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 .
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for domestic priority to 19 August 2011.
Response to Preliminary Amendment
Claims 1-19 were previously pending in this application. The preliminary amendment filed 08 September 2025 has been entered and the following has occurred: No claims have been amended. Claims 1-19 have been cancelled.
Claims 20-39 remain pending in the application.
Requirement for Information
Applicant and the assignee of this application are required under 37 CFR 1.105 to provide the following information that the Examiner has determined is reasonably necessary to the examination of this application:
After reviewing a number of the references listed for consideration in the IDS filed 08 August 2025, the Examiner determines that many of the references reviewed do not appear to be relevant to the claimed invention or are missing from the electronic application file entirely. For example, Lee et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2014/0132524) generally discloses an “intelligent input system, comprising a touch input, such that the system allows the user to input or select a target object or browse a web page or operate any graphical user interface containing randomly-distributed objects in an electronic device such as an intelligent TV or a digital multimedia player”. McKirdy et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2013/0032634) discloses a “system and method for generating and implementing a barcode”. Knapp et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2013/0009551) discloses a system for “an illumination device is provided having one or more illumination LEDs configured to provide illumination for the device”. Stringham et al. (U.S. Patent No. 8,539,812) discloses “air bubble detector for detecting air bubbles by choosing an optimum set of frequencies and then comparing a return signal from a sensor receiving those frequencies against an internal reference”. Wang et al. (U.S. Patent No. 8,378,837) discloses “an occlusion detection system for measuring a force value caused by a pressure inside the fluid line. Zerhusen et al. (U.S. Patent No. 7,154,397) discloses a point-of-care computer system includes a display positioned in a point-of-care location, a computer coupled to the display, and a network coupled to the computer to enable the computer to access information stored in a remote location. These references do not appear to be relevant to the inventive concept found in the instant application regarding infusion pumps and interfaces for providing details about varying operational parameters of said infusion pumps. Furthermore, several of the cited non-patent literature references and foreign patents are not provided in the application file as required under 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2). Therefore, due to the unreasonably large volume of references for consideration, many of which appear to be irrelevant to the claimed invention or are missing from the application file entirely, Examiner is issuing a requirement for information under 37 CFR 1.105 for a more succinct IDS, with the most relevant references to be filed accordingly.
Information Disclosure Statement
As explained above and in accordance with the request of Requirement for Interaction, the information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08 August 2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. Therefore, the IDS has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. Additionally, see “Requirement for Information” section above.
Claim Objections
Claim 31 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding Claim 31, the claim recites “…the operations of the plurality of infusion pumps systems is configured to be filtered…” instead of “…the operations of the plurality of infusion pumps systems are configured to be filtered…”
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 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 23-29 & 35-38 are 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.
Regarding Claims 23 & 35, the claims recite “high priority medications” being “based on a number of alerts”. However, it remains substantially unclear how determinations of a medication being “high priority” can be simply based on “a number of alerts” without further specifying said relationship between priority and how a number of alerts translates into said medication becoming high priority. For example, does a high priority medication have a high amount of alerts or a low amount of alerts? What type of alert is being monitored in order to determine said medication priority? These questions demonstrate the unclear/indefinite nature of the claimed limitation. For examination purposes claims 23 & 35 and claims dependent therefrom that recite the scorecard including information about said “high priority medications” will be interpreted as merely including information about medication;
Regarding Claims 24-28 & 36-37, these claims depend from claims 23 & 35 respectively and inherit the deficiencies thereof regarding the relationship between “high priority medications” and said medications being “based on a number of alerts”. The “high priority medications” recited in these claims will be interpreted in accordance with the interpretation established above for claims 23 & 35;
Regarding Claim 29, “…generating a graphical display of data of the scorecard of operations illustrating a number of alerts corresponding to each of a number of high priority medications…” is recited in each of the claims, however no previous “high priority medication” has been established claim 29 or claim 20 from which claim 29 depends, and therefore lacks antecedent basis. For examination purposes, claim 29 will be interpreted to recite “generating a graphical display of data of the scorecard of operations illustrating a number of alerts corresponding to medications delivered by the infusion pump systems”;
Regarding Claim 38, “each high priority medication” is recited in each of the claims, however no previous “high priority medication” has been established claim 38 or claim 32 from which claim 38 depends, and therefore lacks antecedent basis. For examination purposes, claim 38 will be interpreted to recite “generating a graphical display of data of the scorecard of operations illustrating a number of alerts corresponding to medications delivered by the infusion pump systems”;
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting 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 nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claims because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claims. 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 rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting 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 nonstatutory double patenting (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 (e.g., 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.
Claims 20, 30, 32, & 39 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 20, 28, 31, & 38 of U.S. Patent No. 12/346,879 (hereinafter ‘879) in view of Blomquist et al. (U.S. Patent No. 8,149,131), hereinafter “Blomquist”.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Claim 20 of the instant application and Claim 20 of ‘879 are substantially similar aside from reciting “a scorecard” in Claim 20 of the instant application rather than “a histogram” in Claim 20 of ‘879. Claim 32 of the instant application and Claim 31 of ‘879 similarly replaces “a scorecard” for “a histogram” as described above for claim 20. Claim 30 of the instant application and claim 28 of ‘879 recite “the operations of the plurality of infusion pump systems correspond to a specific area in a hospital”. Claim 39 of the instant application and claim 38 of ‘879 similarly recite “the operations of the plurality of infusion pump systems correspond to a specific area in a hospital”. Blomquist Col. 20, ll. 47-59 discloses visual indicators and/or a user interface for determining/receiving data regarding pump activity falling outside the range defined by soft limits, such that an alarm, i.e. a visual indicator, such as a flashing indicator or changed/changing color on the pump. It is further understood that a “scorecard” without further specifying said “scorecard” could include a mere user interface with readable or presentable data therein. For instance, the Specification sets forth that “scorecards” can simply be interfaces that provide information regarding changes and adjustments to clinical practice and be monitored on an ongoing basis regarding operational settings or parameters of infusion pump systems. Therefore, in light of Applicant’s Specification, Blomquist effectively discloses said “scorecard” that the instant application additionally claims beyond those claims found in ‘879. Therefore, instant Claims 20, 30, 32, & 39 are rejected over Claims 20, 28, 31, & 38 of ‘879, in view of Blomquist.
Dependent claims 21-31 & 33-39 are dependent from independent claims 20 & 32, respectively, and thereby inherit the deficiencies of claims 20 & 32.
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 20-39 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.
The claims recite subject matter within a statutory category as a process (claims 20-31 and machine (claims 32-39) (Subject Matter Eligibility (SME) Test Step 1: Yes) which recite steps of:
displaying information from a plurality of infusion pump systems on a display comprising:
generating a first user interface, the first user interface comprising a scorecard of operations of the plurality of infusion pump systems related to operations of infusion pumps systems outside of predetermined operating conditions of the plurality of infusion pump systems based on control limits;
provide the first user interface on a display.
These steps of displaying information from a plurality of infusion pump systems, generating a user interface comprising a scorecard of operations of said infusion pump systems, and providing said interface, as drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, includes performance of the limitation in the mind but for recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting steps as performed by the generic computer components, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the displaying information from a plurality of infusion pump systems language, displaying information in the context of this claim encompasses a mental process of the user creating one or more visual aids, tables, dashboards, etc., for visualizing information/data relating to a plurality of infusion pump systems, such as by making use of pen-and-paper means or by utilizing a generic computer as a mere tool to perform said visualization. Similarly, the limitation of generating a user interface, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, such as providing said table or visual aid on a board, or other means for interfacing/presenting said information to other entities. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which further narrows or defines the abstract idea embodied in the claims (such as claim 21-31 & 33-39, reciting particular aspects of how presenting information may be performed in the mind or using pen-and-paper but for recitation of generic computer components) (SME Test Step 2A, Prong 1: Yes).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, other than the abstract idea per se, because the additional elements amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to mere instructions to apply an exception (such as recitation of infusion pump systems, a display, a first user interface, amounts to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea, see Applicant’s Specification p. 16, ll. 5-24 for an infusion pump system/infuser; p. 12, ll. 18-28 for a display; and p. 12, ll. 18-28 for a first user interface, see MPEP 2106.05(f));
add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea (such as recitation of receiving data indicative of operations of infusion pumps systems outside of predetermined operating conditions of the plurality of infusion pump systems based on control limits amounts to mere data gathering, recitation of creating a scorecard of operations of the received data amounts to selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated, recitation of generating a user interface and/or displaying information regarding said operations in the form of a scorecard or dashboard, as seen in Figs. 2-15, amounts to insignificant application, see MPEP 2106.05(g), such as gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result, TLI Communications, see MPEP 2106.05);
generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as recitation of displaying information from a plurality of infusion pumps systems, see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which amount to limitations consistent with the additional elements in the independent claims (such as claims 21-31 & 33-39, which recite limitations relating to infusion pump systems, a first user interface, a graphical display, additional limitations which amount to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea, see Applicant’s Specification p. 16, ll. 5-24 for an infusion pump system/infuser; p. 12, ll. 18-28 for a first user interface; and p. 12, ll. 18-28 for a display, see MPEP 2106.05(f); claims 22, 24, 27-28, & 34, which recite limitations relating to the type of data being received and displayed, additional limitations which add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea which amounts to mere data gathering; claims 21, 23-24, 29, & 35-38, which recite limitations relating to the scorecard comprising a summary of data, electing the data found in the summary/scorecard/pop-up screen, additional limitations which add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea by selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated; claims 21-29, 31, & 33-38, which recite limitations relating to displaying information and/or one or more screens for providing said data, additional limitations which amount to insignificant application, such as gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result, TLI Communications, see MPEP 2106.05; claims 25, 27, 30-31, 33, 36-37, & 39, which recite limitations relating to the operations of the pump systems corresponding to a specific area in a hospital, use of a pop-up screen in particular as the interface-of-use, additional limitations which generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use). 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 and do not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (SME Test Step 2A, Prong 2: No).
