DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communication filed on 26 November, 2025.
Claims 1 and 10 have been amended.
Claims 16 - 21 have been added.
Claims 1 – 4, 6 – 11 and 13 - 21 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 6 November, 2025 has been entered.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 – 4, 6 – 11 and 13 - 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LaLonde et al.: (US PGPUB 2014/0062718 A1) in view of Hernacki et al.: (US 8,504,680 B1) in view of Wainscott JR. et al.: (US PGPUB 2005/0198255 A1).
CLAIMS 1, 10 and 14 - 16
LaLonde discloses a wireless medical data transport method and system that includes the following limitations:
at least one medical device, (LaLonde 0057, 0058, Fig. 1A #13); a remote monitoring server (RMS), (Fig. 1A #16), at least one patient remote device (PR), (Fig 1A #14) and at least one health care professional (HCP) remote device (CP), (Fig. 1A #21, #23, #25, #27);
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 of the one CP and the RMS; triggering the RMS to establish a second bidirectional communication connection (12, 14) of the RMS and the PR corresponding to the chosen medical device and to establish a third bidirectional communication connection (13, 14) of the PR corresponding to the chosen medical device and the chosen medical device; and to maintain the first, second and third communication connections as continuous communication connections; wherein the system is configured to provide real-time remote programming and/or interrogation of the chosen medical device using the one CP via the RMS and the corresponding PR; (LaLonde 0010, 0042 – 0045, 0085, 0089 – 0091, 0094, 0100, 0101, 0111, 0174, 0175, 0178, 0252, 0286, 0292, 0294, 0301, 0329, 0349, 0351, 0406).
LaLonde discloses a system, including program instructions, and method for remotely interrogating or reprogramming an implanted medical device (IMD) (i.e. a medical device) over a network. A client station (i.e. remote device (CP)), operated by a physician (i.e. health care professional (HCP)), may establish a bi-directional connection to an automated patient management (APM) server (i.e. remote monitoring server (RMS)) over a network such as the Internet. The server, then establishes a communication connection with a portable patient communicator (PPC) (i.e. patient remote device (PR)), and the PPC establishes a connection to the IMD. The system uses various techniques to insure that the connections stay “open” or “alive” (i.e. maintain . . . as continuous communication connections). A physician may request data from the IMD thru the PPC and the server, (i.e. remote interrogation) and view the data, or issue programming commands, (i.e. real-time remote programming) in real-time via a web page.
With respect to the following limitations:
wherein prior or during establishing a communication connection between the RMS (1) and the corresponding PR (5) the RMS is configured to send a push notification to the corresponding PR thereby triggering this PR to poll the RMS from a rate greater than zero to a faster rate; (Hernacki col. 1 line 15 – 17, line 28 – 54; col. 2 line 9 – 26; col. 3 line 3 – 39; col. 4 line 18 - 44).
LaLonde (@ 0089, 0091, 0092, 0151, 0361 - 0366) discloses that data may be transferred from the IMD to the PPC in response to command signals generated by the remote server and pushed to the PPC. In particular, LaLonde implements a high frequency polling protocol that effects interrogations of the medical device. High frequency polling depends on a number of factors, and is based on a command from the ATM server. Nonetheless, LaLonde does not disclose increasing the rate from rate greater than zero.
Hernacki discloses a system and method for automatically, and remotely, adjusting the polling interval of a group of managed client devices. Hernacki teaches remote administration of managed devices that involves the various managed devices “checking in with a server” at specified intervals, using a traditional polling model. Hernacki discloses detecting changes in the level of administrative activity and directing the managed devices to poll the server more frequently. Administrative activity may increase for a number of reasons including when a particular managed device is in an alert or emergency state, or prior to a known time of day when a given administrator logs into the system. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing data of the claimed invention, to have modified the remote interrogation system of LaLonde so as to have included triggering a medical device to poll a server at a rate faster than a previous (non-zero) polling rate, in accordance with the teaching of Hernacki, in order to manage network resources.
LaLonde/Hernacki discloses push notifications from the server, but does not disclose push notifications from an external push notification system. Wainscott JR. (@ 0008, 0016 – 0019) discloses a web reporting system that includes a notification server that receives a request for data from a client. The notification server adjusts the poll rate to provide a desired response time based on server resource usage. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing data of the claimed invention, to have modified the remote interrogation system of LaLonde/Hernacki so as to have included an external push notification system, in accordance with the teaching of Wainscott JR., in order to manage network resources.
CLAIMS 2 – 4, 6, 7, 9, 11, 13 and 17 - 21
The combination of LaLonde/Hernacki/Wainscott JR. discloses the limitations above relative to Claims 1, 10 and 16. Additionally, LaLonde discloses the following limitations:
wherein the RMS comprises a central data repository of data collected by the at least one CP, the at least one PR and/or the at least one medical device; (LaLonde 0007, 0061, 0075, Fig. 1A #16); - disclosing a central database for storing data;
wherein each of the at least one CP, the RMS (1) and at least one PR (5) comprise a data buffer for communication and/or the at least one medical device (7) is configured to adjust its data sampling rate based upon a bandwidth of communication with the PR; (LaLonde 0093, 0158, 0289); - disclosing data buffers;
wherein the system comprises an authentication service (28) which is configured to provide signed tokens to the at least one CP, wherein one signed token is valid for one particular remote programming session of the chosen medical device; (LaLonde 0058, 0061, 0107 – 0109, 0135, 0224, 0226, 0245); - disclosing authentication using tokens;
wherein for remote programming of the chosen medical device the CP (3) is configured to produce a single program containing updates and/or changes of parameters of the medical device and to transmit the single program to the medical device via the RMS (1) and the corresponding PR; (LaLonde 0054, 0061, 0175, 0201, 0209 – 0211); - disclosing transmitting program updates from the server;
wherein the RMS (1) is configured to encrypt the single program received from the CP, wherein the corresponding PR (5) is configured to transmit the encrypted single program to the chosen medical device; (LaLonde 0225, 0247); - disclosing encrypted transmissions;
wherein the RMS (1) is configured to be connected with a data warehouse (210) and/or a clinical data warehouse, wherein the data warehouse and/or the clinical data warehouse are configured to import at least a part of the data stored in the central data repository; (LaLonde 0075, 0078, Fig. 1B #18A, B, C) – disclosing a database for storing data.
Claims 8 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LaLonde et al.: (US PGPUB 2014/0062718 A1) in view of Hernacki et al.: (US 8,504,680 B1)in view of Wainscott JR. et al.: (US PGPUB 2005/0198255 A1) in view of Mallya: (US PGPUB 2018/0034856 A1).
CLAIMS 8 and 22
The combination of LaLonde/Hernacki/Wainscott JR. discloses the limitations above relative to Claims 2 and 17. With respect to the following limitations:
wherein the RMS (1) is configured such that its central data repository comprises data having different security level, wherein one example of data with a lower security level are pseudonymized data; (Mallya 0075).
LaLonde/Hernacki/Wainscott JR. does not disclose different levels of security, including a lower level of pseudonymized data, however, Mallya does. Mallya discloses a computer having a set of user’s medical records associated with a high security level. The data may be transferred to a remote system with a lower security level by removing any names or personal information from the data (i.e. pseudonymized data). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing data of the claimed invention, to have modified the remote interrogation system of LaLonde so as to have included different security levels for patient data, in accordance with the teaching of Mallya, in order to protect the anonymity of users.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6 November, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts that the prior art of record fails to teach triggering the remote device to poll the server from a rate greater than zero to a faster rate. Examiner agrees. However, on further search and consideration, a new grounds of rejection in view of Hernacki et al., is made herein
CONCLUSION
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 6,744,780 B1 to Gu et al. discloses a system and method for providing a dynamically adaptive polling interval based on a status message.
US 7,389,349 B2 to Kouznetsov et al. discloses a system and method for adjusting a computer polling period based on activity.
US PGPUB 2002/0112053 A1 to Christensen et al. discloses a system and method for dynamically adapting a default polling rate by decreasing the polling interval on specific network elements to allow for closer scrutiny.
US PGPUB 2007/0027987 A1 to Tripp et al. discloses a system and method for adjusting a polling interval based on rules.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to John A. Pauls whose telephone number is (571) 270-5557. The Examiner can normally be reached on Mon. - Fri. 8:00 - 5:00 Eastern. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Robert Morgan can be reached at (571) 272-6773.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866.217.9197.
Official replies to this Office action may now be submitted electronically by registered users of the EFS-Web system. Information on EFS-Web tools is available on the Internet at: http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/index.jsp. An EFS-Web Quick-Start Guide is available at: http://www.uspto.gov/ebc/portal/efs/quick-start.pdf.
Alternatively, official replies to this Office action may still be submitted by any one of fax, mail, or hand delivery. Faxed replies should be directed to the central fax at (571) 273-8300. Mailed replies should be addressed to “Commissioner for Patents, PO Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450.” Hand delivered replies should be delivered to the “Customer Service Window, Randolph Building, 401 Dulany Street, Alexandria, VA 22314.”
/JOHN A PAULS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3683 Date: 6 January, 2026