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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 21-23, 25-27, 29-32, 34-36, and 38-42, as recited in an RCE filed on August 18, 2025, were previously pending and subject to a non-final office action filed on September 17, 2025 (the “September 17, 2025 Non-Final Office Action”). On December 17, 2025, Applicant submitted amendments to claims 21, 23, 27, 29, 30, 31, 32, 36, 38, and 39 and canceled claims 22, 25, 34, and 40 (the “December 17, 2025 Amendment”). Further, on February 13, 2026, Applicant submitted supplemental amendments to claims 21, 30, 31, and 39 prior to examination of the December 17, 2025 Amendment. As such, claims 21, 23, 26, 27, 29-32, 35, 36, 38, 39, 41, and 42, as recited in the February 13, 2026 Supplemental Amendment, are currently pending and subject to the final office action below.
Response to Applicant’s Remarks
Response to Applicant’s Remarks Concerning Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a)
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant’s Remarks, p. 7, Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 112 Section, filed February 13, 2025, with respect to rejections of claims 21-23, 25-27, 29-32, 34-36, and 38-42 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) have been considered, but they are moot in light of Applicant’s amendments to the claims. Specifically, Applicant amended independent claims 21, 31, and 39 to remove the unsupported term “cloud analytics server” and replace it with the supported term “server”. Therefore, the § 112(a) rejections cited in the September 17, 2025 Non-Final Office Action are no longer necessary and are withdrawn.
Response to Applicant’s Remarks Concerning Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant’s Remarks, pp. 7-9, Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 Section, filed February 13, 2026, with respect to rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Donley et al. (Pub. No. US 2010/0333177) fails to teach the amended limitations directed to “determine that the second surgical instrument is incompatible based on the second surgical instrument being identified as a prohibited device”. See Applicant’s Remarks, at pp. 8. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Under a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. MPEP § 2111.01. The plain meaning of a term means the ordinary and customary meaning given to the term by those of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time. Id. In the present case, Applicant does not give an explicit definition of an incompatible surgical instrument in the specification. Therefore, the term incompatible is interpreted as referring to its plain, ordinary, and customary meaning. As such, an incompatible surgical instrument, under the broadest reasonable interpretation when read in view of Applicant’s specification, is any type of surgical instrument that is deemed to be inappropriate, unfit, unsuited, unauthorized, and the like for accessing the surgical network system described in the claims.
Donley explicitly teaches the limitation directed to “determine that the second surgical instrument is incompatible based on the second surgical instrument being identified as a prohibited device”. Specifically, paragraph [0062] in Donley teaches that the unauthorized endpoints may appear on the active endpoint list but not on the authorized endpoint list, where the active endpoint list may be compared, such as by the compliance processing facility 212, to an authorized endpoint list to identify an unauthorized endpoint. Donley, paragraph [0062]. In an embodiment, the compliance processing facility 212 may delete devices that appear on the authorized endpoint list from the active endpoint list in order to identify the unauthorized endpoints (i.e., identifying prohibited devices). Donley, paragraph [0062]. Further, paragraph [0063] in Donley teaches that upon identification of an unauthorized endpoint (i.e., determining that a second surgical instrument is incompatible, where it could be deemed to be inappropriate, unfit, unsuited, or unauthorized for accessing the system), the unauthorized, non-compliant devices may be flagged and reported, where a remediation measure may be to cause the unauthorized endpoint computing facility to be prevented from network access or otherwise block the endpoint from network access (i.e., the incompatible surgical instrument is deemed to be a prohibited device). Donley, paragraph [0063]. Therefore, Donley reasonably teaches determining that the second surgical instrument is incompatible based on the second surgical instrument being identified as a prohibited device.
For these reasons, this argument is not persuasive. Please see the amended rejections under the Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 103 Section below, for further clarification and complete analysis.
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.
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.
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.
Claims 21, 23, 30-32, 38, 39, 41, and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
- Treu et al. (Pub. No. US 2010/0318578), in view of:
- Sillman et al. (Pub. No. US 2007/0156285);
- Acquista (Pub. No. US 2014/0275849); and
- Donley et al. (Pub. No. US 2010/0333177).