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to discussion of integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception, add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, and generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. Additionally, the additional limitations, other than the abstract idea per se, amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields (such as receiving data indicative of operations of infusion pumps systems outside of predetermined operating conditions of the plurality of infusion pump systems based on control limits, e.g., receiving or transmitting data over a network, Symantec, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i); creating a scorecard of operations of the received data, e.g., performing repetitive calculations, Flook, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(ii); creating a scorecard of operations of the received data, i.e. maintaining one or more records of a scorecard/dashboard metrics, etc. e.g., electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp., MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iii); storing received data indicative of operations of infusion pumps systems outside of predetermined operating conditions of the plurality of infusion pump systems based on control limits, storing computerized instructions for performing the steps recited, storing instructions for displaying information and/or effectuating display or one or more interfaces, scorecards, etc., e.g., storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv); receiving data indicative of operations of infusion pumps systems outside of predetermined operating conditions of the plurality of infusion pump systems based on control limits, which includes extraction of said data from one or more documents or electronic sources, e.g., electronic scanning or extracting data from a physical document, Content Extraction, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(v); generating a user interface and/or displaying information regarding said operations in the form of a scorecard or dashboard for interaction by a user, e.g., a web browser’s back and forward button functionality, Internet Patent Corp., MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(ii)).
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, amount to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which amount to limitations consistent with the additional elements in the independent claims (such as claims 21-31 & 33-39, additional limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields: claims 22, 24, 27-28, & 34, which recite limitations relating to the type of data being received and displayed, e.g., receiving or transmitting data over a network, Symantec, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i); claim 24, which recite limitations relating to determining various aspects or operational calculations, such as a percentage, etc., e.g., performing repetitive calculations, Flook, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(ii); claims 21, 23-24, 29, & 35-38, which recite limitations relating to the scorecard comprising a summary of data, electing the data found in the summary/scorecard/pop-up screen,, e.g., electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp., MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iii); claims 21-31 & 33-39, which recite limitations relating to storing electronic data or instructions for performing the steps recited throughout the claims/limitations, such as for effectuating display of said electronic data, e.g., storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv); claims 22, 24, 27-28, & 34, which recite limitations relating to the type of data being received and displayed, which includes extraction of receiving data from one or more documents or electronic medical records/files , e.g., electronic scanning or extracting data from a physical document, Content Extraction, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(v); claim 25-27, & 36-37, which recite limitations relating to a pop-up screen for interaction by the user, or a user selecting one or more options in a user interface, e.g., a web browser’s back and forward button functionality, Internet Patent Corp., MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(ii)). 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 (SME Test Step 2B: No).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 20-24, 29-35, & 38-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blomquist et al. (U.S. Patent No. 8,149,131), hereinafter “Blomquist”, in view of McClendon et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,856,929), hereinafter “McClendon”.
Claim 20 –
Regarding Claim 20, Blomquist discloses a method of displaying information from a plurality of infusion pump systems on a display, the method comprising:
generating a first user interface (See Blomquist Col. 29, ll. 10-18 which discloses a display module being generated and configured to display a variety of coloring and image features, including cautionary color change of the user interface (i.e. green or gray to yellow or red) representing a warning to the user that the current setting is outside of the administratively set thresholds),
the first user interface comprising a scorecard of operations of the plurality of infusion pump systems related to operations of infusion pumps systems outside of predetermined operating conditions of the plurality of infusion pump systems based on control limits (See Blomquist Col. 20, ll. 35 – Col. 21, ll. 4 which discloses various limits, i.e. predetermined operating conditions, such that pump activity outside the range defined by soft limits can trigger an alarm or otherwise alert a caregiver that a pump is functioning outside of the usual operational range of the pump, such that an alert could additionally be an audible alarm, or a visual indicator displayed on at least a portion of the medical infusion pump; See Blomquist Col. 29, ll. 10-18 which discloses a display module being generated and configured to display a variety of coloring and image features, including cautionary color change of the user interface (i.e. green or gray to yellow or red) representing a warning to the user that the current setting is outside of the administratively set thresholds; While not a “scorecard” per se, without further specifying said “scorecard”, in light of Applicant’s Specification, “scorecards” are herein interpreted as interfaces that provide information regarding changes and adjustments to clinical practice and be monitored on an ongoing basis regarding operational settings or parameters of infusion pump systems, therefore see Blomquist Col. 29, ll. – Col. 35, ll. 12 which generally disclose operational configuration settings of infusion pumps systems that can be configured, monitored, and changed over time and following said implementation of said operational configuration settings, a report user interface for displaying operation of a medical infusion pump can be generated including said operational configuration settings of the medical infusion pump).
While Blomquist generally discloses the specifics of a user interface that outputs various aspects of operational configuration settings of infusion pump systems, Blomquist is generally silent on the interface specifically constituting a “scorecard” per se.
However, McClendon specifically mentions a “scorecard” for outputting various aspects of operational configuration settings of infusion pump systems (See McClendon Col. 27, ll. 14-28, Col. 28, ll. 65 – Col. 29, ll. 1-23 which discloses a graphical “scorecard” specifically that implements various pass/fail results and/or indicators for a given test category, allowing for detailed test information for specific categories of a test, such as if the pump received an overall FAIL or PASS Result and thereby allowing for creation for a Pump Certification Report, Failure Reports, and/or Detailed Test Results Reports and/or pinpointing areas where performance failed to meet established criteria, allowing for simplifying trouble shooting and repair by qualified service representatives). The disclosure of McClendon is directly applicable to the disclosure of Blomquist, because both disclosures share limitations and capabilities, such as being directed towards monitoring infusion pump systems and operations thereof.
