DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is with regard to the most recent papers filed 11/3/2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but focus on the newly amended subject matter of the instant claims, and are moot based on the new ground of rejection necessitated by the amendments.
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, 17, and 19-20 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).
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]);
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 a 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).
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.
With regard to claim 17, Bahr discloses providing the first signal coding library to a computing device separate from the first processor, wherein the computing device uses the first signal coding library to encode encoded messages comprising data associated with at least one of the plurality of field definitions (Bahr: Paragraph [0014]).
With regard to claim 19, Bahr discloses generating the second signal coding library is based on data, from the first signal definition, representing at least one of: message timestamp information, message type information, or message header information (Bahr: Paragraph [0043]).
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) 1-14, 16, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2008/0312841 (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 (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.);
retain a second portion of the first encoded message as retained encoded message data comprising data representing at least a second field (Bahr: Paragraph [0043]. The body is not decrypted, but is instead forwarded with in a newly encrypted message.); 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 7, Hayter in view of Bahr teaches that the first field comprises data representing at least one of: message timestamp information, message type information, or message header information (Bahr: Paragraph [0043]).
With regard to claim 8, Hayter in view of Bahr teaches that 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 (Hayter: Paragraph [0038]).
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.).
With regard to claims 16 and 18, the instant claim are substantially within the scope of claim 6 and 8, and are rejected for similar reasons.
With regard to claim 1, the instant claim presents subject matter that is within the scope of a combination of claims 6 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 6 and 15 that is substantially within the scope of the subject matter of claims 9-12, and are rejected for similar reasons.
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 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