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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on November 24th, 2025 has been entered.
Claims 1-24 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed November 24th, 2025, with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 35 U.S.C. 103 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 the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spencer (US 9980140 B1) in view of Hardy (US 20150256391 A1), and further in view of Freeman (US 20200084629 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Spencer discloses a medical system (system 100/200, figs. 1-2) comprising: a medical device (device 106/206, figs. 1-2, col. 6 lines 61-67) comprising at least one physiologic sensor (continuous glucose monitor (CGM), col. 6 lines 61-67) configured to (Examiner’s Note: functional language, i.e., capable of) acquire physiological signals from a patient (“measurements indicative of …user’s blood glucose level”, col. 29 lines 40-50), at least one processor (processor(s) 208, fig. 2) coupled to the at least one physiologic sensor (as seen in fig. 2), and at least one optical code (“scannable code (e.g., barcode, QR code)”; device identifier 220, col. 8 line 65 – col. 9 line 32, fig. 2) encoded with data (“unique identifier (e.g., serial number, assigned unique identifier)”; “encodes the identifier for the device 106”, col. 8 lines 1-12 & col. 8 line 65 – col. 9 line 32, fig. 2).
Spencer further discloses that the device 206 includes processor(s) 208, one or more encryptions chipsets 209, and a local storage device 210 that can include encrypted data 211 (col. 14 lines 11-32). Spencer does not disclose the at least one optical code is encoded with encrypted network connection data.
However, Hardy directed to authentication and/or provisioning of wireless network devices that are communicating with and may be monitored and/or controlled by a remote (e.g., cloud) server discloses a device (network device 1504, fig. 8) comprising at least one optical code (optical code 1506, fig. 8, para. [0035-0036, 0105, 0108]) encoded with encrypted network connection data (“optical code may encode the device's MAC address in encrypted form”, para. [0028, 0035-0036]). Hardy further disclose that the device-provisioning application can automate complicated device-provisioning operations, by only requiring the user to capture an image of an optical code that is affixed to the device that is to be provisioned and the system accesses the network device using the device identifier and the secret string to prove physical possession of the device and configures the network device to access a certain computer network and to belong to a selected site (para. [0104, 0106, 0137]).
The instant application, Spencer, and Hardy are all directed to similar technical fields of establishing wireless communication between devices using optical codes.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Spencer such that the at least one optical code is encoded with encrypted network connection data, in view of the teachings of Hardy, as this would aid in configuring the network device to access a certain computer network to belong to a selected site and automating the complicated device-provisioning operations, by only requiring the user to capture an image of an optical code that is affixed to the device that is to be provisioned for operating within a logical networking environment.
Spencer, as modified by Hardy hereinabove, discloses the medical system (system 100/200, figs. 1-2) comprising a mobile computing device (“controller 104 … smartphone”, col. 6 lines 54-57, fig., 1) comprising a camera (“digital camera”, col. 9 lines 5-10), and one or more processors (processor(s) 230, fig. 2) coupled to the camera (“controller 104 … camera … image processing techniques”, col. 9 lines 5-11) and configured to acquire one or more images of the at least one optical code (“capture one or more images of the code … and to detect the identifier”, col. 9 lines 5-10 & col. 17 lines 30-42), decode the one or more images of the at least one optical code (“detect the identifier from the images … optical character recognition”, col. 9 lines 5-11) to generate a copy of the encrypted network connection data (“corresponding copy”; information that is common to both … information 124/132 … stored on 104/106 … public encryption key, col. 9 line 52 - col. 10 line 19 & Hardy, “MAC address in encrypted form”, para. [0035-0036]), decrypt the copy of the encrypted network connection data to generate decrypted network connection data (controller 104 … can use the public key … to decrypt the hash”, col. 10 lines 44-55 (see also col. 15 lines 48-61)), and use the decrypted data to establish an operable bidirectional communication connection between the mobile computing device and the medical device (“compare the decrypted hash with the hash generated by the controller 104 … verified”; “one or more encryption algorithms to establish secure channels of communication …”, col. 10 lines 32-55 & & col. 18 lines 34-36, figs. 1-2 & 6).
Spencer, as modified by Hardy hereinabove, does not disclose wherein the decrypted network connection data enables the mobile computing device to establish a direct operable bidirectional communication connection with the medical device, and use the decrypted network connection data to establish the direct operable bidirectional communication connection between the mobile computing device and the medical device.
However, Freeman directed to establishing secure communication at an emergency care scene discloses a mobile computing device (device 602, fig. 9) comprising a camera (camera 606, fig. 9), and one or more processors coupled to the camera (“processor in the … mobile device”, para. [0225]) and the one or more processors configured to decrypt a copy of encrypted data to generate decrypted data (“registered symbols can be stored … local to the second mobile device”; “encryption key to decrypt an encrypted data element … devices … store predetermined encryption keys”, para. [0226, 0231]), wherein the decrypted data enables the mobile computing device to establish a direct operable bidirectional communication connection with the medical device (step 404, fig. 4, wireless communication channel 612, fig. 9, “bi-directional communication”; “direct exchange”; “authenticated based on the analyzed image”; “the security code can be successfully decrypted using the encryption key, the first defibrillator 802 is authenticated”, para. [0005, 0130, 0226, 0231]), and use the decrypted data to establish the direct an operable bidirectional communication connection between the mobile computing device and the medical device (“bi-directional communication”; “direct exchange”; “proximity-based interactions … image recognition … establish a secure connection via an accepted spatial localization between a mobile device (e.g., smart watch, tablet, smart phone) and a basic life support defibrillator (e.g., public access AED)”, para. [0005, 0130, 0135], step 408, fig. 4). Freeman further discloses the ability for devices at the emergency care scene to communicate with each other can enable information about the patient's health status, , thus freeing up rescuers' time and attention to focus on treating the patient and further that the direct exchange of information among devices can enable information relevant to treating the patient to be displayed on each rescuer's device, and can enable the devices to provide more accurate treatment instructions and/or treatment prompting (para. [0130]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Spencer to the decrypted network connection data enables the mobile computing device to establish a direct operable bidirectional communication connection with the medical device, and use the decrypted network connection data to establish the direct operable bidirectional communication connection between the mobile computing device and the medical device, in view of the teachings of Freeman, as this would aid in establishing a direct, bi-directional, exchange of information via a secure wireless communication channel between devices to provide more accurate treatment instructions and/or treatment prompting and freeing up rescuers' time and attention to focus on treating the patient (Freeman, para. [0130]).
Regarding claim 2, Spencer, as modified by Hardy and Freeman hereinabove, discloses the medical system of claim 1, wherein the medical device (device 206, fig. 2) further comprises at least one network interface (network 228 & I/O interface 214, fig. 2) coupled to the at least one processor (as seen in fig. 2), the mobile computing device (204, fig. 2) comprises one or more network interfaces (network 228/258 & I/O interface 238) coupled to the one or more processors (as seen in fig. 2), and the direct operable bidirectional communication connection between the mobile computing device and the medical device is established via the one or more network interfaces and the at least one network interface (“communicate … network 228 … encrypted”; “one or more encryption algorithms to establish secure channels of communication …”, col. 15 lines 5-47 & & col. 18 lines 34-36).
Regarding claim 3, Spencer, as modified by Hardy and Freeman hereinabove, discloses the medical system of claim 1, wherein the encrypted network connection data comprises one or more of security credentials, an identifier of the medical device, or an identifier of a network associated with the medical device (“serial number … unique identifier … MAC address”, col. 15 line 62 – col. 16 line 18).
Regarding claim 4, Spencer, as modified by Hardy and Freeman hereinabove, discloses medical system of claim 2, wherein the medical device (device 106/206, figs. 1-2) is further configured to exchange information with the mobile computing device (information transmitted among 102, 104, 106, col. 7 lines 1-13), the exchanged information comprising at least one of device readiness information, caregiver performance data, physiological data, or event marker data (“information that is transmitted … patient data”; “sensor readings, medicine dosing logs”, col. 7 lines 1-13 & col. 14 lines 44-45).
Regarding claim 5, Spencer, as modified by Hardy and Freeman hereinabove, discloses medical system of claim 1, wherein the medical device (device 106, fig. 1) comprises one or more of an automated external defibrillator, a defibrillator/monitor, a wearable defibrillator, a ventilator, a resuscitation system, a cardiac monitoring device, or a cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) monitoring device (“pacemaker, defibrillator”, col. 6 lines 61-67).
Claims 6-9, 15-18, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spencer in view of Hardy and Freeman, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hoss (US 20160058996 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Spencer, as modified by Hardy and Freeman hereinabove, discloses wherein the medical device further comprises at least one display (“device 106 has … a more robust user interface … display”, col. 7 lines 51-56); and the at least one processor (processor(s) 208 and encryption chipsets 209, fig. 2) is configured to: encrypt sensitive data to generate encrypted sensitive data (“encrypting all data … encrypted data 211”, col. 14 lines 11-50); encode the encrypted network connection data, the encrypted sensitive data, and public data within the at least one optical code (“device identifier … QR code … encoded …”; “keypair of public and private keys … public key … shared secret”, col. 16 lines 5-18 & col. 19 lines 18-49 (see also col. 10 lines 32-53) & Hardy, para. [0035-0036]).
Spencer, as modified by Hardy and Freeman hereinabove, does not disclose wherein the medical device further comprises at least one display coupled to the at least one processor and the at least one processor further configured to: output, via the at least one display, the at least one optical code encoded with the encrypted network connection data, the encrypted sensitive data, and the public data.
However, Hoss directed to a wireless medical device/defibrillator maintenance using matrix codes discloses a medical device (defibrillator 300, para. [0040]) comprising at least one display (user interface 370 … display, para. [0040]) coupled to the at least one processor (processor 330, fig. 3) (as seen in fig. 3), the at least one processor (processor 330, fig. 3) further configured to: output, via the at least one display, the at least one optical code encoded the data (display a matrix code generated by the code generating component; embedded data, para. [0040, 0048]). Hoss further discloses that the display is used to show the dynamically-generated matrix code and when the subscriber scans the AED matrix code 802, the readiness information is automatically detected because it is encoded within the AED matrix code 802 (para. [0060]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Spencer, as modified by Hardy and Freeman hereinabove, such that the medical device further comprises at least one display coupled to the at least one processor and the at least one processor further configured to: output, via the at least one display, the at least one optical code encoded with the encrypted network connection data, the encrypted sensitive data, and the public data., in view of the teachings of Hoss, as such as this would aid in automatically detecting the embedded data by the scanner by displaying the dynamically-generated matrix code to be scanned.
Regarding claim 7, Spencer, as modified by Hardy, Freeman, and Hoss hereinabove, discloses the medical system of claim 6, wherein to decode the one or more images comprises to decode the one or more images of the at least one optical code (“detect the identifier from the images … optical character recognition”, col. 9 lines 5-11) to generate the copy of the encrypted network connection data, a copy of the encrypted sensitive data, and a copy of the public data (“corresponding copy”; information that is common to both … information 124/132 … stored on 104/106 … public encryption key, col. 9 line 52 - col. 10 line 19 & Hardy, para. [0035-0036]), and the one or more processors (processor(s) 230, fig. 2) are further configured to process (“processing operations”, col. 17 lines 30-42) the copy of the public data (“public key … to decrypt … compare the decrypted hash with the hash generated by the controller 104 … verified”; “one or more encryption algorithms to establish secure channels of communication …”, col. 10 lines 32-55 & & col. 18 lines 34-36).
Regarding claim 8, Spencer, as modified by Hardy and Freeman hereinabove, discloses the medical system of claim 1, wherein the medical device further comprises at least one display (“device 106 has … a more robust user interface … display”, col. 7 lines 51-56 & col. 28 lines 330-36) and the at least one processor (processor(s) 208 and encryption chipsets 209, fig. 2) is configured to: encrypt network connection data to generate the encrypted network connection data (“encrypting all data … encrypted data 211”, col. 14 lines 11-50 & Hardy, para. [0035-0036]).
Spencer, as modified by Hardy and Freeman hereinabove, does not disclose wherein the medical device further comprises at least one display coupled to the at least one processor and the at least one processor is configured to: output, via the at least one display, the at least one optical code encoded with the encrypted network connection data.
However, Hoss directed to a wireless medical device/defibrillator maintenance using matrix codes discloses a medical device (defibrillator 300, para. [0040]) comprising at least one display (user interface 370 … display, para. [0040]) coupled to the at least one processor (processor 330, fig. 3) (as seen in fig. 3), and output, via the at least one display, the at least one optical code encoded with the data (display a matrix code generated by the code generating component; embedded data, para. [0040, 0048]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Spencer, as modified by Hardy and Freeman hereinabove, such that the medical device further comprises at least one display coupled to the at least one processor and the at least one processor is configured to: output, via the at least one display, the at least one optical code encoded with the encrypted network connection data, in view of the teachings of Hoss, as this would aid in automatically detecting the embedded data by the scanner by displaying the dynamically-generated matrix code to be scanned.
Regarding claim 9, Spencer, as modified by Hardy, Freeman, and Hoss hereinabove, discloses the medical system of claim 8, wherein the medical device (device 206, fig. 2) further comprises at least one network interface (network 228 & I/O interface 214, fig. 2) coupled to the at least one processor (as seen in fig. 2), the mobile computing device (204, fig. 2) comprises one or more network interfaces (network 228/258 & I/O interface 238) coupled to the one or more processors (as seen in fig. 2), and the direct operable bidirectional communication connection between the mobile computing device and the medical device is established via the one or more network interfaces and the at least one network interface (“communicate … network 228 … encrypted”; “one or more encryption algorithms to establish secure channels of communication …”, col. 15 lines 5-47 & & col. 18 lines 34-36).
Regarding claim 15, Spencer, as modified by Hardy, Freeman, and Hoss hereinabove, discloses the medical system of claim 8, wherein the mobile computing (204, fig. 2) device further comprises a user interface (output subsystem 236, col. 17 lines 52-60). Spencer, as modified by Hardy, Freeman, and Hoss hereinabove, does not disclose the at least one processor of the medical device is configured to output device readiness information via the user interface.
However, Hoss directed to a defibrillator 300 discloses at least one processor of the medical device (processor 330, para. [0030]) is configured to output device readiness information via the user interface (as seen in figs. 7-8, “Device is NOT Ready” in fig. 8; “provide device readiness options”; “display … view output data”, para. [0054, 0065]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Spencer, as modified by Hardy, Freeman, and Hoss hereinabove, such that the at least one processor of the medical device is configured to output device readiness information via the user interface, in view of the teachings of Hoss, in order to indicate the operational status and charge status of the defibrillator to a user.
Regarding claim 16, Spencer, as modified by Hardy, Freeman, and Hoss hereinabove, discloses the medical system of claim 15. Spencer, as modified by Hardy, Freeman, and Hoss hereinabove, does not disclose wherein the device readiness information specifies one or more of a result of a self-test executed by the medical device, electrode expiration information, an amount of power remaining in a battery of the medical device, or status of network connectivity of the medical device.