Regarding claims 21, 31, and 39,
- Treu et al. (Pub. No. US 2010/0318578) teaches:
- a computer-implemented interactive surgical network system comprising (as described in claim 21) (Treu, paragraph [0005]; Paragraph [0005] teaches a system for device identification and pairing.):
- a plurality of medical hubs couplable together in a network (as described in claim 21) (Treu, paragraph [0005]; Paragraph [0005] teaches that the system includes a plurality of remote user interface computers (i.e., a plurality of medical hubs), each connected to a first network via a first respective data communication link (i.e., the plurality of medical hubs are couplable together in a network).);
- a method comprising (as described in claim 31) (Treu, paragraph [0008]; Paragraph [0008] teaches a method for identifying a medical device and pairing the identified medical device with a remote user interface computer.):
- a non-transitory computer readable medium storing computer readable instructions executable by at least one processor of a server to (as described in claim 39) (Treu, paragraph [0050]; Paragraph [0050] teaches that the system includes a software instructions stored on a non-transitory computer readable medium (i.e., interpreted as being the equivalent of a cloud analytics server)):
- a first surgical instrument couplable to a medical hub of the plurality of medical hubs, the first surgical instrument comprising (as described in claims 21); and communicably coupling to a network of medical hubs by a cloud analytics system (as described in claim 31); communicably couple to a network of medical hubs (as described in claim 39) (Treu, paragraph [0005]; Paragraph [0005] teaches that the system includes a plurality of medical devices (i.e., surgical instruments comprising a first surgical instrument) each have a second data communication link adapted to exchange data with the remote user interface computers (i.e., the first surgical instrument is couplable to a medical hub of the plurality of medical hubs). NOTE: Claim Interpretation - these medical devices are interpreted to be the equivalent of the surgical instruments, that include the first surgical instrument, described in Applicant’s claimed invention since paragraph [0116] in specification as filed on December 8, 2022 and Figure 12 in Applicant’s drawings as filed on December 8, 2022 disclose that the suitable surgical instrument hardware include devices with generic computer hardware components, such as control circuits, a memory, a processor, one or more sensors, and a display. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize such devices as being embodied by any generic computing device.); and
…
- a sensor configured to generate medical data (as described in claims 21, 31, and 39) (Treu, paragraph [0022]; Paragraph [0022] generally that the medical devices can include blood pressure monitors, thermometers, heart monitors, blood oxygen monitors, weight scales (i.e., these devices naturally have sensors for generating medical data).);
- a light indicator (as described in claims 21); an indicator (as described in claim 31); and a light (as described in claim 39) (Treu, paragraph [0041]; Paragraph [0041] teaches that the medical devices and remote user interface computers can include visual status indicators (such as lights).);
- a first instrument memory to store an authorization credential for validating the first surgical instrument (as described in claims 21, 31, and 39);
- a transceiver operable to transmit medical data to the medical hub (as described in claims 21, 31, and 39) (Treu, paragraphs [0105], [0108], and [0110]; Paragraph [0105] generally teaches that each element of the treatment or monitoring can be verified and properly correlated with the medical devices and paragraph [0108] teaches that the medical devices exchange data with the remote user interface computer 102 (i.e., the surgical instruments transmit the medical data to the medical hub). Paragraph [0110] teaches that the patient physiological data can be collected during treatment/monitoring sessions and provided to medical record data services (i.e., transmitting the medical data to at least one of the medical hubs) in order to provide troubleshooting, maintenance, and training for health care providers or patients.);
- a second surgical instrument, wherein the second surgical instrument comprises a second instrument memory storing an authorization credential for validating the second surgical instrument (Treu, paragraphs [0036], [0039], and [0102]; Paragraph [0102] teaches that the medical devices can include dialysis machines, blood pressure monitors, thermometers, heart monitors, blood oxygen monitors, weight scales, or the like (i.e., these devices naturally include generic computer components, including a memory which could store an authorization credential for validating the surgical instrument. Therefore, these medical devices are interpreted as teaching both (i) a first surgical instrument comprising a first instrument memory and a second surgical instrument, comprising a second instrument memory). For example, paragraph [0036] teaches that the medical device information can be a verification key sequence, device identification number, network address, serial number, or the like (i.e., examples of authorization credentials for validating the first and second surgical instruments), and paragraph [0039] teaches that the medical device can transmit the verification key sequence and device identification number (i.e., the first and second surgical instruments must each store the authorization credentials if they are able to transmit them for the validation process).); and
