DETAILED ACTION
This action is made in response to the amendments/remarks filed on July 23, 2026. This action is made final.
Claims 1-15 are pending. Claims 1-15 have been amended. Claims 1 and 15 are independent claims.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed July 23, 2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s argument with respect to the 101 rejection has been fully considered but is not persuasive. Applicant argues the claimed system provides an “improvement in the ease of assigning the infusion pump using a unique verification code that comprises only a couple of digits”. However, the examiner, respectfully, disagrees.
MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) states “the word ‘improvements’ in the context of this consideration is limited to improvements to the functioning of a computer or any other technology/technical field, whether in Step 2A Prong Two or in Step 2B.” Here, there is no improvement to the computer nor is there an improvement to another technology. The assignment of a medical device, even using short codes is not a technology within the meaning of MPEP 2106, but rather a method a human operator or clinician can perform and falls under a certain method of organizing human activity. At best, any purported improvement is of the abstract idea and not of the computer, technology, or technical field. Because neither type of improvement is present in the claims, an improvement to technology is not present and there is no practical application.
Applicant’s argument with respect to the 103 rejection has been fully considered but are moot in light of the new grounds of rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As to independent claim 1 (and 15 by incorporation), the claim recites “the management system assigning each patient a unique verification code for a patient ID or a case number for each patient” and “an identification element assigned to a unique verification code for each patient or bed location by the management system”. However, while the specification describes a verification code for a patient ID or case number as well as a body-worn identification features labeled with a patient code, the specification fails to teach or suggest the assigning is performed by the management system. Rather, the specification is silent as to what or who is performing the assigning. It is further noted the “identification element” is not found in the originally filed specification and will be interpreted as meaning the body-worn identification feature. Appropriate correction is required.
The dependent claims fail to resolve the 112 deficiency of their parent claim and are similarly rejected.
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.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), 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.
As to independent claims 1 and 15, the claims recite the management system assigning each patient a unique verification code for a patient ID or a case number for each patient” and “an identification element assigned to a unique verification code for each patient or bed location by the management system”. However, it is unclear as to how the management system is performing this assignment. It is unclear as to whether management system performs this automatically or if a user, through the management system, performs this assignment. A review of the specification fails to disclose how the management system makes these assignments. For the purposes of compact prosecution, the claim will be interpreted in a manner as best understood by the examiner wherein if the system, either automatically or through a user, is at least capable of performing the assignment, then it meets the claimed limitation.
Dependent claims 2-14 fail to resolve the 112 deficiency of their parent claim and are similarly rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1-14 recite a treatment center for carrying out medical infusions, which for the purposes of eligibility analysis, is within the statutory class of a machine. Claims 15 is a method of operating an infusion pump, which is within the statutory category of a process.
Claims are eligible for patent protection under § 101 if they are in one of the four statutory categories and not directed to a judicial exception to patentability. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. ___ (2014). Claims 1-15, each considered as a whole and as an ordered combination, are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
MPEP 2106 Step 2A – Prong 1:
The bolded limitations of:
Claim 1
A system for carrying out medical infusions for patients, comprising: a. a management system with a database for storing patient data, the management system assigning each patient a unique verification code for a patient ID or a case number for each patient; b. an infusion pump system connected to the management system via data connections, the infusion pump system including a plurality of infusion pumps, each infusion pump comprising a user interface with an input element; and c. an identification element assigned to a unique verification code for each patient or bed location by the management system, each identification feature assigned to a short verification code that is unique, each input element being operable to receive a unique verification code input by a user from the identifying element that identifies the patient or bed, the management system and/or the infusion pump system being configured to assign an infusion pump to the patient or to the bed location based on the unique verification code that is input into the infusion pump, and the unique verification code comprising an alphanumeric code comprising a number of digits, the management system and the infusion pump system sharing the assignment of the infusion pump to the patient or to the bed location via the data connections, and the assigned infusion pump providing infusion data to the management system via the data connections.
Claim 15
A method for operating the infusion pump system in the system according to claim 1, the method comprising the steps of: entering a unique verification code into one of the plurality of infusion pumps; and assigning the one of the plurality of infusion pumps to a patient or to a bed location based on the unique verification code that is entered, wherein the management system and/or the infusion pump system receives the unique verification code that is entered and assigns the one of the plurality of infusion pumps to the patient or to the bed location based on the unique verification code.
as presently drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a method of organizing human activity (i.e., managing personal behavior including following rules or instructions). For example, but for the noted computer elements, the claim encompasses a person following rules or instructions to assign infusion pumps to a patient in the manner described in the abstract idea. The examiner further notes that “methods of organizing human activity” includes a person’s interaction with a computer (see October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility at Pg. 5). If the claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing persona behavior or interactions between people but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “method of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
MPEP 2106 Step 2A – Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no meaningful limitations that transform the exception into a patent eligible application. The additional elements merely amount to instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components ("database”, “data connections”, and “user interface”—all recited at a high level of generality). Although they have and execute instructions to perform the abstract idea itself, this also does not serve to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as it merely amounts to instructions to "apply it." (See MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) indicating mere instructions to apply an abstract idea does not amount to integrating the abstract idea into a practical application). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The “management system” and “infusion pumps” are not a generic computer component; however it is recited at a high levels of generality and similarly amount to generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. (See MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) indicating generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment does not amount to integrating the abstract idea into a practical application).
The claims only manipulate abstract data elements as part of performing the abstract idea. They do not set forth improvements to another technological field or the functioning of the computer itself and instead use computer elements as tools in a conventional way to improve the functioning of the abstract idea identified above. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. None of the additional elements recited "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment,' that is, implementation via computers." Alice Corp., slip op. at 16 (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)).
At the levels of abstraction described above, the claims do not readily lend themselves to a finding that they are directed to a nonabstract idea. Therefore, the analysis proceeds to step 2B. See BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("The Enfish claims, understood in light of their specific limitations, were unambiguously directed to an improvement in computer capabilities. Here, in contrast, the claims and their specific limitations do not readily lend themselves to a step-one finding that they are directed to a nonabstract idea. We therefore defer our consideration of the specific claim limitations’ narrowing effect for step two.") (citations omitted).
MPEP 2106 Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as presented in Step 2A Prong 2. Moreover, the additional elements recited are known and conventional generic computing elements ("database”, “data connections”, and “user interface”—see Specification 1:21-27, 11:27-12:5, describing the various components as general purpose, common, standard, known to one of ordinary skill, and at a high level of generality, and in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy the statutory disclosure requirements). Therefore, these additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept that amounts to significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The Federal Circuit has recognized that "an invocation of already-available computers that are not themselves plausibly asserted to be an advance, for use in carrying out improved mathematical calculations, amounts to a recitation of what is 'well-understood, routine, [and] conventional.'" SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 890 F.3d 1016, 1023 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (alteration in original) (citing Mayo v. Prometheus, 566 U.S. 66, 73 (2012)). Apart from the instructions to implement the abstract idea, they only serve to perform well-understood functions (e.g., receiving, translating, and displaying data—see Specification above as well as Alice Corp.; Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2015) covering the well-known nature of these computer functions).
Furthermore, as discussed above, the additional element of a “management system” and “infusion pumps” are recited at high levels of generality and were determined to generally link the abstract idea into a particular technological environment or field of use. This additional element have been re-evaluated under step 2B and have also been found insufficient to provide significantly more. (See MPEP 2106.05(A) indicating generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment does not amount to significantly more). Furthermore, the Background section of Applicant’s Specification (e.g., see 1:21-27) indicates that treatment centers for carrying out infusions include infusion pumps (See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A) indicating that well-understood, routine, and conventional activities cannot provide significantly more)
Dependent Claims
The limitations of dependent but for those addressed below merely set forth further refinements of the abstract idea without changing the analysis already presented. Claims 2-6 merely recite the type of patient verification code, claim 7 merely recites generating a code and printing a label, and claims 8 and 12 merely recites updating the assignment of infusion pumps, claims 9-11 merely recite the identification being of bed verification codes, which covers a method of organizing human activity (i.e., managing personal behavior including following rules or instructions)..