However, Hoss discloses wherein the device readiness information specifies one or more of a result of a self-test executed by the medical device, electrode expiration information, an amount of power remaining in a battery of the medical device, or status of network connectivity of the medical device (whether the AED 405 has passed any self-test operations it may perform … Ready or Not Ready; battery low or expired; electrodes not connected or expired, para. [0044]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Spencer, as modified by Hardy, Freeman, and Hoss hereinabove, such that the device readiness information specifies one or more of a result of a self-test executed by the medical device, electrode expiration information, an amount of power remaining in a battery of the medical device, or status of network connectivity of the medical device, in view of the teachings of Hoss, in order to indicate or update the operational status information of the defibrillator.
Regarding claim 17, Spencer, as modified by Hardy, Freeman, and Hoss hereinabove, discloses the medical system of claim 8, wherein to output the at least one optical code comprises to encode the encrypted network connection data within the at least one optical code (“scannable code (e.g., barcode, QR code)”; device identifier 220, “encodes the identifier …encrypting the contents of the packets”; encrypted data 211, col. 8 line 65 – col. 9 line 32, fig. 2 & Hardy, para. [0035-0036]).
Regarding claim 18, Spencer, as modified by Hardy, Freeman, and Hoss hereinabove, discloses the medical system of claim 17. Spencer, as modified by Hardy, Freeman, and Hoss hereinabove, does not expressly disclose wherein the at least one optical code comprises a plurality of optical codes.
However, Hoss discloses wherein the at least one optical code comprises a plurality of optical codes (AED matrix code 702/802 & location matrix code 712/812, as seen in figs. 7-8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Spencer, as modified by Hardy, Freeman, and Hoss hereinabove, such that the at least one optical code comprises a plurality of optical codes, in view of the teachings of Hoss, for the obvious advantage of associating the AED matrix code with the location matrix code for identifying where each medical device is stored and the status of each medical device (Hoss, para. [0052]).
Regarding claim 24, Spencer, as modified by Hardy and Freeman hereinabove, discloses the medical system of claim 1, wherein the mobile computing device further comprises a user interface (output subsystem 236 … display, co. 17 lines 52-61). Spencer, as modified by Hardy and Freeman hereinabove, does not disclose wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: receive a request for the at least one optical code from a trusted mobile computing device; and display, in response to reception of the request, the at least one optical code via the user interface.
However, Hoss discloses one or more processors (processor 912, fig. 9) are configured to: receive a request for the at least one optical code from a trusted mobile computing device (maintenance application 705/805, figs. 7-8, “unique matrix code may be dynamically generated upon request that reflects the results of those self-tests”, para. [0060, 0062]); and display, in response to reception of the request, the at least one optical code via the user interface (as seen in figs. 7-8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Spencer, as modified by Hardy and Freeman hereinabove, such that the one or more processors are further configured to: receive a request for the at least one optical code from a trusted mobile computing device; and display, in response to reception of the request, the at least one optical code via the user interface, in view of the teachings of Hoss, as this would aid in displaying a dynamically generated matrix code with overlaid text to indicate status information about the medical device (Hoss, para. [0062]).
Claims 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spencer in view of Hardy, Freeman, and Hoss, as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Stern (US 20100094657 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Spencer, as modified by Hardy, Freeman, and Hoss hereinabove, discloses the medical system of claim 8, wherein the mobile computing device further comprises a user interface (output subsystem 236 … display, co. 17 lines 52-61). Spencer, as modified by Hardy, Freeman, and Hoss hereinabove, does not disclose the at least one processor of the medical device is configured to output encounter information via the user interface.
However, Stern directed to method and system for automated medical records processing discloses at least one processor of the medical device (“processor”, para. [0085, 0236]) is configured to output encounter information via the user interface (“electronic medical information template 12' … patient encounter information … displayed on a handheld network device”, para. [0158-0159, 0244-0245], fig. 15). Stern further discloses providing automated processing and real-time collection and display of other types of medical information associated with, or generated by a patient encounter (para. [0231]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Spencer, as modified by Hardy, Freeman, and Hoss hereinabove, such that the at least one processor of the medical device is configured to output encounter information via the user interface, in view of the teachings of Stern, as this would aid in automated and easy collection, processing, displaying and recording of medical information (Stern, para. [0029]).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spencer in view of Hardy, Freeman, Hoss, and Stern, as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Lake (US 20160246943 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Spencer, as modified by Hardy, Freeman, Hoss, and Stern hereinabove, discloses the medical system of claim 10. Spencer, as modified by Hardy, Freeman, Hoss, and Stern hereinabove, does not disclose wherein the at least one physiologic sensor comprises at least one electrocardiogram (ECG) sensor configured to acquire transcutaneous ECG signals from the patient and the encounter information specifies one or more of initiation time and duration of an encounter documented by the encounter information, an arrhythmia condition of the patient detected during the encounter, treatment administered to the patient during the encounter, or efficacy of the treatment administered to the patient during the encounter.