- a server couplable to each of a plurality of medical hubs via the network, the server comprising: at least one processor coupled to at least one server memory storing instructions executable by the at least one processor to (as described in claim 21) (Treu, paragraphs [0050], [0102], and [0114]; Paragraph [0050] teaches that the system includes a software instructions stored on a non-transitory computer readable medium (i.e., interpreted as being the equivalent of a server) and paragraph [0102] teaches that the computer readable medium is coupled to the remote user interface computer via a wired or wireless connection (i.e., the server is couplable to each of the plurality of medical hubs via the network), which enables communication with the medical devices. Paragraph [0114] generally teaches that the software instructions are executed on a programmed general-purpose computer or microprocessor (i.e., the instructions are executable by the at least one processor).):
- enable receipt of the medical data from a recipient medical hub of the plurality of medical hubs based on a validation of the first surgical instrument by the server (Treu, paragraph [0036] and [0105]; Paragraph [0036] also teaches that once the remote user interface computer 312 receives a verification key sequence from a medical device 302 that matches the sequence displayed on the display device 314 (i.e., receiving a validation of the first surgical instrument), the remote user interface computer 312 establishes a link with the medical device 302 and they are paired together for purposes of carrying out the medical treatment or monitoring (i.e., enabling receipt of medical data that will be transmitted by the transceiver). Paragraph [0105] teaches that once each element of treatment or monitoring is verified and properly correlated with the patient and medical devices being used for the patient (i.e., based on and after the validation of the first surgical instrument(s)), the patient data can be retrieved from and/or stored to the respective computer readable medium (i.e., the server is enabled to receive medical data from the medical hubs).), wherein the recipient medical hub is coupled to the first surgical instrument comprising the sensor configured to generate the medical data (as described in claims 21, 31, and 39) (Treu, paragraph [0026]; Paragraph [0026] teaches that the medical devices 202-210 are coupled to the remote user interface computer 212 via links 211 (i.e., the medical hubs are coupled to the surgical instruments).); and
…
- cause the light indicator of the first surgical instrument to turn on, to indicate medical data transmission readiness (as described in claim 21); activating the indicator of the first surgical instrument to indicate medical data transmission readiness (as described in claims 29 and 39) (Treu, paragraph [0041]; Paragraph [0041] teaches that the medical devices can include visual status indicators (such as lights or displays) to show their respective current operating states. For example, a green light could indicate an available state, a yellow light could indicate a pairing state and a red light could indicate a paired and transmitting state (i.e., causing/activating a light indicator of the surgical instrument to turn on to indicate data transmission readiness).).
…
…
…
- Treu does not explicitly teach, however, in analogous art of network integrated systems and methods, Sillman et al. (Pub. No. US 2007/0156285) teaches a system, method, and non-transitory computer readable medium, wherein:
- the first surgical instrument comprises an end effector (as described in claims 21, 31, and 39) (Sillman, paragraph [0048]; Paragraph [0048] teaches that the processor can accurately determine the position and orientation of the end effector once the configuration of all joints between the base 52 and the end effectors of medical devices 54 are known (i.e., the surgical instruments include an end effector). Paragraph [0048] teaches that this feature is beneficial for determining how to effect movement of the medical device in a desired direction.).
…
…
…
…
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of network integrated systems and methods at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system, method, and non-transitory computer readable medium for identifying and pairing devices taught by Treu, to incorporate a step and feature directed to incorporating medical devices which contain an end effector, as taught by Sillman, in order to determine how to effect movement of the medical device in a desired direction. See Sillman, paragraph [0048]; see also MPEP § 2143 G.
- Further, the combination of: Treu, as modified in view of Sillman, does not explicitly teach, however, in analogous art of medical systems and methods, Acquista (Pub. No. US 2014/0275849) teaches a system and method, configured to:
- receive signal data transmitted by the surgical instrument via the recipient medical hub, wherein the signal data comprises an indication that the surgical instrument is ready to obtain and transmit medical data (as described in claims 21, 31, and 39) (Acquista, paragraphs [0066] and [0067]; Paragraph [0067] teaches that when the master node is ready to receive data, the node reconfigures switchboard to the bridge mode and sends a “ready” signal to the processor (by toggling the hardware (“h/w”) line) (i.e., receiving signal data comprising an indication that that the surgical instrument is ready to obtain and transmit medical data). Paragraph [0066] teaches that this feature is beneficial for allowing for interpretation of commands and exchange of high level data related to the communication configuration between devices.).
…
…
…
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of medical systems and methods for controlling secure access to data at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the system for identifying and pairing devices taught by Treu, as modified in view of Sillman, to incorporate a step and feature directed to transmitting a signal indicating that the device is ready to receive and transmit data, as taught by Acquista, in order to allow for interpretation of commands and exchange of high level data related to the communication configuration between devices. See Acquista, paragraph [0066]; see also MPEP § 2143 G.
