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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5/12/25 and 6/10/25 are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “the display of the removable controller” in line 2. Applicant is encouraged to change the limitation to recite –the user interface of the removable controller—since claim 16 only recites the console having a display and the removable controller having a user interface. Appropriate correction is required.
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 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 broadest reasonable interpretation 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, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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:
wearable device in claims 12-13.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
For the “wearable device” in claims 12-13, the specification discloses “the wearable device 78 may be a belt, a harness, sling, or other type of apparatus that is configured to be worn externally by the patent 16” (¶98). Therefore, the Examiner is interpreting the wearable device to be a belt, a harness, sling, or equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the first surface" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is encouraged to change the limitation to recite –a first surface—to overcome this rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 7-12, 14-16, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Benkowski (US 20030069465 filed on 2/5/01).
Regarding claim 1, Benkowski teaches a circulatory support system (Fig. 1) comprising: a blood pump (¶34-an implantable continuous-flow blood pump 12; ¶30-rotary pump 12); and a removable controller configured to control operation of the blood pump and be removably coupled to a console (¶30-a portable controller module 16, the controller module 16 may be mounted to a support device, such as a user's belt 23 or to a vest worn by the user. Alternatively, the controller module 16 may be placed on the CDAS 18 or placed on a nightstand when the user is in bed, controller module 16 when in a stand-alone mode; ¶15-controlling an implanted pump includes the acts of coupling a controller module to the implanted pump; ¶30-the same connectors 24, 26 also may couple the controller module to either the CDAS 18 or PHSS 20; Fig. 4; ¶72), the removable controller comprising: a display configured to display status indicators corresponding to parameters related to operation of the blood pump (¶70-flow rate may be displayed on the controller module display; ¶72-the LCD 128 is positioned within the controller module case 78 such that it is easily viewed by a user looking down at the controller module 16 mounted on the user's belt or held within the vest 210, or from a bedside when the controller module 16 is located on a table or nightstand; ¶74-the default LCD message displayed is flow rate and power on the first display line and the percent of capacity or time remaining for each battery connected on the second display line. Alternately, if the flow meter 124 is disabled, motor speed and motor power may be displayed on the first display line; Fig. 4; ¶71); speed controls configured to control a speed of the blood pump (¶32-the controller module 16 may vary the pump 12 speed according to the cardiac cycle (triggered either by electrical sensors or by real-time analysis of the pump 12 speed (RPM) or current)); a first connector configured to communicatively couple the removable controller with the blood pump (¶30-the implanted components are connected to the controller module 16 via a percutaneous cable 22; Fig. 1; Fig. 4); and a second connector configured to communicatively couple the removable controller with the console (¶30-the same connectors 24, 26 also may couple the controller module to either the CDAS 18 or PHSS 20; ¶82-a cable 155 couples the CDAS 18 to one of the controller module connectors 24, 26, through which the CDAS 18 provides power and communicates with the controller module 16; Fig. 4; Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 2, Benkowski teaches the system of claim 1, wherein: the first connector is disposed at a first surface of the removable controller (¶30-the controller module 16 includes two connectors 24 and 26; Fig. 4-connector 24 is on a first surface of controller module 16); and the second connector is disposed at a second surface of the removable controller (¶30-the controller module 16 includes two connectors 24 and 26; Fig. 4-connector 26 is on a second surface of controller module 16).
Regarding claim 7, Benkowski teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the removable controller is configured such that at least the first connector remains physically accessible when the removable controller is removably coupled to the console (¶30-the same connectors 24, 26 also may couple the controller module to either the CDAS 18 or PHSS 20; ¶82-a cable 155 couples the CDAS 18 to one of the controller module connectors 24, 26, through which the CDAS 18 provides power and communicates with the controller module 16; the other connector of 24 or 26 that isn’t being connected to the CDAS 18 remains accessible; Fig. 4; Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 8, Benkowski teaches the system of claim 1, wherein at least the first connector and the display remain accessible when the removable controller is removably coupled to the console (¶30-the same connectors 24, 26 also may couple the controller module to either the CDAS 18 or PHSS 20; ¶82-a cable 155 couples the CDAS 18 to one of the controller module connectors 24, 26, through which the CDAS 18 provides power and communicates with the controller module 16; the other connector of 24 or 26 that isn’t being connected to the CDAS 18 remains accessible as well as the display, see Figs. 4 and 9).
