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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/23/2026 has been entered.
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 .
Response to Amendment
The previous double patenting rejections remain.
In light of the amendments, the previous 112(b) rejections have been overcome.
In light of the amendments, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
In light of the amendments, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Notice to Applicant
In the amendment dated 04/23/2026, the following has occurred: claims 1-2, 5, 11, and 23-26 have been amended; claims 3-4, 6-10, and 12-22 remain unchanged; and no new claims have been added.
Claims 1-26 are pending.
Effective Filing Date: 05/24/2012
Response to Arguments
Double Patenting:
Applicant requests holding this rejection in abeyance until all other issues are resolved. Accordingly, these claims rejections will remain.
35 U.S.C. 112(b) Rejections:
Applicant amended the claims to overcome the previous 35 U.S.C. 112(b) claim rejections. Examiner withdraws these rejections.
35 U.S.C. 101 Rejections:
Applicant argues with respect to claims 1, 2, 5, and 11 and states that the claims are not merely about data collection or organization in the abstract. Furthermore, there is an ordered technical process, not a high-level business method or data-organizing scheme. Examiner however respectfully disagrees. The claims reflect a method humans could perform to update data on devices as each claim limitation is possible to do via a human. For example, what does “monitoring a link quality” mean when referring to something a person cannot do? A person is able to look at a display reading out the quality of the link. What does establishing a communications link mean within the context of something a person cannot do? A person can establish a communication link via establishing a physical connection. Claim 1 lacks sufficient claim limitations which would reflect Applicant’s statement above.
Applicant further argues that there is a particular technical solution involving a sequenced dual-link architecture with a quality monitoring. Examiner however respectfully disagrees for the same reasons as stated above. What are the technical differences between the process a human could do and what the invention is doing? The claims need to reflect this.
Additionally, Applicant argues with respect to the 2nd, 3rd, and 5th steps of the independent claims and states that these are concrete technical operations. Examiner however respectfully disagrees for the same reasoning as stated above. What are the differences here between the present claim limitations and human activity which this can be classified under?
Applicant further argues that the sequenced combination of steps in the independent claims is a particular improvement to how patient monitoring devices communicate, consistent with the Federal Circuit’s Enfish and Core Wireless holdings. Examiner however respectfully disagrees that there is an improvement to a computing technology in the claims which is similar to these court cases above. The present claims do not reflect this improvement as they are broad enough to include human activity as also stated above.
Applicant further states that there is a non-conventional arrangement of conventional components. Examiner however respectfully disagrees as the claims do not reflect this statement as they instead reflect human activity.
Lastly, Applicant argues that the claims are tied to a specific technical environment. Examiner however respectfully disagrees and echoes the statements above.
35 U.S.C. 103 Rejections:
Applicant argues that the amended claim language is not taught using the previously-cited references for the independent claims. Examiner now relies on the previously-cited Lindberg reference to teach these elements. The complete 103 rejection can be seen below in the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection section.
Non-Statutory Double Patenting
The non-statutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A non-statutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on non-statutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a non-statutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based e-Terminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An e-Terminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about e-Terminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-18 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,881,307. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they claim less limitations but these limitations are similar to the claimed limitations of the patent above. Additionally, they use generic wording (using base) for some elements such as the pump in the patent.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claims 1-10, 19-21, and 23-25 are drawn to systems and claims 11-18, 22, and 26 are drawn to a device, each of which is within the four statutory categories. Claims 1-26 are further directed to an abstract idea on the grounds set out in detail below. As discussed below, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional computer elements, which are recited at a high level of generality, provide conventional computer functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A:
Prong One:
Claim 1 recites a system for electronic patient care comprising:
a) a monitoring client, and
b) a base;
wherein one of said monitoring client and said base comprises a processor configured for:
1) establishing a first communications link between said monitoring client and said base through a physical connection;
2) determining whether a version of an interface program on said monitoring client and said base is a latest version; and if not, then
3) updating the interface program on said monitoring client and said base through the first communications link;
4) establishing a second communications link between said monitoring client and said base using the first communications link; and
5) monitoring a link quality value of the second communications link.
