DETAILED NON-FINAL OFFICE ACTION
This action is responsive to Applicant’s filing this instant application, dated 04/28/2022.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Reissue
For reissue applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, all references to 35 U.S.C. 251 and 37 CFR 1.172, 1.175, and 3.73 are to the current provisions. This reissue application was filed 04/28/2022. Thus, all references to 35 U.S.C. 251 and 37 CFR 1.172, 1.175, and 3.73 made in this application are to the current provisions.
Applicant is reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.178(b), to timely apprise the Office of any prior or concurrent proceed-ing in which Patent No. 10,637,930 is or was involved. These proceedings would include interferences, reissues, reexaminations, and litigation.
Applicant is further reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.56, to timely apprise the Office of any information which is mate-rial to patentability of the claims under consideration in this reissue appli-cation.
These obligations rest with each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of this application for reissue. See also MPEP §§ 1404, 1442.01 and 1442.04.
Applicant is notified that any subsequent amendment to the specification and/or claims must comply with 37 CFR 1.173(b).
Response to Amendment
Amended claims 23 – 50 have been reviewed. The amendments filed in the Response do not comply with 37 CFR 1.173. Specifically, amended claims do not comply with 37 CFR 1.173(c).
Claims
Applicant is also notified that any subsequent amendment to the specification and/or claims must comply with 37 CFR 1.173(c),
“(c) Status of claims and support for claim changes. Whenever there is an amendment to the claims pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section, there must also be supplied, on pages separate from the pages containing the changes, the status (i.e., pending or canceled), as of the date of the amendment, of all patent claims and of all added claims, and an explanation of the support in the disclosure of the patent for the changes made to the claims.”
The Remarks do not show the specific teachings to the specific amended limitations of the claims. Applicant merely states what claims were amended and the teachings are somewhere in the argument section of the Response without any mapping to specific sections of the specification to show support for the specific amendments. As seen in MPEP 1453 V. D. Amendment of New Claims, the status of a claim shows specific claims limitations amended and specifically maps those new and amended limitations to the sections of the specification that teach the amended claim limitation,
Example from MPEP 1453 V. D. Amendment of New Claims:
First Amendment (wherein claim 11 was first presented):
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 11 (New). A knife comprising a handle portion and a notched blade portion.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In the Remarks (supplied on a separate page):
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Status: The present application includes pending claims 1-11, with claims 1 and 11 being independent. With this amendment, applicant has added new independent claim 11. Support for this new claim is found in column 4, lines 26-41, column 5, lines 3-18, and column 6, lines 5-15.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Second Amendment (wherein claim 11 is amended):
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 11 (New, amended). A fishing knife comprising a bone handle portion and a notched blade portion.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In the Remarks (supplied on a separate page):
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Status: The present application includes pending claims 1-11, with claims 1 and 11 being independent. With this amendment, applicant has amended new independent claim 11 as described below.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 11: Claim 11 is amended to add "fishing" before "knife" and "bone" before "handle". Support for these changes is found in column 4, lines 34-41 and column 6, lines 5-8, respectively.
If the next response does not comply with 37 CFR 1.173, the response will be held “Non-Compliant” and a shortened statutory period for reply to this letter is set to expire ONE (1) MONTH or THIRTY (30) DAYS, whichever is longer, from the mailing date of the next Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 5 recites the limitations, “wherein the command comprises sending a barcode corresponding to the detectable medical module to the visual display”. The specification does not specifically teach this limitation. Applicant is asked to point out the specific teachings of this limitation or amend the claims to teach what is supported by their specification.
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 36 and 50 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.
Claims 36 and 50 recites the limitation "the second medical module". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Objections
Claims 8 and 24/34 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 8 recites the limitation, “maxi-mum”. It would appear this is a typo since it is not how the original claim reads.
There are two claim 24s. One of which is between claims 33 and 35. It is assumed that this is a typo and should read claim “34”.
Appropriate correction and/or explanation is required.
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Beck et al. U.S. Pub. No. 2002/0178126, hereinafter “Beck”, in view of Gray et al., U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0045661, hereinafter “Gray”.
