DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
This office action is in response to communication(s) filed on 12/03/2025.
Claims 1-2, 11-13 and 15 have been amended.
Claims 16-20 are newly added for consideration.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection of claims 1-15 has been withdrawn in view of the amendments to claims 1-15.
The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claims 1-2, 5, 7, 10, and 12-13 has been withdrawn in view of the amendments to claims 1-2, 5, 7, 10, and 12-13.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-15 have been considered but are respectfully found not to be persuasive and are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
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 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.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-9, 11-13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schilling et al., U.S. Patent No 10,576,290 (hereinafter “Schilling”) as modified by LaLonde et al., U.S. Patent No 8,970,392 (hereinafter “LaLonde”) and further in view of Rao et al., U.S. Patent No 10,675,475 (hereinafter “Rao”).
Regarding Claim 1, Schilling teaches a method for establishing a communication between at least one health care professional remote device (CP) (Col. 38, Lines 8-39, Fig. 5, clinician device 116) and at least one medical device (Col. 36, Lines 43-61, Fig. 4, implantable device 104), comprising the steps:
establishing a first communication connection between the CP with a remote monitoring server (RMS) (Col. 9, Lines 45-57, the server device can facilitate pairing a monitoring device with an implantable device 104; Col. 14, Lines 40-54, remote server device, clinician device 116, unique session identifier; Col. 21, Lines 5-11, remote server device);
establishing a second communication connection between the RMS and a patient remote device (PR) (Col. 8, Lines 49-62, monitoring device; Col. 9, Lines 42-57, server device, monitoring device, authorization and authentication); and
establishing a third communication connection between the PR and the medical device (Col. 9, Lines 42-57, monitoring session, information received by monitoring device from implantable device can be relayed to server device; Col. 18, Lines 24-37, two-way communication),
wherein:
(i) the CP is configured to optimize an internal device process such that the first communication connection can be maintained as continuous communication (Col. 14, Lines 40-54), and/or (ii) the PR is configured to optimize an internal device process such that the second and/or third communication connection (Col. 8, Lines 49-62, monitoring device; Col. 9, Lines 46-57, server device, monitoring device) can be maintained as continuous communication connection,
wherein a remote programming session and/or interrogation session of the medical device is initiated if the communication connection between the CP and the medical device is successfully established. (Col. 8, Lines 17-67, Col. 9, Lines 1-5; Col. 18, Lines 24-60), and
wherein each of the first, second, and third communication connections are in series to thereby establish the communication connection between the CP and the medical device.
Schilling fails to fully teach the limitations: (i) the CP is configured to optimize an internal device process such that the first communication connection can be maintained as continuous communication, and/or (ii) the PR is configured to optimize an internal device process such that second and/or third communication connection can be maintained as continuous communication connection
wherein each of the first, second, and third communication connections are in series to thereby establish the communication connection between the CP and the medical device.
However, LaLonde further demonstrates a method of establishing a communication connection between at least one health care professional remote device (CP) (LaLonde, Col. 8, Lines 7-16, Lines 36-53, Fig. 1A, central authority, clinician mobile device 25, clinician workstations 27; Col. 11, Lines 4-21, advance patient management APM server 16) and at least one medical device (LaLonde, Col. 8, Lines 36-45, Fig. 1A, patient implantable medical device PIMD 13; Col. 10, Lines 50-67, Col. 11, Lines 1-3, PIMD 13; Col. 11, Lines 22-31, portable patient communicator PPC 14, patient advocate mobile device 21), comprising the steps:
establishing a first communication connection between the CP with a remote monitoring server (RMS) (LaLonde, Col. 29, Lines 43-67, Col. 30, Lines 1-9, physician, user access device providing authorized access to APM server, real-time interrogation/programming of the PIMD and/or PPC; Col. 60, Lines 61-67, Col. 61, Lines 1-48, Fig. 11, PIMD data transferred to PPC, to APM, to clinician; real-time connectivity, cooperative operation);