Claim 1 recites, in part, performing the steps of 1) establishing a first communications link between said monitoring client and said base through a physical connection, 2) determining whether a version of an interface program on said monitoring client and said base is a latest version, and if not, then 3) updating the interface program on said monitoring client and said base through the first communications link, 4) establishing a second communications link between said monitoring client and said base using the first communications link, 5) monitoring a link quality value of the second communications link. These steps correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, more particularly, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including following rules or instructions). For example, a human could connect devices and catalyze communicate between the devices.
Claim 2 recites a system for electronic patient care comprising:
a) a monitoring client, and
b) a base,
wherein one of said monitoring client and said base comprises a processor configured for:
1) establishing a first communications link between said monitoring client and said base through a physical connection;
2) determining whether a version of an interface program on said monitoring client and said base is a latest version; and if not, then
3) updating the interface program on said monitoring client and said base through the first communications link;
4) establishing a second communications link between said monitoring client and said base using the first communications link; and
6) communicating data between said monitoring client and said base as long as a link quality value is above a predetermined threshold.
Claim 2 recites, in part, performing the steps of 1) establishing a first communications link between said monitoring client and said base through a physical connection, 2) determining whether a version of an interface program on said monitoring client and said base is a latest version, and if not, then 3) updating the interface program on said monitoring client and said base through the first communications link, 4) establishing a second communications link between said monitoring client and said base using the first communications link, and 6) communicating data between said monitoring client and said base as long as a link quality value is above a predetermined threshold. These steps correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, more particularly, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including following rules or instructions). For example, a human could connect devices and catalyze communicate between the devices. Independent claim 5 recites similar limitations and is also directed to an abstract idea under the same analysis.
Claim 11 recites c) a tablet comprising a processor configured for:
7) determining if said tablet is connected to a base through a physical connection;
1) establishing a first communications link between said tablet and the base through the physical connection;
2) determining whether a version of an interface program on said monitoring client and said base is a latest version; and if not, then
3) updating the interface program on said tablet through the first communications link;
4) establishing a second communications link between said tablet and the base using the first communications link;
8) communicating data from said base to the tablet using the second communications link; and
9) monitoring a link quality of the second communications link.
Claim 11 recites, in part, performing the steps of 7) determining if the tablet is connected to a base through a physical connection, 1) establishing a first communications link between the tablet and the base through the physical connection, 2) determining whether a version of an interface program on said monitoring client and said base is a latest version, and if not, then 3) updating the interface program on the tablet through the first communications link, 4) establishing a second communications link between the tablet and the base using the first communications link, 8) communicating data from the base to the tablet using the second communications link, and 9) monitoring a link quality of the second communications link. These steps correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, more particularly, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including following rules or instructions). For example, a human could connect devices and catalyze communicate between the devices.
Depending claims 3-4, 6-10, and 12-26 include all of the limitations of claims 2, 5, and 11, and therefore likewise incorporate the above described abstract idea. Depending claims 4 and 8 add the additional steps of “communicating a version number of the interface program to said base through the first communications link”, “determining if the interface program on said monitoring client is a latest version”, “determining if the interface program on said monitoring client is the latest version”, “retrieving an updated version of the interface program from a server”, and “overwriting the interface program on said monitoring client with the updated version of the interface program”; claims 6 and 17 add the additional step of “displaying a message on a user interface responsive to the headless state”; claim 9 adds the additional step of “determining if a link quality is above the threshold”; claims 10 and 18 add the additional step of “suspending communications of the data between said base and said monitoring client”; claim 12 adds the additional step of “determining relativity of link quality and the threshold”; claim 14 adds the additional step of “monitoring operation of the base”; claim 15 adds the additional step of “controlling operation of the base”; and claim 16 adds the additional step of “entering said tablet into a headless state when a link quality falls below a threshold”. Additionally, the limitations of depending claims 3, 7, 13, and 19-26 further specify elements from the claims from which they depend on without adding any additional steps. These additional limitations only further serve to limit the abstract idea. Thus, depending claims 3-4, 6-10, and 12-26 are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as independent claims 2, 5, and 11 (Step 2A (Prong One): YES).
Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of – a) a monitoring client, b) a base (of a medical device from claims 23-26), wherein one of said monitoring client and said base comprises a processor, and c) a tablet to perform the claimed steps.
The a) monitoring client, b) base, wherein one of said monitoring client and said base comprises a processor, and c) tablet in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic components performing generic computer functions) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (see: Applicant’s specification, paragraph [00], see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which amount to limitations consistent with the additional elements in the independent claims. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation and do not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A (Prong Two): NO).
Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a) a monitoring client, b) a base, wherein one of said monitoring client and said base comprises a processor, and c) a tablet to perform the claimed steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components that do not offer “significantly more” than the abstract idea itself because the claims do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of any computer itself, or provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. It should be noted that the claims do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the Specification recites mere generic computer components, as discussed above that are being used to apply certain method steps of organizing human activity. Specifically, MPEP 2106.05(f) recites that the following limitations are not significantly more:
Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2360, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
The current invention monitors a link quality utilizing a) a monitoring client, b) a base, wherein one of said monitoring client and said base comprises a processor, and c) a tablet, thus these computing components are adding the words “apply it” with mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible (Step 2B: NO).
Claims 1-26 are therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 1-13 and 16-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2012/0047289 to Krzystofczyk et al. in view of U.S. 2003/0046677 to Lindberg et al. further in view of U.S. 2013/0003595 to Soomro.
As per claim 1, Krzystofczyk et al. teaches a system for electronic patient care comprising:
--a monitoring client; (see: paragraphs [0019] – [0020] where there is establishment of a wireless connection using a remote device (consisting of the monitoring client) and a controller device (base)) and
--a base; (see: paragraphs [0019] – [0020] where there is establishment of a wireless connection using a remote device (consisting of the monitoring client) and a controller device (base))
--wherein one of said monitoring client and said base comprises a processor (see: paragraph [0025] where there is a processor) configured for:
--establishing a first communications link between said monitoring client and said base through a physical connection; (see: paragraph [0020] where a wired connection is first used to establish a connection. This connection can be considered as being established between a base and a monitoring client)
--establishing a second communications link between said monitoring client and said base using the first communications link (see: paragraph [0019] where a wireless pairing (second communications link) is being established using the wired connect (first communications link)).
Krzystofczyk et al. may not further, specifically teach:
1) --determining whether a version of an interface program on said monitoring client and said base is a latest version; and if not, then
2) --updating the interface program on said monitoring client and said base through the first communications link; and
3) --monitoring a link quality value of the second communications link.
Lindberg et al. teaches:
1) --determining whether a version of an interface program on said monitoring client and said base is a latest version; (see: paragraph [0011] where there is a determination of if the software is the latest version) and if not, then
2) --updating the interface program on said monitoring client and said base through the first communications link (see: paragraph [0034] where there is updating of the software for the appropriate component).
One of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to 1) determine whether a version of an interface program on said monitoring client and said base is a latest version and if not, then 2) update the interface program on said monitoring client and said base through the first communications link as taught by Lindberg et al. in the system as taught by Krzystofczyk et al. with the motivation(s) of preventing delays with respect to installation of software on devices (see: paragraph [0006] of Lindberg et al.) to ultimately deliver important health information.
Soomro teaches:
3) --monitoring a link quality value of the second communications link (see: 52 of FIG. 2 and paragraph [0036] where there is monitoring of a link quality).
One of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to 3) monitor a link quality value of the second communications link as taught by Soomro in the system as taught by Krzystofczyk et al. and Lindberg et al. in combination with the motivation(s) of improving communication in a healthcare setting (see: paragraph [0006] of Soomro).
As per claim 2, Krzystofczyk et al. teaches a system for electronic patient care comprising:
--a monitoring client; (see: paragraphs [0019] – [0020] where there is establishment of a wireless connection using a remote device (consisting of the monitoring client) and a controller device (base)) and
--a base; (see: paragraphs [0019] – [0020] where there is establishment of a wireless connection using a remote device (consisting of the monitoring client) and a controller device (base))
--wherein one of said monitoring client and said base comprises a processor (see: paragraph [0025] where there is a processor) configured for:
--establishing a first communications link between said monitoring client and said base through a physical connection; (see: paragraph [0020] where a wired connection is first used to establish a connection. This connection can be considered as being established between a base and a monitoring client)
--establishing a second communications link between said monitoring client and said base using the first communications link; (see: paragraph [0019] where a wireless pairing (second communications link) is being established using the wired connect (first communications link)) and
--communicating data between said monitoring client and said base (see: paragraph [0020] where once paired, the wired connection is no longer required to be used by the paired devices to effect wireless communications. Also see: paragraphs [0027] and [0064]. Wireless communications are being carried out after the pairing).
Krzystofczyk et al. may not further, specifically teach:
1) --determining whether a version of an interface program on said monitoring client and said base is a latest version; and if not, then
2) --updating the interface program on said monitoring client and said base through the first communications link; and
3) --communicating data between said monitoring client and said base as long as a link quality value is above a predetermined threshold.
Lindberg et al. teaches:
1) --determining whether a version of an interface program on said monitoring client and said base is a latest version; (see: paragraph [0011] where there is a determination of if the software is the latest version) and if not, then
2) --updating the interface program on said monitoring client and said base through the first communications link (see: paragraph [0034] where there is updating of the software for the appropriate component).
One of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to 1) determine whether a version of an interface program on said monitoring client and said base is a latest version and if not, then 2) update the interface program on said monitoring client and said base through the first communications link as taught by Lindberg et al. in the system as taught by Krzystofczyk et al. with the motivation(s) of preventing delays with respect to installation of software on devices (see: paragraph [0006] of Lindberg et al.) to ultimately deliver important health information.
Soomro teaches:
3) --communicating data between said monitoring client and said base as long as a link quality value is above a predetermined threshold (see: 52 of FIG. 2 and paragraph [0036] where there is monitoring of a link quality. Also see: paragraph [0008] where there is communication through one link and then communication ceases when it falls below a certain threshold value).
One of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to 3) communicate data between said monitoring client and said base as long as a link quality value is above a predetermined threshold as taught by Soomro in the system as taught by Krzystofczyk et al. and Lindberg et al. in combination with the motivation(s) of improving communication in a healthcare setting (see: paragraph [0006] of Soomro).
As per claim 3, Krzystofczyk et al., Lindberg et al., and Soomro in combination teaches the system of claim 2, see discussion of claim 2. Krzystofczyk et al. further teaches wherein said monitoring client receives data via the second communications link (see: paragraph [0020] where once paired, the wired connection is no longer required to be used by the paired devices to effect wireless communications. Also see: paragraphs [0027] and [0064]. Wireless communications are being carried out after the pairing. The monitoring client (remote device) is receiving data here wirelessly (second comms link)).
As per claim 4, Krzystofczyk et al., Lindberg et al., and Soomro in combination teaches the system of claim 2, see discussion of claim 2. Lindberg et al. further teaches wherein one of said monitoring client and said base is configured for updating the interface program through the first communications link such that:
--said monitoring client is configured for:
--communicating a version number of the interface program to said base through the first communications link; (see: paragraphs [0011] and [0033] where interrogation is occurring through a communications link to determine the software version) and
--determining if the interface program on said monitoring client is a latest version; (see: paragraphs [0011] and [0033] where there is a determination if the software is the latest) and
--said base is configured for:
--determining if the interface program on said monitoring client is the latest version; (see: paragraphs [0011] and [0033] where there is a determination if the software is the latest)
--retrieving an updated version of the interface program from a server; (see: paragraph [0034] where updated or corrected software is being retrieved from the server) and
--overwriting the interface program on said monitoring client with the updated version of the interface program (see: paragraphs [0033] – [0034] where there is downloading of the updated software).