However, Lake directed to a patient care system comprising a medical device having a sensor and a server system discloses wherein the at least one physiologic sensor comprises at least one electrocardiogram (ECG) sensor (“electrocardiography (ECG or EKG) sensor”, para. [0125]) configured to (Examiner’s Note: functional language, i.e., capable of) acquire transcutaneous ECG signals from the patient (electrocardiography measurements, para. [0056]) and the encounter information (“first data”, para. [0123]) specifies one or more of initiation time and duration of an encounter documented by the encounter information, an arrhythmia condition of the patient detected during the encounter, treatment administered to the patient during the encounter, or efficacy of the treatment administered to the patient during the encounter (“frequency of administration, type of medication administered, dose of medication administered, mode of administration, time of administration, date of administration and frequency of administration … efficacy of the medical treatment”, para. [0090, 0123, 0264]). Lake further discloses that the sensor may be selected from an electroencephalography (EEG) sensor, an electrocardiography (ECG or EKG) sensor, or a blood sugar sensor (para. [0125]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Spencer, as modified by Hardy, Freeman, Hoss, and Stern hereinabove, such that the at least one physiologic sensor comprises at least one electrocardiogram (ECG) sensor acquire transcutaneous ECG signals from the patient and the encounter information specifies one or more of initiation time and duration of an encounter documented by the encounter information, an arrhythmia condition of the patient detected during the encounter, treatment administered to the patient during the encounter, or efficacy of the treatment administered to the patient during the encounter, in view of the teachings of Lake, as such a modification would have been merely a substitution of the continuous glucose monitor (CGM) for the ECG sensor for electrocardiography measurements of Lake, and would aid in monitoring the efficacy of medical treatment.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spencer in view of Hardy, Freeman, Hoss, Stern, and Lake, as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Imran (US 4614192 A).
Regarding claim 12, Spencer, as modified by Hardy, Freeman, Hoss, Stern, and Lake hereinabove, discloses the medical system of claim 11. Spencer, as modified by Hardy, Freeman, Hoss, Stern, and Lake hereinabove, does not disclose wherein the medical device further comprises at least one therapy electrode configured to discharge transcutaneous electrotherapy to a myocardium of the patient and the encounter information further specifies one or more of a number of discharges administered to the patient during the encounter and whether the any of the one or more discharges resulted in conversion of the arrhythmia condition of the patient.
However, Imran directed to a defibrillating system discloses wherein the medical device (electrodes and defibrillator circuits, col. 4 lines 15-17) further comprises at least one therapy electrode (delivery electrodes 20, 22, col. 4 lines 24) configured to (Examiner’s Note: functional language, i.e., capable of) discharge transcutaneous electrotherapy to a myocardium of the patient (“deliver the high energy defibrillating pulses … myocardium”, col. 4 lines 15-32) and the encounter information further specifies one or more discharges administered to the patient during the encounter and whether any of the one or more discharges resulted in conversion of the arrhythmia condition of the patient (information corresponding to the number of times cardioversion of the patient has taken place, (4) the capability of preventing external cardioversion shock from being shunted across the electrodes; accumulated number of defibrillating pulses issued, Abstract, col. 4 lines 1-6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Spencer, as modified by Hardy, Freeman, Hoss, Stern, and Lake hereinabove, such that the medical device further comprises at least one therapy electrode configured to discharge transcutaneous electrotherapy to a myocardium of the patient and the encounter information further specifies one or more discharges administered to the patient during the encounter and whether any of the one or more discharges resulted in conversion of the arrhythmia condition of the patient, in view of the teachings of Imran, as this would aid in providing information corresponding to the number of times cardioversion of the patient has taken place.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spencer in view of Hardy, Freeman, Hoss, and Stern, as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Daynes (US 20090295326 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Spencer, as modified by Hardy, Freeman, Hoss, and Stern hereinabove, discloses the medical system of claim 10. Spencer, as modified by Hardy, Freeman, Hoss, and Stern hereinabove, does not disclose wherein the medical device further comprises at least one treatment sensor configured to monitor delivery of CPR to the patient and the encounter information specifies one or more of initiation time and duration of an encounter documented by the encounter information, name information of an emergency medical responder, CPR performance of the emergency medical responder, compression data and averages for a period of time, target treatment information, post shock pause values, pre-shock pause values, total length of treatment provided, or efficacy of treatment administered to the patient during the encounter.
However, Daynes directed to a method for operating an external medical device such as a defibrillator discloses wherein the medical device (defibrillator 8, para. [0034]) further comprises at least one treatment sensor (“sensors”, para. [0034]) configured to (Examiner’s Note: functional language, i.e., capable of) monitor delivery of CPR to the patient (monitoring CPR performance (for example, as a part of a CPR feedback or coaching system), para. [0034]) and the encounter information specifies one or more of initiation time and duration of an encounter documented by the encounter information, name information of an emergency medical responder, CPR performance of the emergency medical responder, compression data and averages for a period of time, target treatment information, post shock pause values, pre-shock pause values, total length of treatment provided, or efficacy of treatment administered to the patient during the encounter (“efficacy of delivered therapy … stored in the defibrillator memory … CPR performance … chest compression depth, rate force, or other characteristics of chest compression”, para. [0027]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Spencer, as modified by Hardy, Freeman, Hoss, and Stern hereinabove, such that the medical device further comprises at least one treatment sensor configured to monitor delivery of CPR to the patient and the encounter information specifies one or more of initiation time and duration of an encounter documented by the encounter information, name information of an emergency medical responder, CPR performance of the emergency medical responder, compression data and averages for a period of time, target treatment information, post shock pause values, pre-shock pause values, total length of treatment provided, or efficacy of treatment administered to the patient during the encounter, in view of the teachings of Daynes, as this would aid in monitoring CPR performance as part of a CPR feedback or coaching system.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spencer in view of Hardy, Freeman, Hoss, and Stern, as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Von Blumenthal (US 20180272087 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Spencer, as modified by Hardy, Freeman, Hoss, and Stern hereinabove, discloses the medical system of claim 10. Spencer, as modified by Hardy, Freeman, Hoss, and Stern hereinabove, does not disclose wherein the medical device further comprises a ventilator including at least one flow sensor and at least one pressure sensor configured to measure air flow rates delivered to the patient and the encounter information specifies one or more of initiation time and duration of an encounter documented by the encounter information, breaths per minute as delivered to the patient and measured by the at least one flow sensor, air volume per breath as delivered to the patient and measured by the at least one flow sensor, air volume exhausted by the patient as measured by the at least one flow sensor, ventilator settings, or efficacy of treatment administered to the patient during the encounter.
However, Von Blumenthal directed to medical systems and issues related to an interaction of a medical measuring system with a ventilator discloses wherein the medical device further comprises a ventilator (ventilation or anesthesia device 5, fig. 1) including at least one flow sensor (“flow sensor”, para. [0077]) and at least one pressure sensor (“pressure sensor”, para. [0077]) configured to measure air flow rates delivered to the patient (“pressures, flow rates … physiological states of a patient”; “regulate pressure and flow conditions in the ventilation tube”, para. [0015, 0077]) and the encounter information specifies one or more of initiation time and duration of an encounter documented by the encounter information, breaths per minute as delivered to the patient and measured by the at least one flow sensor, air volume per breath as delivered to the patient and measured by the at least one flow sensor, air volume exhausted by the patient as measured by the at least one flow sensor, ventilator settings, or efficacy of treatment administered to the patient during the encounter (“respiration rate (RR), minute volume (MV), ventilation pressures (Pinsp, PEEP), volumes (Vt, AMV) and ventilation times (I:E ratio) … ventilation settings”, para. [0035, 0077]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Spencer, as modified by Hardy, Freeman, Hoss, and Stern hereinabove, such that the medical device further comprises a ventilator including at least one flow sensor and at least one pressure sensor configured to measure air flow rates delivered to the patient and the encounter information specifies one or more of initiation time and duration of an encounter documented by the encounter information, breaths per minute as delivered to the patient and measured by the at least one flow sensor, air volume per breath as delivered to the patient and measured by the at least one flow sensor, air volume exhausted by the patient as measured by the at least one flow sensor, ventilator settings, or efficacy of treatment administered to the patient during the encounter, in view of the teachings of Von Blumenthal, for the obvious advantage of providing a ventilator for ventilation of a patient including flow sensors and pressure sensors to control or regulate pressure conditions and flow conditions in the ventilation tube system to the patient.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spencer in view of Hardy, Freeman, as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Zuhars (US 20180011983 A1) and Wennemyr (US 20170339561 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Spencer, as modified by Hardy and Freeman hereinabove, discloses the medical system of claim 1. Spencer, as modified by Hardy and Freeman hereinabove, does not disclose wherein the mobile computing device further comprises one or more light emitting devices coupled to the one or more processors, the medical device further comprises at least one light sensor, the one or more processors are further configured to encode new data as one or more modulations of the one or more light emitting devices, and transmit the one or more modulations, and the at least one processor is configured to acquire the one or more modulations via the at least one light sensor, and demodulate the one or more modulations to generate a copy of the new data for processing.
However, Zuhars directed to a method to securely transfer data to aid in a medical procedure or to a data management system discloses wherein the mobile computing device (mobile device 105, para. [0031]) further comprises one or more light emitting devices (LED 504, para. [0031]), the medical device (VLC hub 209, para. [0032]) further comprises at least one light sensor (“light detecting sensor”, para. [0032]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Spencer, as modified by Hardy and Freeman hereinabove, such that the mobile computing device further comprises one or more light emitting devices, the medical device further comprises at least one light sensor coupled to the one or more processors, in view of the teachings of Zuhars, as this would aid in visible light communication for transmitting and receiving data by incorporating the LED and photodiode.
Spencer, as modified by Hardy, Freeman, and Zuhars hereinabove, does not disclose the one or more light emitting devices coupled to the one or more processors, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to encode new data as one or more modulations of the one or more light emitting devices, and transmit the one or more modulations, and the at least one processor is configured to acquire the one or more modulations via the at least one light sensor, and demodulate the one or more modulations to generate a copy of the new data for processing.
