DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claims 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The term “(conductive)” should be deleted from the claim, and “PCB (printed circuit board)” should be changed to simply --printed circuit board--.
Appropriate corrections are required.
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.
Claims 1-5 and 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stefani 10,124,108.
Stefani discloses, regarding claims 1 and 15, a dialysis system 1 (clearly shown in Fig. 1, see col. 1, lines 23-46) comprising a medical pumping system 9, the medical pumping system 9 for moving a fluid through a flexible tube 10, the system comprising: a machine comprising a motor (connected to shaft 35, not shown) and a drive mechanism 35, and a pump head 15 configured to be removably coupled to the drive mechanism 35 of the machine (substantially broad; nearly any mechanical connection can be considered “removably coupled”), wherein the machine further comprises an inductive sensor 34 (see col. 11, lines 65-67) and at least one processor CU connected to the motor and the inductive sensor 34 (see col. 12, lines 15-30 and lines 54-67), wherein the pump head 15 further comprises a metallic element 33 (inherent, as 34 is an inductive sensor) intended to cooperate with the inductive sensor 34 of the machine and the at least one processor CU is configured to determine a defective drive or a speed or a position of the pump 15 head based on the data received from the inductive sensor 34 (see col. 13, lines 22-51); Re claim 2, wherein the motor is configured to drive a rotary motion of the pump head 15 via the drive mechanism 35 when the drive mechanism 35 and the pump head 15 is operatively coupled (this is clearly the case); Re claim 3, wherein the at least one processor CU is configured to monitor a data relating to the motion speed of pump head 15 by using the inductive sensor 34 and the metallic element 33 (see col. 13, lines 22-51); Re claim 4, wherein the at least one processor CU is configured to monitor that the pump head 15 is driven at a required speed by using the inductive sensor 34 and the metallic element 33 (again, see col. 13, lines 22-51); Re claim 5, wherein the at least one processor CU is configured to control the motor depending on a data relating to the pump head speed (substantially broad; see col. 12, lines 15-30 and lines 54-67); Re claim 10, wherein the pump head 15 comprises at least one roller configured to compress the flexible tube 10 (clearly shown in Fig. 2); Re claim 11, wherein the metallic element 33 comprises any metallic highly conductive element (substantially broad); Re claim 12, wherein the metallic element 33 has a curve shape; Re claim 13, wherein the inductive sensor 34 comprises incremental encoder (clearly shown through the use of rotor 33); Re claim 14, wherein the at least one processor CU is configured to determine an angular position of the pump head
15 relative to the flexible tube 10 and to control the motor so as to move the pump
head 15 to a specific angular position relative to the flexible tube 10 (this is clearly the case; see col. 12, lines 15-30 and lines 54-67, as well as col. 13, lines 22-51).
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.
Claims 1-6, 9-14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Faccioli US 2015/0037168 A1 in view of Stefani 10,124,108.
Faccioli discloses, regarding claim 1, a medical pumping system for moving a fluid through a flexible tube 7, the system comprising: a machine comprising a motor 10 and a drive mechanism 13, and a pump head 5 configured to be removably coupled to the drive mechanism 13 of the machine (clearly shown in Figs. 3-5), wherein the machine further comprises a sensor 15 and at least one processor 11 connected to the motor 28 and the sensor 15, wherein the pump head 5 further comprises an element 6 intended to cooperate with the sensor 15 of the machine and the at least one processor 11 is configured to determine a speed or a position of the pump head 5 based on the data received from the sensor 15 (see paragraphs [0069]-[0072]). However, Faccioli does not disclose that the sensor is an inductive sensor, or, subsequently, that the element is a metallic element.
Faccioli discloses, regarding claim 16, a medical system comprising: a reusable machine 2 having a motor 10 with a drive mechanism 13 and controlled by a processing device 11, and a disposable cartridge 23 having a pump head 5 configured to be removably coupled to the drive mechanism 13 of the machine and to be operatively coupled to a fluidic pathway 7 so as to move a fluid through the fluidic pathway 7,
wherein the system 2 further comprises a sensor 15 connected to the processing device 11, wherein the pump head 5 further comprises an element 6 intended to cooperate with the sensor 15 and the processing device 11 is configured to determine a speed or a position of the pump head 5 based on the data received from the sensor 15 (see paragraphs [0069]-[0072]). However, Faccioli does not disclose that the sensor is an inductive sensor, or, subsequently, that the element is a metallic element, or that the sensor is comprised on the reusable machine.
Stefani teaches a medical pumping system for moving a fluid through a flexible tube 10, the system comprising: a reusable machine 1 comprising a motor (part of pump 9, connected to shaft 35, not shown) and a drive mechanism 35, and a pump head 15 coupled to the drive mechanism 35 of the reusable machine 1, further regarding claim 1 and 16, wherein the reusable machine 1 further comprises an inductive sensor 34 (see col. 11, lines 65-67 and col. 12, lines 5-6) and at least one processor CU connected to the motor and the inductive sensor 34 (see col. 12, lines 15-30 and lines 54-67), wherein the pump head 15 further comprises a metallic element 33 (inherent, as 34 is an inductive sensor) intended to cooperate with the inductive sensor 34 of the machine and the at least one processor CU is configured to determine a defective drive or a speed or a position of the pump 15 head based on the data received from the inductive sensor 34 (see col. 13, lines 22-51).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have modified the sensor assembly of Faccioli by implementing an inductive sensor, as taught by Stefani, rather than an optical or magnetic sensor, in order to improve response time, reliability, and versatility, while reducing size. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to mount the inductive sensor on the reusable machine, as taught by Stefani, as opposed to the removable/disposable pump head, in order to avoid repeatedly replacing valuable sensor equipment.
Re claim 2, Faccioli further discloses that the motor 10 is configured to drive a rotary motion of the pump head 5 via the drive mechanism 13 when the drive mechanism 13 and the pump head 5 is operatively coupled (this is clearly the case).
Re claim 3, Stefani further teaches that the at least one processor CU is configured to monitor a data relating to the motion speed of pump head 15 by using the inductive sensor 34 and the metallic element 33 (see col. 13, lines 22-51).
Re claim 4, Faccioli, as modified, further teaches that the at least one processor 11 is configured to monitor that the pump head 5 is driven at a required speed by using the inductive sensor (34 of Stefani) and the metallic element (33 of Stefani) (see Faccioli paragraphs [0069]-[0072]).
Re claim 5, Faccioli further discloses that the at least one processor 11 is configured to control the motor 10 depending on a data relating to the pump head speed (see Faccioli paragraphs [0069]-[0072]).
Re claim 6, Faccioli further discloses that the pump head 5 is driven by friction with the drive mechanism 13 (substantially broad, see element 12 on head 5 and how 13 is in friction contact with 12).
Re claim 9, Faccioli further discloses that the at least one processor 11 is configured to control the motor 10 so as to avoid any slippage of the pump head 5 relative to the drive mechanism 13 (substantially broad, see Faccioli paragraphs [0069]-[0072]).
Re claim 10, Faccioli further discloses that the pump head 5 comprises at least one roller 6 configured to compress the flexible tube 7 (clearly shown in Fig. 2).
Re claim 11, Stefani further teaches that the metallic element 33 comprises any metallic highly conductive element (substantially broad).
Re claim 12, Stefani further teaches that the metallic element 33 has a curve shape.
Re claim 13, Stefani further teaches that the inductive sensor 34 comprises incremental encoder (clearly shown through the use of rotor 33).
Re claim 14, Faccioli further discloses that the at least one processor 11 is configured to determine an angular position of the pump head 5 relative to the flexible tube 7 and to control the motor 10 so as to move the pump head 5 to a specific angular position relative to the flexible tube 7 (this can clearly be the case; see Faccioli paragraphs [0069]-[0072]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record in the attached form 892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Peter J Bertheaud whose telephone number is (571)272-3476. The examiner can normally be reached 9am - 5pm M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mark Laurenzi can be reached at 5712707878. 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.
PJB
/PETER J BERTHEAUD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746