The motivations to combine the above-mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 2, and incorporated herein.
As per claim 5, Krzystofczyk et al. teaches a system for electronic patient care comprising:
--a monitoring client; (see: paragraphs [0019] – [0020] where there is establishment of a wireless connection using a remote device (consisting of the monitoring client) and a controller device (base)) and
--a base; (see: paragraphs [0019] – [0020] where there is establishment of a wireless connection using a remote device (consisting of the monitoring client) and a controller device (base))
--wherein one of said monitoring client and said base comprises a processor (see: paragraph [0025] where there is a processor) configured for:
--establishing a first communications link between said monitoring client and said base through the physical connection; (see: paragraph [0020] where a wired connection is first used to establish a connection. This connection can be considered as being established between a base and a monitoring client) and
--establishing a second communications link between said monitoring client and said base using the first communications link; (see: paragraph [0019] where a wireless pairing (second communications link) is being established using the wired connect (first communications link)).
Krzystofczyk et al. may not further, specifically teach:
1) --determining whether a version of an interface program on said monitoring client and said base is a latest version; and if not, then
2) --updating the interface program on said monitoring client and said base through the first communications link; and
3) --wherein said monitoring client is configured for entering said monitoring client into a headless state when a link quality falls below a threshold.
Lindberg et al. teaches:
1) --determining whether a version of an interface program on said monitoring client and said base is a latest version; (see: paragraph [0011] where there is a determination of if the software is the latest version) and if not, then
2) --updating the interface program on said monitoring client and said base through the first communications link (see: paragraph [0034] where there is updating of the software for the appropriate component).
One of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to 1) determine whether a version of an interface program on said monitoring client and said base is a latest version and if not, then 2) update the interface program on said monitoring client and said base through the first communications link as taught by Lindberg et al. in the system as taught by Krzystofczyk et al. with the motivation(s) of preventing delays with respect to installation of software on devices (see: paragraph [0006] of Lindberg et al.) to ultimately deliver important health information.
Soomro teaches:
3) --wherein said monitoring client is configured for entering said monitoring client into a headless state when a link quality falls below a threshold (see: 52 of FIG. 2 and paragraph [0036] where there is monitoring of a link quality. Also see: paragraph [0008] where there is communication through one link and then communication ceases when it falls below a certain threshold value).
One of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to have 3) wherein said monitoring client is configured for entering said monitoring client into a headless state when a link quality falls below a threshold as taught by Soomro in the system as taught by Krzystofczyk et al. and Lindberg et al. in combination with the motivation(s) of improving communication in a healthcare setting (see: paragraph [0006] of Soomro).
As per claim 6, Krzystofczyk et al., Lindberg et al., and Soomro in combination teaches the system of claim 5, see discussion of claim 5. Soomro further teaches wherein said monitoring client is configured for displaying a message on a user interface responsive to the headless state (see: paragraphs [0025] and [0028] where there is a sending of a message which includes a link assessment report. A message is configured to be displayed).
The motivations to combine the above-mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 5, and incorporated herein.
As per claim 7, Krzystofczyk et al., Lindberg et al., and Soomro in combination teaches the system of claim 5, see discussion of claim 5. Krzystofczyk et al. further teaches wherein said monitoring client receives data via the second communications link (see: paragraph [0020] where once paired, the wired connection is no longer required to be used by the paired devices to effect wireless communications. Also see: paragraphs [0027] and [0064]. Wireless communications are being carried out after the pairing. The monitoring client (remote device) is receiving data here wirelessly (second comms link)).
As per claim 8, Krzystofczyk et al., Lindberg et al., and Soomro in combination teaches the system of claim 5, see discussion of claim 5. Lindberg et al. further teaches wherein one of said monitoring client and said base is configured for updating the interface program through the first communications link such that:
--said monitoring client is configured for:
--communicating a version number of the interface program to said base through the first communications link; (see: paragraphs [0011] and [0033] where interrogation is occurring through a communications link to determine the software version) and
--determining if the interface program on said monitoring client is a latest version; (see: paragraphs [0011] and [0033] where there is a determination if the software is the latest) and
--said base is configured for:
--determining if the interface program on said monitoring client is the latest version; (see: paragraphs [0011] and [0033] where there is a determination if the software is the latest)
--retrieving an updated version of the interface program from a server; (see: paragraph [0034] where updated or corrected software is being retrieved from the server) and
--overwriting the interface program on said monitoring client with the updated version of the interface program (see: paragraphs [0033] – [0034] where there is downloading of the updated software).
The motivations to combine the above-mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 5, and incorporated herein.
As per claim 9, Krzystofczyk et al., Lindberg et al., and Soomro in combination teaches the system of claim 5, see discussion of claim 5. Soomro further teaches wherein said monitoring client is configured for determining if a link quality is above a threshold (see: paragraphs [0037] and [0039] where there is a determination if a link quality is above a certain threshold).
The motivations to combine the above-mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 5, and incorporated herein.
As per claim 10, Krzystofczyk et al., Lindberg et al., and Soomro in combination teaches the system of claim 5, see discussion of claim 5. Soomro further teaches wherein said monitoring client is configured for suspending communications of the data between said base and said monitoring client (see: paragraph [0036] where there is ceasing of communication on a communications link if the quality falls below a certain threshold).
The motivations to combine the above-mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 5, and incorporated herein.
As per claim 11, Krzystofczyk et al. teaches device comprising a processor configured for:
--determining if said device is connected to a base through a physical connection; (see: paragraph [0020] where a wired connection is determined and used to establish wireless connections with a device)
--establishing a first communications link between said device and the base through the physical connection; (see: paragraph [0020] where a wired connection is first used to establish a connection. This connection can be considered as being established between a base and a monitoring client)
--establishing a second communications link between said device and the base using the first communications link; (see: paragraph [0019] where a wireless pairing (second communications link) is being established using the wired connect (first communications link))
--communicating data from the base to said device using the second communications link; (see: paragraph [0020] where once paired, the wired connection is no longer required to be used by the paired devices to effect wireless communications. Also see: paragraphs [0027] and [0064]. Wireless communications are being carried out after the pairing).
Krzystofczyk et al. does further teach of a device as a tablet (see: paragraph [0022] where there is a personal digital assistant which can be the device).
may not further, specifically teach:
1) --determining whether a version of an interface program on said monitoring client and said base is a latest version; and if not, then
2) --updating the interface program on said device and the base through the first communications link; and
3) --monitoring a link quality of the second communications link.
Lindberg et al. teaches:
1) --determining whether a version of an interface program on said monitoring client and said base is a latest version; (see: paragraph [0011] where there is a determination of if the software is the latest version) and if not, then
2) --updating the interface program on said monitoring client and said base through the first communications link (see: paragraph [0034] where there is updating of the software for the appropriate component).
One of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to 1) determine whether a version of an interface program on said monitoring client and said base is a latest version and if not, then 2) update the interface program on said monitoring client and said base through the first communications link as taught by Lindberg et al. in the system as taught by Krzystofczyk et al. with the motivation(s) of preventing delays with respect to installation of software on devices (see: paragraph [0006] of Lindberg et al.) to ultimately deliver important health information.
Soomro teaches:
3) --monitoring a link quality of the second communications link (see: 52 of FIG. 2 and paragraph [0036] where there is monitoring of a link quality).
One of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to 3) monitor a link quality of the second communications link as taught by Soomro in the tablet as taught by Krzystofczyk et al. and Lindberg et al. in combination with the motivation(s) of improving communication in a healthcare setting (see: paragraph [0006] of Soomro).
