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 .
Claim status in the amendment received on 6/12/2025:
Claims 20 and 32 have been amended.
New claims 43-44 have been added.
Claims 20-44 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that the prior art of record does not teach or suggest the limitations
“a gate control hardware module serving a communications network, wherein the gate control hardware module is the only path between the communications network and the internal network, and wherein the gate control hardware module is structured to control and block direct access from the communications network to the internal network except upon a request from the internal network or a request from a qualified manual input by an operator”, as recited in claim 20 and similarly in claim 32.
However, the examiner respectfully traverses.
The examiner asserts that the limitations read on functionalities of a typical firewall. For example, Kottenstette teaches in fig. 4 a firewall 210 (gate control hardware module) through which a communication path passes to the network 206 (the only path). By definition, firewalls are configured to (block direct access from external networks) and are configurable to allow desired traffic, for example as shown in paragraph [0065] via a command line interface (a request from a qualified manual input by an operator).
Therefore, the prior art rejections are maintained.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 20-22, 25-27, 30, 32-34, 37-40 and 43-44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kottenstette et al. (Pub. No.: US 20210220064 A1).
As to claim 20, Kottenstette teaches computer hardware for a computer-controlled medical apparatus, comprising: a control hardware module serving an internal network of the medical apparatus (fig. 4, 214); and
a gate control hardware module (fig. 4, 210) serving a communications network (fig. 4, 206) wherein the gate control hardware module is the only path between the communications network and the internal network (fig. 4, 206 and 210), and wherein the gate control hardware module is structured to control and block direct access from the communications network to the internal network (fig. 4, 210, i.e. typical firewall functionality) except upon a request from the internal network or a request from a qualified manual input by an operator (paragraph [0065], “…a command line interface (CLI) and secure shell (SSH) protocol are used to establish a secure connection between two sites…”);
the control hardware module and the gate control hardware module being disposed such that there is a complete logical and physical separation of the communications network and the internal network of the medical apparatus (paragraph [0047], i.e. implemented as separate hardware), and the gate control hardware module forming a security moderator between the communications network and the internal network of the medical apparatus (fig. 4, 210, i.e. firewall functionalities).
As to claim 21, Kottenstette teaches wherein the computer hardware is configured to operate the control of the gate control hardware module exclusively from the internal network of the medical apparatus (paragraph [0067]).
As to claim 22, Kottenstette teaches wherein the computer hardware is configured to forward required data to the internal network of the medical apparatus via proprietary protocols (paragraph [0047], “…Local command and control module 214 also receive images from an imaging system 248 and hemodynamic data from patient sensors 250…”).
As to claim 25, Kottenstette teaches wherein the computer hardware is configured to apply security updates to the software of the gate control hardware module (paragraph [0065]).
As to claim 26, Kottenstette teaches further comprising a firewall implemented in hardware, in software or in both the hardware and the software (paragraph [0047]).
As to claim 27, Kottenstette teaches wherein the computer hardware is configured to secure interfaces of the medical apparatus for the transfer of data by data services provided by the gate control hardware module (paragraph [0065]).
As to claim 30, Kottenstette teaches a computer-controlled medical apparatus, comprising computer hardware as claimed in claim 20 (fig. 4).
As to claim 32, Kottenstette teaches A method of controlling a computer-controlled medical apparatus, comprising:
exclusively operating medically relevant software on an internal network of the medical apparatus (paragraph [0044]);
exclusively communicating between the medical apparatus and an external communications network by operation of a gate control module (paragraph [0044]), wherein the gate control module is the only path between the communications network and the internal network (fig. 4, 206 and 210), and wherein the gate control module is structured to control and block direct access from the communications network to the internal network (fig. 4, 210, i.e. typical firewall functionality);
securing the medical apparatus vis-à-vis the external communications network by operation of the gate control module by admitting no data traffic between the internal network and the gate control module, and hence admitting no data traffic to the external communications network, until there is a request from the internal network or a qualified manual input by an operator, and implementing with the gate control module a complete logical and physical separation of communications network and internal network of the medical apparatus (paragraphs [0044] and [0065], “…a command line interface (CLI) and secure shell (SSH) protocol are used to establish a secure connection between two sites…”).
As to claim 33, the limitations of the claim are substantially similar or broader in scope to claim 21. Please refer to claim 21 above.
As to claim 34, the limitations of the claim are substantially similar or broader in scope to claim 22. Please refer to claim 22 above.
As to claim 37, the limitations of the claim are substantially similar or broader in scope to claim 25. Please refer to claim 25 above.
As to claim 38, the limitations of the claim are substantially similar or broader in scope to claim 26. Please refer to claim 26 above.
