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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/19/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues Matos does not disclose instructions from a first device, but the logging data being transmitted to a second device. The Applicant argues this is a case of receiving instructions from a device A and transmitting a copy of said instructions back to the same device A. Therefore, Matos fails to disclose the internal computing unit receiving an instruction from a first external device and transmitting logging information to a second external device. The examiner respectfully disagrees as the first external device where the instructions were generated are from the CS/MD [central station and or medical doctor {i.e. a physician who desires to provide an instruction}] to the IMD. The IMD then transmits the copy to a relay unit (e.g. relay unit #2) , as shown in Figure 31B, before the transmission ultimately reaches the output of the CS/MD. Because the instructions are from the CS/MD, the are the first external device, and the IMD is not directly transmitting to the CS/MD and therefore are transmitting to a relay unit (second external device). Therefore the arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Hoffman does not teach or suggest that multiple network/protocols shall be used within a single instruction processing sequence, let alone that one protocol shall be used to receive from a first device, and a second, different protocol shall be used to transmit logging data to a second device. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this case Hoffman is modifying the teachings of Matos which teaches so that first and second communication are used when communicating.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 43-47, 51-52, 54-60, and 62-63 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matos (US Publication 2011/0172740) in view of Hoffman et al (US Publication 2019/0030349).
Referring to Claim 43, Matos teaches a method for updating a control program of an internal computing unit comprised in an implant, wherein the implant is adapted for communication with a first external device and a second external device (e.g. Figure 32), the method comprising: receiving, by the internal computing unit, an instruction for the control program from the first external device, wherein the instruction is received using a first communication channel ((e.g. Figure 32, “send instruction or program to downstream device” (to IMD) and “store instruction or program in downstream device memory”); executing, by the internal computing unit, the instruction (e.g. Figure 32 upstream device signals downstream device to carry out install); transmitting, by the internal computing unit, logging data relating to the receipt of the instruction and/or logging data relating to the execution of the instruction to the second external device using the second communication channel (e.g. Figure 32 option 1); However, Matos does not disclose the first and the second communication channels are different communication channels. Hoffman et al teaches that it is known to use different communication channels when communicating as set forth in Paragraphs [0117] and [0229] to provide improved security by communicating over multiple networks/protocols. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method as taught by Matos, with the first and the second communication channels are different communication channels as taught by Hoffman et al, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of improved security by communicating over multiple networks/protocols.
Referring to Claim 44, Matos in view of Hoffman et al teaches the method according to claim 43, wherein the instruction comprises an update or a configuration for the control program (e.g. Figure 32).
Referring to Claim 45, Matos in view of Hoffman et al teaches the method according to claim 43, wherein the instruction comprises a subset of a set of predefined steps for installing an update of the control program (e.g. Figure 32).
Referring to Claim 46, Matos in view of Hoffman et al teaches the method according to claim 43, further comprising confirming, by a user or by an external control unit, that the instruction is correct based on the received logging data (e.g. Figure 32 decision block at bottom).
Referring to Claim 47, Matos in view of Hoffman et al teaches the method according to claim 43, wherein the logging data is related to the receipt of the instruction, and wherein the method further comprises receiving, by the control program, a confirmation that the logging data relates to a correct set of instructions, and in response to receiving said confirmation, installing an update or configuration comprised in the instruction (e.g. Figure 32 decision block at bottom, yes, option 1 and Paragraphs [0572-0573]).
Referring to Claim 51, Matos in view of Hoffman et al teaches the method according to claim 44, wherein the update or the configuration comprises a plurality of steps, and the receiving of the instruction comprises receiving the plurality of steps in two or more subsets (e.g. Figure 32).
Referring to Claim 52, Matos in view of Hoffman et al teaches the method according to claim 51, further comprising confirming, by a user or by an external device, that each of the subsets are correct (e.g. Figure 32).
Referring to Claim 54, Matos in view of Hoffman et al teaches the method according to claim 43, wherein the instruction comprises a value for a predetermined parameter (e.g. Paragraphs [0582]-[0594] and [0610]).
Referring to Claim 55, Matos in view of Hoffman et al teaches the method according to claim 43, further comprising receiving, by the first external device, at least part of the instruction for the control program (e.g. Figure 32).
Referring to Claim 56, Matos in view of Hoffman et al teaches the method according to claim 55, further comprising: selecting, by a user of the first external device, a step from a set of predetermined steps, to be comprised in instruction (e.g. Figure 32).
Referring to Claim 57, Matos in view of Hoffman et al teaches the method according to any of claims 55-56, further comprising: setting, by a user of the first external device, a value for a parameter to be comprised in the instruction (e.g. Figure 32).