Claim 1:
A system for integrating a detectable medical module, the system comprising:
a web browser executing a web page configured to detect a presence of a detectable medical module;
Beck teaches the use of a web browser for linking a medical device to a system via a web page, (e.g., Abstract, ¶¶ 0053, 0059 – 0061, 0070 et seq.).
a local agent in communication with the web browser,
Beck teaches the use of a “local agent” as interpreted as the client computing device 120, (e.g., ¶¶ 0059 – 0061, 0070 et seq.).
wherein detection of a presence of a detectable medical module by the web browser causes the web browser to communicate with a web server to obtain approval or disapproval for integration of the detectable medical module in a medical system,
Beck teaches the detection of a medical “module”, i.e., device, which also causes the communication with a server computing device 110, (e.g., Figure 1, 3 – 5 and supporting descriptions of the figures.). Beck further teaches the step of authentication of the user, the client computing device 120, and/or the medical device 130 via various authentication schemes, (e.g., ¶¶ 0065 – 0066, 0076, and 0080). Under BRI, this would be interpreted as the system of Beck authenticating the medical device 130 for approval in their medical system.
wherein the approval or disapproval is obtained by the web server referencing a data structure comprising first plurality of fields, including at least one field indicating the approval or disapproval for the detectable medical module, and
As closely interpreted by the Examiner, Beck teaches the use of a plurality of fields about the medical device that would lead to authentication, i.e., see sited areas around medical device and serial number, ¶¶ 0065 et seq., 0091). However, Beck is not specific on how this the serial number of the medical device is utilized in approval or disapproval. Gray specifically teaches the use of databases in determining what electronic instruments are available for specific users, i.e., approved, (e.g., ¶¶ 0040, 0047, 0050, “unique key value A”, 0060, 0068 – 0074, 0079 – 0082 et seq. 0096 & also in an alternate or addition to, “LOCKED & UNLOCKED”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to combine Gray with Beck because utilizing a specific field/ identifier to determine if the medical module is allowed to be connected to the medical system would prevent unwanted devices having control in a network that does not support that particular functions or preventing outside devices from connecting to the medical network, which could end in important medical information being obtained or prevent stolen medical devices to be connected and authorized back into the network. It is further seen that Gray can select specific functions to allow or deny. Therefore, a medical device could be completely or partially denied authorization.
wherein upon obtaining the approval for the detectable medical module as indicated by the web server, the approval causes the local agent to load a device profile having a second plurality of fields corresponding to the detectable medical module and causes the local agent to collect data from the detectable medical module corresponding to the second plurality of fields so that the detectable medical module is integrated in the medical system.
Beck teaches a second set of data that is utilized in with the medical device for the client computing device to receive readings from the medical device, allowed by the server computing device 110, along with information about the specific medical device delivered to the client computing device in a list, (e.g., ¶¶ 0076, 0091, “list of medical devices from which to select the model, type, class, and/or manufacturer.).
Gray also teaches this limitation via functions F1-F4, (See cited areas stated above.). Where the amount of authorization will dictate what functions are provided, (See cited areas stated above.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to combine Gray with Beck because of similar reasons stated above. Furthermore, it would have been obvious because a system would need to know the functionality of new devices that enter the system so as to be able to use them, i.e., profile, functions, drivers, etc.).
Claims 15, 21, 22, 23, 24, 31, 37, 38, and 45 claim similar limitations as claim 1 or have the same teachings disclosed in the cited areas of the prior art, and is therefore rejected for similar reasons as stated above.
Claim 2:
The system of claim 1, further comprising, upon approval of the detectable medical module, the local agent executing a command received by the web server for integrating the detectable medical module.
Beck specifically teaches executing different commands received by the server, (e.g., Figures 3 -5 and the supporting areas of the specification describing those figures.).
Claims 16, 25, and 39 teach similar limitations as claim 2 and are therefore rejected for similar reasons as stated above.
Claim 4:
The system of claim 2, wherein the command comprises selecting between executing a first set of instructions or a second set of instructions.
Beck teaches a plurality of instructions to execute, (e.g., ¶¶ 0006, 0035 – 0037, and previously cited areas of Beck.).
Claims 3 and 17 teach similar limitations as claim 4 and are therefore rejected for similar reasons as stated above.
