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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/20/26 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues Sravani and Huang fail to teach or suggest "the patient module authorizes direct access to the data in the patient module by the HCP device via a direct connection between the patient module and the HCP device, the direct connection having no intermediate device between the patient module and the HCP device," as recited in independent claim 1. Instead, the Office Action refers to Fritz. Fritz relates to a "Wireless Local Area Network (WLAN) station/terminal [and] a mixed mode means for running the WLAN terminal in the infrastructure and independent modes simultaneously." (Fritz, Abstract.) Fritz mentions that a WLAN terminal may be a mobile radio telecommunication terminals running voice-over-IP calls, and a peripheral device may be headsets or personal computers. (See Fritz, I [0019].) However, nowhere does Fritz remotely suggest that a WLAN terminal could be a patient module comprising a wearable device or that a peripheral device could be a healthcare professional (HCP) device. Nor does Fritz suggest anywhere that a patient module comprising a wearable device could operate in an AP mode for an HCP device to directly access data in the patient module. Thus, Fritz also fails to teach or suggest "the patient module authorizes direct access to the data in the patient module by the HCP device via a direct connection between the patient module and the HCP device, the direct connection having no intermediate device.
However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Although the claimed invention is applied to a patient the application is that of radio communications technology. The Applicant’s argument appears to overlook the manner in which radio technology operates. One of ordinary skill in the art of communication would first note that a gateway is a generic name for a functionality (i.e., a communication means of access). In other words, one example would be putting your cellular phone in hotspot mode and thus creating a mobile gateway. Implanting the phone into an object(i.e., merely changing the location) would not change the fact that the device is a gateway or the expected operation of the device as gateway. The switching occurs dynamically via a programmeed module such as a processor which is configured to effectuate the mode switch. Furthermore, it would be obvious to use the mobile gateway as such based on the desired communication need.
One of ordinary skill in the art would further understand as outlined the Fritz the ability and advantage stated by the IEEE 802.11 standard states that a device is either operating in Infrastructure mode (i.e. associated with an Access Point) or operating in Independent mode (i.e., direct connection between terminals without a central Access Point). This is further discussed in connection to FIGS. 1a and 1b.
PNG
media_image1.png
742
748
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
770
588
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The above noted technical features are notoriously well known in the art communications.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 14, 17, 26-28, and 31 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.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 12, filed 12/16/25, with respect to Claim 29 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claim 29 has been withdrawn.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 7, 9, 12-13, 22-23, 29 -31 and 36-37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HALLA, SRAVANI ET AL, "Authentication Protocols for Implantable Medical Devices: Taxonomy, Analysis and Future Directions", 13 December 2017 (2017-12-13), Vol. 7, No. 1, page 57-65 in view of Huang et al. US Patent Pub. No.: 2013/0235795 A1, hereinafter, ‘Huang’ and further in view of Fritz et al. US Patent Pub. No.: 2006/0104235 A1, hereinafter, ‘Fritz’ and further in view of Halac et al. US Patent Pub. No.: 2019/0120785 A1, hereinafter, ‘Halac’.
Consider Claims 1 and as applied to Claim 37, Sravani teaches a system comprising: an in-vivo device(this is met based on the IMD noted in a least figure 1); and a patient module comprising a wearable device (e.g., this is met based on the controller in at least figure 1), the patient module configured to: receive data from the in-vivo device (see page 57 2nd co1. and figure 1- The IMDs send information to the CN using some type of wireless communication technology), operate in a client mode, in which the patient module transfers the data to a gateway module (see page 57 col. 2 and figure 1 – The CN node sends information to the cloud server. Note: gateway and access point are interpreted based on the equivalent function as generic egress/ingress points. If the Applicant wishes to explicitly claim a distinction the Examiner respectfully suggest that the Applicant specifically define such functions in the claim language in a manner that would further distinguish notoriously well-known functions of such devices in a network), and upon request from a healthcare professional (HCP) module, dynamically switch from the client mode to an access point (AP) mode, in which the patient module authorizes access to the data by the HCP module (e.g., see page 58 1st col. – Finally, suppose a user (Uk) (e.g., a doctor) wants to access real-time live data of a patient. Authentication between IMDi and Uk is needed for this purpose. This authentication happens via CSj, which acts as the gateway between IMDi and Uk.), wherein the gateway module is configured to receive the data from the patient module while the patient module operates in the client mode and to upload the data to a cloud server(see page 57 2nd co1. and figure 1- The IMDs send information to the CN using some type of wireless communication technology) and wherein the HCP module is configured to connect with the patient module while the patient module operates in the AP mode and to access the data in the patient module(e.g., see page 58 1st col. – Finally, suppose a user (Uk) (e.g., a doctor) wants to access real-time live data of a patient. Authentication between IMDi and Uk is needed for this purpose. This authentication happens via CSj, which acts as the gateway between IMDi and Uk.)(Note: It appears the determination of Client/ AP mode is based on the Patient Module ability to send and receive date and/or act in bidirectional communication versus simply a receiver).
However, Sravani does not specifically teach wherein the gateway module comprises a mobile device.
In analogous art, Huang teaches teach wherein a gateway module comprises a mobile device (paragraph [0023] teaches “According to embodiments of the disclosure, the gateway GW may be a mobile electronic device such as a mobile phone, a tablet computer, a personal digital assistant (PDA), notebook computer, a smart phone, or a handheld smart device. Alternatively, the gateway GW may be a fixed location electronic device such as a personal computer, a workstation computer or computers in other forms…”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date in include wherein a gateway module comprises a mobile device for the purpose of mobility.
However, assuming arguendo, Sravani as modified by Huang does not render obvious upon request from a healthcare professional (HCP) device, dynamically switch from the client mode to an access point (AP) mode, in which the patient module authorizes direct access to the data in the patient module by the HCP device via a direct connection between the patient module and the HCP device, the direct connection having no intermediate device, wherein the gateway module comprises a mobile device and is configured to receive the data from the patient module while the patient module operates in the client mode and to upload the data to a cloud server, and wherein the HCP device is configured to operate as a client to directly connect with the patient module while the patient module operates in the AP mode and to access the data in the patient module via the direct connection between the patient module and the HCP device. In other words, as best understood by the Examiner from a reading of the original disclosure this would read on Infrastructure mode versus client mode.
In analogous art, as illustrated by Fritz, “the connection between a WLAN terminal and a WLAN peripheral device is established via the Access Point of a communication network. This is because the IEEE 802.11 standard states that a device is either operating in Infrastructure mode (i.e. associated with an Access Point) or operating in Independent mode (i.e., direct connection between terminals without a central Access Point). This is further discussed in connection to FIGS. 1a and 1b” – 0003.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to try infrastructure and direct access mode will operating devices configured to use the IEEE 802.11 technologies or wireless technologies to affect bandwidth utilization.
Sravani in view of Huang and further in view of Fritz teaches the claimed invention except wherein the wearable device is an adhesive patch wherein the adhesive patch comprises communication components configured to receive the data from the in-vivo device and to transfer the data to the gateway module.
In analogous art, Halac teaches wherein the wearable device is an adhesive patch (e.g., see at least paragraph 0204 – “FIGS. 3A, 3B, and 3C illustrate an exemplary implementation of analyte sensor system 101 implemented as a wearable device such as an on-skin sensor assembly 600. As shown in FIG. 3, on-skin sensor assembly comprises a housing 128. An adhesive patch 126 can couple the housing 128 to the skin of the host. The adhesive 126 can be a pressure sensitive adhesive (e.g. acrylic, rubber based, or other suitable type) bonded to a carrier substrate (e.g., spun lace polyester, polyurethane film, or other suitable type) for skin attachment. The housing 128 may include a through-hole 180 that cooperates with a sensor inserter device (not shown) that is used for implanting the sensor 138 under the skin of a subject” and wherein the adhesive patch comprises communication components configured to receive the data from the in-vivo device and to transfer the data to the gateway module (e.g., see at least paragraph 0205 – “The wearable sensor assembly 600 can include sensor electronics 112 operable to measure and/or analyze glucose indicators sensed by glucose sensor 138. Sensor electronics 112 within sensor assembly 600 can transmit information (e.g., measurements, analyte data, and glucose data) to a remotely located device (e.g., 114, 116, 118, 120 shown in FIG. 1). As shown in FIG. 3C, in this implementation the sensor 138 extends from its distal end up into the through-hole 180 and is routed to an electronics module 135 inside the enclosure 128.”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include wherein the wearable device is an adhesive patch for the purpose of monitoring.
Consider Claim 7, Sravani in view of Huang and further in view of Fritz teaches the claimed invention except wherein the wearable device is an adhesive patch wherein the adhesive patch comprises communication components configured to receive the data from the in-vivo device and to transfer the data to the gateway module.
In analogous art, Halac teaches wherein the wearable device is an adhesive patch (e.g., see at least paragraph 0204 – “FIGS. 3A, 3B, and 3C illustrate an exemplary implementation of analyte sensor system 101 implemented as a wearable device such as an on-skin sensor assembly 600. As shown in FIG. 3, on-skin sensor assembly comprises a housing 128. An adhesive patch 126 can couple the housing 128 to the skin of the host. The adhesive 126 can be a pressure sensitive adhesive (e.g. acrylic, rubber based, or other suitable type) bonded to a carrier substrate (e.g., spun lace polyester, polyurethane film, or other suitable type) for skin attachment. The housing 128 may include a through-hole 180 that cooperates with a sensor inserter device (not shown) that is used for implanting the sensor 138 under the skin of a subject” and wherein the adhesive patch comprises communication components configured to receive the data from the in-vivo device and to transfer the data to the gateway module (e.g., see at least paragraph 0205 – “The wearable sensor assembly 600 can include sensor electronics 112 operable to measure and/or analyze glucose indicators sensed by glucose sensor 138. Sensor electronics 112 within sensor assembly 600 can transmit information (e.g., measurements, analyte data, and glucose data) to a remotely located device (e.g., 114, 116, 118, 120 shown in FIG. 1). As shown in FIG. 3C, in this implementation the sensor 138 extends from its distal end up into the through-hole 180 and is routed to an electronics module 135 inside the enclosure 128.”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include wherein the wearable device is an adhesive patch for the purpose of monitoring.
Consider Claim 9, Sravani teaches wherein the gateway module is further configured to provide the patient module with access to the Internet (e.g., see at least the function of figure 1).
Consider Claim 12, Sravani teaches wherein the gateway module provides an access point while the patient module operates in the client mode(e.g., see at least the function of figure 1).
Consider Claim 13, Sravani teaches wherein communication between the patient module and the gateway module is performed using one or more communication channels (e.g., see at least page 57 col. 2 – wireless comm tech -e.g., Bluetooth).
Consider Claim 22, Sravani teaches wherein the HCP device comprises a display device (e.g., see at least figure 1).
Consider Claim 23, Sravani teaches wherein the display device is configured to display at least one of: the data or information based one the data(e.g., see at least figure 1).
Consider claim 30, Sravani teaches wherein the HCP device is further configured to communicate with the cloud server and download the data previously uploaded by the gateway module (e.g., see at least figure 1).
Consider Claim 36, Sravani teaches the claimed invention except wherein the patient module authorizes direct access to the data in the patient module by the HCP device by verifying that the HCP device is authorized to access the data in the patient module.
However, assuming arguendo, Sravani as modified by Huang does not render obvious wherein the patient module authorizes direct access to the data in the patient module by the HCP device by verifying that the HCP device is authorized to access the data in the patient module. In other words, as best understood by the Examiner from a reading of the original disclosure this would be met by at least the lowest protocol level where the devices establish connectivity.
In analogous art, as illustrated by Fritz, “wherein the patient module authorizes direct access to the data in the patient module by the HCP device by verifying that the HCP device is authorized to access the data in the patient module…” 0031 and “During the establishing of the different connection following synchronization measures will be performed. In the infrastructure mode connection/network, the WLAN terminal will correspond to a client party and the AP the server party. The peripheral device will be passive waiting for the establishment of a connection. In the independent mode, if a terminal or a peripheral device doesn't discover any synchronizer, it will immediately take the synchronizer function by starting beacon signaling. Due to the timer change and/or disturbance, synchronizer function is able to jump, be transferred, from one terminal/device to another device/terminal” -0033
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to try wherein the patient module authorizes direct access to the data in the patient module by the HCP device by verifying that the HCP device is authorized to access the data in the patient module affect bandwidth utilization.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HALLA, SRAVANI ET AL, "Authentication Protocols for Implantable Medical Devices: Taxonomy, Analysis and Future Directions", 13 December 2017 (2017-12-13), Vol. 7, No. 1, page 57-65 in view of Huang et al. US Patent Pub. No.: 2013/0235795 A1, hereinafter, ‘Huang and further in view of Fritz et al. US Patent Pub. No.: 2006/0104235 A1, hereinafter, ‘Fritz’ and further in view of "TCP keepalive overview", 07 June 2007 (2007-06-07), page 1-3, hereinafter, ‘TCP’.
Consider Claim 18, Sravani as modified by Huang teaches wherein the access point of the gateway module is configured to terminate after an idle period of a predetermined idle time duration, and wherein the patient module is further configured to send, during the idle period, a pinging signal to the gateway module, the pinging signal sent at a time interval shorter than the predetermined idle time duration and operating to prevent the access point of the gateway module from terminating.
In analogous art, TCP teaches sending, during the idle period, a pinging signal to the, the pinging signal sent at a time interval shorter than the predetermined idle time duration and operating to prevent a connection terminating (e.g., see entire document).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Sravani in view of Huang to include TCP and arrive at the predictable result wherein the access point of the gateway module is configured to terminate after an idle period of a predetermined idle time duration, and wherein the patient module is further configured to send, during the idle period, a pinging signal to the gateway module, the pinging signal sent at a time interval shorter than the predetermined idle time duration and operating to prevent the access point of the gateway module from terminating for the purpose of maintain a connection.
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HALLA, SRAVANI ET AL, "Authentication Protocols for Implantable Medical Devices: Taxonomy, Analysis and Future Directions", 13 December 2017 (2017-12-13), Vol. 7, No. 1, page 57-65 in view of Huang et al. US Patent Pub. No.: 2013/0235795 A1, hereinafter, ‘Huang and further in view of Fritz et al. US Patent Pub. No.: 2006/0104235 A1, hereinafter, ‘Fritz’ and further in view of "TCP keepalive overview", 07 June 2007 (2007-06-07), page 1-3, hereinafter, ‘TCP’ and further in view of Bappu et al. US Patent Pub. No.: 2010/0111059, hereinafter, ‘Bappu’.
Consider Claim 19, Sravani in view of Huang teaches the claimed invention except wherein the patient module is configured to transfer the data to the gateway module during predetermined Data Upload (DU) time intervals.
In analogous art, Bappu teaches scheduling uploads (e.g., see at least 0043, 0059-0061).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to try wherein the patient module is configured to transfer the data to the gateway module during predetermined Data Upload (DU) time intervals for the purpose of optimizing bandwidth utilization.
Consider Claim 20, Sravani in view of Huang teaches the claimed invention except wherein the predetermined DU time intervals are longer than the predetermined idle time duration.
In analogous art, Bappu teaches scheduling uploads with respect to predetermined idle periods (e.g., see scheduling and idle periods in at least 0043, 0059-0061).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to try wherein the predetermined DU time intervals are longer than the predetermined idle time duration for the purpose of optimizing bandwidth utilization.
Claim(s) 14 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HALLA, SRAVANI ET AL, "Authentication Protocols for Implantable Medical Devices: Taxonomy, Analysis and Future Directions", 13 December 2017 (2017-12-13), Vol. 7, No. 1, page 57-65 in view of Huang et al. US Patent Pub. No.: 2013/0235795 A1, hereinafter, ‘Huang’ and further in view of Fritz et al. US Patent Pub. No.: 2006/0104235 A1, hereinafter, ‘Fritz’ and further in view of Barbato et al. US Patent Pub. No.: 2016/0016/0066770, hereinafter, ‘Barbato’.
Consider Claim 14, Sravani teaches the claimed invention except wherein communication between the patient module and the gateway module is performed using communication channel comprising: WiFi channel and a first Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) channel.