Referring to Claim 58, Matos in view of Hoffman et al teaches the method according to claim 43, except wherein communication over the first communication channel is performed using a first network protocol, and communication over the second communication channel is performed using a second network protocol, the first and second protocols being different.
Hoffman et al teaches that it is known to use different communication channels when communicating communication over the first communication channel is performed using a first network protocol, and communication over the second communication channel is performed using a second network protocol, the first and second protocols being different as set forth in Paragraphs [0117] and [0229] to provide improved security by communicating over multiple networks/protocols. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method as taught by Matos, with communication over the first communication channel is performed using a first network protocol, and communication over the second communication channel is performed using a second network protocol, the first and second protocols being different as taught by Hoffman et al, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of improved security by communicating over multiple networks/protocols.
Referring to Claim 59, Matos in view of Hoffman et al teaches the method according to claim 58, except wherein the first network protocol is one from the list of: Radio Frequency type protocol RFID type protocol WLAN type protocol Bluetooth type protocol BLE type protocol NFC type protocol 3G/4G/5G type protocol GSM type protocol.
Hoffman et al teaches that it is known to use different communication channels when communicating communication over the first communication channel is performed using Radio Frequency type protocol RFID type protocol WLAN type protocol Bluetooth type protocol BLE type protocol NFC type protocol 3G/4G/5G type protocol GSM type protocol, and communication over the second communication channel is performed using Radio Frequency type protocol RFID type protocol WLAN type protocol Bluetooth type protocol BLE type protocol NFC type protocol 3G/4G/5G type protocol GSM type protocol, the first and second protocols being different as set forth in Paragraphs [0117] and [0229] to provide improved security by communicating over multiple networks/protocols. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method as taught by Matos, with different communication channels when communicating communication over the first communication channel is performed using Radio Frequency type protocol RFID type protocol WLAN type protocol Bluetooth type protocol BLE type protocol NFC type protocol 3G/4G/5G type protocol GSM type protocol, and communication over the second communication channel is performed using Radio Frequency type protocol RFID type protocol WLAN type protocol Bluetooth type protocol BLE type protocol NFC type protocol 3G/4G/5G type protocol GSM type protocol, the first and second protocols being different as taught by Hoffman et al, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of improved security by communicating over multiple networks/protocols.
Referring to Claim 60, Matos in view of Hoffman et al teaches the method according to claim 58, except wherein the second network protocol is one from the list of: Radio Frequency type protocol RFID type protocol WLAN type protocol Bluetooth type protocol BLE type protocol NFC type protocol 3G/4G/5G type protocol GSM type protocol. Hoffman et al teaches that it is known to use different communication channels when communicating communication over the first communication channel is performed using Radio Frequency type protocol RFID type protocol WLAN type protocol Bluetooth type protocol BLE type protocol NFC type protocol 3G/4G/5G type protocol GSM type protocol, and communication over the second communication channel is performed using Radio Frequency type protocol RFID type protocol WLAN type protocol Bluetooth type protocol BLE type protocol NFC type protocol 3G/4G/5G type protocol GSM type protocol, the first and second protocols being different as set forth in Paragraphs [0117] and [0229] to provide improved security by communicating over multiple networks/protocols. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method as taught by Matos, with different communication channels when communicating communication over the first communication channel is performed using Radio Frequency type protocol RFID type protocol WLAN type protocol Bluetooth type protocol BLE type protocol NFC type protocol 3G/4G/5G type protocol GSM type protocol, and communication over the second communication channel is performed using Radio Frequency type protocol RFID type protocol WLAN type protocol Bluetooth type protocol BLE type protocol NFC type protocol 3G/4G/5G type protocol GSM type protocol, the first and second protocols being different as taught by Hoffman et al, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of improved security by communicating over multiple networks/protocols.
Referring to Claim 62, Matos in view of Hoffman et al teaches the method according to claim 43, wherein the first external device and the second external device are comprised in an external device (e.g. Figure 32).
Referring to Claim 63, Matos in view of Hoffman et al teaches the method according to claim 43, wherein the instruction is an encrypted instruction, and wherein the method further comprises, decrypting, at the internal computing unit, the encrypted instruction using an decryption key corresponding to an encryption key with which they encrypted instruction was encrypted (e.g. Paragraph [0621] discloses using an encryption/decryption key).
Claim(s) 49 and 61 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matos (US Publication 2011/0172740) in view of Hoffman et al (US Publication 2019/0030349) as applied above, and further in view of Yoder et al (US Publication 2017/0216611).
