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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/16/2026 has been entered. Claims 33-62 are currently pending and under examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
In view of the amendment filed on 12/11/2025 amending claim 37 to clarify the language the 112 rejections made against claim 37 in the office action of 10/17/2025 have been withdrawn.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 33-46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 33 recites “attempt to offload processing of a second portion of the care protocol module to the first computing device via the first wireless communication system,” which recites attempting to offload to a first computing device, however the claim then recites “wherein the second computing device comprises: a second wireless communication system, and at least one second processor, the at least one second processor configured to: execute instructions implementing the second portion of the care protocol module in response to the attempt to offload processing of the second portion of the care protocol module succeeding,” which recites the attempting to offload being successful in relation to a second computing device containing a second processor. It is unclear which computing device the medical device is attempting to offload to since the claim appears to recite the attempt to offload is made in relation to the first computing device and then states the second computing device implementing the second portion in response to the attempt to offload succeeding, however the claim never mentions attempting to offload to a second computing device, clarification is required. Claims 34-46 directly or indirectly depend from claim 33 and are also rejected to for the reasons stated above regarding claim 33. mote device, para. [0022],
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 47-62 are allowed. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: In view of the art relevant to the claimed invention the prior art does not teach or reasonably suggest, within the context of the other claim elements, a medical device that includes a user interface, wireless communication system, a memory and a processor that is configured to detect presence of a computing device separate from the medical device, attempt to offload a second portion of the care protocol module to the computing device via the wireless communication system, in response to the attempt to offload the second portion of the care protocol module succeeding, receive data associated with the second portion of the care protocol module from the computing device via the wireless communication system, in response to the attempt to offload the second portion of the care protocol module failing, continue with, or return to, a stand-alone operation of the medical device, and output instructions for treating the patient via the user interface module, the instructions being provided by the received data associated with the second portion of the care protocol module or data associated with the first portion of the care protocol module. The closest prior includes US 2013/0296719 to Packer et al. and US 2010/0114252 to Torgerson which discloses medical devices which can communicate to share processing power but do not teach or reasonably suggest the specifics of the device as claimed within claim 47 including the processor being configured to attempt to offload a second portion of the care protocol module to the computing device via the wireless communication system, in response to the attempt to offload the second portion of the care protocol module succeeding, receive data associated with the second portion of the care protocol module from the computing device via the wireless communication system, in response to the attempt to offload the second portion of the care protocol module failing, continue with, or return to, a stand-alone operation of the medical device, and output instructions for treating the patient via the user interface module.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections Under 35 USC 112
As stated above, in view of the amendment filed on 12/11/2025 amending claim 37 to clarify the language the 112 rejections made against claim 37 in the office action of 10/17/2025 have been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections Under 35 USC 103
Regarding claims 33-46, applicant’s arguments, see pgs. 8-10 , filed 12/11/2025, with respect to claim 33 have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the claim amendments adding several limitations related to an attempt to offload processing of a second portion of the care protocol module. The 103 rejection using Packer et al. in view of Torgerson of claims of 33-36 and 38-44 has been withdrawn. The 103 rejection using Packer et al. in view of Torgerson and Curtin of claim 37 has also been withdrawn. The 103 rejection using Packer et al. in view of Torgerson and McGrath of claim 45 has also been withdrawn. The 103 rejection using Packer et al. in view of Torgerson and Bystrom of claim 46 has also been withdrawn.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER L GHAND whose telephone number is (571)270-5844. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30AM - 3:30PM 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, JENNIFER MCDONALD can be reached on (571)270-3061. 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.
/JENNIFER L GHAND/Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights