DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is with regard to the most recent papers filed 7/23/2026.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 7/23/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-6, 9-15, and 20-22 have been considered but many of such arguments focus on the newly amended subject matter of the instant claims, and where these arguments are moot based on the new ground of rejection necessitated by the amendments.
Further, on pages 8-9, Applicant argues that the combination does not provide an articulated rationale for modifying Hayter to arrive at the claimed multi-processor infusion pump with a signal coding library architecture. It appears that this argument assumes that any hops would be external to the medical device in the rationale. However, internal device security would still be a known concern in the art, where the first processor and second processor appear to have no specific relationship with each other than the first processor being another hop to the second processor, with the first processor being in a same device as the second processor. Accordingly, as the first processor merely functions as another hop in the communication, the rationale is still considered to be applicable.
Applicant’s remaining arguments either are moot based on the amendments to the instant claims, or fail to provide any detail beyond that the cited art fails to disclose certain details without any rationale, and thus the remaining arguments cannot be deemed persuasive.
Information Disclosure Statement
An IDS submission was filed on 7/30/2026, where such includes 62 pages listing 1,738 different documents. An IDS submission is typically provided to conform with 37 CFR 1.56, where Applicant has a “duty to disclose to the Office all information known to that individual to be material to patentability,” where “The Office encourages Applicant to carefully examine” certain information items. In this case, it is unclear how the submissions are material to patentability, or even why such submissions were made. Applicant has appeared to file no statement concerning why the documents were submitted, let alone any statements that would represent a careful examination of such submitted references. To adequately fulfill the duty to disclose, Applicant should ensure that any information that is material to patentability is submitted, which would include information specifying the reasons for such submissions and if any specific references are considered specifically material to patentability, including the example reasons listed in 37 CFR 1.56 (b). In the meantime, the references have been considered as far as is reasonable for 1,738 unique references.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With regard to claims 1 and 21 to 22, the instant claims recite a “hidden hash.” Such a hash is discussed solely in paragraph [0017] of the instant specification. The term “hidden hash” does not appear to be a term in the art. It is unclear what constitutes such a “hidden hash,” or how it is hidden. As best understood, it would appear that the term would be a hash that is somehow inaccessible to at least some entities (which would not necessarily be “hidden”). For purposes of prosecution, this language is taken to mean that the data that is hashed is hidden, in that it is inaccessible to at least some entities.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 15 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2010/0042831 (Bahr) in view of “Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.0 (Fifth Edition),” posted at <https://www.w3.org/TR/xml/> on November 26, 2008 (XML) and US 2008/0312841 (Hayter).
With regard to claim 15, Bahr discloses a computer-implemented method comprising: as performed by a computing system comprising one or more processors configured to execute specific instructions,
obtaining a first signal definition comprising a plurality of field definitions (Bahr: Paragraphs [0007] and [0013]);
generating a first signal coding library based on the first signal definition (Bahr: Paragraph [0030]), wherein the first signal definition comprises data representing at least one of: message timestamp information, message type information, or message header information (Bahr: Paragraph [0043]).;
providing the first signal coding library to a first processor, wherein the first processor uses the first signal coding library to decode encoded messages comprising data associated with at least one of the plurality of field definitions (Bahr: Paragraphs [0007] and [0030]. Multiple master keys can be provided for, with each key being for a different logical connection. For a connection, a key is agreed to (with the data associated with at least one of the plurality of field definitions referring to an identification of the specific logical connection for an agreed upon master key.).);
obtaining a second signal definition comprising a first subset of the plurality of field definitions, wherein the second signal definition does not include a second subset of the plurality of field definitions (Bahr: Paragraph [0014]);
generating a second signal coding library based on the second signal definition (Bahr: Paragraph [0014]); and
providing the second signal coding library to the second processor, wherein the second processor uses the second signal coding library to decode encoded messages comprising data associated with at least one of the first subset of field definitions (Bahr: Paragraphs [0011] to [0014]. Keys are derived from the master and provided to intermediate nodes), and wherein data associated with at least one of the first subset of field definitions represents data representing at least one of: message timestamp information, message type information, or message header information (Bahr: Paragraph [0043])..
Bahr fails to disclose, but XML teaches wherein a field definition includes at least a field identifier and a data type for a corresponding field (XML: Page 9. XML includes many examples to express data, where different fields are presented, including identifiers and data types to describe data.).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a field definition that includes a field identifier and a data type to improve compatibility between entities, such that each data item would be uniquely identified and associated with a type so that each entity would be able to treat the data in a similar fashion without any outside knowledge.
Bahr fails to teach, but Hayter teaches that the first processor is of the medical device, the medical device comprising the first processor and a second processor, wherein the second processor serves an intermediary for communications to the first processor (Hayter: Figure 1 and Paragraphs [0039] to [0040]. Reception units are provided as intermediaries to the infusion section.).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have the medical device include the first processor (processor associated with the medical device’s functions/control) and a second processor (communication processors), with the communication processor handling any encoding and decoding functions of transmitted messages to utilize a typical communication arrangement for network communications with communication functions not requiring resources that would be otherwise utilized for other functions, such as control of the medical device.
With regard to claim 20, Bahr discloses that generating the second signal coding library comprises associating individual fields of the plurality of field definitions as one of: optional, required, or read-only (Bahr: Paragraph [0043]. Lacking detail as to how the access property is used or applied, the use of an encoding method that can be decoded by intermediary nodes for the header, which is required for forwarding the packet, would teach the defining of the first field has having an access property of required in as much detail as required by the instant claim.).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 6 and 9-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Hayter in view of Bahr and XML.
With regard to claim 6, Hayter discloses an infusion pump comprising:
a first processor configured to receive a first message; a second processor configured to receive the second message [from the first processor]; a display configured to display information based at least partly on the second decoded message data; and a motor controller configured to cause medication to be administered from a medication container (Hayter: Figures 1 and 3-4a and Paragraphs [0038], [0051], and [0053]).
Hayter fails to disclose, but Bahr teaches:
the first processor configured to:
receive a first encoded message (Bahr: Paragraphs [0011] to [0013]. A first node sends an encrypted message to a second node via one or more intermediaries.);
decode a first portion of the first encoded message using a first signal coding library to generate first decoded message data representing at least a first field wherein the first field comprises data representing at least one of: message timestamp information, message type information, or message header information (Bahr: Paragraphs [0011] to [0013] and [0043]. A master key can be provided that allows for decryption of the full message. Meanwhile, limited keys are provided to the intermediary node(s) that only allow for decryption of portions of the message, where such portions are decrypted, analyzed, encrypted, and forwarded for eventual receipt and full decryption by the end node. Further, the header and each individual portion of the header of Bahr would at least constitute data representing…message header information.);
retain a second portion of the first encoded message as retained encoded message data comprising data representing at least a second field, wherein the second field comprises data representing at least one of: auto-programming message information to program the infusion pump to administer medication, or procedure status information (Bahr: Paragraph [0043]. The body is not decrypted, but is instead forwarded with in a newly encrypted message, where the body would include at least one of these items with Hayter.); and
generate a second encoded message using the first signal coding library, wherein the second encoded message comprises the retained encoded message data and encoded data representing the first field (Bahr: Paragraph [0043]);
the second processor configured to:
receive the second encoded message (Bahr: Paragraphs [0011] to [0013]); and
decode the second encoded message using a second signal coding library to generate second decoded message data representing the first field and the second field (Bahr: Paragraphs [0011] to [0013]. The destination uses the master key to decrypt the whole message.).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to utilize an encryption scheme, such as in Bahr, in the infusion pump of Hayter to reduce the resource requirements of intermediary nodes (such as the receiver of Hayter) while still maintaining data security along different hops (Bahr: Paragraph [0009]), such as over the serial connection of Hayter (Hayter: Figures 3 and 1), where the different hops would be able to access only the information needed to perform its functions, such as header information (Bahr: Paragraph [0043]).
Hayter fails to teach, but XML teaches wherein the first coding library indicates at least a data type for the first field (XML: Page 9. XML includes many examples to express data, where different fields are presented, including identifiers and data types to describe data.).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a data type indicator to improve compatibility between entities, such that each data item would be associated with a type so that each entity would be able to treat the data in a similar fashion without any outside knowledge.
With regard to claim 9, Hayter fails to teach expressly, but knowledge possessed by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing teaches the first processor is further configured to modify a value associated with the first field, wherein the encoded data representing the first field in the second encoded message represents the value that has been modified (more specifically, Official Notice is taken that when providing a multi-hop system where header information is read, it was well-known in the art to modify such header information, which would then be encrypted in accordance with Bahr.). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify a value associated with the first field to enable standard techniques to be applied, such as modifying a packet header to represent data associated with a next hop.).
With regard to claim 10, Hayter in view of Bahr teaches the first encoded message, received by the first processor, is encoded using the second signal coding library (Bahr: Paragraphs [0011] to [0013]).
With regard to claim 11, Hayter in view of Bahr teaches the second processor is further configured to: generate a third encoded message using the second signal coding library, wherein the third encoded message comprises data representing at least a third field and a fourth field; and provide the third encoded message to the first processor (Bahr: Paragraphs [0011] to [0013]. Any responses would be encoded in the same manner and messages of claim 6.).
With regard to claim 12, Hayter in view of Bahr teaches wherein the first processor is further configured to: receive the third encoded message; decode a first portion of the third encoded message using the first signal coding library to generate third decoded message data, wherein the third decoded message data comprises data representing at least the third field; determine that a second portion of the third encoded message is unable to be decoded using the first signal coding library; retain the second portion of the third encoded message as second retained encoded message data, wherein the second retained encoded message data comprises data representing at least the fourth field; and generate a fourth encoded message using the first signal coding library, wherein the fourth encoded message comprises encoded data representing the first field, and wherein the fourth encoded message comprises the second retained encoded message data (Bahr: Paragraphs [0011] to [0013]).
With regard to claim 13, Hayter in view of Bahr teaches wherein the first signal coding library defines the first field as having an access property comprising one of: optional, required, or read-only (Bahr: Paragraph [0043]. Lacking detail as to how the access property is used or applied, the use of an encoding method that can be decoded by intermediary nodes for the header, which is required for forwarding the packet, would teach the defining of the first field has having an access property of required in as much detail as required by the instant claim.).
With regard to claim 14, Hayter in view of Bahr teaches the first signal coding library defines a third field as having a different access property than the first field (Bahr: Paragraphs [0011] to [0013]. The third field cannot be decoded by intermediate nodes, and thus would have a different access property than the first field. As a note, the same comments as claim 13 apply here, where additionally there is no requirement that the access property of claim 14 is one of the three listed in claim 13.).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1-5 and 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayter in view of Bahr and XML, and further in view of Andrew Davis in “What is an HMAC”, posted at <https://dev.to/restoreddev/what-is-an-hmac-2f09> on 1/17/2020 (Davis).
With regard to claim 21, Hayter fails to teach, but Davis teaches that the first encoded message comprises a hidden hash of the second field, and wherein the second encoded message comprises the hidden hash (Davis: Pages 1-2. Lacking detail on what constitutes a hidden hash, it appears that the HMAC algorithm, where the hashed data is hidden from intermediate nodes, would constitute such a hidden hash. In the transmission of such a message, enough information is accessible (first field) to forward the message without access to the hidden hash, meanwhile other information (second field) would be hidden from intermediate nodes.). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to utilize a hidden hash, as best understood, such as HMAC to ensure that the transmitted data is safe from intermediate nodes and to maintain integrity of the message.
With regard to claim 22, Hayter in view of Davis teaches that the second processor is further configured to verify the retained encoded message data by hashing contents of the second field and comparing a result of hashing the contents of the second field to the hidden hash to detect tampering by the first processor (Davis: Pages 1-2. The hashed data would be encoded all the way to the intended destination that the requires the data, which would be the second processor of the instant claim.).
With regard to claim 1, the instant claim presents subject matter that is within the scope of a combination of claims 22 and 15, and is rejected for similar reasons as presented above.
With regard to claims 2-5, the instant claims introduce subject matter to the combination of claims 22 and 15 that is substantially within the scope of the subject matter of claims 9-12, and are rejected for similar reasons.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT B CHRISTENSEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1144. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 6AM to 2PM.
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, John Follansbee can be reached at (571) 272-3964. 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.
SCOTT B. CHRISTENSEN
Examiner
Art Unit 2444
/SCOTT B CHRISTENSEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2444
Prosecution Insights