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 disclosure of Blomquist, which already discloses outputting various aspects of operational configuration settings of infusion pump systems, to further include a “scorecard” representation specifically, because this allows for creation for a Pump Certification Report, Failure Reports, and/or Detailed Test Results Reports and/or pinpointing areas where performance failed to meet established criteria, allowing for simplifying trouble shooting and repair by qualified service representatives (See McClendon Col. 28, ll. 65 – Col. 29, ll. 1-23).
Claim 21 –
Regarding Claim 21, Blomquist and McClendon disclose the method of claim 20 of its entirety. Blomquist and McClendon further disclose a method, wherein:
the scorecard of operations further comprises a summary of data related to the operations of the plurality of infusion pump systems (See Blomquist Col. 29, ll. – Col. 35, ll. 12 which generally disclose operational configuration settings of infusion pumps systems that can be configured, monitored, and changed over time and following said implementation of said operational configuration settings, a report user interface for displaying operation of a medical infusion pump can be generated including said operational configuration settings of the medical infusion pump; See McClendon Col. 27, ll. 14-28, Col. 28, ll. 65 – Col. 29, ll. 1-23 which discloses a graphical “scorecard” specifically that implements various pass/fail results and/or indicators for a given test category, allowing for detailed test information for specific categories of a test, such as if the pump received an overall FAIL or PASS Result and thereby allowing for creation for a Pump Certification Report, Failure Reports, and/or Detailed Test Results Reports and/or pinpointing areas where performance failed to meet established criteria, allowing for simplifying trouble shooting and repair by qualified service representatives).
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 disclosure of Blomquist, which already discloses outputting various aspects of operational configuration settings of infusion pump systems, to further include a “scorecard” representation specifically, because this allows for creation for a Pump Certification Report, Failure Reports, and/or Detailed Test Results Reports and/or pinpointing areas where performance failed to meet established criteria, allowing for simplifying trouble shooting and repair by qualified service representatives (See McClendon Col. 28, ll. 65 – Col. 29, ll. 1-23).
Claim 22 –
Regarding Claim 22, Blomquist and McClendon disclose the method of claim 20 of its entirety. Blomquist further disclose a method, wherein:
the summary of data comprises a number of programs, a number of overrides of control limits, a number of alerts, and a number of edits (see Blomquist Col. 29, ll. – Col. 35, ll. 12 which generally disclose operational configuration settings of infusion pumps systems that can be configured, monitored, and changed over time and following said implementation of said operational configuration settings, a report user interface for displaying operation of a medical infusion pump can be generated including said operational configuration settings of the medical infusion pump, and further includes record and/or history of operational ranges coded/programmed into said medical infusion pumps; See Blomquist Col. 10, ll. 7 – 30 which discloses one or more pump parameters, protocols, i.e. programs, etc., are tracked over time).
Claim 23 –
Regarding Claim 23, Blomquist and McClendon disclose the method of claim 21 of its entirety. Blomquist further discloses a method, wherein:
Note: this claim is being interpreted according to the interpretation established in the “Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 112” section of this Office Action;
the scorecard of operations includes high priority medications based on a number of alerts (While not a “scorecard” per se, without further specifying said “scorecard”, in light of Applicant’s Specification, “scorecards” are herein interpreted as interfaces that provide information regarding changes and adjustments to clinical practice and be monitored on an ongoing basis regarding operational settings or parameters of infusion pump systems, therefore see Blomquist Col. 29, ll. – Col. 35, ll. 12 which generally disclose operational configuration settings of infusion pumps systems that can be configured, monitored, and changed over time and following said implementation of said operational configuration settings, a report user interface for displaying operation of a medical infusion pump can be generated including said operational configuration settings of the medical infusion pump; See Blomquist Col. 21, ll. 40 – Col. 22, ll. 48 which discloses interfaces that provide information regarding various dosing parameters, possible user selections/input fields for one or more medications, etc.).
Claim 24 –
Regarding Claim 24, Blomquist and McClendon disclose the method of claim 23 of its entirety. Blomquist and McClendon further discloses a method, wherein:
Note: this claim is being interpreted according to the interpretation established in the “Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 112” section of this Office Action;
the scorecard of operations further includes data comprising a number of programs, a percentage of alerts to programs, a number of overrides of control limits, a number of alerts, and a number of edits (While not a “scorecard” per se, without further specifying said “scorecard”, in light of Applicant’s Specification, “scorecards” are herein interpreted as interfaces that provide information regarding changes and adjustments to clinical practice and be monitored on an ongoing basis regarding operational settings or parameters of infusion pump systems, therefore see Blomquist Col. 29, ll. – Col. 35, ll. 12 which generally disclose operational configuration settings of infusion pumps systems that can be configured, monitored, and changed over time and following said implementation of said operational configuration settings, a report user interface for displaying operation of a medical infusion pump can be generated including said operational configuration settings of the medical infusion pump and further includes record and/or history of operational ranges coded/programmed into said medical infusion pumps, including a number of edits over time and/or a number of programs/protocols implemented in said pumps; See McClendon Col. 27, ll. 14-28, Col. 28, ll. 65 – Col. 29, ll. 1-23 which discloses a graphical “scorecard” specifically that implements various pass/fail results and/or indicators for a given test category, allowing for detailed test information for specific categories of a test, such as if the pump received an overall FAIL or PASS Result and thereby allowing for creation for a Pump Certification Report, Failure Reports, and/or Detailed Test Results Reports and/or pinpointing areas where performance failed to meet established criteria, allowing for simplifying trouble shooting and repair by qualified service representatives).