Regarding claim 9, Benkowski teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the removable controller is configured to be in wired communication, wireless communication, or both, with the console (¶30-the same connectors 24, 26 also may couple the controller module to either the CDAS 18 or PHSS 20; ¶82-a cable 155 couples the CDAS 18 to one of the controller module connectors 24, 26, through which the CDAS 18 provides power and communicates with the controller module 16; Fig. 4; Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 10, Benkowski teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the removable controller includes a rechargeable battery (¶12-a rechargeable battery is included for powering the controller module; ¶58-the controller module 16 includes first and second connectors 24, 26, both of which are capable of coupling the battery 28 (which may be rechargeable); Fig. 4; Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 11, Benkowski teaches the system of claim 10, wherein the removable controller is configured to receive wireless power, wired power, or both, to recharge the rechargeable battery (¶12-a rechargeable battery is included for powering the controller module; ¶58-the controller module 16 includes first and second connectors 24, 26, both of which are capable of coupling the battery 28 (which may be rechargeable)…to the controller module 16; Fig. 4; Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 12, Benkowski teaches the system of claim 1, including a wearable device configured to receive the removable controller, and wherein the removable controller is configured to be removably coupled to the wearable device (¶30-the controller module 16 may be mounted to a support device, such as a user's belt 23 or to a vest worn by the user, alternatively, the controller module 16 may be placed on the CDAS 18 or placed on a nightstand when the user is in bed, controller module 16 when in a stand-alone mode; ¶41-the controller module 16 and the batteries 28 are adapted to be connected to a belt worn by the patient; ¶72-controller module 16 mounted on the user's belt or held within the vest 210, or from a bedside when the controller module 16 is located on a table or nightstand; Fig. 1; Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 14, Benkowski teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the removable controller is configured to remain communicatively coupled to the blood pump when the removable controller is removably coupled to the console to operate the blood pump (¶30-the controller module 16 includes two connectors 24 and 26 for coupling to one or more batteries 28, which provide power for the controller module 16 when in a stand-alone mode. The system 10 may further include a battery charger (not shown in FIG. 1). The same connectors 24, 26 also may couple the controller module to either the CDAS 18 or PHSS 20; ¶81-the CDAS 18 further includes a battery backed uninterruptable power supply (UPS) system 152. In one embodiment of the invention, the UPS 152 is capable of operating the controller module 16 alone for eight hours and the controller module 16 and CDAS 18 for one hour when AC power is unavailable; ¶15-controlling an implanted pump includes the acts of coupling a controller module to the implanted pump; Fig. 4; Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 15, Benkowski teaches the system of claim 14, wherein the removable controller is configured to remain communicatively coupled to the blood pump when the removable controller is decoupled from the console to operate the blood pump (¶30-the implanted components are connected to the controller module 16 via a percutaneous cable 22. The controller module 16 may be mounted to a support device, such as a user's belt 23 or to a vest worn by the user; Fig. 1-controller module 16 is connected to the pump through cable 22 and is not connected to CDAS 18).
