DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the America Invents Act (AIA ).
Response and Claim Status
The instant Office action is responsive to the interview conducted February 17, 2026 (the Interview) and the response received March 9, 2026 (the Response).
In response to the Interview and the Response, the previous rejection of claims 1 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by Doshi et al. (US 2018/0113984 A1; filed Oct. 26, 2016)
is WITHDRAWN.
Claims 1–20 are currently pending.
Claim Objections
The following is a quotation of 37 C.F.R. § 1.71(a):
The specification must include a written description of the invention or discovery and of the manner and process of making and using the same, and is required to be in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art or science to which the invention or discovery appertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same.
Claims 1–20 are objected to under 37 C.F.R. § 1.71(a) for the following informalities:
Claim 1, lines 15–16 should be “succeeding the authentication result of the care receiver acquired through the first application.”
Claim 18, lines 14–15 by analogy.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. § 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Posnack
Claims 1–4 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by Posnack et al. (US 2021/0077860 A1; filed Sept. 15, 2020).
Response to Arguments
Applicants assert “[t]he Examiner’s position is that the term ‘application’ includes different screens or sub- routines within a single interface. . . . With respect to Posnack, the Examiner relies on FIG. 12 (body part confirmation) and FIG. 25 (session period action) to teach Applicant’s first and second applications.” Response 10.
Applicants argue
Posnack is merely disclosing different UI screens within a single integrated system or session.
In contrast, the claimed invention requires the applications to be independent processes. Furthermore, Posnack’s transition from a login screen to a treatment screen is a standard sequential UI flow, not a control logic where a separate authentication of a second independent program is passed based on a first program’s result.
Id.
The Examiner is unpersuaded of error. Applicants’ Specification does not define the term “application.” See generally Spec. The Examiner, thus, interprets the term “application” with its plain meaning, namely “[a] program designed to assist in the performance of a specific task, such as word processing, accounting, or inventory management.” Microsoft Computer Dictionary 31 (5th ed. 2002). See MPEP §§ 2111.01, 2173.01.
Posnack’s “FIG. 11 shows an example embodiment of a login screen 200 of the patient interface 50.” Posnack ¶ 71. Posnack’s “patient interface 50 includes a second processor 60 and a second machine-readable storage memory 62 holding second instructions 64 for execution by the second processor 60 for performing various actions of patient interface 50.” Id. ¶ 49; see also id. ¶ 40.
Thus, Posnack’s Figure 11 is a program executed as a process on an operating system that is designed to assist in the performance of a specific task––”allow the patient to identify himself or herself to the system 10 and to verify their identity prior to using the system for treatment.” Posnack ¶ 71. Thus, Posnack’s Figure 11 is a first application that is an independent program executed as a process on patient interface 50’s operating system.
Posnack’s Figure 21 is also a program executed as a process on an operating system that is designed to assist in the performance of a specific task––”to inform the patient of the type of the session period about to begin” and “to aid the patient in preparing to begin the forthcoming session period.” Posnack ¶ 79. Thus, Posnack’s Figure 21 is a second application that is an independent program executed as another process on patient interface 50’s operating system.
Next, Applicants argue
Posnack . . . fails to teach, suggest and/or disclose at least the limitations, “ . . . the first application and the second application being independent programs executed as different processes on an operating system . . . the processor is configured to: execute the first application, if the first application is activated after the first authentication processing has been executed, using an authentication result of the care receiver, and execute the second application, if the second application is activated after the first application has finished, in a state where the second authentication processing is automatically passed by succeeding the authentication result acquired through the first application”, as recited in amended independent claim 1 and similarly recited in amended independent claim 18.
Response 10–11.
The Examiner is unpersuaded of error because merely reciting language of the claims and asserting the cited prior art references do not teach or suggest a claim limitation is insufficient. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(b); MPEP §§ 714.02, 2141; see also 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv); In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Accordingly, Applicants’ argument fails to provide sufficient, persuasive argument or evidence regarding the specific deficiency of the Examiner’s findings.
The Rejection
Regarding claim 1, Posnack discloses a terminal device (figs. 1, 4, item 50) comprising:
a memory (fig. 1, item 62) configured to be capable of storing a first application1 (fig. 12, item 240; ¶ 72) and a second application (fig. 21, item 600; ¶ 79) to assist care for a care receiver (“FIG. 4 shows a person (a patient) using the treatment apparatus of FIG. 2” at ¶ 59; intended use in italics),
the first application and the second application being independent programs (¶ 40; the suggested programs involved in producing the functionalities of fig. 12 and fig. 19 are independent programs; fig. 1, items 64, 66) executed as different processes on an operating system (Posnack at least suggests an operating system at fig. 1, items 64, 66),
a first authentication processing (“LOGIN IN” at fig. 11; ¶ 71; fig. 12, item 240 requires “LOGIN IN” at fig. 11) is required to the first application, a second authentication processing (fig. 19, item 520 requires selecting item 522 and selecting “NEXT” at fig. 19 before proceeding to fig. 21, item 600) is required to the second application, the first authentication processing being different from the second authentication processing independently; and
a processor (fig. 1, item 60) configured to execute the first application or the second application,
wherein the processor is configured to:
execute (fig. 12, item 240; ¶ 71) the first application, if the first application is activated after authentication processing (fig. 11, item 200; “The login screen 200 may allow the patient to identify himself or herself to the system 10 and to verify their identity prior to using the system for treatment.” at ¶ 71) has been executed, using an authentication result (“USERNAME” and “PASSWORD” at fig. 11; “In another example, the patient interface 50 may use a biometric identification, such as a fingerprint, a palm print, or a retinal scan, to verify the identity of a patient.” at ¶ 71) of the care receiver, and
execute (fig. 21, item 600; ¶ 79) the second application, if the second application is activated after the first application has finished (fig. 21 occurs after fig. 12 has finished), in a state where the second authentication processing is automatically passed (by selecting item 524 in fig. 19 and selecting item 566 in fig. 20, “the patient . . . are [sic] able to proceed with the treatment session” at ¶ 78 which includes the second application at fig. 21 as part of the treatment session, thereby automatically passing the patient needing to select item 522 and “NEXT” at fig. 19 by succeeding the username and password entered at fig. 11) by succeeding the authentication result acquired through the first application.
Regarding claim 2, Posnack discloses wherein the memory is configured to be capable of further storing a third application (the input screen items 320, 360, 400, and 480 directed to “Before We Begin” at, respectively, figs. 14–16, 18), and the processor is configured:
to execute the third application to execute the authentication processing (fig. 11, item 200; “The login screen 200 may allow the patient to identify himself or herself to the system 10 and to verify their identity prior to using the system for treatment.” at ¶ 71),
to execute a retrieval processing to retrieve an application (fig. 13, item 280) related to the authenticated care receiver among a plurality of applications (figs. 11–29) including the first application and the second application, and
to present a retrieval result (fig. 17, item 440), by the third application (the input screen items 320, 360, 400, and 480 directed to “Before We Begin” at, respectively, figs. 14–16, 18) corresponding to the retrieved application.
Regarding claim 3, Posnack discloses wherein the processor is configured:
to identify, based on attribute information (“patient questionnaire screens 360, 400” at fig. 16) in which the care receiver is associated with an attribute (“affirmative answers to either of the “[Have you noticed] wound/incision splitting” and/or the “[Have you noticed] shortness of breath” inquiries” at ¶ 75; fig. 16) of the care receiver, the attribute of the authenticated care receiver, in the retrieval processing, and
to retrieve an application (fig. 17, item 440) associated with the attribute from the plurality of applications.
Regarding claim 4, Posnack discloses wherein the processor is configured to perform the retrieval processing (to retrieve fig. 13, item 280) to retrieve an application (fig. 13, item 280) from the plurality of applications in the retrieval processing, based on information on at least one of a place where the terminal device is used, a time period when the retrieval processing is executed, and a care device (fig. 4, item 100) positioned in a surrounding of the terminal device (fig. 4, item 50).
Regarding claim 18, Posnack discloses a control method of a terminal device (figs. 1, 4, item 50), the terminal device being configured to be capable of storing a first application (fig. 12, item 240; ¶ 71) and a second application (fig. 21, item 600; ¶ 79) to assist care for a care receiver (“FIG. 4 shows a person (a patient) using the treatment apparatus of FIG. 2” at ¶ 59; intended use in italics), the first application and the second application being independent programs executed as different processes on an operating system,
a first authentication processing (“LOGIN IN” at fig. 11; ¶ 71; fig. 12, item 240 requires “LOGIN IN” at fig. 11) is required to the first application, a second authentication processing (fig. 19, item 520 requires selecting item 522 and selecting “NEXT” at fig. 19) is required to the second application, the first authentication processing being different processing from the second authentication processing independently, the control method comprising:
executing (fig. 12, item 240; ¶ 71) the first application, in a first operation in which the first application is activated after the first authentication processing (fig. 11, item 200; “The login screen 200 may allow the patient to identify himself or herself to the system 10 and to verify their identity prior to using the system for treatment.” at ¶ 71) has been executed, using an authentication result (“USERNAME” and “PASSWORD” at fig. 11; “In another example, the patient interface 50 may use a biometric identification, such as a fingerprint, a palm print, or a retinal scan, to verify the identity of a patient.” at ¶ 71) of the care receiver, and
executing (fig. 21, item 600; ¶ 79) the second application, in a second operation (activating fig. 21, item 600; ¶ 79) in which the second application is activated after the first application has finished (fig. 21 occurs after fig. 12 has finished), in a state where the second authentication processing is automatically passed (by selecting item 524 in fig. 19 and selecting item 566 in fig. 20, “the patient . . . are [sic] able to proceed with the treatment session” at ¶ 78 which includes the second application at fig. 21 as part of the treatment session, thereby automatically passing the patient needing to select item 522 and “NEXT” at fig. 19 by succeeding the username and password entered at fig. 11) by succeeding the authentication results acquired through the first application.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 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.
Claims 5–8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Posnack in view of Lin et al. (US 2023/0078667 A1; filed Nov. 17, 2022).
Regarding claim 5, while Posnack teaches wherein the processor is configured to execute, if the first application (fig. 12, item 240; ¶ 71) has been activated without performing the authentication processing (“In some embodiments, the patient interface 50 may not have a login screen 200.” at ¶ 71), the authentication processing (“For example, the patient interface 50 may be preconfigured for a given patient. This may be used, for example, where the patient interface 50 is provided for in-home care by a single patient.” at ¶ 71),
Posnack does not teach the executing of the authentication processing occurring by the first application.
Lin teaches executing of authentication processing occurring by a first application (“the second application program performs authentication” at ¶ 25).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention for Posnack’s authentication processing to occur by the first application as taught by Lin so that “the information security is improved.” Lin ¶ 25.
Regarding claims 6–8, claim 5 recites substantially similar features. Thus, references/arguments equivalent to those present for claim 5 are equally applicable to claims 6–8.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9–17, 19, and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicants are reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 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 extension fee pursuant to § 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 DAVID P. ZARKA whose telephone number is (703) 756-5746. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday–Friday from 9:30AM–6PM ET.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Vivek Srivastava, can be reached at (571) 272-7304. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
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. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, Applicants are encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
/DAVID P ZARKA/PATENT EXAMINER, Art Unit 2449
1 Applicants’ Specification does not define the term “application.” See generally Spec. The Examiner, thus, interprets the term with its plain meaning, namely “[a] program designed to assist in the performance of a specific task, such as word processing, accounting, or inventory management.” Microsoft Computer Dictionary 31 (5th ed. 2002). See MPEP §§ 2111.01, 2173.01. Here, Posnack discloses a program designed to assist in confirming whether a care receiver agrees with the body parts to be treated. See Posnack ¶ 71; fig. 12.