However, Wennemyr directed to a system diagram wherein a luminaire sends a signal to a receiver and data is carried to and from the luminaire discloses the one or more light emitting devices (luminaire 100, fig. 1) coupled to the one or more processors (“microprocessor chips … control the LED”, para. [0064-0065]), wherein the one or more processors (microprocessor chips, para. [0064]) are further configured to encode new data as one or more modulations of the one or more light emitting devices (“second authentication data … luminaire providing modulated light”; “data … encrypted and/or encoded”, para. [0039, 0080]), and transmit the one or more modulations (“providing modulated light”, “transmitting”, “ID passed down … also modulation (including any encoding), para. [0039, 0056, 0078]), and the at least one processor (microprocessor chips; receiver 104, para. [0064, 0055]) is configured to acquire the one or more modulations via the at least one light sensor (“receiver 104 interprets the signal carried by the light 102”; “receiver of the VLC ID … light sensitive sensor”, para. [0055, 0080]), and demodulate the one or more modulations to generate a copy of the new data for processing (“demodulation of the emitted signal”; “modulation scheme”; “VLC ID … data … encrypted and/or encoded version”, para. [0069, 0078-0080]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Spencer, as modified by Hardy, Freeman, and Zuhars hereinabove, such that the one or more light emitting devices are coupled to the one or more processors, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to encode new data as one or more modulations of the one or more light emitting devices, and transmit the one or more modulations, and the at least one processor is configured to acquire the one or more modulations via the at least one light sensor, and demodulate the one or more modulations to generate a copy of the new data for processing, in view of the teachings of Wennemyr, as this would aid in visible light communication (VLC) by switching the LEDs off and on at a very high rate using a modulator circuit to communicate VLC IDs and transmit information (Wennemyr, para. [0056]).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spencer in view of Hardy and Freeman, as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Contolini (US 20170270261 A1), and further in view of Wennemyr.
Regarding claim 20, Spencer, as modified by Hardy and Freeman hereinabove, discloses the medical device of claim 1, the at least one processor (processor(s) 208, fig. 2) is configured to: encrypt additional data to generate additional encrypted data ( “information 124 … as well as additional information … encryption”; “encrypt all the data”, col. 9 lines 54-64 & co. 13 lines 58-67). Spencer, as modified by Hardy and Freeman hereinabove, does not disclose wherein the medical device further comprises at least one light emitting device positioned within the at least one optical code.
However, Contolini directed to methods/systems for pairing a command device to a remotely controlled medical system discloses at least one light emitting device positioned within the at least one optical code (LED Beacon 512 … shape of the LED arrangement, fig. 5B). Contolini discloses that the registration component 154 can take on several forms, such as a printed barcode 504, a QR (quick response) code 502, beacon LEDs 506 emitting unique light signals (para. [0033]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Spencer, as modified by Hardy and Freeman hereinabove, such that the medical device further comprises at least one light emitting device positioned within the at least one optical code, in view of the teachings of Contolini, as such a modification would have merely a substitution of the scannable code of Spencer for the LED beacon of Contolini in order to transmit identifiers and other data by visual light protocols.
Spencer, as modified by Hardy, Freeman, and Contolini hereinabove, does not disclose the at least one processor is configured to: encode the additional encrypted data as a plurality of modulations of the at least one light emitting device; and transmit, via the at least one light emitting device, the plurality of modulations.
However, Wennemyr directed to a system diagram wherein a luminaire sends a signal to a receiver and data is carried to and from the luminaire discloses at least one processor (“microprocessor chips”, para. [0064-0065]) is configured to: encode the additional encrypted data as a plurality of modulations of the at least one light emitting device (“second authentication data … luminaire providing modulated light”; “data … encrypted and/or encoded”, para. [0039, 0080]); and transmit, via the at least one light emitting device, the plurality of modulations (“luminaire providing modulated light”, “transmitting”, “ID passed down … also modulation (including any encoding), para. [0039, 0056, 0078]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Spencer, as modified by Hard, Freeman, and Contolini hereinabove, such that the at least one processor is further configured to: encode the additional encrypted data as a plurality of modulations of the at least one light emitting device; and transmit, via the at least one light emitting device, the plurality of modulations, in view of the teachings of Wennemyr, as this would aid in visible light communication (VLC) by switching the LEDs off and on at a very high rate using a modulator circuit to communicate VLC IDs and transmit information (Wennemyr, para. [0056]).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spencer in view of Hardy, Freeman, Contolini, and Wennemyr, as applied to claim 20 above, further in view of Stern.
Regarding claim 21, Spencer, as modified by Hardy, Freeman, Contolini, and Wennemyr hereinabove, discloses the medical system of claim 20, wherein the medical device (device 206, fig. 2) further comprises at least one network interface (network 228 & I/O interface 214, fig. 2) coupled to the at least one processor (as seen in fig. 2), the mobile computing device further comprises a user interface (I/O interface 238) coupled to the one or more processors (as seen in fig. 2), and one or more network interfaces (network 228/258) coupled to the one or more processors (as seen in fig. 2), and the direct operable bidirectional communication connection between the mobile computing device and the medical device is established via the one or more network interfaces and the at least one network interface (“communicate … network 228 … encrypted”; “uniquely identify the device … network connectable … MAC address”; “one or more encryption algorithms to establish secure channels of communication …”, col. 15 lines 5-19 & & col. 16 lines 1-18 & col. 18 lines 34-36).