In analogous art, Barbato relates to “a high-definition camera hand-piece that is connected to a control unit via a multi-protocol wireless link. In addition to the image sensor, the high definition camera unit contains a power source and associated circuitry, one or more wireless radios, a light source, a processing unit, control buttons, and other peripheral sensors”- 0018. Barbato teaches “to provide systems for identification, control and patient data management, systems can use bluetooth low energy (BLE) for wireless button controls and for unit identification where BLE can also control power management; a secure BLE dongle on PC for upload/download of patient data; touchscreen on camera control unit for entering patient data and controlling user interface; keyboard for entering patient data and controlling user interface; WiFi-enabled camera control unit to connect to network for upload/download of patient data…”-0139.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to try wherein communication between the patient module and the gateway module is performed using communication channel comprising : WiFi channel and a first Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) channel for the purpose of overcoming the shortcomings of hardwired systems.
Consider Claim 17, Sravani teaches the claimed invention except wherein the WiFi channel is used for data transfer and the first BLE channel is used for signaling and control.
In analogous art, Barbato relates to “a high-definition camera hand-piece that is connected to a control unit via a multi-protocol wireless link. In addition to the image sensor, the high definition camera unit contains a power source and associated circuitry, one or more wireless radios, a light source, a processing unit, control buttons, and other peripheral sensors”- 0018. Barbato teaches “to provide systems for identification, control and patient data management, systems can use bluetooth low energy (BLE) for wireless button controls and for unit identification where BLE can also control power management; a secure BLE dongle on PC for upload/download of patient data; touchscreen on camera control unit for entering patient data and controlling user interface; keyboard for entering patient data and controlling user interface; WiFi-enabled camera control unit to connect to network for upload/download of patient data…”-0139.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to try wherein the WiFi channel is used for data transfer and the first BLE channel is used for signaling and control for the purpose of overcoming the shortcomings of hardwired systems.
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HALLA, SRAVANI ET AL, "Authentication Protocols for Implantable Medical Devices: Taxonomy, Analysis and Future Directions", 13 December 2017 (2017-12-13), Vol. 7, No. 1, page 57-65 in view of Huang et al. US Patent Pub. No.: 2013/0235795 A1, hereinafter, ‘Huang’ and further in view of Fritz et al. US Patent Pub. No.: 2006/0104235 A1, hereinafter, ‘Fritz’ and further in view of Barbato et al. US Patent Pub. No.: 2016/0016/0066770, hereinafter, ‘Barbato’ and further in view of Takahashi et al. US Patent Pub. No.: 2015/0271825, hereinafter, ‘Takahashi’.
Consider Claim 26, Sravani teaches the claimed invention wherein the patient module advertises its presence for discovery by the HCP device via a second BLE channel different from the first BLE channel.
In analogous art, Takahashi teaches “in FIG. 2, a table indicating assignment of a frequency band and a channel in the BLE is illustrated. As illustrated in FIG. 2, in the BLE, a frequency band of 2400 MHz to 2483.5 MHz is divided into 40 channels having a width of 2 MHz when used. Among the 40 channels, three channels for advertising in which center frequencies (RF Center Frequency) are 2402, 2426, and 2480 MHz (channel having 37, 38, and 39 as advertising channel indexes) are used for advertising. The remaining 37 channels for data communication (channels having 0 to 36 as data channel indexes) are used for data communication after connection between the master device 100 and the slave device 200 is established.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to try wherein the patient module advertises its presence for discovery by the HCP device via a second BLE channel different from the first BLE channel based on the BLE channel allocation for the purpose of BLE standard interoperability.
Claim(s) 27 and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HALLA, SRAVANI ET AL, "Authentication Protocols for Implantable Medical Devices: Taxonomy, Analysis and Future Directions", 13 December 2017 (2017-12-13), Vol. 7, No. 1, page 57-65 in view of Huang et al. US Patent Pub. No.: 2013/0235795 A1, hereinafter, ‘Huang’ and further in view of Fritz et al. US Patent Pub. No.: 2006/0104235 A1, hereinafter, ‘Fritz’ and further in view of Konji US Patent Pub. No.:2017/0123739 A1.