Regarding claim 16, Benkowski teaches a circulatory support system (Fig. 1) comprising: a blood pump (¶34-an implantable continuous-flow blood pump 12; ¶30-rotary pump 12); a console (CDAS 18 in Fig. 9; ¶80-the CDAS includes a computer 128, which includes a processor 140, at least one memory storage device 142, a video display 144 and an input device 146, such as a computer keyboard. In one embodiment, the video display 144 is an LCD; Fig. 1) including: a display configured to display at least a first set of status indicators corresponding to parameters related to operation of the blood pump (¶80-the CDAS includes a computer 128, which includes a processor 140, at least one memory storage device 142, a video display 144 and an input device 146, such as a computer keyboard. In one embodiment, the video display 144 is an LCD; ¶84-digital data regarding pump voltage, current, RPM and flow data are stored in the controller module memory device 128 and are downloaded to the CDAS 18 via the RS-232 interface. The CDAS 18 may then plot this information on the video display 144, and store the data in the CDAS memory device 142; Fig. 1; Fig. 9); and a docking port (¶82-the CDAS 18 provides an operator interface to the controller module in addition to the LCD 128 and controller module keypad 130. The CDAS 18 includes a communications port 153, such as a standard RS-232 communications port and an A/D converter 154, a cable 155 couples the CDAS 18 to one of the controller module connectors 24, 26, through which the CDAS 18 provides power and communicates with the controller module 16, the same cable 155 additionally couples the communications port 153; ¶30-the controller module 16 may be placed on the CDAS 18; Fig. 9); and a connector (¶30-the same connectors 24, 26 also may couple the controller module to either the CDAS 18 or PHSS 20; ¶82-a cable 155 couples the CDAS 18 to one of the controller module connectors 24, 26, through which the CDAS 18 provides power and communicates with the controller module 16; Fig. 4; Fig. 9); and a removable controller comprising: a user interface configured to display a second set of status indicators corresponding to parameters related to operation of the blood pump (¶12-the controller module further includes a user interface. In one embodiment, the user interface includes an LCD display and a keypad; ¶70-flow rate may be displayed on the controller module display; ¶72-the LCD 128 is positioned within the controller module case 78 such that it is easily viewed by a user looking down at the controller module 16 mounted on the user's belt or held within the vest 210, or from a bedside when the controller module 16 is located on a table or nightstand; ¶74-the default LCD message displayed is flow rate and power on the first display line and the percent of capacity or time remaining for each battery connected on the second display line. Alternately, if the flow meter 124 is disabled, motor speed and motor power may be displayed on the first display line; Fig. 4; ¶71); speed controls configured to control a speed of the blood pump (¶32-the controller module 16 may vary the pump 12 speed according to the cardiac cycle (triggered either by electrical sensors or by real-time analysis of the pump 12 speed (RPM) or current)); a first connector configured to communicatively couple the removable controller with the blood pump (¶30-the implanted components are connected to the controller module 16 via a percutaneous cable 22; Fig. 1; Fig. 4); and a second connector configured to connect to the connector of the console when the removable controller is docked with the console via the docking port to communicatively couple the removable controller to the console (¶30-the same connectors 24, 26 also may couple the controller module to either the CDAS 18 or PHSS 20; ¶82-a cable 155 couples the CDAS 18 to one of the controller module connectors 24, 26, through which the CDAS 18 provides power and communicates with the controller module 16; Fig. 4; Fig. 9; MPEP 2114: "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)).
Regarding claim 19, Benkowski teaches a circulatory support system (Fig. 1) comprising: a blood pump (¶34-an implantable continuous-flow blood pump 12; ¶30-rotary pump 12); a console (CDAS 18 in Fig. 9; ¶80-the CDAS includes a computer 128, which includes a processor 140, at least one memory storage device 142, a video display 144 and an input device 146, such as a computer keyboard. In one embodiment, the video display 144 is an LCD; Fig. 1) including: a display configured to display at least a first set of status indicators corresponding to parameters related to operation of the blood pump (¶80-the CDAS includes a computer 128, which includes a processor 140, at least one memory storage device 142, a video display 144 and an input device 146, such as a computer keyboard. In one embodiment, the video display 144 is an LCD; ¶84-digital data regarding pump voltage, current, RPM and flow data are stored in the controller module memory device 128 and are downloaded to the CDAS 18 via the RS-232 interface. The CDAS 18 may then plot this information on the video display 144, and store the data in the CDAS memory device 142; Fig. 1; Fig. 9) and a docking port (¶82-the CDAS 18 provides an operator interface to the controller module in addition to the LCD 128 and controller module keypad 130. The CDAS 18 includes a communications port 153, such