As to claim 39, Kottenstette teaches further comprising systematically minimizing network services which are provided by the gate control or by the software of the gate control (paragraph [0065]).
As to claim 40, the limitations of the claim are substantially similar or broader in scope to claim 27. Please refer to claim 27 above.
As to claim 43, Kottenstette teaches wherein the gate control hardware module is located physically within the medical apparatus and controlled by the internal network (fig. 4, 204 and 210).
As to claim 44, Kottenstette teaches wherein the gate control hardware is located physically within the medical apparatus and further comprising controlling the gate control hardware via the internal network (fig. 4, 204 and 210).
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.
Claim(s) 23-24, 28-29, 35-36 and 41-42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kottenstette et al. (Pub. No.: US 20210220064 A1) in view of Rowett et al. (Pub. No.: US 20070022474 A1).
As to claim 23, Kottenstette does not explicitly teach limited power consumption of the gate.
However, in the same field of endeavor (computer network security) Rowett teaches power consumption of the gate control hardware module is limited (paragraph [0039]).
Based on Kottenstette in view of Rowett, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate limited power consumption of the gate (taught by Rowett) with the gate associated with the medical apparatus (taught by Kottenstette) in order to control the power and data of the gate which will make it more secured and in order to reduce cost.
As to claim 24, Rowett further teaches wherein power consumption the power consumption of the gate control hardware module is limited to being less than 15 W or is limited to a current flow of less than 7 A (paragraph [0039]). The limitations of claim 24 are rejected in view of the analysis of claim 23 above, and the rationale to combine, as discussed in claim 23, applies here as well.
As to claim 28, Kottenstette does not explicitly teach deriving power supply of the gate from the medical apparatus.
However, in the same field of endeavor (computer network security) Rowett teaches computer hardware is configured to derive the power supply of the gate control hardware module from the power supply of a computing apparatus (paragraph [0039]).
Based on Kottenstette in view of Rowett, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate deriving power supply of the gate from a computing apparatus (taught by Rowett) with the gate associated with the medical apparatus (taught by Kottenstette) in order to control the power and data of the gate which will make it more secured.
As to claim 29, Kottenstette does not explicitly teach external gate with mechanical protection.
However, in the same field of endeavor (computer network security) Rowett teaches gate control hardware module is disposed outside of a computing apparatus and comprises a mechanical protection for the control hardware module of the computing apparatus (paragraph [0039] and fig. 1B).
Based on Kottenstette in view of Rowett, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate external gate with mechanical protection (taught by Rowett) with the gate associated with the medical apparatus (taught by Kottenstette) in order to physically control the power and data of the gate which will make it more secured.
As to claim 35, the limitations of the claim are substantially similar or broader in scope to claim 23. Please refer to claim 23 above.
As to claim 36, the limitations of the claim are substantially similar or broader in scope to claim 24. Please refer to claim 24 above.
As to claim 41, Kottenstette does not explicitly teach deriving power supply of the gate from the medical apparatus.
However, in the same field of endeavor (computer network security) Rowett teaches deriving power supply of the gate control from the power supply of a computing apparatus, more particularly by using Power over Ethernet (PoE) (paragraph [0039]).
Based on Kottenstette in view of Rowett, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate deriving power supply of the gate from a computing apparatus (taught by Rowett) with the gate associated with the medical apparatus (taught by Kottenstette) in order to control the power and data of the gate which will make it more secured.
As to claim 42, Rowett further teaches further comprising deriving power supply of the gate control from the power supply of the medical apparatus by using Power over Ethernet (PoE) (paragraph [0039]). The limitations of claim 42 are rejected in view of the analysis of claim 41 above, and the rationale to combine, as discussed in claim 41, applies here as well.
Claim(s) 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kottenstette et al. (Pub. No.: US 20210220064 A1) in view of Bohn et al. (Pub. No.: US 20200312447 A1).
As to claim 31, Kottenstette teaches A computer-controlled medical system, comprising computer hardware as claimed in claim 20 (please see the rejection of claim 20 above).
Kottenstette does not explicitly teach ophthalmological laser therapy system.
However, in the same field of endeavor (computer networked medical devices) Bohn teaches a computer-controlled ophthalmological laser therapy system (fig. 1).
Based on Kottenstette in view of Bohn, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate ophthalmological laser therapy system (taught by Bohn) with the medical system (taught by Kottenstette) in order to assist in providing eye care to patients.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDULKADER M ALRIYASHI whose telephone number is (313)446-6551. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8AM - 5PM Alt, Friday, EST.
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, JOON HWANG can be reached at (571)272-4036. 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.
/Abdulkader M Alriyashi/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2447 9/19/2025