Spencer, as modified by Hardy, Freeman, Contolini, and Wennemyr hereinabove, does not disclose that the additional data comprises encounter information and that the one or more processors are further configured to demodulate the plurality of modulations to generate a copy of the additional encrypted data, decrypt the copy of the additional encrypted data to generate a copy of the additional data, and output, via the user interface, a copy of the encounter information from the copy of the additional data.
However, Wennemyr discloses one or more processors (“microprocessor chips”, para. [0064-0065]) are further configured to demodulate the plurality of modulations to generate a copy of additional encrypted data (“demodulation of the emitted signal”; “modulation scheme”; “VLC ID … data … encrypted and/or encoded version”, para. [0069, 0078-0080]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Spencer, as modified by Hardy, Freeman, Contolini, and Wennemyr hereinabove, such that the one or more processors are further configured to demodulate the plurality of modulations to generate a copy of additional encrypted data, in view of the teachings of Wennemyr, as this would aid in visible light communication (VLC) by switching the LEDs off and on at a very high rate using a modulator circuit to communicate VLC IDs and transmit information (Wennemyr, para. [0056]).
Spencer, as modified by Hardy, Freeman, Contolini, and Wennemyr hereinabove, does not disclose that the additional data comprises encounter information and that the one or more processors are further configured to decrypt the copy of the additional encrypted data to generate a copy of the additional data, and output, via the user interface, a copy of the encounter information from the copy of the additional data.
However, Stern directed to a method and system for automated medical records processing discloses the additional data comprises encounter information (“patient encounter data … generated electronic patent medical record generated from the patient encounter”, para. [0244-0245], fig. 15); and the one or more processors (server computer 20, para. [0161]) are further configured to decrypt the copy of the additional encrypted data to generate a copy of the additional data (“decrypts … digital information … to obtain the original data information”; “copy of all information”, para. [0161, 0169]), and output, via the user interface, a copy of the encounter information from the copy of the additional data (“copy of all information … patient encounter … display device … real-time display 99 … electronic medical record”, para. [0169]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Spencer, as modified by Freeman, Contolini, and Wennemyr hereinabove, such that the additional data comprises encounter information and the one or more processors are further configured to decrypt the copy of the additional encrypted data to generate a copy of the additional data, and output, via the user interface, a copy of the encounter information from the copy of the additional data, in view of the teachings of Stern, as this would aid in automated and easy collection, processing, displaying and recording of medical information (Stern, para. [0029]).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spencer in view of Hardy and Freeman, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hodge (US 20200367056 A1).
Regarding claim 22, Spencer, as modified by Hardy and Freeman hereinabove, discloses the medical system of claim 1, wherein the mobile computing device (controller 104, fig. 2) further comprises one or more network interfaces (network 228/258, fig. 2) coupled to the one or more processors (processor(s) 230, fig. 2) (as seen in fig. 2) and the one or more processors (processor(s) 230, fig. 2) are further configured to: receive a request for the encrypted network connection data from a trusted computing device (computer system 102, fig. 2) via the one or more network interfaces (network 228/258, fig. 2) (“request … receive … generate a message …”, col. 36 lines 38-46); and transmit, in response to reception of the request, the encrypted network connection data to the trusted computing device via the one or more network interfaces (computer system 102, network 228/258; “transmit the verification data back to the computer system 102”, col. 36 lines 38-46, fig. 2).
Spencer, as modified by Hardy and Freeman hereinabove, does not disclose a trusted mobile computing device.
However, Hodge directed to securely pairing video capturing devices with mobile devices discloses a trusted mobile computing device (trusted mobile device 104, para. [0085]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Spencer, as modified by Hardy and Freeman hereinabove, to further comprise a trusted mobile computing device, in view of the teachings of Hodge, as this would aid in client devices only communicating with recognized trusted devices (Hodge, para. [0084]).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spencer in view of Freeman, further in view of Hodge, as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of Petkovich (US 20200143024 A1).
Regarding claim 23, Spencer, as modified by Hardy, Freeman, and Hodge hereinabove, discloses the medical system of claim 22. Spencer, as modified by Hardy, Freeman, and Hodge hereinabove, does not expressly disclose wherein the trusted mobile computing device is a wearable device.
However, Petkovich discloses wherein the trusted mobile computing device is a wearable device (“computer system 102 … a personal trusted device, a wearable device”, para. [0036-0037]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Spencer, as modified by Hardy, Freeman, and Hodge hereinabove, to further comprise a trusted mobile computing device, in view of the teachings of Petkovich, as such a modification would have been merely implementing the computer system 102 of Spencer as a wearable device capable of executing a set of instructions in communication networks.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW ELI HOFFPAUIR whose telephone number is (571)272-4522. 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, Charles Marmor II can be reached at (571) 272-4730. 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.
/A.E.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/AURELIE H TU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791