establishing a second communication connection between the RMS and a patient remote device (PR) (LaLonde, Col. 11, Lines 22-31, Lines 63-65, Fig. 1B, PPC transmits received medical device data to APM; Col. 13, Lines 27-28, facilitate data or command transfer from APM to PPC 14; Col. 16, Lines 24-49, APM requests, by way of PPC, data stored in the PIMD); and
establishing a third communication connection between the PR and the medical device (LaLonde, Col. 14, Lines 4-14, command signals generated by remote server to initiate transfer of medical device data to PPC, programmed instructions may be modified by the physician via the remote server; Col. 14, Lines 32-67, Col. 15, Lines 1-3, real-time interrogation, remote command; Col. 16, Lines 24-49, APM requests, by way of PPC, data stored in the PIMD),
wherein: (i) the CP is configured to optimize an internal device process such that the first communication connection can be maintained as continuous communication, and/or
(ii) the PR is configured to optimize an internal device process such that the second and/or third communication connection can be maintained as continuous communication connection (LaLonde, Col. 60, Lines 61-67, Col. 61, Lines 1-30, occurrence of a predetermined event may trigger a data transfer operation),
wherein a remote programming session and/or interrogation session of the medical device is initiated if the communication connection between the CP and the medical device is successfully established. (LaLonde, Col. 52, Lines 31-67, Col. 53, Lines 1-6, Fig. 7C, operations 731-736), and
wherein each of the first, second, and third communication connections are in series to thereby establish the communication connection between the CP and the medical device (LaLonde, Col. 21, Lines 36-67, Col. 22, Lines 1-3, Fig. 3, handshaking to verify authorized command and data exchange; Col. 26, Lines 4-30, tiered approach for pushed or pulled data transfer from PIMD to APM).
LaLonde and Schilling are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of transporting medical data between an implantable device and an external device over a wireless network. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Schilling to incorporate the teachings of LaLonde in the CP is configured to optimize an internal device process such that the first communication connection can be maintained as continuous communication, and/or the PR is configured to optimize an internal device process such that the second and/or third communication connection can be maintained as continuous communication connection and wherein each of the first, second, and third communication connections are in series to thereby establish the communication connection between the CP and the medical device. Doing so would automatically initiate synchronization of the first, second, and third communication connections based on trigger events.
Schilling in view of LaLonde fails to fully teach the limitation:
(i) the CP is configured to optimize an internal device process such that the first communication connection can be maintained as continuous communication, and/or (ii) the PR is configured to optimize an internal device process such that the second and/or third communication connection can be maintained as continuous communication connection
However, Rao further demonstrates a method for establishing a communication connection between at least one health care professional remote device (CP) and at least one medical device (Rao, Col. 12, Lines 27-67, Col. 13, Lines 1-3, proximate mobile device 190, implanted device ID1, remote server 180, wireless communication path 140, 150, 155), comprising the steps:
(i) the CP is configured to optimize an internal device process such that the first communication connection can be maintained as continuous communication, and/or
(ii) the PR is configured to optimize an internal device process such that the second and/or third communication connection can be maintained as continuous communication connection (Rao, Col. 12, Lines 27-67, Col. 13, Lines 1-3, software programming means)
Rao, LaLonde and Schilling are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of networking of implantable medical devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Schilling in view of LaLonde to incorporate the teachings of Rao in the CP is configured to optimize an internal device process such that the first communication connection can be maintained as continuous communication, and/or the PR is configured to optimize an internal device process such that the second and/or third communication connection can be maintained as continuous communication connection. Doing so would utilize configured programming instructions to optimize data transfer between the implantable device and authorized devices.
Regarding Claim 12, Schilling as modified by LaLonde and further in view of Rao teaches a system comprising at least one medical device (Schilling, Col. 36, Lines 43-61, Fig. 4, implantable device 104; LaLonde, Col. 10, Lines 50-67, Col. 11, Lines 1-3, PIMD; Rao, Col. 12, Lines 27-67, Col. 13, Lines 1-3, implanted device), a remote monitoring server (RMS) (Schilling, Col. 21, Lines 5-11, remote server device; LaLonde, Col. 8, Lines 36-53, Col. 11, Lines 4-21, Fig. 1A, central authority, APM server; Rao, Col. 12, Lines 27-67, Col. 13, Lines 1-3, remote server), at least one patient remote device (PR) (Schilling, Col. 8, Lines 49-62, monitoring device; LaLonde, Col. 11, Lines 22-31, Fig. 1A, PPC 14; Rao, Col. 12, Lines 27-67, Col. 13 Lines 1-3, proximate mobile device 190), and at least one health care professional remote device (CP) (Schilling, Col. 38, Lines 8-39, Fig. 5, clinician device 116; LaLonde, Col. 8, Lines 7-16, Fig. 1A, clinician mobile device, clinician workstations; Rao, Col. 12, Lines 27-67, Col. 13, Lines 1-3, proximate mobile device 190), wherein the system is configured such that for programming and/or interrogation of one chosen medical device, one CP establishes a communication session connecting the one CP via the RMS and the PR with the chosen medical device using the one CP by establishing a first bidirectional communication connection (14) of the one CP and the RMS (Schilling, Col. 14, Lines 40-54; Col. 18, Lines 24-37, dynamic bi-directional communication; Col. 21, Lines 5-11, remote server device; LaLonde, Col. 29, Lines 43-67, Col. 30, Lines 1-9, physician, user access device, APM server, PIMD/PCC), triggering the RMS to establish a second bidirectional communication connection of the RMS and the PR corresponding to the chosen medical device (Schilling, Col. 8, Lines 49-62, monitoring device; Col. 18, Lines 24-37, dynamic bi-directional communication; LaLonde, Col. 11, Lines 22-31, Lines 63-65, PPC transmits received medical device data to APM; Col. 13, Lines 27-28, facilitate data or command transfer from APM to PPC) and to establish a third bidirectional communication connection of the PR corresponding to the chosen medical device and the chosen medical device, wherein the system is configured to provide real-time remote programming (Schilling, Col. 10, Lines 9-29; Col. 18, Lines 24-60) and/or interrogation (Schilling, Col. 8, Lines 17-67, Col. 9, Lines 1-5) of the chosen medical device using the one CP via the RMS and the corresponding PR, and to maintain the first, second and third communication connections as continuous communication connections (LaLonde, Col. 14, Lines 4-14, Lines 32-67, Col. 15, Lines 1-3, remote physician command, initiate transfer of medical device data to PPC), wherein the programming and/or interrogation of the at least one medical device is established by the first, second, and third bidirectional communication connection being in series with one another to thereby establish a direct line of communication between the one CP and the at least one medical device (LaLonde, Col. 16, Lines 24-49, APM requests data stored in the PIMD by way of PPC; Col. 21-22, Lines 36-67, Lines 1-3, Fig. 3, handshaking to verify authorized command and data exchange; Col. 26, Lines 4-30, tiered approach for pushed or pulled data transfer from PIMD to APM),
wherein:
(i) the CP is configured to optimize an internal device process such that the first communication connection can be maintained as continuous communication connection, and/or
(ii) the PR is configured to optimize an internal device process such that the second and/or third communication connection can be maintained as continuous communication connection (LaLonde, Col. 60, Lines 61-67, Col. 61, Lines 1-30, occurrence of a predetermined event may trigger a data transfer operation; Rao, Col. 12, Lines 27-67, Col. 13 Lines 1-3, software programming means, proximate mobile device, implanted device).
Regarding Claim 2 and Claim 13, Schilling as modified by LaLonde and further in view of Rao teaches the method of Claim 1 and the system of Claim 12, respectively, wherein the CP and/or PR is configured to optimize an internal device process by at least one of:
(i) reducing a number of internal device software applications and/or reducing an internal device access to software applications to those required for maintaining the first communication connection as continuous communication connection (Rao, Col. 13, Lines 28-64),
(ii) reducing internal device data traffic to that required for maintaining the first communication connection as continuous communication connection (Schilling, Col. 8, Lines 66-67, Col. 9, Lines 1-5, data transmission; LaLonde, Col. 20, Lines 20-31), or
(iii) reducing internal device communication applications to that required for maintaining the first communication connection as continuous communication connection (Schilling, Col. 8, Lines 62-66, restrictive data communication; LaLonde, Col. 18, Lines 13-25).
Regarding Claim 4, Schilling in view of LaLonde teaches the method of Claim 3, wherein the PR, upon receiving the notification, starts polling information from the RMS at a predetermined rate (Schilling, Col. 16, Lines 20-59).
Regarding Claim 5, Schilling teaches the method of Claim 1, wherein the remote programming session and/or interrogation session is associated with at least one first session identifier (Schilling, Col. 21, Lines 5-11, remote server device, remote monitoring session, authentication and authorization; Col. 21, Lines 12-34, unique identifiers).
Regarding Claim 6, Schilling teaches the method of Claim 5, wherein the first session identifier is discarded (Schilling, Col. 18, Lines 61-67, Col. 19, Lines 1-6, remove unique session identifier) when the communication connection between the CP and the medical device is lost (Schilling, Col. 19, Lines 54-67, Col. 20, Lines 1-21), and wherein a new session identifier is generated when the communication connection between the CP and the medical device is reconnected (Schilling, Col. 3, Lines 1-22, clinician device, implantable device).
Regarding Claim 8, Schilling teaches the method of Claim 1, wherein in case of a connection loss of the third communication connection, the PR is configured to attempt a reconnection between the PR and the medical device (Schilling, Col. 20, Lines 6-21).
Regarding Claim 9 and Claim 15, Schilling in view of LaLonde teaches the method of Claim 1 and the system of Claim 12, respectively. Schilling does not teach the method of Claim 9 or the system of Claim 15. However, LaLonde teaches the method of Claim 9 and the system of Claim 15, wherein the PR automatically transmits data associated with the medical device to the RMS upon at least one trigger event (LaLonde, Col. 60, Lines 61-67, Col. 61, Lines 1-30, occurrence of a predetermined event may trigger a data transfer operation).
Regarding Claim 11, Schilling teaches a non-transitory computer readable storage medium including a computer program product comprising instructions which, when executed by at least one processing unit, cause the at least one processing unit to perform the steps of the method according to claim 1 (Schilling, Col. 45, Lines 14-44, computer 1102; Fig. 11, system memory 1106, processing unit 1104; Col. 47, Lines 1-27, processor, non-volatile memory).
Claims 7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schilling as modified by LaLonde in view of Rao and further in view of Roberts et al., U.S. Patent No 8,868,201 (hereinafter “Roberts”).
Regarding Claim 7, Schilling teaches the method of Claim 6, wherein after reconnecting the communication connection between the CP and the medical device (Schilling, Col. 3, Lines 1-22, implantable device, clinician device), a remote programming session and/or interrogation session is declared valid if the new session identifier is different from the first session identifier.
Schilling fails to teach:
a remote programming session and/or interrogation session is declared valid if the new session identifier is different from the first session identifier.
However, Roberts further demonstrates the method of Claim 6, wherein after reconnecting the communication connection between the CP and the medical device, a remote programming session and/or interrogation session is declared valid if the new session identifier is different from the first session identifier (Roberts, Col. 15, Lines 54-67, Col. 16, Lines 1-2).
Roberts, Rao, LaLonde and Schilling are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of secure provider-patient data transfer and communication. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Schilling as modified by LaLonde and further in view of Rao to incorporate the teachings of Roberts in which a remote programming session and/or interrogation session is declared valid if the new session identifier is different from the first session identifier. Doing so would ensure system security and authenticated connections by preventing reuse of session IDs.
Regarding Claim 10, Schilling as modified by Rao and further in view of Rao teaches the method of Claim 9, wherein a trigger event comprises at least one of:
(i) initiation of a remote programming session and/or interrogation session of the medical device (Schilling, Col. 18, Lines 24-37; Col. 8, Lines 17-67, Col. 9, Lines 1-5, interrogation),
(ii) activation of an internal device software of the PR for establishing the second or third communication connection (Rao, Col. 12, Lines 27-67, Col. 13 Lines 1-3, software programming means), (iii) establishing (Schilling, Col. 9, Lines 46-57, monitoring device) or changing the third communication connection (Roberts, Col. 15, Lines 54-67, Col. 16, Lines 1-2), (iv) reconnection of the communication connection between the CP and the medical device (Schilling, Col. 20, Lines 6-21), (v) an information update is requested via the CP (Schilling, Col. 8, Lines 17-67, Col. 9, Lines 1-5), or
(vi) a change of an information relevant to the remote programming session and/or interrogation session of the medical device (Schilling, Col. 10, Lines 9-29).