As per claim 12, Krzystofczyk et al., Lindberg et al., and Soomro in combination teaches the tablet of claim 11, see discussion of claim 11. Soomro further teaches determining relativity of link quality and the threshold (see: 52 of FIG. 2 and paragraph [0036] where there is monitoring of a link quality. Also see: paragraph [0008] where there is communication through one link and then communication ceases when it falls below a certain threshold value. There is a determination of relativity of a link to a threshold).
The motivations to combine the above-mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 11, and incorporated herein.
As per claim 13, Krzystofczyk et al., Lindberg et al., and Soomro in combination teaches the tablet of claim 11, see discussion of claim 11. Soomro further teaches wherein said continuing occurs as long as the link quality exceeds a threshold (see: 52 of FIG. 2 and paragraph [0036] where there is monitoring of a link quality. Also see: paragraph [0008] where there is communication through one link and then communication ceases when it falls below a certain threshold value).
The motivations to combine the above-mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 11, and incorporated herein.
As per claim 16, Krzystofczyk et al., Lindberg et al., and Soomro in combination teaches the tablet of claim 11, see discussion of claim 11. Soomro further teaches entering said tablet into a headless state when a link quality falls below a threshold (see: 52 of FIG. 2 and paragraph [0036] where there is monitoring of a link quality. Also see: paragraph [0008] where there is communication through one link and then communication ceases when it falls below a certain threshold value).
The motivations to combine the above-mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 11, and incorporated herein.
As per claim 17, Krzystofczyk et al., Lindberg et al., and Soomro in combination teaches the tablet of claim 16, see discussion of claim 16. Soomro further teaches wherein said tablet displays a message on a user interface responsive to the headless state (see: paragraphs [0025] and [0028] where there is a sending of a message which includes a link assessment report. A message is configured to be displayed).
The motivations to combine the above-mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 11, and incorporated herein.
As per claim 18, Krzystofczyk et al., Lindberg et al., and Soomro in combination teaches the tablet of claim 16, see discussion of claim 16. Soomro further teaches suspending communications of data between said tablet and the base (see: paragraph [0036] where there is ceasing of communication on a communications link if the quality falls below a certain threshold).
The motivations to combine the above-mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 11, and incorporated herein.
As per claim 19, Krzystofczyk et al., Lindberg et al., and Soomro in combination teaches the system of claim 1, see discussion of claim 1. Soomro further teaches wherein the monitoring is during operation of the medical device (see: 52 of FIG. 2 and paragraph [0036] where there is monitoring of a link quality during operation of a device).
The motivations to combine the above-mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
As per claim 20, Krzystofczyk et al., Lindberg et al., and Soomro in combination teaches the system of claim 2, see discussion of claim 2. Krzystofczyk et al. further teaches wherein the communicating is during operation of the device (see: paragraph [0020] where once paired, the wired connection is no longer required to be used by the paired devices to effect wireless communications. Also see: paragraphs [0027] and [0064]. Wireless communications are being carried out after the pairing and while the device is operating).
The device being a medical device is taught in both Lindberg et al. (see: paragraph [0007] where there is a medical device) and Soomro (see: paragraph [0008] where there is a medical device).
The motivations to combine the above-mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 2, and incorporated herein.
As per claim 21, Krzystofczyk et al., Lindberg et al., and Soomro in combination teaches the system of claim 5, see discussion of claim 5. Soomro further teaches wherein the entering is during operation of the medical device (see: 52 of FIG. 2 and paragraph [0036] where there is monitoring of a link quality during operation of a device. Also see: paragraph [0008] where there is communication through one link and then communication ceases when it falls below a certain threshold value. There is entering of a headless state during operation of the medical device here).
The motivations to combine the above-mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 5, and incorporated herein.
As per claim 22, Krzystofczyk et al., Lindberg et al., and Soomro in combination teaches the system of claim 11, see discussion of claim 11. Soomro further teaches wherein the monitoring is during operation of the medical device (see: 52 of FIG. 2 and paragraph [0036] where there is monitoring of a link quality during operation of a device).