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 disclosure of Blomquist, which already discloses outputting various aspects of operational configuration settings of infusion pump systems, to further include a “scorecard” representation specifically, because this allows for creation for a Pump Certification Report, Failure Reports, and/or Detailed Test Results Reports and/or pinpointing areas where performance failed to meet established criteria, allowing for simplifying trouble shooting and repair by qualified service representatives (See McClendon Col. 28, ll. 65 – Col. 29, ll. 1-23).
Claim 29 –
Regarding Claim 29, Blomquist and McClendon disclose the method of claim 20 of its entirety. Blomquist and McClendon further disclose a method, further comprising:
Note: this claim is being interpreted according to the interpretation established in the “Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 112” section of this Office Action;
generating a graphical display of data of the scorecard of operations illustrating a number of alerts corresponding to each of a number of high priority medications relative to a cumulative total of alerts for all medications (While not a “scorecard” per se, without further specifying said “scorecard”, in light of Applicant’s Specification, “scorecards” are herein interpreted as interfaces that provide information regarding changes and adjustments to clinical practice and be monitored on an ongoing basis regarding operational settings or parameters of infusion pump systems, therefore see Blomquist Col. 29, ll. – Col. 35, ll. 12 which generally disclose operational configuration settings of infusion pumps systems that can be configured, monitored, and changed over time and following said implementation of said operational configuration settings, a report user interface for displaying operation of a medical infusion pump can be generated including said operational configuration settings of the medical infusion pump and further includes record and/or history of operational ranges coded/programmed into said medical infusion pumps, including a number of edits over time and/or a number of programs/protocols implemented in said pumps; See McClendon Col. 27, ll. 14-28, Col. 28, ll. 65 – Col. 29, ll. 1-23 which discloses a graphical “scorecard” specifically that implements various pass/fail results and/or indicators for a given test category, allowing for detailed test information for specific categories of a test, such as if the pump received an overall FAIL or PASS Result and thereby allowing for creation for a Pump Certification Report, Failure Reports, and/or Detailed Test Results Reports and/or pinpointing areas where performance failed to meet established criteria, allowing for simplifying trouble shooting and repair by qualified service representatives).
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 disclosure of Blomquist, which already discloses outputting various aspects of operational configuration settings of infusion pump systems, to further include a “scorecard” representation specifically, because this allows for creation for a Pump Certification Report, Failure Reports, and/or Detailed Test Results Reports and/or pinpointing areas where performance failed to meet established criteria, allowing for simplifying trouble shooting and repair by qualified service representatives (See McClendon Col. 28, ll. 65 – Col. 29, ll. 1-23).
Claim 30 –
Regarding Claim 30, Blomquist and McClendon discloses the method of claim 20 of its entirety. Blomquist further discloses a method, further wherein:
the operations of the plurality of infusion pump systems correspond to a specific area in a hospital (See Blomquist Col. 12, ll. 62 – Col. 13, ll. 26 which discloses access levels for viewing, adding, or editing certain operational criteria of the infusion pump systems being dependent on a particular department within a location or a medical facility type).
Claim 31 –
Regarding Claim 31, Blomquist and McClendon discloses the method of claim 20 of its entirety. Blomquist further discloses a method, wherein:
the operations of the plurality of infusion pumps systems is configured to be filtered by a type of infusion pump system or a time period (See Blomquist Col. 10, ll. 65 – Col. 11, ll. 30 which discloses the total number of pump parameters remains constant for each particular model of pump, but can vary between types of pumps, such that specific pump parameters can vary between protocols due to the specific type of drug, therapy, or pump system such that as in Blomquist Col. 17, ll. 26-42, specifying a pump type allows for pump-specific protocol programming and/or indexing for certain protocols in the database).
Claim 32 –
Regarding Claim 32, Blomquist discloses a system configured to display information associated with a plurality of infusion pump systems, the system comprising one or more hardware processors configured to:
generating a first user interface (See Blomquist Col. 29, ll. 10-18 which discloses a display module being generated and configured to display a variety of coloring and image features, including cautionary color change of the user interface (i.e. green or gray to yellow or red) representing a warning to the user that the current setting is outside of the administratively set thresholds), the first user interface comprising a scorecard of operations of the plurality of infusion pump systems illustrating operations of infusion pumps systems outside of predetermined operating conditions of the plurality of infusion pump systems based on control limits (See Blomquist Col. 20, ll. 35 – Col. 21, ll. 4 which discloses various limits, i.e. predetermined operating conditions, such that pump activity outside the range defined by soft limits can trigger an alarm or otherwise alert a caregiver that a pump is functioning outside of the usual operational range of the pump, such that an alert could additionally be an audible alarm, or a visual indicator displayed on at least a portion of the medical infusion pump; See Blomquist Col. 29, ll. 10-18 which discloses a display module being generated and configured to display a variety of coloring and image features, including cautionary color change of the user interface (i.e. green or gray to yellow or red) representing a warning to the user that the current setting is outside of the administratively set thresholds; While not a “scorecard” per se, without further specifying said “scorecard”, in light of Applicant’s Specification, “scorecards” are herein interpreted as interfaces that provide information regarding changes and adjustments to clinical practice and be monitored on an ongoing basis regarding operational settings or parameters of infusion pump systems, therefore see Blomquist Col. 29, ll. – Col. 35, ll. 12 which generally disclose operational configuration settings of infusion pumps systems that can be configured, monitored, and changed over time and following said implementation of said operational configuration settings, a report user interface for displaying operation of a medical infusion pump can be generated including said operational configuration settings of the medical infusion pump); and
provide the first user interface on a display (See Blomquist Col. 29, ll. 10-18 which discloses a display module being generated and configured to display a variety of coloring and image features, including cautionary color change of the user interface (i.e. green or gray to yellow or red) representing a warning to the user that the current setting is outside of the administratively set thresholds).
While Blomquist generally discloses the specifics of a user interface that outputs various aspects of operational configuration settings of infusion pump systems, Blomquist is generally silent on the interface specifically constituting a “scorecard” per se.
However, McClendon specifically mentions a “scorecard” for outputting various aspects of operational configuration settings of infusion pump systems (See McClendon Col. 27, ll. 14-28, Col. 28, ll. 65 – Col. 29, ll. 1-23 which discloses a graphical “scorecard” specifically that implements various pass/fail results and/or indicators for a given test category, allowing for detailed test information for specific categories of a test, such as if the pump received an overall FAIL or PASS Result and thereby allowing for creation for a Pump Certification Report, Failure Reports, and/or Detailed Test Results Reports and/or pinpointing areas where performance failed to meet established criteria, allowing for simplifying trouble shooting and repair by qualified service representatives). The disclosure of McClendon is directly applicable to the disclosure of Blomquist, because both disclosures share limitations and capabilities, such as being directed towards monitoring infusion pump systems and operations thereof.
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 disclosure of Blomquist, which already discloses outputting various aspects of operational configuration settings of infusion pump systems, to further include a “scorecard” representation specifically, because this allows for creation for a Pump Certification Report, Failure Reports, and/or Detailed Test Results Reports and/or pinpointing areas where performance failed to meet established criteria, allowing for simplifying trouble shooting and repair by qualified service representatives (See McClendon Col. 28, ll. 65 – Col. 29, ll. 1-23).
Claim 33 –
Regarding Claim 33, Blomquist and McClendon disclose the system of claim 32 in its entirety. Blomquist and McClendon further disclose a system, wherein:
the first user interface further comprises a summary of data related to the operations of the plurality of infusion pump systems (See Blomquist Col. 29, ll. – Col. 35, ll. 12 which generally disclose operational configuration settings of infusion pumps systems that can be configured, monitored, and changed over time and following said implementation of said operational configuration settings, a report user interface for displaying operation of a medical infusion pump can be generated including said operational configuration settings of the medical infusion pump; See McClendon Col. 27, ll. 14-28, Col. 28, ll. 65 – Col. 29, ll. 1-23 which discloses a graphical “scorecard” specifically that implements various pass/fail results and/or indicators for a given test category, allowing for detailed test information for specific categories of a test, such as if the pump received an overall FAIL or PASS Result and thereby allowing for creation for a Pump Certification Report, Failure Reports, and/or Detailed Test Results Reports and/or pinpointing areas where performance failed to meet established criteria, allowing for simplifying trouble shooting and repair by qualified service representatives).
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 disclosure of Blomquist, which already discloses outputting various aspects of operational configuration settings of infusion pump systems, to further include a “scorecard” representation specifically, because this allows for creation for a Pump Certification Report, Failure Reports, and/or Detailed Test Results Reports and/or pinpointing areas where performance failed to meet established criteria, allowing for simplifying trouble shooting and repair by qualified service representatives (See McClendon Col. 28, ll. 65 – Col. 29, ll. 1-23).
Claim 34 –
Regarding Claim 34, Blomquist and McClendon disclose the system of claim 33 in its entirety. Blomquist further disclose a system, wherein:
the data comprises a number of programs, a number of overrides of control limits, a number of alerts, and a number of edits (see Blomquist Col. 29, ll. – Col. 35, ll. 12 which generally disclose operational configuration settings of infusion pumps systems that can be configured, monitored, and changed over time and following said implementation of said operational configuration settings, a report user interface for displaying operation of a medical infusion pump can be generated including said operational configuration settings of the medical infusion pump, and further includes record and/or history of operational ranges coded/programmed into said medical infusion pumps; See Blomquist Col. 10, ll. 7 – 30 which discloses one or more pump parameters, protocols, i.e. programs, etc., are tracked over time).
Claim 35 –
Regarding Claim 35, Blomquist and McClendon discloses the system of claim 32 in its entirety. Blomquist further discloses a system, wherein:
Note: this claim is being interpreted according to the interpretation established in the “Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 112” section of this Office Action;
the scorecard of operations includes high priority medications based on a number of alerts (While not a “scorecard” per se, without further specifying said “scorecard”, in light of Applicant’s Specification, “scorecards” are herein interpreted as interfaces that provide information regarding changes and adjustments to clinical practice and be monitored on an ongoing basis regarding operational settings or parameters of infusion pump systems, therefore see Blomquist Col. 29, ll. – Col. 35, ll. 12 which generally disclose operational configuration settings of infusion pumps systems that can be configured, monitored, and changed over time and following said implementation of said operational configuration settings, a report user interface for displaying operation of a medical infusion pump can be generated including said operational configuration settings of the medical infusion pump; See Blomquist Col. 21, ll. 40 – Col. 22, ll. 48 which discloses interfaces that provide information regarding various dosing parameters, possible user selections/input fields for one or more medications, etc.).
Claim 38 –
Regarding Claim 38, Blomquist and McClendon disclose the system of claim 32 in its entirety. Blomquist further discloses a system, further comprising:
Note: this claim is being interpreted according to the interpretation established in the “Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 112” section of this Office Action;
generating a graphical display of the data of the scorecard of operations illustrating a number of alerts corresponding to each high priority medication relative to a cumulative total of alerts for all medications (While not a “scorecard” per se, without further specifying said “scorecard”, in light of Applicant’s Specification, “scorecards” are herein interpreted as interfaces that provide information regarding changes and adjustments to clinical practice and be monitored on an ongoing basis regarding operational settings or parameters of infusion pump systems, therefore see Blomquist Col. 29, ll. – Col. 35, ll. 12 which generally disclose operational configuration settings of infusion pumps systems that can be configured, monitored, and changed over time and following said implementation of said operational configuration settings, a report user interface for displaying operation of a medical infusion pump can be generated including said operational configuration settings of the medical infusion pump and further includes record and/or history of operational ranges coded/programmed into said medical infusion pumps, including a number of edits over time and/or a number of programs/protocols implemented in said pumps; See McClendon Col. 27, ll. 14-28, Col. 28, ll. 65 – Col. 29, ll. 1-23 which discloses a graphical “scorecard” specifically that implements various pass/fail results and/or indicators for a given test category, allowing for detailed test information for specific categories of a test, such as if the pump received an overall FAIL or PASS Result and thereby allowing for creation for a Pump Certification Report, Failure Reports, and/or Detailed Test Results Reports and/or pinpointing areas where performance failed to meet established criteria, allowing for simplifying trouble shooting and repair by qualified service representatives).
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 disclosure of Blomquist, which already discloses outputting various aspects of operational configuration settings of infusion pump systems, to further include a “scorecard” representation specifically, because this allows for creation for a Pump Certification Report, Failure Reports, and/or Detailed Test Results Reports and/or pinpointing areas where performance failed to meet established criteria, allowing for simplifying trouble shooting and repair by qualified service representatives (See McClendon Col. 28, ll. 65 – Col. 29, ll. 1-23).
Claim 39 –
Regarding Claim 39, Blomquist and McClendon disclose the system of claim 32 in its entirety. Blomquist further discloses a system, wherein:
the operations of the plurality of infusion pump systems correspond to a specific area in a hospital (See Blomquist Col. 10, ll. 65 – Col. 11, ll. 30 which discloses the total number of pump parameters remains constant for each particular model of pump, but can vary between types of pumps, such that specific pump parameters can vary between protocols due to the specific type of drug, therapy, or pump system such that as in Blomquist Col. 17, ll. 26-42, specifying a pump type allows for pump-specific protocol programming and/or indexing for certain protocols in the database).
Claims 25-28 & 36-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blomquist in view of McClendon, further in view of Bristol et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2002/0143580), hereinafter “Bristol”.
Claim 25 –
Regarding Claim 25, Blomquist and McClendon disclose the method of claim 23 of its entirety. Blomquist and McClendon further discloses a method, wherein:
Note: this claim is being interpreted according to the interpretation established in the “Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 112” section of this Office Action;
the first user interface further comprises a pop-up screen containing information related to one medication of the high priority medications (See Blomquist Col. 32, ll. 46-50 which discloses a text message and/or warnings, which could be considered a pop-up screen can provide information to users regarding medication usage tips for the medical infusion pump).
While Blomquist and McClendon generally disclose the use of a window or other interface for presenting results, these references are generally silent on said window or interface specifically constituting a “pop-up” window or interface per se.
However, Bristol discloses a pop-up window or interface containing information about the medications (See Bristol Par [0070] & [0079]-[0081] containing information or allowing one or more selections regarding a prescription/medication to be implemented into the therapeutic substance infusion device). The disclosure of Bristol is directly applicable to the combined disclosure of Blomquist and McClendon, because the disclosures share limitations, such as all being directed towards interfaces for communicating information relating to one or more infusion devices.
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 already-combined disclosure of Blomquist and McClendon, which already discloses the use of a window or other interface for presenting results, to further specifically include a pop-up box/screen, as disclosed by Bristol, because this allows for specifically prompting the user to enter additional information regarding medications to be included in the infusion device for proper use and/or implementation of said medication with the infusion device (See Bristol Par [0070] & [0079]-[0081]).
Claim 26 –
Regarding Claim 26, Blomquist, McClendon, and Bristol disclose the method of claim 25 of its entirety. Blomquist further discloses a method, wherein:
Note: this claim is being interpreted according to the interpretation established in the “Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 112” section of this Office Action;
a user selects the one medication of the high priority medications (See Blomquist Col. 21, ll. 40 – Col. 22, ll. 48 which discloses interfaces that provide information regarding various dosing parameters, possible user selections/input fields for one or more medications, etc.).
