Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
Status of Claims
This action is in response to applicant arguments filled on 09/19/2025 for application 17/038823.
Claims 1-13 are currently pending and have been examined.
Detailed Action
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 1-13 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.
Step 1:
Claims 1-13 are drawn to a method and system, which is/are statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A Prong One:
Independent claim 1 recites selecting a communication software package; downloading the software package; and transferring medical data. The recited limitations, as drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover certain methods of organizing human activity (i.e. rules and instructions). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong One: YES).
Step 2A Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims are abstract but for the inclusion of the additional elements including a portable medical device, a mobile device, and a server, which are additional elements that are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using generic computer components. See: MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claims recite the additional element of establishing a communication link and uploading at least a portion of the medical data, which are considered limitations directed to insignificant extra-solution activity that does not amount to an inventive concept because the limitations do not impose meaningful limits on the claim such that is it not nominally or tangentially related to the invention. In the claimed context, the claimed receiving limitations are incidental to the performance of the recited abstract idea of identifying and reporting events preceding a pattern in a set of user data. See: MPEP 2106.05(g).
The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Hence, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong Two: NO).
Step 2B:
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 integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, using the additional elements to perform the abstract idea amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic components cannot provide an inventive concept. See: MPEP 2106.05(f).
Further, the claimed additional elements, identified above, are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are generic components that are not integrated into the claim because they are merely incidental or token additions to the claim that do not alter or affect how the process steps or functions in the abstract idea are performed. Therefore, the claimed additional elements do not add meaningful limitations to the indicated claims beyond a general linking to a technological environment. See: MPEP 2106.05(h).
Further, the claimed additional elements, identified above, are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are generic components that are configured to perform well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry. See: MPEP 2106.05(d). Said additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and provide conventional functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea. The originally filed specification supports this conclusion at Figure 1, and
Paragraph 10, where “devices of every day use, such as personal computers and digital mobile phones, in order to exchange medical information between the patient and a health care center. Nevertheless, the systems disclosed in WO 97/28736 and EP 0970655 Al still involve several disadvantages. Thus, the mobile digital phones have to be specifically adapted, in order to be applicable within the health monitoring system. Thus, the mobile phone has to be equipped with suitable software and/or hardware, in order to be able to communicate with the blood glucose auto analyzer. For this purpose, in many cases, the mobile digital phone has to be shipped to a specialized health care provider, in order to be disassembled and in order to, e.g., have a software flashed into the cell phone's EEPROM. Alternatively or additionally, the software can be programmed by exchanging the SIM-card using a new SIM-card containing a suitable software. This method is rather time-consuming and costly. Further, the flexibility of this method is rather low, since the service lifetime of devices such as digital mobile phones or certain medical monitoring devices in many cases does not exceed several months. In this case, after replacing the digital mobile phone or the portable medical device, the routine of programming the portable medical device and/or the digital mobile phone has to be repeated, thus further increasing costs. Further, the systems disclosed in the state of the art, are not designed to be "open" to new "members" of the system, such as new portable medical devices. Therefore, in most cases, only certain pairs of portable medical devices and digital mobile phones can be combined.”
Paragraph 18, where “downloading the communication software package from the download server to the mobile communications device. The communication software package may e.g. be stored in a storage medium within the mobile communications device and/or on a separate computer device. In a further step, the communication software package is installed on the mobile communications device.”
Paragraph 26, where “stablishing an upload link between the mobile communications device and a medical care server. The medical care server may be identical or be part of the download server or may comprise a separate server. As an example, the medical care server may be part of a server system located at a hospital or a health care center. Thus, after establishing the upload link between the mobile communications device and the medical care server, at least one second medical information may be exchanged between the mobile communications device and the medical care server. This at least one second medical information exchanged between the mobile communications device and the medical care server may be identical to the first medical information described above. It may further be an extraction from the at least one first medical information, such as a selection from the first medical information considered to be relevant. Thus, the at least one first medical information may be pre-processed for the purpose of data-reduction, in order to reduce the amount of data transferred between the mobile communications device and the medical care server.”
The claims recite the additional element of establishing a communication link and uploading at least a portion of the medical data, which amounts to extra-solution activity concerning mere data gathering. The specification (e.g., as excerpted above) does not provide any indication that the additional elements are anything other than well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (as they are here). See: MPEP 2106.05(g).
Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination, the claims simply instruct the additional elements to implement the concept described above in the identification of abstract idea with routine, conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment.
Hence, the claims as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (Step 2B: NO).
Dependent claim(s) 2-13 when analyzed as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and/or as an ordered combination, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. These claims fail to remedy the deficiencies of their parent claims above, and are therefore rejected for at least the same rationale as applied to their parent claims above, and incorporated herein.