Claims 13 and 14 further refine the abstract idea described in the independent claim and merely recite displaying and selecting on a graphical user interface. These additional elements are considered to “apply it” under both the practical application and significantly more analysis, as detailed in the analysis above.
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) 1-6 and 8-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (USPPN: 2023/0335275; hereinafter Wang) in further view of Eggers et al. (USPPN: 2006/0143051; hereinafter Eggers) and Heckle (USPPN: 2004/0153345; hereinafter Heckle).
As to claim 1, Wang teaches A system for carrying out medical infusions for patients (e.g., see [0003] teaching a system for monitoring and treating patients), comprising:
a. a management system with a database for storing patient data, each patient being assigned a patient ID or a case number (e.g., see Fig. 1, [0072], [0074], [0190] teaching a central station that stores medical data record, including patient identifier or patient support identifier);
b. an infusion pump system connected to the management system via data connections (e.g., see Fig. 1, [0042], [0044], [00175] wherein the system includes an infusion pump system that is in automatic communication with the central station. For the purposes of compact prosecution “backend” is interpreted as a software component not usually visible or accessible to the user. Accordingly, where Wang teaches an infusion pump that automatically communicates without user involvement (i.e., not usually visible/accessible) with the system, it is interpreted as reading upon the claimed “backend”);
a plurality of infusion pumps, each infusion pump comprising a user interface with an input element (e.g., see Fig. 1, [0091], [0098] teaching a plurality of infusion pumps can be connected to the system, wherein each medical device, can be independently configured via input modules); and
c. an identification element assigned to a unique verification code for each patient or bed location by the management system (See 112 rejection above. e.g., see [0104] wherein a patient is provided a wristband having the patient identifier code, which is consistent with at least page 3 describing an identification feature),
the management system and/or the infusion pump system being configured to assign an infusion pump to the patient or to the bed location based on the code that is input into the infusion pump (e.g., see [0076], [0085], [0098] wherein the central station can assign the medical devices to a device group based on the device association information, which can further be associated with a particular patient or bed, the device association information being manually configured via an input module from the medical device, including the infusion pump);
the management system and the infusion pump system sharing the assignment of the infusion pump to the patient or to the bed location via the data connections (e.g., see Figs. 1, 5, [0051], [0076] [0132] wherein the central station is in communication with the medical devices, including the association of the devices to certain groups/patients/beds), and
the assigned infusion pump providing infusion data to the management system via the data connections (e.g., see Fig. 1, [0042], [0048] wherein the infusion state data during infusion process can be transmitted to the central station).
While Wang teaches a plurality of medical devices connected to the central server, wherein the medical devices are configurable by a user via manual input for associating the medical device with a patient ID (e.g., see [0082], [0091], [0098], [0104]), Wang fails to explicitly teach the management system assigning each patient a unique verification code for a patient ID or a case number for each patient.
However, in the same field of endeavor of managing patient care, Eggers teaches the management system assigning each patient a unique verification code for a patient ID or a case number for each patient (see 112 rejection above. e.g., see [0064] wherein the patient is issued an identification number/patient ID). Eggers additionally teaches a plurality of infusion pumps, each infusion pump comprising a user interface with an input element (e.g., see Fig. 1, [0023]-[0029] teaching a patient care device, including an infusion pump, having a user interface allowing a user to input information). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to modify Wang in view of Eggers before the effective filing date of the invention with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make the modification to facilitate efficient and accurate programming of medical treatment devices thereby improving patient care (e.g., see [0009] of Eggers).
While Wang teaches the identifiers can be different codes and/or be input through an input device (e.g., see [0068], [0104], [0136]), Wang fails to teach the unique verification code comprising an alphanumeric code comprising a number of digits.