Consider Claim 27, Sravani teaches the claimed invention except wherein the patient module is further configured to switch between the client mode and the AP mode, wherein the patient module is configured to prioritize communications with the HCP device over communications with the gateway module.
In analogous art, Konji is directed to technology for automatically switching a wireless network connection- 0002 and teaches in 0090 connecting simultaneously via Wi-Fi Direct and a mobile phone network via the network connection unit 203, whereas in infrastructure mode, the terminal device is unable to use the network connection unit 203. In this case, since Wi-Fi Direct has fewer functional restrictions than access point mode and infrastructure mode, the priority ranking of Wi-Fi Direct becomes higher.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to try wherein the patient module is further configured to switch between the client mode and the AP mode, wherein the patient module is configured to prioritize communications with the HCP device over communications with the gateway module for the purpose of overcoming connection restrictions.
Consider Claim 28, Sravani teaches the claimed invention except wherein the patient module is further configured to switch between the client mode and the AP mode, wherein the patient module is configured to prioritize maintaining a connection with the gateway module over communications with the HCP device.
In analogous art, Konji is directed to technology for automatically switching a wireless network connection- 0002 and teaches in 0090 connecting simultaneously via Wi-Fi Direct and a mobile phone network via the network connection unit 203, whereas in infrastructure mode, the terminal device is unable to use the network connection unit 203. In this case, since Wi-Fi Direct has fewer functional restrictions than access point mode and infrastructure mode, the priority ranking of Wi-Fi Direct becomes higher.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to try wherein the patient module is further configured to switch between the client mode and the AP mode, wherein the patient module is configured to prioritize maintaining a connection with the gateway module over communications with the HCP device for the purpose of overcoming connection restrictions.
Claim(s) 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HALLA, SRAVANI ET AL, "Authentication Protocols for Implantable Medical Devices: Taxonomy, Analysis and Future Directions", 13 December 2017 (2017-12-13), Vol. 7, No. 1, page 57-65 in view of Huang et al. US Patent Pub. No.: 2013/0235795 A1, hereinafter, ‘Huang’ and further in view of Fritz et al. US Patent Pub. No.: 2006/0104235 A1, hereinafter, ‘Fritz’ and further in view of Dempsey US Patent No.: 6,057,758.
Consider claim 31, Sravani teaches the claimed invention except wherein, while said HCP device is downloading the data from the cloud server: the patient module is configured to transfer the data to the gateway module continuously without buffering, and the gateway module is configured to upload the data to the cloud sever continuously without buffering.
As best understood by the Examiner based on the original disclosure ‘without buffering’ means Near real time ( NRT).
In analogous art, Dempsey teaches “A variety of devices currently are used to monitor physiological conditions of patients. For example, bedside monitors, transport monitors and telemetry transmitters are used for this purpose. Data from these devices generally is transferred in "real-time" to a centrally located station, such as a nurse station in a hospital or other medical treatment facility.” – col. 1 lines 1-15.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to try wherein, while said HCP device is downloading the data from the cloud server: the patient module is configured to transfer the data to the gateway module continuously without buffering, and the gateway module is configured to upload the data to the cloud sever continuously without buffering for the purpose of patient monitoring.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 29 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record does not specifically teach wherein the patient module is further configured to, periodically: switch from the AP mode to the client mode, send the pinging signal to the gateway module, and revert to operating in the AP mode. In other words, claim 29 indicates a level of dynamic switching in a manner that further distinguishes the independent claims over the prior art which does not appear obvious.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Leblanc et. al US Patent Pub. No.: 2004/0179512 A1- teaches 0032- “LAN Router 16 controls access to the MHS 40… detects when the vehicle is parked in proximity to an 802.11 access point and switches the MHS 40 into client mode, downloading bulky new content over the high speed link from the central OSS (operations support system) 80” -0034.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES TERRELL SHEDRICK whose telephone number is (571)272-8621. The examiner can normally be reached 8A-5P.
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, Matthew D Anderson can be reached at 571 272 4177. 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.
/CHARLES T SHEDRICK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2646