as a standard RS-232 communications port and an A/D converter 154, a cable 155 couples the CDAS 18 to one of the controller module connectors 24, 26, through which the CDAS 18 provides power and communicates with the controller module 16, the same cable 155 additionally couples the communications port 153; ¶30-the controller module 16 may be placed on the CDAS 18; Fig. 9); a connector (¶30-the same connectors 24, 26 also may couple the controller module to either the CDAS 18 or PHSS 20; ¶82-a cable 155 couples the CDAS 18 to one of the controller module connectors 24, 26, through which the CDAS 18 provides power and communicates with the controller module 16; Fig. 4; Fig. 9); and a first battery (¶81-the CDAS 18 includes a medical grade power supply 149, the CDAS 18 further includes a battery backed uninterruptable power supply (UPS) system 152; Fig. 9); and a removable controller (¶30-a portable controller module 16, the controller module 16 may be mounted to a support device, such as a user's belt 23 or to a vest worn by the user. Alternatively, the controller module 16 may be placed on the CDAS 18 or placed on a nightstand when the user is in bed, controller module 16 when in a stand-alone mode; Fig. 4; ¶72) comprising: a display configured to display a second set of status indicators corresponding to parameters related to operation of the blood pump (¶70-flow rate may be displayed on the controller module display; ¶72-the LCD 128 is positioned within the controller module case 78 such that it is easily viewed by a user looking down at the controller module 16 mounted on the user's belt or held within the vest 210, or from a bedside when the controller module 16 is located on a table or nightstand; ¶74- the default LCD message displayed is flow rate and power on the first display line and the percent of capacity or time remaining for each battery connected on the second display line. Alternately, if the flow meter 124 is disabled, motor speed and motor power may be displayed on the first display line; Fig. 4; ¶71); speed controls configured to control a speed of the blood pump (¶32-the controller module 16 may vary the pump 12 speed according to the cardiac cycle (triggered either by electrical sensors or by real-time analysis of the pump 12 speed (RPM) or current)); a first connector configured to communicatively couple the removable controller with the blood pump (¶30-the implanted components are connected to the controller module 16 via a percutaneous cable 22; Fig. 1; Fig. 4); a second connector configured to connect to the connector of the console when the removable controller is docked with the console via the docking port to communicatively couple the removable controller with the console (¶30-the same connectors 24, 26 also may couple the controller module to either the CDAS 18 or PHSS 20; ¶82-a cable 155 couples the CDAS 18 to one of the controller module connectors 24, 26, through which the CDAS 18 provides power and communicates with the controller module 16; Fig. 4; Fig. 9; MPEP 2114: "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)); and a second battery (¶12-a rechargeable battery is included for powering the controller module; ¶30-the controller module 16 includes two connectors 24 and 26 for coupling to one or more batteries 28; ¶59-the first and second connectors 24, 26 have first and second battery detect circuits 100, 102, respectively, coupled thereto).
Regarding claim 20, Benkowski teaches the system of claim 19, wherein: the removable controller is configured to maintain operation of the blood pump when undocked from the console (¶30-the implanted components are connected to the controller module 16 via a percutaneous cable 22. The controller module 16 may be mounted to a support device, such as a user's belt 23 or to a vest worn by the user; Fig. 1-controller module 16 is connected to the pump through cable 22 and is not connected to CDAS 18).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benkowski.
Regarding claim 3, Benkowski teaches the system of claim 2, wherein the first surface is a first side surface (¶30-the controller module 16 includes two connectors 24 and 26; Fig. 4-connector 24 is on a first side surface of controller module 16).
While Benkowski teaches a second surface (¶30-the controller module 16 includes two connectors 24 and 26; Fig. 4-connector 26 is on a second surface of controller module 16), Benkowski does not explicitly teach the second surface is a second side surface that is opposite the first side surface.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice for the second surface to be a second side surface that is opposite the first side surface, since the applicant has not disclosed that a second side surface being opposite the first side surface solves any problem or is for a particular reason. It appears that the claimed invention would perform equally well with connector 26 on a second surface of controller module 16 as shown in Fig. 4 of Benkowski. This would be a mere arrangement of parts see MPEP 2144.04.
Claims 4-6 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benkowski in view of Al-Ali (US 20130262730 filed on 10/12/12).
Regarding claim 4, Benkowski teaches the system of claim 1, and the removable controller (¶30-a portable controller module 16). However, Benkowski does not teach being configured to be disposed at least partially within a docking port of the console.
Al-Ali teaches being configured to be disposed at least partially within a docking port of the console (¶50-the hub 100 includes a display 104, and a docking station 106, which in an embodiment is configured to mechanically and electrically mate with the portable patient monitor 102, each housed in a movable, mountable and portable housing 108; Fig. 1A; Fig. 1B).
Al-Ali relates generally to patient monitoring devices and specifically to a patient monitor and medical data communication hub (¶3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Benkowski to include being configured to be disposed at least partially within a docking port of the console of Al-Ali because when a portable patient monitor is docked, and it includes its own display, the hub effectively increases its display real estate (Al-Ali, ¶46). The portable patient monitor may simply continue to display its measurement and/or treatment data, which may be now duplicated on the hub display, or the docked display may alter its display to provide additional information (Al-Ali, ¶46).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Benkowski and Al-Ali teaches the system of claim 4, wherein the removable controller (Benkowski, ¶30-a portable controller module 16) is configured to be disposed entirely within the docking port of the console (Al-Ali, ¶50-the hub 100 includes a display 104, and a docking station 106, which in an embodiment is configured to mechanically and electrically mate with the portable patient monitor 102, each housed in a movable, mountable and portable housing 108; Fig. 1A-portable patient monitor 102 is disposed entirely within the compartment in the docking station 106; Fig. 1B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Benkowski to include being configured to be disposed entirely within the docking port of the console of Al-Ali because when a portable patient monitor is docked, and it includes its own display, the hub effectively increases its display real estate (Al-Ali, ¶46). The portable patient monitor may simply continue to display its measurement and/or treatment data, which may be now duplicated on the hub display, or the docked display may alter its display to provide additional information (Al-Ali, ¶46).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Benkowski and Al-Ali teaches the system of claim 5, wherein the first surface is coplanar with an outer surface of the console when the removable controller is disposed entirely within the docking port of the console (Al-Ali, Fig. 1A-the front surface of portable patient monitor 102 is coplanar with the compartment of the docking station 106; ¶50).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Benkowski to include wherein the first surface is coplanar with an outer surface of the console when the removable controller is disposed entirely within the docking port of the console of Al-Ali because when a portable patient monitor is docked, and it includes its own display, the hub effectively increases its display real estate (Al-Ali, ¶46). The portable patient monitor may simply continue to display its measurement and/or treatment data, which may be now duplicated on the hub display, or the docked display may alter its display to provide additional information (Al-Ali, ¶46).
Regarding claim 18, Benkowski teaches the system of claim 16, and the removable controller (¶30-a portable controller module 16). However, Benkowski does not explicitly teach the display remaining exposed when docked with the console via the docking port; and being configured to continue to display the second set of status indicators when communicatively coupled to the console.
Al-Ali teaches the display remaining exposed when docked with the console via the docking port (Fig. 1A-display 114 of portable patient monitor 102 is exposed when docked in the compartment of the docking station 106); and being configured to continue to display the second set of status indicators when communicatively coupled to the console (¶46-when a portable patient monitor is docked, and it includes its own display, the hub effectively increases its display real estate, the portable patient monitor may simply continue to display its measurement and/or treatment data; Fig. 1A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Benkowski to include the display remaining exposed when docked with the console via the docking port; and being configured to continue to display the second set of status indicators when communicatively coupled to the console of Al-Ali because when a portable patient monitor is docked, and it includes its own display, the hub effectively increases its display real estate (Al-Ali, ¶46). The portable patient monitor may simply continue to display its measurement and/or treatment data, which may be now duplicated on the hub display, or the docked display may alter its display to provide additional information (Al-Ali, ¶46).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benkowski in view of Thomas (US 20100122995 filed on 11/17/09).
Regarding claim 13, Benkowski teaches the system of claim 12. While Benkowski teaches that the controller module 16 may be mounted to a support device, such as a user's belt 23 or to a vest worn by the user (¶30), Benkowski does not explicitly teach wherein the removable controller includes a third connector disposed on an outer surface of the removable controller, and wherein the third connector is configured to removably couple the removable controller to the wearable device.
