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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 07/01/2026 has been entered.
Formal Matters
Applicant's response, filed 07/01/2026, has been fully considered. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claims 1, 8, 11, and 15 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 have been rejected.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP2021-095850, filed on 11/30/2023.
The instant application therefore claims the benefit of priority under 35 U.S.C 119(a)-(d). Accordingly, the effective filing date for the instant application is 06/08/2021 claiming benefit to JP2021-095850.
Objections
Examiner acknowledges that appropriate correction to the previous objections have been made and withdraws the objections accordingly.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor had possession of the claimed invention. Independent claims 1, 11, and 15 recite generate a sensor-related ID including unique ID obtained by performing predetermined basic arithmetic operations between the sensor ID and a user ID, which is personal information for identifying the user. An adequate written description for a computer-implemented functional claim limitation contains both the computer and the algorithm that perform the claimed function in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonable conclude that the inventor possessed the claimed subject matter at the time of filing. It is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement (MPEP § 2161.01). The claims recite performing predetermined basic arithmetic operations between the sensor ID and a user ID, fail to adequately disclose the method of performing the prediction beyond identifying that it is an arithmetic operation generally (Detailed Description at ¶ 0052) at the point of novelty in the claims. An algorithm is defined, for example, as "a finite sequence of steps for solving a logical or mathematical problem or performing a task." Microsoft Computer Dictionary (5th ed., 2002). Applicant may "express that algorithm in any understandable terms including as a mathematical formula, in prose, or as a flow chart, or in any other manner that provides sufficient structure." Finisar Corp. v. DirecTV Grp., Inc., 523 F.3d 1323, 1340, 86 USPQ2d 1609, 1623 (Fed. Cir. 2008). While the level of detail required to satisfy the written description requirement varies depending on the nature and scope of the claims and on the complexity and predictability of the relevant technology, the claims read in light of the specification fail to disclose a finite sequence of steps for solving the algorithm for generating a sensor-related ID in sufficient detail.
Claims 2-10, 12-14, and 16-20 depend on claims 1, 11, and 15 accordingly and do not remedy the written description requirement issues of the independent claims. As dependent claims inherit the deficiencies of the claims they depend on, they are also rejected.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Independent claim 1 has been amended to include generate a sensor-related ID including a unique ID obtained by performing predetermined basic arithmetic operations between the sensor ID and a user ID, which is personal information for identifying the user - the identical claim language from the entirety of claim 8 without the cancelation of claim 8. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Subject Matter Free of the Prior Art
The following is an examiner’s statement of subject matter free of the prior art:
The limitations in claims 1, 8, 11, and 15 stating: generate a sensor-related ID including a unique ID obtained by performing predetermined basic arithmetic operations between the sensor ID and a user ID, which is personal information for identifying the user is free of the prior art.
The most remarkable prior arts of record are as follows:
Welch et al. (US Patent App 2006/0238333) teaching on binding a patient identifier and a device identifier to generate a unique identifier for the monitoring device in the Detailed Description in ¶ 0092 and ¶ 0115
Hua et al, (US Patent No 12,126,995) teaching on the medical sensor transmitting encrypted measured physiological data and "identifying values for the sensor" (treated as synonymous to a sensor ID) key to a dedicated data receiving device in the Detailed Description in col 17 lines 25-51 and in the Figures at fig. 5
Proud (US Patent App 2013/0281801)teaching on generating a unique ID for the sensors based on assignment to a specific user the Detailed Description in ¶ 0066-70
IHE PCD Point-of-Care Identity Management Work Group, Point-of-Care Identity Management, IHE Patent Case Device (PCD) White Paper, Integrating the Healthcare Enterprise (Aug. 9, 2016) teaching on the state of the art and United States legal requirements for hash integration for generating patient-device association identification from uniform device IDs (UDI) and patient IDs in at least § A.1.2.5 OBX – Observation (for Patient ID) on p. 29-30 and § A.2 Example Messages on p. 33-34
While each of the cited references teach on differing levels of complexity for generating a unique device ID from an individual patient ID and the universal/manufacture device ID, none teach on “basic arithmetic operations” for achieving said results. Therefore, claims 1-20 are free of the prior art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The prior art rejection has been withdrawn.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JORDAN LYNN JACKSON whose telephone number is (571)272-5389. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-4:30PM ET.
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, Arleen M Vazquez can be reached at 571-272-2619. 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.
/JORDAN L JACKSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights