Paragraph [0067]).
In Reference to Claim 15
The Sev-Anderson combination discloses:
Wherein determining the second signal comprises amplifying the first signal. (See Sev, Paragraph [0110]).
The Examiner notes that the first signal is pump speed based upon a filtered/amplified current.
In Reference to Claim 16
The Sev-Anderson combination discloses:
Wherein determining the second signal comprises filtering the first signal. (See Sev, Paragraph [0110]).
The Examiner notes that the first signal is pump speed based upon a filtered/amplified current.
In Reference to Claim 17
The Sev-Anderson combination discloses:
Further comprising identifying one or more events associated with the first signal. (See Sev, Paragraph [0048]).
In Reference to Claim 18
Sev discloses:
A system comprising:
one or more processors (See Sev, Paragraphs [0016] & [0024]); and
a memory coupled with the one or more processors, the memory storing executable instructions that when executed by the one or more processors cause the one or more processors to effectuate operations (See Sev, Paragraphs [0016] & [0024]) comprising:
receiving a first signal associated with an electrical current supplied to a motor driving a pump (84) (See Sev, Paragraph [0048]);
determining a speed of the pump (84) based on the first signal (See Sev, Paragraph [0072]);
determining a second signal based on the first signal and the speed of the pump (See Sev, Paragraphs [0048] & [0072]); and
supplying the electrical current to the motor driving the pump (84) based on the second signal. (See Sev, Paragraphs [0048] & [0072]).
Sev discloses the claimed invention except:
The first signal comprising an occurrence of positive zero slope crossings.
Anderson et al. (Anderson) discloses a peristaltic pump control system. (See Anderson, Abstract). Anderson discloses a current signal pump control based on an occurrence of positive zero slope crossings. (See Anderson, Paragraphs [0021]-[0028] & [0034]-[0043]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the positive zero slope crossings control of Anderson, as both references are directed towards peristaltic pump control systems. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that monitoring a current between threshold crossings would have improved the quantity control by allowing for consistent pump speed and product delivery amount even with change in battery performance. (See Anderson, Paragraphs [0004]-[0005]).
In Reference to Claim 19
The Sev-Anderson combination discloses:
wherein the pump is a peristaltic pump. (See Sev, Paragraphs [0007], [0067] & [0072]).
In Reference to Claim 20
The Sev-Anderson combination discloses:
wherein fluid is dispensed by the pump into a mixing chamber. (See Sev, Paragraph [0067]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Jackson, Furberg, and Guthrie show devices within the general state of the art of invention.
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 MATTHEW THOMAS LARGI whose telephone number is (571)270-3512. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 - 4:00 M-F.
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, Essama Omgba can be reached at (469) 295-9278. 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.
/MATTHEW T LARGI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
Prosecution Insights