- Still further, the combination of: Treu, as modified in view of: Sillman and Acquista, does not explicitly teach, however, in analogous art of systems for identifying unauthorized devices, Donley et al. (Pub. No. US 2010/0333177) teaches a system and method, comprising:
- receive signal data transmitted by the second surgical instrument via the medical hub (as described in claims 21, 29, and 39) (Donley, paragraphs [0026] and [0036]; Paragraph [0026] teaches that the policy management facility 112 may include rules that may be interpreted with respect to an enterprise facility 102 network access request (i.e., receiving signal data transmitted by the second surgical instrument) to determine if the request should be allowed. Paragraph [0036] also teaches that the network access rules facility 124 may incorporate rule evaluation; the rule evaluation may parse network access requests (i.e., the received signal data transmitted by the surgical instruments including the second surgical instrument) and apply the parsed information to network access rules.);
- determine that the second surgical instrument is incompatible based on the second surgical instrument being identified as a prohibited device (as described in claims 21, 29, and 39) (Donley, paragraphs [0062] and [0063]; Paragraph [0062] teaches that the unauthorized endpoints may appear on the active endpoint list but not on the authorized endpoint list, where the active endpoint list may be compared, such as by the compliance processing facility 212, to an authorized endpoint list to identify an unauthorized endpoint. In an embodiment, the compliance processing facility 212 may delete devices that appear on the authorized endpoint list from the active endpoint list in order to identify the unauthorized endpoints (i.e., identifying the second surgical instrument as being a prohibited device). Paragraph [0063] teaches that upon identification of an unauthorized endpoint, the unauthorized, non-compliant devices may be flagged and reported (i.e., determining that the second surgical instrument is incompatible based on the second surgical instrument being identified as a prohibited device).);
- based on the determination that the second surgical instrument is incompatible, prohibit functional access of the second surgical instrument to the medical hub or the server (as described in claims 21, 29, and 39) (Donley, paragraphs [0021] and [0063]; Paragraph [0063] teaches identification of an unauthorized endpoint (i.e., determining that the second surgical instrument is incompatible), remediation measures may be employed. For example, paragraph [0063] further teaches that a remediation measure may be to cause the unauthorized endpoint computing facility to be prevented from network access or otherwise block the endpoint from network access (i.e., prohibiting functional access of the second instrument to the medical hub or server, based on the determination that the second surgical instrument is incompatible). Paragraph [0021] teaches that these features are beneficial for stopping unauthorized or non-compliant systems from accessing networks.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of medical systems and methods for controlling secure access to data at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the system for identifying and pairing devices taught by Treu, as modified in view of: Sillman and Acquista, to incorporate steps and features directed to (i) receiving a signal from a second surgical instrument; (ii) determining that the second surgical instrument is incompatible based on the second surgical instrument being identified as a prohibited device; and (iii) prohibiting functional access of the second surgical instrument to the medical hub or server based on the determination that the second surgical instrument is incompatible, as taught by Donley, in order to stop unauthorized or non-compliant systems from accessing networks. See Donley, paragraph [0021]; see also MPEP § 2143 G.
Regarding claims 23 and 32,
- The combination of: Treu, as modified in view of: Sillman; Acquista; and Donley, teaches the limitations of: claim 21 (which claim 23 depends on) and claim 31 (which claim 32 depends on), as described above.
- Treu further teaches a system and method, wherein:
- the authorization credential comprises a username and a password (as described in claims 23 and 32) (Treu, paragraph [0105]; Paragraph [0105] teaches that the patient can be identified and verified through a login process in which the patient enters an identification value (e.g., name, identification number, or the like) (i.e., a username) and a password.).).
The motivation and rationale for modifying the system and method for identifying and pairing devices taught by Treu, in view of: Sillman; Acquista; and Donley, described in the analysis of the obviousness rejection of claims 21 and 31 similarly apply to this obviousness rejection, and are incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding claim 30,
- The combination of: Treu, as modified in view of: Sillman; Acquista; and Donley, teaches the limitations of: claim 21 (which claim 30 depends on), as described above.