Claim 7:
The system of claim 1, wherein the web page is configured to detect a presence of a detectable medical module by monitoring for a character string having a pre-determined feature.
Beck teaches monitoring for a string of predetermined character features from a medical device, (e.g., ¶¶ 0051 et seq., medical device serial number, 0055 identification codes, 0067).
Claim 8:
The system of claim 7, wherein the predetermined feature comprises a patter of the character string, a maxi-mum time in which the character string is received, or both.
Beck teaches a pattern of character strings, (e.g., ¶¶ 0090 – 0091).
Claim 12:
The system of claim 1, further comprising the host computer being configured to execute an Application Programming Interface (API) monitoring for detectable medical modules having identifiers, wherein detecting a detectable medical module having an identifier causes the identifier to be communicated to the web browser for detecting the presence of the detectable medical module.
Beck discloses the host computer being configured to execute an Application Programming Interface (API) monitoring for detectable medical modules having identifiers, wherein detecting a detectable medical module having an identifier causes the identifier to be communicated to the web browser for detecting the presence of the detectable medical module, (e.g., ¶¶ 0079 et seq., the user requests via a web browser of the user interface that the web browser connect to a particular server computing device and associated transport agent identified by a particular URI and/or URL, which services medical devices of a particular family or type, wherein the URL essentially provides a mechanism to identify or partially identify the medical device attached to the client computer system).
Claims 20, 29, 30, 43, and 44 teach similar limitations as claim 12 and are therefore rejected for similar reasons as stated above.
Claim 14:
The system of claim 1, further comprising a visual display, wherein the data from the detectable medical module corresponding to the second plurality of fields is sent to the visual display.
Beck teaches a second set of data that is utilized in with the medical device for the client computing device to receive readings from the medical device, allowed by the server computing device 110, along with information about the specific medical device delivered to the client computing device in a list, (e.g., ¶¶ 0076, 0091, “list of medical devices from which to select the model, type, class, and/or manufacturer.).
Gray also teaches this limitation via functions F1-F4, (See cited areas stated above.). Where the amount of authorization will dictate what functions are provided, (See cited areas stated above.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to combine Gray with Beck because of similar reasons stated above. Furthermore, it would have been obvious because a system would need to know the functionality of new devices that enter the system so as to be able to use them, i.e., profile, functions, drivers, etc.).
Claims “34” and 48 teach similar limitations as claim 14 and are therefore rejected for similar reasons as stated above.
Claim 32:
The method of claim 23, in which loading the device profile for the medical module comprises loading a device profile having fields specific to the medical module, and in which collecting data from the medical module comprises collecting data corresponding to the fields of the device profile.
Beck discloses collecting information using the medical device based on its functions from the device profile, (e.g., ¶¶ 0051 – 0056, 0065, 0076, 0090 – 0091).
Claims 33, 46, and 47 teach similar limitations as claim 12 and are therefore rejected for similar reasons as stated above.
Claim 36:
The method of claim 23, comprising detecting a presence of the second medical module and communicating with the server to obtain approval for integration of the second medical module in the medical system.
Beck teaches adding multiple medical devices 130. Since the item number for Figure 1 is all “130” that would mean that all medical devices are integrated the same way as described above with regards to the first medical module, (e.g., Fig. 1, element 130, & ¶¶ 0014 et seq., “In general, the system 100 automatically or semi-automatically configures the client computing devices 120 for communication with medical devices 130 that utilize different communications protocols, and provides the server computing device 110 remote access to the medical devices 130 via the client computing devices 120 and the network 150.” Emphasis added to the plural tense of the word.).
Claim 50 teaches similar limitations as claim 36 and are therefore rejected for similar reasons as stated above.
Claims 5 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Beck, Gray, and in further view of Mihai, et al., U.S. Pub. No. 2004/0167465, hereinafter “Mihai”.
Claim 5:
The system of claim 2, further comprising a visual display, wherein the command comprises sending a barcode corresponding to the detectable medical module to the visual display.
Beck does not specifically teach a barcode being displayed.
As closely interpreted by the Examiner, in view of the 112 rejection, Mihai teaches displaying a barcode as claimed, (e.g., ¶¶ 0215, 0298 et seq.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine Mihai with Beck and Gray because utilizing barcodes allows the system to associate a barcode with a specific item as a form of identification.