Claims 16-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schilling as modified by LaLonde in view of Rao and further in view of Mark et al., U.S. Patent No 9,807,195 (hereinafter “Mark”).
Regarding Claim 16, Schilling as modified by Lalonde and further in view of Rao teaches a method for establishing a communication connection between at least one health care professional remote device (CP) and at least one medical device, comprising the steps:
(a) establishing a first communication connection between the CP with a remote monitoring server (RMS) (Schilling, Col. 9, Lines 46-57, the server device can facilitate paring a monitoring device with an implantable device; Col. 14, Lines 40-54, remote server device, clinician device, unique session identifier; Col. 21, Lines 5-11, remote server device; LaLonde, Col. 29, Lines 43-67, Col. 30, Lines 1-9, physician, user access device, authorized access to APM server, real-time interrogation and/or programming of PIMD/PPC; Col. 60, Lines 61-67, Col. 61, Lines 1-48, Fig. 11, PIMD data transferred to PPC, to APM, to clinician, real-time connectivity, cooperative operation);
(b) establishing a second communication connection between the RMS and a patient remote device (PR) (Schilling, Col. 8, Lines 49-62, monitoring device; Col. 9, Lines 42-57, server device, monitoring device, authorization and authentication; LaLonde, Col. 11, Lines 22-31, Lines 63-65, Fig. 1B, connection C-A, PPC transmits received medical device data to APM; Col. 13, Lines 27-28, data/command transfer from APM to PPC; Col. 16, Lines 24-49, APM requests, by way of PPC, data stored in the PIMD); and
(c) establishing a third communication connection between the PR and the medical device (Schilling, Col. 9, Lines 42-57, monitoring session, information received by monitoring device from implantable device can be relayed to server device; Col. 18, Lines 24-37, two-way communication; LaLonde, Col. 14, Lines 4-14, Lines 32-67, Col. 15, Lines 1-3, command signals generated by remote server to initiate transfer of medical device data to PPC, programmed instructions may be modified by the physician via the remote server, real-time interrogation, remote command),
wherein:
(i) the CP is configured to optimize an internal device process such that the first communication connection can be maintained as continuous communication connection (Schilling, Col. 14, Lines 40-54; LaLonde, Col. 60, Lines 61-67, Col. 61, Lines 1-30; Rao, Col. 12, Lines 27-67, Col. 13 Lines 1-3), and
(ii) the PR is configured to optimize an internal device process such that the second and/or third communication connection can be maintained as continuous communication connection (Schilling, Col. 14, Lines 40-54; LaLonde, Col. 60, Lines 61-67, Col. 61, Lines 1-30; Rao, Col. 12, Lines 27-67, Col. 13 Lines 1-3),
wherein the optimization of the internal device process includes disabling at least one program in each of the CP and the PR,
wherein a remote programming session and/or interrogation session of the medical device is initiated if the communication connection between the CP and the medical device is successfully established (Schilling, Col. 8, Lines 17-67, Col. 9, Lines 1-5; Col. 18, Lines 24-60).
Schilling as modified by Lalonde and further in view of Rao fails to fully teach the limitation:
wherein the optimization of the internal device process includes disabling at least one program in each of the CP and the PR
However, Mark teaches the limitation: wherein the optimization of the internal device process includes disabling at least one program (Mark, Col. 6, Lines 36-67, Col. 7, Lines 1-43, mobile device 16, device operating mode managed by server which can restrict mobile device functionality or access, disabling use of certain software of applications unrestricted mode 16A, restricted mode 16B) in each of the CP and the PR (Mark, Col. 4, Lines 18-67, Col. 5, Lines 1-21, Fig. 1, mobile device management server 114, remotely manage and control the functionalities of mobile device[s] 16 that communicate over network 12, Col. 5, Lines 37-67, Col. 6, Lines 1-25, fungible mobile devices and/or web-based application; Col. 18, Lines 66-67, Col. 19, Lines 1-67, Col. 20, Lines 1-39, Fig. 11, user authentication, mobile device associated with user, administrator defined rules controlling permissions).
