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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13 and 14 are allowed.
Claims 3, 8 and 11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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, 2, 7 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Witt (US Pub No. 2019/0326012 A1).
As per claim 1, Witt discloses a connection state determination method for determining a connection state between a plurality of medical devices (paragraph [0113], lines 1-16) each including a connection portion having a unique identifier (Fig. 4, Tag/Carrier 408: RFID chip), the connection state determination method comprising:
detecting the connection portions of the respective medical devices (Fig. 4, Medical Connector 410, Tracking Device 400);
determining whether the identifiers of the detected connection portions are in a predetermined state (paragraph [0012]: physical connection state; paragraph [0159], lines 3-8); and
determining the connection state between the plurality of medical devices based on whether the identifiers are in the predetermined state (paragraph [0159], lines 3-8).
As per claim 2, Witt discloses the connection state determination method according to claim 1, comprising:
determining that the plurality of medical devices are connected in a case in which the identifiers are in the predetermined state (paragraph [0012]: physical connection state; paragraph [0159], lines 3-8).
As per claim 7, Witt discloses the connection state determination method according to claim 1, comprising:
outputting a warning in a case of determining that the plurality of medical devices are not connected or in a case in which a first predetermined period elapses from a date and time of a determination that the plurality of medical devices are connected (paragraph [0167], lines 1-7: devices not connected).
As per claim 12, Witt discloses a connection state determination system for determining a connection state between a plurality of medical devices (paragraph [0113], lines 1-16) each including a connection portion having a unique identifier (Fig. 4, Tag/Carrier 408: RFID chip), the connection state determination system comprising:
a detection unit configured to detect the connection portions of the respective medical devices (Fig. 4, Medical Connector 410, Tracking Device 400);
a control unit (paragraph [0124]) configured to:
determine whether the identifiers of the detected connection portions are in a predetermined state (paragraph [0012]: physical connection state; paragraph [0159], lines 3-8); and
determine the connection state between the plurality of medical devices based on whether the identifiers are in the predetermined state (paragraph [0159], lines 3-8).
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.
Claim(s) 4-6, 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Witt in view of Pierson et al. (Pierson; US Pub No. 2021/0074417 A1).
As per claim 4, Witt teaches the connection state determination method according to claim 1, comprising:
… time of a determination that the plurality of medical devices are connected (paragraph [0162], lines 1-14).
Witt does not expressly teach recording a date and time.
Pierson teaches recording a date and time (paragraph [0047], lines 1-4).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement recording the time and date of an event as taught by Pierson, since Pierson states in paragraph [0047] that such a modification would result in determining when to next test or inspect the medical equipment.
As per claim 5, Witt teaches the connection state determination method according to claim 1.
Witt does not expressly teach comprising:
determining whether a predetermined operation is performed on the connection portions by a medical worker; and
recording a date and time of a determination that the predetermined operation is performed.
Pierson teaches comprising:
determining whether a predetermined operation is performed on the connection portions by a medical worker (paragraph [0047], lines 1-11; paragraph [0066]); and
recording a date and time of a determination that the predetermined operation is performed (paragraph [0047], lines 1-11).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement recording the time and date of an operation performed by a user as taught by Pierson, since Pierson states in paragraph [0047] that such a modification would result in determining when to next test or inspect the medical equipment.
As per claim 6, Witt in view of Pierson further teaches the connection state determination method according to claim 5, comprising:
recording, in a case of determining that the predetermined operation is performed and then determining that the plurality of medical devices are connected, a date and time of a determination that the plurality of medical devices are connected (Pierson, paragraph [0047], lines 1-11; paragraph [0066]).
As per claim 9, Witt teaches the connection state determination method according to claim 1.
Witt does not expressly teach comprising:
outputting a warning in a case of determining that a predetermined operation is not performed on the connection portions within a second predetermined period from a date and time of a determination that the predetermined operation is performed on the connection portions.
Pierson teaches comprising:
outputting a warning in a case of determining that a predetermined operation is not performed on the connection portions within a second predetermined period from a date and time of a determination that the predetermined operation is performed on the connection portions (paragraph [0047], lines 1-17: replacement date).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement the replacement date notification as taught by Pierson, in order to endure proper operation of the medical devices.
As per claim 10, Witt teaches the connection state determination method according to claim 1.
Witt does not expressly teach wherein:
the identifiers each comprise a barcode.
Pierson teaches wherein:
the identifiers each comprise a barcode (paragraph [0037], lines 9-12).
Since Witt teaches the use of an RFID tag for providing unique identification, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement the asset tag as a barcode as taught by Pierson, since Pierson states in paragraph [0047] that both barcodes and RFID tag provide the same identification functionality.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Arrizza (US Pub No. 2022/0321660 A1): similar inventive concept
Gerder-Kallisch et al. (US Pub No. 2021/0157463 A1): similar inventive concept
Jones et al. (US Pub No. 2015/0034713 A1): similar inventive concept
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAOMI J SMALL whose telephone number is (571)270-5184. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-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, Quan-Zhen Wang can be reached at 571-272-3114. 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.
/NAOMI J SMALL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2685