Claims 6 and 18 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Beck, Gray, and in further view of Brown et al., U.S. Pub. No. 20014/0266794, hereinafter “Brown”.
Claim 6:
The system of claim 1, wherein the local agent is configured to communicate with the web browser over local host via a WebSocket communication channel.
As closely interpreted by the Examiner, Brown teaches the use of a WebSocket communication channel, (e.g., Background of the invention, Fig. 2 & ¶¶ 0059 – 0061 et seq.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to combine Brown with Beck and Gray because the use of WebSocket establishes a communication link between first and second communication systems with a reliable connection channel, (e.g., secure WebSocket connection, also see Brown’s Abstract.
Claims 18, 26, and 40 teach similar limitations as claim 6 and are therefore rejected for similar reasons as stated above.
Claims 9 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Beck, Gray, and in further view of Nichol et al., U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0087609, hereinafter “Nichol”.
Claim 9:
The system of claim 1, further comprising a barcode scanner, wherein scanning a barcode corresponding to a detectable medical module causes an identifier to be communicated to the web browser for detecting the presence of the detectable medical module.
Nichol discloses a barcode scanner, wherein scanning a barcode corresponding to a detectable medical module causes an identifier to be communicated to the web browser for detecting the presence of the detectable medical module, (e.g., Fig. 4, 0057 et seq.) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine Nichol with Beck and Gray because barcodes linked to detectable medical devices aid to track medical devices as inventory before clinical use or after installation of the device in a community or hospital on must scan the device, see ¶ 0004.
Claim 19, 27, 28, 41, and 42 teach similar limitations as claim 9 and are therefore rejected for similar reasons as stated above.
Claim 10:
The system of claim 9, wherein the detectable medical module is an electrocardiograph (ECG) machine, a centrifuge, a digital scale or a chroma meter.
Beck teaches multiple different medical devices detectable by the system. Nichol specifically discloses a ECG, (e.g., ¶ 0029). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine Nichol with Beck and Gray because the list of devices in the claim are nonfunctional descriptive words describing common medical devices found in the art.
Claim 11:
The system of claim 10, wherein the second plurality of fields includes a measurement taken by the detectable medical module.
Beck teaches taking measurements by the detectable medical module, (e.g., ¶ 0034 et eq., 0074).
Claims 13 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Beck, Gray, and in further view of Gao-Saari, et al., U.S. Patent No. 8,225,015, hereinafter “Gao”.
Claim 13:
The system of claim 12, wherein the detectable medical module is an electronic medical record (EMR).
Gao-Saari discloses wherein the detectable medical module is an electronic medical record (EMR) (Gao-Saari, see col. 4 lines 50-67 to col. 5 lines 1-4, device is electronic medical record (EMR)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Beck in view of Gray's disclosure to include Gao-Saari’s limitations in order to detect the medical device being connected or disconnected from the clinical system, wherein the data is gathered from the medical device (Gao-Saari, see col. 5 lines 1-10).
Claims 35 & 49 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Beck, Gray, and in further view of Weinstein, et al., U.S. Pub. No. 2009/0036750, hereinafter “Weinstein”.
Claim 35:
The method of claim 23, in which the detectable medical module comprises a first detectable medical module, and in which the method comprises:
providing the data collected from the first medical module to a second medical module.
Beck does not specifically teach this limitation. However, Weinstein teaches this limitation wherein the different devices are all connected in a network and communicate with each other, sending information about a patient between medical devices, (e.g., ¶¶ 0055 – 0057 et seq.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to combine Weinstein with Beck and Gray because having medical devices communicate with each other would allow all the devices that are used on one patient to have all the same information about the patient and therefore not have to manually enter the information multiple times.
Claim 49 teaches similar limitations as claim 35 and are therefore rejected for similar reasons as stated above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID E. ENGLAND whose telephone number is (571)272-3912. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 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, Michael Fuelling can be reached on 571-270-1367. 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.
DAVID E. ENGLAND
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3992
/DAVID E ENGLAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
Conferees:
/Roland Foster/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
/MICHAEL FUELLING/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3992