Mark, Rao, LaLonde and Schilling are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of network communication protocols and security adapted for medical networking. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Schilling in view of LaLonde and further in view of Rao to incorporate the teachings of Mark wherein the optimization of the internal device process includes disabling at least one program in each of the CP and the PR. Doing so would allow for the optimization of available internal device resources by restricting built-in application functionality and provide an enhanced security environment.
Regarding Claim 17, Schilling as modified by LaLonde in view of Rao and further in view of Mark teaches the method of claim 16, wherein the CP and/or PR is configured to optimize an internal device process by at least one of:
(i) reducing a number of internal device software applications and/or reducing an internal device access to software applications to those required for maintaining the first communication connection as continuous communication connection (Rao, Col. 13, Lines 48-64),
(ii) reducing internal device data traffic to that required for maintaining the first communication connection as continuous communication connection (Schilling, Col. 8, Lines 66-67, Col. 9, Lines 1-5, data transmission; LaLonde, Col. 20, Lines 20-31, traffic, management of finite resources), or
(iii) reducing internal device communication applications to that required for maintaining the first communication connection as continuous communication connection (Schilling, Col. 8, Lines 62-66, restrictive data communication; LaLonde, Col. 18, Lines 13-25, open ports; Mark, Col. 6, Lines 36-67, Col. 7, Lines 1-43, restricted operational mode).
Regarding Claim 20, Schilling teaches the method of claim 16, wherein the remote programming session and/or interrogation session is associated with at least one first session identifier (Schilling, Col. 21, Lines 5-34, remote server device, remote monitoring session, authentication and authorization, unique identifiers).
Claims 3, 14, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schilling in view of LaLonde as modified by Mark and further in view of Stevens et al. “A Cyber-Physical System for Near Real-Time Monitoring of At-Home Orthopedic Rehabilitation and Mobile–Based Provider-Patient Communications to Improve Adherence: Development and Formative Evaluation”, JMIR Hum Factors 2020, (hereinafter “Stevens”).
Regarding Claim 3, Claim 14, and Claim 18 Schilling as modified by LaLonde teaches the method of Claim 1, the system of Claim 12, and the method of Claim 16, respectively. Schilling does not teach the method of Claim 3, the system of Claim 14 or the method of Claim 18. However, LaLonde teaches the method of Claim 3, the system of Claim 14, and the method of Claim 18, wherein for establishing the second communication connection between the RMS and the PR, the RMS initiates delivery of a notification from an external messaging provider to the PR (LaLonde, Col. 21, Lines 36-67, Col. 22, Lines 1-40, APM commands sent to PPC, messaging services supported by mobile network infrastructure; Col. 26, Lines 6-18).
LaLonde fails to fully teach:
the RMS initiates delivery of a notification from an external messaging provider to the PR.
However, Stevens further demonstrates the method of Claim 1 and the system of Claim 12, respectively, wherein for establishing the second communication connection between the RMS and the PR, the RMS initiates delivery of a notification from an external messaging provider to the PR (Stevens, Page 1, Abstract; Page 2, Col. 2, Methods, Push Notifications; Page 3, Figure 1, modified NMES device, RehabTracker app, Back-end server, Clinician Portal; Page 5, App Interface, Push Notifications; Page 8, Col. 1, Push Notifications Infrastructure).
Stevens, LaLonde and Schilling are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of provider-patient data transfer and remote monitoring. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Schilling in view of LaLonde to incorporate the teachings of Stevens in which the RMS initiates delivery of a notification from an external messaging provider to the PR. Doing so would enable the triggering of an interrogation session between a patient remote device and the remote monitoring server via an external messaging provider.
Regarding Claim 19, Schilling as modified by LaLonde and further in view of Stevens teaches the method of claim 18, wherein the PR, upon receiving the notification, starts polling information from the RMS at a predetermined rate (Schilling, Col. 16, Lines 20-59).
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 GABRIELLE N DAI whose telephone number is (571)272-6693. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thu. 8:30am - 5:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, AKWASI SARPONG can be reached at (571) 270-3438. 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.
/GABRIELLE N DAI/Examiner, Art Unit 2681
/AKWASI M SARPONG/SPE, Art Unit 2681 02/16/2026