- Treu further teaches a system, wherein the instructions are further executable by the at least one processor to:
- transmit a signal to the first surgical instrument to cause the light indicator to turn on (Treu, paragraph [0041]; Paragraph [0041] teaches that the medical devices can include visual status indicators (such as lights or displays) to show their respective current operating states. For example, a green light could indicate an available state, a yellow light could indicate a pairing state and a red light could indicate a paired and transmitting state (i.e., sending a signal to the first surgical instrument to cause the light indicator to turn on).).
The motivation and rationale for modifying the system and method for identifying and pairing devices taught by Treu, in view of: Sillman; Acquista; and Donley, described in the analysis of the obviousness rejection of claims 21, 31, and 39 similarly apply to this obviousness rejection, and are incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding claim 38,
- The combination of: Treu, as modified in view of: Sillman; Acquista; and Donley, teaches the limitations of claim 31 (which claim 38 depends on), as described above.
- Acquista teaches a method, further comprising:
- transitioning the server into a state enabled for receiving the medical data for storage into an aggregated medical data database (Acquista, paragraph [0067]; Paragraph [0067] teaches that when the master node is ready to receive data, the node reconfigures switchboard to the bridge mode (i.e., transitioning the server into a state enabled for receiving medical data) and sends a “ready” signal to the processor (by toggling the hardware (“h/w”) line).).
The motivations and rationales for modifying the system and method for identifying and pairing devices taught by Treu, in view of: Sillman; Acquista; and Donley, described in the analyses of the obviousness rejections of claim 31 similarly apply to this obviousness rejection, and are incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding claim 41,
- The combination of: Treu, as modified in view of: Sillman; Acquista; and Donley, teaches the limitations of: claim 21 (which claim 41 depends on), as described above.
- Sillman further teaches a system, wherein:
- the end effector is configured to perform a surgical function (Sillman, paragraph [0060]; Paragraph [0060] teaches that the end effector [along with the input devices 156] allow the surgeon to manipulate the medical tools during a surgery (i.e., the end effector is configured to perform a surgical function).), and wherein the medical data generated by the sensor is associated with the performance of the surgical function (Sillman, paragraphs [0048] and [0060]; Paragraph [0048] teaches that the processor can accurately determine the position and orientation of the end effector (i.e., the end effector’s position and orientation data is interpreted as data that is associated with the performance of the surgical function). Paragraph [0060] teaches that these features are beneficial for providing an enhanced sense of presence and allows the surgeon to operate efficiently and accurately without performing mental coordinate transformations.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of network integrated systems and methods at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the system, method, and non-transitory computer readable medium for identifying and pairing devices taught by Treu, as modified in view of: Sillman; Acquista; and Donley, to incorporate a step and feature directed to (i) configuring the end effector to help the surgeon manipulate medical tools during a surgery and (ii) determining the position and orientation of the end effector, as taught by Sillman, in order to provide an enhanced sense of presence and allow the surgeon to operate efficiently and accurately without performing mental coordinate transformations. See Sillman, paragraph [0060]; see also MPEP § 2143 G.
Regarding claim 42,
- The combination of: Treu, as modified in view of: Sillman; Acquista; and Donley, teaches the limitations of: claim 41 (which claim 42 depends on), as described above.
- Sillman further teaches a system, wherein:
- the surgical function is a tissue treatment function (Sillman, paragraph [0035]; Paragraph [0035] teaches that the patient cart 50 includes at least three robotic arms with a central arm supporting an endoscope and the outer arms supporting tissue manipulation tools and paragraph [0036] teaches that the robotic arms are used to manipulate tissue (i.e., the surgical function is a tissue treatment function).), and wherein the medical data comprises any one or more of a tissue clamping force, a firing load force, a tissue thickness, or an end effector position (Sillman, paragraph [0048]; Paragraph [0048] teaches that the processor of the surgeon console 150 is able to perform coordinate transformations and calculate relative positions of the surgical end effectors (i.e., the medical data comprises an end effector position).).
The motivations and rationales for modifying the system and method for identifying and pairing devices taught by Treu, in view of: Sillman; Acquista; and Donley, described in the analysis of the obviousness rejection of claims 21, 31, 39, and 41 similarly apply to this obviousness rejection, and are incorporated herein by reference.
Claims 26, 27, 29, 35, and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
- The combination of: Treu et al. (Pub. No. US 2010/0318578), as modified in view of: Sillman et al. (Pub. No. US 2007/0156285); Acquista (Pub. No. US 2014/0275849); Donley et al. (Pub. No. US 2010/0333177), as applied to claims 21 and 31 above, and further in view of:
- Tse et al. (Pub. No. US 2016/0188801).
Regarding claims 26 and 35,
- The combination of: Treu, as modified in view of: Sillman; Acquista; and Donley, teaches the limitations of: claim 21 (which claim 26 depends on) and claim 31 (which claim 35 depends on), as described above.
- The combination of: Treu, as modified in view of: Sillman; Acquista; and Donley, does not explicitly teach, however, in analogous art of medical systems and methods for controlling secure access to data, Tse et al. (Pub. No. US 2016/0188801) teaches a system and method, configured to:
- dynamically generate encrypted authorization for enhanced security (as described in claims 26 and 35) (Tse, paragraphs [0062] and [0064]; Paragraph [0062] teaches various cryptographic methods may be performed to encrypt and/or decrypt health information by employing one or more keys. For example, paragraph [0062] teaches that during enrollment with the management service, the user of the client device may set up a specific password or PIN or one may be automatically generated on their behalf (i.e., the authorization credentials may be encrypted and dynamically generated). Paragraph [0064] teaches that this feature is beneficial for protecting health information prior to sending it over a network.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of medical systems and methods for controlling secure access to data at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the system for identifying and pairing devices taught by Treu, as modified in in view of: Sillman; Acquista; and Donley, to incorporate a step and feature directed to automatically generating encrypted authentication credentials for a user, as taught by Tse, in order to protect health information prior to sending it over a network. See Tse, paragraph [0064]; see also MPEP § 2143 G.
Regarding claims 27 and 36,
- The combination of: Treu, as modified in view of: Sillman; Acquista; Donley; and Tse, teaches the limitations of: claim 25 (which claim 26 depends on) and claim 35 (which claim 36 depends on), as described above.
- Tse further teaches a system and method, wherein:
- a hash-based encryption is used to encrypt the encrypted authorization (as described in claims 27 and 36) (Tse, paragraph [0064]; Paragraph [0064] teaches that the key wrapping may employ cryptographic block ciphers and cryptographic hash functions (i.e., the encryption is a hash-based encryption).).
The motivations and rationales for modifying the system and method for identifying and pairing devices taught by Treu, in view of: Sillman; Acquista; Donley; and Tse, described in the analyses of the obviousness rejections of claims 21, 26, 31, and 35 similarly apply to this obviousness rejection, and are incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding claim 29,
- The combination of: Treu, as modified in view of: Sillman; Acquista; Donley; and Tse, teaches the limitations of claim 27 (which claim 29 depends on), as described above.
- Acquista further teaches a system, configured to:
- transition the server into a state enabled for receiving the medical data for storage into the aggregated medical data database (Acquista, paragraphs [0066] and [0067]; Paragraph [0067] teaches that when the master node is ready to receive data, the node reconfigures switchboard to the bridge mode (i.e., transitioning the server into a state enabled for receiving medical data) and sends a “ready” signal to the processor (by toggling the hardware (“h/w”) line). Paragraph [0066] teaches that this feature is beneficial for allowing for interpretation of commands and exchange of high level data related to the communication configuration between devices.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of medical systems and methods for controlling secure access to data at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the system for identifying and pairing devices taught by Treu, as modified in view of: Sillman; Acquista; Donley; and Tse, to incorporate a step and feature directed to switching a device into state enabled for receiving medical data, as taught by Acquista, in order to allow for interpretation of commands and exchange of high level data related to the communication configuration between devices. See Acquista, paragraph [0066]; see also MPEP § 2143 G.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nicholas Akogyeram II whose telephone number is (571) 272-0464. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, between 8:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Jason Dunham can be reached on (571) 272-8109. 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.
Official replies to this Office action may now be submitted electronically by registered
users of the EFS-Web system. Information on EFS-Web tools is available on the Internet at:
http://www.uspto.gov/patents/processlfi!elefslguidance/index.isp. An EFS-Web Quick-Start
Guide is available at: http://www.uspto.gov/ebc/portallefslquick-start.pdf.
Alternatively, official replies to this Office Action may still be submitted by any one of fax, mail, or hand delivery.
Faxed replies should be directed to the central fax at (571) 273-8300.
Mailed replies should be addressed to:
United States Patent and Trademark Office:
Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
Hand delivered responses should be brought to the United States Patent and Trademark Office Customer Service Window:
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314-1450
/N.A.A./Examiner, Art Unit 3686
/JONATHON A. SZUMNY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3686