Thomas teaches wherein the removable controller includes a third connector disposed on an outer surface of the removable controller (¶40-the controller device 250 depicted in FIG. 3A has two clips 252 attached to a back side of the controller device 250), and wherein the third connector is configured to removably couple the removable controller to the wearable device (¶40-the controller device 250 depicted in FIG. 3A has two clips 252 attached to a back side of the controller device 250 such that when a user couples the controller device 250 to the belt 100, the user is not limited to one specific location on the belt 100, but instead can select from a plurality of possible connection points (e.g., two adjacent, empty pockets 120); ¶44-when coupling the controller assembly 200 to belt 100, as depicted in FIG. 3A, the exposed portion of the two clips 252 are placed inside adjacent, empty pockets 120 (such as pockets 122). Thus, a friction fit is accomplished by pinching a portion of the pockets 120 between the exposed portion of the clips 252 and the backing plates 212).
Thomas relates to medical device carriers that retain accessories, such as controllers and batteries, associated with a medical device (¶2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Benkowski to include wherein the removable controller includes a third connector disposed on an outer surface of the removable controller, and wherein the third connector is configured to removably couple the removable controller to the wearable device of Thomas in order to accomplish a friction fit (Thomas, ¶44) and improve the mobility and the comfort of the user of an implanted medical device by holding the one or more external accessories adjacent to the user in a way that prevents damage to the medical device or any of the external accessories (Thomas, ¶5).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benkowski in view of Smith (US 20040179332 filed on 3/12/03).
Regarding claim 17, Benkowski teaches the system of claim 16 and the removable controller (¶30-a portable controller module 16). However, Benkowski does not explicitly teach the docking port is configured to obscure at least the display of the device when the device docked with the console via the docking port; and the device is configured to cease display of the second set of status indicators when communicatively coupled to the console.
Smith teaches the docking port is configured to obscure at least the display of the device when the device docked with the console via the docking port (Figs. 3-4 show the portable device having a display screen 58 and user interface 30; ¶64-a hinge 60 may be used to allow the upper portion of portable unit 12 to fold down over the portable unit's user interface 30 when portable unit 12 is not being used; Figs. 5-10 show how device 12 as previously shown in Figs. 3-4 is inserted into 24 of the cart; ¶37-a portable ultrasound unit may be inserted into a mating receptacle on a docking cart; since portable unit 12 is not in use when inserted into a mating receptable on the docking cart, the display of the device is obscured); and the device is configured to cease display of the second set of status indicators when communicatively coupled to the console (¶53-cart 14 may have one or more supplemental displays such as monitor 28 that may be used to enhance or replace the display capabilities of the portable ultrasound unit 12; ¶96-the docking cart 14 may have one or more displays that supplement or replace the display capabilities of the portable ultrasound unit 12. For example, docking cart 14 may have one or more clinician (user) displays 126. Such displays may be larger than would be desired on a portable device due to the size, weight and power constraints imposed by portability; ¶64-a hinge 60 may be used to allow the upper portion of portable unit 12 to fold down over the portable unit's user interface 30 when portable unit 12 is not being used; when in the folded position, the display of the portable unit is not visible so it ceases display).
Smith relates to ultrasound equipment, and more particularly, to portable ultrasound units and docking stations for such units (¶1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Benkowski to include the docking port being configured to obscure at least the display of the device when the device docked with the console via the docking port; and the device being configured to cease display of the second set of status indicators when communicatively coupled to the console of Smith because the docking cart may have one or more displays that replace the display capabilities of the portable ultrasound unit (Smith, ¶96). The docking cart has one or more displays that may be larger than would be desired on a portable device due to the size, weight and power constraints imposed by portability (Smith, ¶96). More information may be displayed on the cart's displays than on the display of the portable unit (Smith, ¶96).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20140324165: relates to controlling implanted blood pumps (¶2).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURA HODGE whose telephone number is (571) 272-7101. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:00 am-5:00 pm.
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, UNSU JUNG can be reached at (571) 272-8506. 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.
/LAURA HODGE/Examiner, Art Unit 3792
Prosecution Insights