Referring to Claim 49, Matos in view of Hoffman et al teaches the method according to claim 44, except wherein executing the instruction comprises installing the update or the configuration, wherein the logging data is further related to the installation of the update or the configuration.
Yoder et al teaches that it is known to use installing the update or the configuration on a medical device and logging data is further related to the installation of the update or the configuration as set forth in Paragraph [0100] (acknowledgment confirming that the configuration information was received and applied by the implantable device) to provide improved clarity that the instructions were executed and installed and no further actions would be required at the time. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method as taught by Matos, with installing the update or the configuration on a medical device and logging data is further related to the installation of the update or the configuration as taught by Yoder et al, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of improved clarity that the instructions were executed and installed and no further actions would be required at the time.
Referring to Claim 61, Matos in view of Hoffman et al teaches the method according to claim 43, except wherein the logging data is related to the execution of the instruction, and wherein the method further comprises, after transmitting the logging data to the second external device verifying the execution of the instructions via a confirmation from the second external device via the second communication channel.
Yoder et al teaches that it is known to use installing the update or the configuration on a medical device and logging data is further related to the installation of the update or the configuration as set forth in Paragraph [0100] (acknowledgment confirming that the configuration information was received and applied by the implantable device) to provide improved clarity that the instructions were executed and installed and no further actions would be required at the time. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method as taught by Matos, with logging data is related to the execution of the instruction, and wherein the method further comprises, after transmitting the logging data to the second external device verifying the execution of the instructions via a confirmation from the second external device via the second communication channel as taught by Yoder et al, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of improved clarity that the instructions were executed and installed and no further actions would be required at the time.
Claim(s) 53 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matos (US Publication 2011/0172740) in view of Hoffman et al (US Publication 2019/0030349) as applied above, and further in view of Sharma et al (US Publication 2019/0125273).
Referring to Claim 53, Matos in view of Hoffman et al teaches the method according to claim 43, except further comprising confirming that the installation is complete by producing a sound or a vibration detectable by the user.
Sharma et al teaches that it is known to use delivering a sound or a vibration detectable by the user indicating a change to the device requiring the user’s attention as set forth in Paragraph [0098] to provide notifications making the user aware of situations within the IMD that require attention, this would allow the user to confirm the update was authorized and successfully completed. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method as taught by Matos, with delivering a sound or a vibration detectable by the user indicating a change to the device requiring the user’s attention as taught by Sharma et al, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of notifications making the user aware of situations within the IMD that require attention, this would allow the user to confirm the update was authorized and successfully completed.
Claim(s) 64-65 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matos (US Publication 2011/0172740) in view of Hoffman et al (US Publication 2019/0030349) as applied above, and further in view of Maus et al (US Publication 2009/0282192).
Referring to Claims 64-65, Matos in view of Hoffman et al teaches the method according to claim 63, except wherein the encryption key comprises a hardware key or a software key; wherein when the encryption key comprises a hardware key, the hardware key comprises a smartcard, or when the encryption key comprises a software key, the software key is an e-ID. Maus et al teaches that it is known to use the encryption key comprises a hardware key, the hardware key comprises a smartcard as set forth in Paragraph [0168] to provide improved security by having the key on a physical object that is assigned to the individual. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system as taught by Matos, with the encryption key comprises a hardware key, the hardware key comprises a smartcard as taught by Maus et al, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of improved security by having the key on a physical object that is assigned to the individual.
Claim(s) 66 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matos (US Publication 2011/0172740) in view of Hoffman et al (US Publication 2019/0030349) as applied above, and further in view of Picco et al (US Publication 2019/0356492).
Referring to Claim 66, Matos in view of Hoffman et al teaches the method according to claim 43, except wherein the instruction has been signed by an external device using a cryptographic hash, and wherein the method further comprises verifying that the cryptographic hash is correct. Picco et al teaches that it is known to use a protocol is signed with a cryptographic hash and verifying that the cryptographic hash is correct as set forth in Figures 2 (415-418) and 3 (456-459 and 474-476)) and Paragraph [0066] to provide improving validation protocol to ensure software components are not corrupted. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method as taught by Matos, with the update, configuration or instruction has been signed by an external device using a cryptographic hash, and wherein the method further comprises verifying that the cryptographic hash is correct as taught by Picco et al, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of improving validation protocol to ensure software components are not corrupted.
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 William J Levicky whose telephone number is (571)270-3983. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8AM-5PM EST.
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, David Hamaoui can be reached at (571)270-5625. 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.
/William J Levicky/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796