The motivations to combine the above-mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 11, and incorporated herein.
As per claim 23, Krzystofczyk et al., Lindberg et al., and Soomro in combination teaches the system of claim 1, see discussion of claim 1. Krzystofczyk et al. further teaches wherein said base is of a device or configured for docking a device (see: paragraphs [0019] – [0020] where there is a base device which is of a device (the device itself)).
The device being a medical device is taught in both Lindberg et al. (see: paragraph [0007] where there is a medical device) and Soomro (see: paragraph [0008] where there is a medical device).
The motivations to combine the above-mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
As per claim 24, Krzystofczyk et al., Lindberg et al., and Soomro in combination teaches the system of claim 2, see discussion of claim 2. Krzystofczyk et al. further teaches wherein said base is of a device or configured for docking a device (see: paragraphs [0019] – [0020] where there is a base device which is of a device (the device itself)).
The device being a medical device is taught in both Lindberg et al. (see: paragraph [0007] where there is a medical device) and Soomro (see: paragraph [0008] where there is a medical device).
The motivations to combine the above-mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 2, and incorporated herein.
As per claim 25, Krzystofczyk et al., Lindberg et al., and Soomro in combination teaches the system of claim 5, see discussion of claim 5. Krzystofczyk et al. further teaches wherein said base is of a device or configured for docking a device (see: paragraphs [0019] – [0020] where there is a base device which is of a device (the device itself)).
The device being a medical device is taught in both Lindberg et al. (see: paragraph [0007] where there is a medical device) and Soomro (see: paragraph [0008] where there is a medical device).
The motivations to combine the above-mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 5, and incorporated herein.
As per claim 26, Krzystofczyk et al., Lindberg et al., and Soomro in combination teaches the system of claim 11, see discussion of claim 11. Krzystofczyk et al. further teaches wherein said base is of a device or configured for docking a device (see: paragraphs [0019] – [0020] where there is a base device which is of a device (the device itself)).
The device being a medical device is taught in both Lindberg et al. (see: paragraph [0007] where there is a medical device) and Soomro (see: paragraph [0008] where there is a medical device).
The motivations to combine the above-mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 11, and incorporated herein.
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2012/0047289 to Krzystofczyk et al. in view of U.S. 2003/0046677 to Lindberg et al. further in view of U.S. 2013/0003595 to Soomro as applied to claim 11, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 8,663,201 to Hill et al.
As per claim 14, Krzystofczyk et al., Lindberg et al., and Soomro in combination teaches the tablet of claim 11, see discussion of claim 11. The combination may not further, specifically teach configured for monitoring operation of the base.
Hill et al. teaches:
--configured for monitoring operation of the base (see: column 4, lines 25-50 where there is remote monitoring of the operation of a device (base)).
One of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to something configured for monitoring operation of the base as taught by Hill et al. in the system as taught by Krzystofczyk et al., Lindberg et al., and Soomro in combination with the motivation(s) of being able to conveniently view device information without having to move or be near the device (see: column 2, lines 5-14 of Hill et al.).
As per claim 15, Krzystofczyk et al., Lindberg et al., and Soomro in combination teaches the tablet of claim 11, see discussion of claim 11. The combination may not further, specifically teach configured for controlling operation of the base.
Hill et al. teaches:
--configured for controlling operation of the base (see: column 4, lines 10-24 where there is controlling of operation of a base (a component) wirelessly).
One of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to something configured for controlling operation of the base as taught by Hill et al. in the system as taught by Krzystofczyk et al., Lindberg et al., and Soomro in combination with the motivation(s) of being able to conveniently view device information without having to move or be near the device (see: column 2, lines 5-14 of Hill et al.).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Steven G.S. Sanghera whose telephone number is (571)272-6873. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00 (alternating Fri).
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, Shahid Merchant can be reached at 571-270-1360. 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.
/STEVEN G.S. SANGHERA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3684
Prosecution Insights