However, in the same field of endeavor of patient record management, Heckle teaches a unique verification code, and the unique verification code comprising an alphanumeric code comprising a number of digits (See [0013] wherein an identifier can be an alphanumeric string).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to modify Wang in view of Heckle before the effective filing date of the application with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make the modification as a simple substitute of one known type of identifier (i.e., barcode, qr code of Wang) for another (i.e., alphanumeric code of Heckle) as a simple substitution in order to quickly and easily access desired data (See KSR Int’l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1740-41, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007); and MPEP 2143; see also [0002], [0025] of Heckle).
As to claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Wang further teaches the identification element comprises a body-worn identification element, the unique code comprises a patient verification code, and the management system and/or the infusion pump system is configured to assign the infusion pump to the patient based on the patient verification code that is input into the infusion pump (e.g., see [0085], [0104], [0131], [0132] wherein patient information can be input as the device association information through an input module for which a medical device is associated with a patient, the patient information can include a patient wristband code).
As to claim 3, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated. Wang further teaches wherein the body-worn identification element comprises a patient wristbands (e.g., see [0104] wherein the patient identifier includes patient wristband).
As to claim 4, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated. Wang further teaches wherein the management system contains a list of the patient verification codes, each patient verification code being temporarily assigned to a patient ID or a case number (e.g., see [0176]-[0177] wherein the binding information is maintained until released (i.e., temporary)).
As to claim 5, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated. Wang further teaches wherein each patient verification code has a smaller number of digits than the patient ID assigned to the patient verification code. It is noted that the claim limitation is interpreted as nonfunctional descriptive information as they are not functionally required. See MPEP 2111.05. The function described would be performed the same regardless of number of digits for the patient verification code. Therefore, Wang, having taught a patient identifier, it would have been obvious to substitute any size to correspond to the identifier as a simple substitution. As such, it would have been obvious at the time of filing to substitute the generic identifier of the prior art with any smaller number of digit code because the results would have been predictable for easily identifying desired data). See KSR Int’l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1740-41, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007); and MPEP 2143.
Nonetheless, in the same field of endeavor of patient record management, Heckle teaches patient verification code has a smaller number of digits than the patient ID (e.g., see [0014], Fig. 4 illustrating various identifiers which can be smaller than a patient identifier).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to modify Wang in view of Heckle before the effective filing date of the application with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make the modification as a simple substitute of one known type of identifier (i.e., barcode, qr code of Wang) for another (i.e., alphanumeric code of Heckle) as a simple substitution in order to quickly and easily access desired data (See KSR Int’l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1740-41, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007); and MPEP 2143; see also [0002], [0025] of Heckle).
As to claim 6, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated. Wang further teaches wherein the patient verification code has no more than three digits. It is noted that the claim limitation is interpreted as nonfunctional descriptive information as they are not functionally required. See MPEP 2111.05. The function described would be performed the same regardless of number of digits for the patient verification code. Therefore, Wang, having taught a patient identifier, it would have been obvious to substitute any size to correspond to the identifier as a simple substitution. As such, it would have been obvious at the time of filing to substitute the generic identifier of the prior art with any smaller number of digit code because the results would have been predictable for easily identifying desired data). See KSR Int’l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1740-41, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007); and MPEP 2143.
Nonetheless, in the same field of endeavor of patient record management, Heckle teaches patient verification code has no more than three digits (e.g., see Fig. 4 illustrating various identifiers which can be two digits).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to modify Wang in view of Heckle before the effective filing date of the application with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make the modification as a simple substitute of one known type of identifier (i.e., barcode, qr code of Wang) for another (i.e., alphanumeric code of Heckle) as a simple substitution in order to quickly and easily access desired data (See KSR Int’l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1740-41, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007); and MPEP 2143; see also [0002], [0025] of Heckle).
As to claim 8, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated. Wang further teaches wherein the management system manages and updates assignments of infusion pumps to patients according to the patient verification codes (e.g., see [0104], [0159], [0175] wherein infusion pumps can be switched (i.e., updated) based on device association information, which can include patient identifier/binding information).
As to claim 9, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Wang further teaches wherein: the identification element comprises a bed location identifier, the unique code comprises a bed location verification code, and the management system and/or the infusion pump system is configured to assign the infusion pump to a bed location based on the bed location verification code that is input into the infusion pump (e.g., see [0076], [0086], [0104], [0131], [0132] wherein the device association information that is input through an input module can include bed/room information for which a medical device is associated with a patient).
As to claim 10, the rejection of claim 9 is incorporated. Wang further teaches wherein the management system comprises a list of bed location verification codes, each assigned to a bed location identifier (e.g., see [0076], [0086] wherein the device association information can include bed/room information).
As to claim 11, the rejection of claim 9 is incorporated. Wang further teaches wherein the infusion pump system manages and updates assignments of infusion pumps to bed locations according to the bed location verification codes (e.g., see [0076], [0086] wherein the device association information for which a medical device is associated with a patient can include bed/room information).
As to claim 12, the rejection of claim 9 is incorporated. Wang further teaches wherein the management system manages and updates assignments of infusion pumps to bed locations according to the bed location verification codes (e.g., see [0076], [0086] wherein the device association information for which a medical device is associated with a patient can include bed/room information).
As to claim 13, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Wang further teaches wherein each user interface comprises a graphical user interface with a touch screen forming the input element (e.g., see [0085] wherein the input module can include a touch screen).
As to claim 14, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Wang further teaches wherein the management system is adapted to send a set of patient data or a bed location description to one of the plurality of infusion pumps for display and confirmation by a user upon receipt of a unique verification code that is input into the one of the plurality of infusion pumps (e.g., see [0076], [0211] wherein a user can confirm, add, and/or remove association relationships between the patient and medical device via a display for user selection).
As to claim 15, Wang teaches A method for operating the infusion pump system in the treatment center according to claim 1 (e.g., see rejection of claim 1 above of the infusion pump system) Wang further teaches the method comprising the steps of:
entering a unique code into one of the plurality of infusion pumps (e.g., see [0085] wherein the plurality of devices, patient information, patient support information are provided as a device association information that can be manually configured via an input module); and
assigning the one of the plurality of infusion pumps to a patient or to a bed location based on the unique code that is entered, wherein the management system and/or the infusion pump system receives the code that is entered and assigns said one of the plurality of infusion pumps to the patient or to the bed location based on the unique verification code (e.g., see [0076], [0085], [0098] wherein the central station can assign the medical devices to a device group based on the device association information, which can further be associated with a particular patient or bed, the device association information being manually configured via an input module from the medical device, including the infusion pump).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang and Heckle, as applied above, and in further view of Stonehouse (USPPN: 2024/005339; hereinafter Stonehouse).
As to claim 7, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated. While Wang teaches a patient identifier and a body-worn identification (e.g., see [0104]), Wang fails to teach wherein the management system is adapted to generate the patient verification code and to transmit the patient verification code together with other patient data to a label printer or a labeling system to label the body-worn identification element for the patient.
However, in the same filed of endeavor of identifying data, Stonehouse teaches the system is adapted to generate the verification code and transmit the verification code together with other data to a label printer or a labeling system to label the body-worn identification element for the patient (e.g., see [0013] wherein association data and code data are sent to a printer to generate a label having an alphanumeric code).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to modify Wang-Heckle in view of Stonehouse before the effective filing date of the application with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make the modification as a to easily identify and track data (e.g., see [0003], [0004] of Stonehouse).
It is noted that any citation to specific pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. “The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). Further, a reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). See also Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Celeritas Technologies Ltd. v. Rockwell International Corp., 150 F.3d 1354, 1361, 47 USPQ2d 1516, 1522-23 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
Conclusion
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 STELLA HIGGS whose telephone number is (571)270-5891. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9-5PM.
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, Peter Choi can be reached at (469) 295-9171. 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.
/STELLA HIGGS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3681