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 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claim 1, 6, 7, and 12-13 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Macaluso (US 7783729 B1) in view of Cohen et al. (US 2006/0031094 A1)
Macaluso teaches:
In claim 1, a method for monitoring medical information using a portable medical device and a mobile device, comprising:
establishing a communication link between the mobile device and a download server (Col. 11 lines 10-15 “when a user selects software via a user interface and in response to that selection a series of processes cause the software to be downloaded to a mobile device”);
selecting, depending on the type of mobile device, a communication software package from a plurality of communication software packages accessible by the download server (Col. 5 1st Para. “The search server may receive information identifying software to be searched for, and the search server may search mobile device content providers for the desired software. If the search server finds the desired software, the search server may advantageously work in conjunction with the download-assistance tool to seamlessly install the software on the mobile device without user input on the mobile device”);
downloading the selected communication software package to the mobile device over the link (Col. 5 1st Para.);
installing the communication software package on the mobile device (Col. 5 1st Para.);
wirelessly transferring medical data from the portable medical device to the mobile device using the installed communication software package (Col. 5 lines 10-12 wherein “The transfer tool may 10 transfer computer data residing on the first mobile device to the second mobile device.” i.e. data is transferred from one device to another device using the installed software package. Macaluso does not explicitly teach wherein the data is medical data however Cohen teaches in Para. 65 wherein medical data can be uploaded and transferred) ; and
Macaluso further teaches:
uploading at least a portion of the medical data from the mobile device to a medical care server (Col. 5 lines 30-35 wherein “the inventory on the search server can be used to mirror the contents of a lost mobile device onto a replacement mobile device” i.e. data is uploaded to the server).
Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the combination itself - that is in the substitution of the medical data of Cohen for the data of data of Macaluso. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious. See MPEP 2143(B).
As per claim 6, Macaluso in view of Cohen teaches the method of claim 1. Macaluso does not explicitly teach however Cohen teaches wherein the medical data is selected from a group consisting of: glucose level data; cholesterol level data; coagulation data; measuring time; and dose data for an insulin medication (Para. 86). The motivation to combine references is the same as seen in claim 1.
As per claim 13, Macaluso in view of Cohen teaches the system of claim 1. Macaluso does not explicitly teach however Cohen teaches system of claim 7, wherein each of the mobile device and the portable medical device includes an interface for wirelessly transferring the medical data, the interfaces being selected from a group consisting of an infra-red data transfer interface; a radio frequency data transfer interface; and a near field communication (NFC) interface (Para. 41). The motivation to combine reference is the as seem as seen in claim 1.
Claims 7 and 12 recite substantially similar limitations as seen above and hence are rejected for similar rationale as noted above.
Claim 2-5 and 8-11 rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Macaluso (US 7783729 B1) in view of Cohen et al. (US 2006/0031094 A1) as applied to claim 1, 6-7, and 12-13 above, and further in view of Hamasaki, JR. et al. (US 2004/0215702 A1).
As per claim 2, Macaluso in view of Cohen teach the method of claim 1. Macaluso and Cohen do not teach however Hamasaki teaches the method of claim 1, further including transmitting a Short Message Service (SMS) message from the mobile device to a predetermined number corresponding to the download server (Para. 95 wherein an end user can be notified through a SMS message).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to combine the downloading and transmitting of data/software as taught in Macaluso with the download of medical data as taught in Cohen further with the SMS messages as taught in Hamasaki. The well-known elements described are merely a combination of old elements, and in combination, each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 3, Macaluso in view of Cohen teach the method of claim 1. Macaluso and Cohen do not teach however Hamasaki teaches method of claim 2, wherein transmitting the SMS message represents a request to begin a download process (Para. 95 wherein “The end user may also be directed to the menu to initiate downloading a firmware update.”). The motivation to combine references is the same as seen in claim 2.
As per claim 4, Macaluso teaches the method of claim 3, further including receiving a response message from the download server in response to the SMS message, the response message including a link which, upon activation, automatically causes the mobile device to navigate to the download server to begin the download process (Col. 8 lines 1-5 wherein data can be downloaded by using download-assistance tool, i.e. link. See also Col. 7 lines 1-5 wherein extensions can be used to download information).
As per claim 5, Macaluso teaches method of claim 4, further including automatically transmitting information about the type of mobile device from the mobile device to the download server (Col. 17 lines 1-5 wherein “For example, the database may store information identifying a mobile device, such as a telephone number, and a list of computer data, such as applications, that should be mirrored to that mobile device”).
Claims 8-11 recite substantially similar limitations as seen above and hence are rejected for similar rationale as noted above.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant argues the 101 rejection. The Applicant argues that the claims do no fall within the enumerated grouping of abstract ideas and therefore claim 1 is patent eligible. The Examiner respectfully. Claim 1 recites selecting a communication software package; downloading the software package; and transferring medical data. The recited limitations, as drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover certain methods of organizing human activity (i.e. rules and instructions).
The Applicant argues the art rejection. That the references fail to teach or suggest the subject matter of claim 1 and 7 either alone or in combination. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The references teach the subject matter in the claim as seen in the rejection above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MAROUN P KANAAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1497. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00.
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, Mamon Obeid can be reached on (571) 270-1813. 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.
MAROUN P. KANAAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3687
/MAROUN P KANAAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3687