Claim 27 –
Regarding Claim 27, Blomquist, McClendon, and Bristol disclose the method of claim 25 of its entirety. Blomquist and Bristol further disclose a method, wherein:
Note: this claim is being interpreted according to the interpretation established in the “Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 112” section of this Office Action;
the pop-up screen comprises information related to individual programs related to the one medication of the high priority medications (See Blomquist Col. 21, ll. 40 – Col. 22, ll. 48 which discloses interfaces that provide information regarding various dosing parameters, possible user selections/input fields for one or more medications, etc.; See Bristol Par [0070] & [0079]-[0081] containing information or allowing one or more selections regarding a prescription/medication to be implemented into the therapeutic substance infusion device).
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 already-combined disclosure of Blomquist and McClendon, which already discloses the use of a window or other interface for presenting results, to further specifically include a pop-up box/screen, as disclosed by Bristol, because this allows for specifically prompting the user to enter additional information regarding medications to be included in the infusion device for proper use and/or implementation of said medication with the infusion device (See Bristol Par [0070] & [0079]-[0081]).
Claim 28 –
Regarding Claim 28, Blomquist, McClendon, and Bristol disclose the method of claim 27 of its entirety. Blomquist further discloses a method, wherein:
Note: this claim is being interpreted according to the interpretation established in the “Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 112” section of this Office Action;
the information related to the individual programs comprises an alert date, an alert time, a type of limit violated, a numeric value of the limit, an initial dose entered, a final dose entered (See Blomquist Col. 20, ll. 35 – Col. 21, ll. 4 which discloses various limits, i.e. predetermined operating conditions, such that pump activity outside the range defined by soft limits can trigger an alarm or otherwise alert a caregiver that a pump is functioning outside of the usual operational range of the pump, such that an alert could additionally be an audible alarm, or a visual indicator displayed on at least a portion of the medical infusion pump; See Col. 21 ll. 5-12 which discloses publishing/presenting the pump parameter so that the value of the limit is visible to the user; See Blomquist Col. 29, ll. 10-18 which discloses a display module being generated and configured to display a variety of coloring and image features, including cautionary color change of the user interface (i.e. green or gray to yellow or red) representing a warning to the user that the current setting is outside of the administratively set thresholds).
Claim 36 –
Regarding Claim 36, Blomquist and McClendon disclose the system of claim 35 in its entirety. Blomquist and Bristol further disclose a system, wherein:
Note: this claim is being interpreted according to the interpretation established in the “Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 112” section of this Office Action;
the first user interface further comprises a pop-up screen containing information related to one medication of the high priority medications (See Blomquist Col. 32, ll. 46-50 which discloses a text message and/or warnings, which could be considered a pop-up screen can provide information to users regarding medication usage tips for the medical infusion pump See Bristol Par [0070] & [0079]-[0081] containing information or allowing one or more selections regarding a prescription/medication to be implemented into the therapeutic substance infusion device).
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 already-combined disclosure of Blomquist and McClendon, which already discloses the use of a window or other interface for presenting results, to further specifically include a pop-up box/screen, as disclosed by Bristol, because this allows for specifically prompting the user to enter additional information regarding medications to be included in the infusion device for proper use and/or implementation of said medication with the infusion device (See Bristol Par [0070] & [0079]-[0081]).
Claim 37 –
Regarding Claim 37, Blomquist, McClendon, and Bristol discloses the system of claim 36 in its entirety. Blomquist and Bristol further disclose a system, wherein:
Note: this claim is being interpreted according to the interpretation established in the “Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 112” section of this Office Action;
the pop-up screen comprises information related to individual programs related to the one medication of the high priority medications (See Blomquist Col. 21, ll. 40 – Col. 22, ll. 48 which discloses interfaces that provide information regarding various dosing parameters, possible user selections/input fields for one or more medications, etc.; See Bristol Par [0070] & [0079]-[0081] containing information or allowing one or more selections regarding a prescription/medication to be implemented into the therapeutic substance infusion device).
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 already-combined disclosure of Blomquist and McClendon, which already discloses the use of a window or other interface for presenting results, to further specifically include a pop-up box/screen, as disclosed by Bristol, because this allows for specifically prompting the user to enter additional information regarding medications to be included in the infusion device for proper use and/or implementation of said medication with the infusion device (See Bristol Par [0070] & [0079]-[0081]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Evans et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2008/0033361) discloses a system for programming a medical infusion pump, and further discloses an interface for displaying an indicator relating to the infusion pump;
Campbell et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2005/0022274) discloses a system for controlling an infusion pump, including interface components for allowing a user to receive and provide information, and a processor connected to the user interface components and adapted to provide instructions to the infusion pump;
DeBelser et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2009/0270833) discloses a system for software features implementable in a medical infusion pump, such that the system can generate cost tracking for medical infusion pumps and interfaces for generating said information for presentation to a user.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUNTER J RASNIC whose telephone number is (571)270-5801. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5:30pm.
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, Shahid Merchant can be reached at (571) 270-1360. 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.
/H.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3684
/Shahid Merchant/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3684
Prosecution Insights