DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation ("BRI") using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The BRI of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181(I), claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term "means" or "step" or a term used as a substitute for "means" that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word "for" (e.g., "means for") or another linking word or phrase, such as "configured to" or "so that"; and
(C) the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word "means" (or "step") in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word "means" (or "step") in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word "means" (or "step") are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word "means" (or "step") are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word "means," but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: "digital computing device configured to […]," "a bridge sense D/A converter converting […]," and "a bridge excitation converter converting," in claim(s) 1-20.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function (e.g., Figs. 8-10 and corresponding description thereof), and equivalents thereof.
If Applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), Applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 17 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 7. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m). The difference in scope between claims 7 and 17 is not readily apparent to the examiner.
Additionally, claim(s) 1, 9 and 13 is/are objected to because of the following informalities.
With respect to claim 1, "assign the pressure sensor an individual correction value based on the stored transducer-specific gauge factors and the determined atmospheric compensation zero values" should be amended/corrected to "assign the pressure sensor an individual correction value based on the stored transducer-specific gauge factors and the determined atmospheric compensation zero value[[s]]" for consistency with the prior and/or surrounding limitation(s).
With respect to claim 9, "said digital computing device notifies an operator of the need to employ the computing device to […]" should be amended/corrected to "said digital computing device notifies an operator of the need to employ the digital computing device to […]" for consistency with the prior and/or surrounding limitation(s).
With respect to claim 13, a period should be added at the end of the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1 and claims dependent thereon, the limitations "a digital output of the digital compensated sensor value from the transducer interface system; and an analog output of the converted analog Wheatstone Bridge sense signal from the transducer interface system" are indefinite. It is unclear if "a digital output of the digital compensated sensor value" is limiting the digital output to the sensor value, or a hardware component (e.g., interface) for outputting the digital compensated sensor value. The "analog output" limitation is similarly unclear, i.e., is the "analog output" the sense signal, or means of the interface system for outputting said sense signal. The dependent claims further add to this ambiguity. For example, a plain reading of claim 15 indicates the digital output comprises an interface transmitting the digital compensated sensor value (i.e., digital output is the hardware outputting the digital compensated sensor value), whereas a plain reading of claim 18 indicates the analog output is data/information provided to the PCM (i.e., data that is provided from the transducer interface system to the PCM). Further, if outputs are merely the respective data or information, it is unclear in what manner, if at all, the above-noted limitations further limit the structure of the claimed system. Under this interpretation, said limitations do not appear to require the step of/means for actually outputting the respective data, but merely appear to describe previously-recited data by a different name (i.e., the digital compensated sensor value is a digital output of the interface system).
To the best of the examiner's understanding in view of the above and the remainder of the application as filed, the claimed "digital output" and "analog output" are disclosed/intended to recite or encompass the hardware for outputting (i.e., transmitting) the digital compensated sensor value from the transducer interface system, and the hardware of the interface system for outputting (i.e., transmitting) the converted analog Wheatstone Bridge sense signal from the transducer interface system, and will be further discussed with this understanding below. For example, within the scope of: "[…] a digital output transmitting the digital compensated sensor value from the transducer interface system; and an analog output transmitting the converted analog Wheatstone Bridge sense signal from the transducer interface system." Amendments to claim 1 commensurate in scope with this understanding (and amendments consistent with this understanding to dependent claim 18, e.g., "the converted analog Wheatstone Bridge sense signal is provided to the PCM via the analog output") would overcome this rejection.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting ("NSDP") rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the "right to exclude" granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A NSDP rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional NSDP rejection provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a NSDP rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim(s) 1-15 and 17-20 is/are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim(s) 1-25 of USPN 12,186,061.
With respect to claim 1 of the present application, claim 1 of USPN 12,186,061 recite a transducer interface system, comprising:
a memory storing transducer-specific gauge factors specific to a pressure sensor (non-volatile memory for storing transducer-specific gauge factors specific to the pressure sensor);
an analog sensor A/D converter sampling an analog signal from the pressure sensor and converting the sampled analog signal to a digital sensor value (analog sensor A/D converter configured to sample an analog signal from the pressure sensor and convert the analog signal to a digital sensor value);
a digital computing device (digital computing device) configured to:
determine if the pressure sensor is exposed to stable ambient pressure (determine if the pressure sensor is exposed to stable ambient pressure);
determine an atmospheric compensation zero value (2nd and 4th "wherein" clauses) by:
calculating a current atmospheric compensation zero value if it is determined the pressure sensor is exposed to stable atmospheric pressure (wherein if the digital computing device determines the pressure sensor is exposed to stable ambient pressure, the digital computing device is further configured to calculate a current atmospheric compensation zero value), or
employing a previous atmospheric compensation zero value if it is determined the pressure sensor is not exposed to stable atmospheric pressure (wherein if the digital computing device determines the pressure sensor is not exposed to stable ambient pressure…, the digital computing device is further configured to retrieve the previous atmospheric compensation zero value from an earlier successful calculation from the non-volatile memory);
assign the pressure sensor an individual correction value based on the stored transducer-specific gauge factors and the determined atmospheric compensation zero value (wherein the digital computing device is further configured to assign the pressure sensor an individual correction value based on the transducer-specific gauge factors and one of the current atmospheric compensation zero value and the previous atmospheric compensation zero value); and
apply the individual correction value to the digital sensor value to produce a digital compensated sensor value (wherein the digital computing device is further configured to apply the individual correction value to the digital sensor value to produce a digital compensated sensor value);
a bridge sense D/A converter converting the digital compensated sensor value to an analog compensated sensor value (bridge sense D/A converter configured to convert the digital compensated sensor value received from the digital computing device to an analog compensated sensor value);
a bridge excitation converter converting a sensed Wheatstone Bridge excitation signal to a bridge excitation value to scale the analog compensated sensor value to form a converted analog Wheatstone Bridge sense signal (bridge excitation converter configured to convert a Wheatstone Bridge excitation signal to a bridge excitation value usable to scale the analog compensated sensor value to form a converted analog Wheatstone Bridge sense signal);
a digital output transmitting the digital compensated sensor value from the transducer interface system (first output is configured to transmit the digital compensated sensor value as a digital output from the transducer interface system); and
an analog output transmitting the converted analog Wheatstone Bridge sense signal from the transducer interface system (second output is configured to transmit the converted analog Wheatstone Bridge sense signal as an analog output of the transducer interface system).
With respect to claim 2 of the present application, the claims of USPN 12,186,061 recite the pressure sensor comprises a fiber optic pressure sensor (claim 2).
With respect to claim 3 of the present application, the claims of USPN 12,186,061 recite the pressure sensor comprises a Fabry-Perot pressure sensor (claim 3).
With respect to claims 4-6 of the present application, the claims of USPN 12,186,061 recite the system further comprises a medical device configured for insertion into a human patient, the medical device selected from the group consisting of: a catheter, a catheter incorporating a mounted balloon, a vascular sheath, a ventriculostomy catheter, a ventricular shunt catheter, a lumbar drain, and an intracranial pressure monitor structure, wherein said pressure sensor is located within the medical device, and wherein the pressure sensor comprises a plurality of Fabry-Perot pressure sensors located within the medical device (claim 7).
With respect to claims 7-8 and 17-18 of the present application, the claims of USPN 12,186,061 recite the Wheatstone Bridge excitation signal is generated by/provided from a patient care monitor (PCM), and the analog Wheatstone Bridge sense signal is output/transmitted to, and displayed using, the PCM (claims 9-10).
With respect to claim 9 of the present application, the claims of USPN 12,186,061 recite the digital computing device notifies an operator of the need to employ the digital computing device to again determine an atmospheric compensation zero value if said pressure sensor is uncoupled from said digital computing device and then recoupled to said digital computing device (claim 13).
With respect to claim 10 of the present application, the claims of USPN 12,186,061 recite the digital compensated sensor value is transmitted to a display device that indicates systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, mean blood pressure, and/or heart rate values (claim 14).
With respect to claims 11-14 of the present application, the claims of USPN 12,186,061 recite the system further comprises a visual status indicator displaying (indicating the digital compensated pressure value is transmitted to the visual status indicator for displaying, i.e., a display device) a pressure value that is selected or computed from a plurality of said digital compensated sensor values within a sampling period, wherein the displayed pressure value is selected from the group consisting of a peak pressure value, a mean pressure value, and a pressure value computed from a periodic analysis of a plurality of said digital compensated sensor values within the sampling period (claims 15-20).
With respect to claim 15 of the present application, the claims of USPN 12,186,061 recite the digital output comprises an interface transmitting the digital compensated sensor value to a remote computer system (claims 21-22).
With respect to claims 19-20 of the present application, the claims of USPN 12,186,061 recite said analog sensor A/D converter is multiplexed to permit multichannel input data collection from a plurality of pressure sensors; and said digital computing device comprises digital inputs to enable input processing of data received from the multiplexed analog sensor A/D converter, wherein said bridge excitation converter and said bridge sense D/A converter are multiplexed to permit multichannel data collection; said digital computing device comprises multiple digital inputs to enable input processing of data received from the multiplexed bridge excitation converter; and said digital computing device comprises multiple digital outputs to enable output processing of data to said replicated bridge sense D/A converter (claims 23-24).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim(s) 21-22 of USPN 12,186,061 in view of US 2003/0100845 A1 (Eide).
Claims 21-22 of USPN 12,186,061 recite the limitations of claim 16 of the present application, claims with the exception of the digital computing device being configured to simultaneously display onto a visual status indicator a waveform of a plurality of said digital compensated sensor values.
Eide discloses a transducer interface system (apparatus 1; ¶ [0068] interface for connecting the network station or personal computer 6 to a pressure sensor 2) comprising a digital interface for transmitting digital sensor data to a remote computer system (¶ [0072] input/output interface 15 allows data stored in the memory 9 to be transferred to the network station or personal computer 6 for processing); and a digital computing device (processing unit 8) configured to simultaneously display onto a visual status indicator (display unit 12) a waveform of a plurality of said digital sensor values (¶ [0080] display 12, preferably controlled by the processing unit 8, shows the digital pressure signals).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify claims 21-22 of USPN 12,186,061 with the digital computing device being further configured to simultaneously display onto a visual status indicator a waveform of a plurality of said digital compensated sensor values as disclosed/suggested by Eide in order to allow online monitoring of the sensed pressure (Eide, ¶ [0040]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Meredith Weare whose telephone number is 571-270-3957. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9 AM - 5 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. Applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice to schedule an interview.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Tse Chen, can be reached on 571-272-3672. 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.
/Meredith Weare/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights