DETAILED ACTION
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.
There are incorrect claim statuses for claims 1-5, 9-11, 15, and 22.
In light of the amendments, claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
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 08/13/2026, the following has occurred: claims 1-5, 9-11, 15, and 22 have been amended; claim 6 remains unchanged; claim 7-8, 12-14, 16-21, and 23-26 have been canceled; and claims 27-28 have been added.
Claims 1-6, 9-11, 15, 22, and 27-28 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. 101 Rejections:
Applicant argues that the claims are significantly more. Examiner however respectfully disagrees. What are the technical differences between the process a human could do and what the invention is doing? The claims need to reflect this.
35 U.S.C. 103 Rejections:
Applicant argues that the previous combination of references does not teach that there is a base configured to dock with a medical device. This limitation is however taught in part using Krzystofczyk et al. (which teaches docking/accepting of a device connection) and Lindberg et al. (which teaches that the device can be a medical device).
Status Identifiers for Claims
Under 37 C.F.R. 1.121 each amendment document must include status identifiers indicating the current status of each of the claims in the application. Examiner notes that the amendment document filed 08/13/2026 includes an incorrect status identifier for claim 1-5, 9-11, 15, and 22 (they are recited as “(Previously Presented)” or “(Original)”). While the current amendments have been entered for consideration, all further amendments to the claims must comply with the requirements set forth in 37 C.F.R. 1.121. Future such issues will accordingly result in a notice of non-compliance.
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 § 112(b)
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.
Claim 28 is 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 28 recites the limitation “the updated version” in line 2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 1-6, 9-11, 15, 22, and 27-28 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 1-6, 9-11, 15, 22, and 27-28 are drawn to a system which is within the four statutory categories. Claims 1-6, 9-11, 15, 22, and 27-28 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 configured for:
1) docking a medical device;
2) establishing a first communications link between said monitoring client and said base through a physical connection;
3) determining whether a version of an interface program on said monitoring client is a latest version; and if not, then
4) updating the interface program on said monitoring client through the first communications link;
5) establishing a second communications link between said monitoring client and said base using the first communications link; and
6) monitoring a link quality value of the second communications link.
Claim 1 recites, in part, performing the steps of 1) docking a medical device, 2) establishing a first communications link between said monitoring client and said base through a physical connection, 3) determining whether a version of an interface program on said monitoring client is a latest version, and if not, then 4) updating the interface program on said monitoring client through the first communications link, 5) establishing a second communications link between said monitoring client and said base using the first communications link, and 6) 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 analyze communication between these devices.
Depending claims 2-6, 9-11, 15, 22, and 27-28 include all of the limitations of claim 1, and therefore likewise incorporate the above described abstract idea. Claims 2, 4-6, 9-11, 15, and 27-28 add additional, functional steps to the claims. Additionally, the limitations of depending claims 3 and 22 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 2-6, 9-11, 15, 22, and 27-28 are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as independent claim 1 (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, and c) a tablet to perform the claimed steps.
The a) monitoring client, b) base, 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, 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, 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 1-6, 9-11, 15, 22, and 27-28 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 1-6, 9-11, 22, and 27-28 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)) configured for:
--docking a device; (see: paragraphs [0019] – [0020] where there is establishment of a wireless connection using a remote device. The controller device here is configured to accept/dock the remote device)
--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 is a latest version; and if not, then
2) --updating the interface program on said monitoring client through the first communications link;
3) --monitoring a link quality value of the second communications link; and
4) –device as a medical device.
Lindberg et al. teaches:
1) --determining whether a version of an interface program on said monitoring client 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 through the first communications link; (see: paragraph [0034] where there is updating of the software for the appropriate component) and
4) –device as a medical device (see: paragraph [0007] where there is a medical device system).
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 is a latest version and if not, then 2) update the interface program on said monitoring client 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.
Further, Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the medical device as taught by Lindberg et al. for the device as disclosed by Krzystofczyk et al. since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, with the difference being the substitution of the elements. In the present case, Krzystofczyk et al. teaches of docking a device thus one could replace the device with another device and achieve predictable results of docking a device. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted the one known element for the other to produce a predictable result (MPEP 2143).
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., Lindberg et al., and Soomro in combination teaches the system of claim 1, see discussion of claim 1. Soomro further teaches:
--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).
The motivations to combine the above-mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
As per claim 3, 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 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 1, see discussion of claim 1. Lindberg et al. further teaches wherein:
--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).
The motivations to combine the above-mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
As per claim 5, 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 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).
The motivations to combine the above-mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
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 1, and incorporated herein.
As per claim 9, 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 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 1, and incorporated herein.
As per claim 10, 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 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 1, and incorporated herein.
As per claim 11, 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 monitoring client comprises a tablet (see: paragraph [0022] where there is a personal digital assistant which can be the device).
As per claim 22, 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 27, Krzystofczyk et al., Lindberg et al., and Soomro in combination teaches the system of claim 1, see discussion of claim 1. Lindberg et al. further teaches wherein said base is configured for retrieving an updated version of the interface program from the server (see: paragraph [0034] where updated or corrected software is being retrieved from the server).
The motivations to combine the above-mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
As per claim 28, Krzystofczyk et al., Lindberg et al., and Soomro in combination teaches the system of claim 1, see discussion of claim 1. Lindberg et al. further teaches wherein said base is configured for 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 1, and incorporated herein.
Claim 15 is 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 1, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 8,663,201 to Hill et al.
As per claim 15, Krzystofczyk et al., Lindberg et al., and Soomro in combination teaches the system of claim 1, see discussion of claim 1. The combination may not further, specifically teach wherein said monitoring client is configured for controlling operation of the base.
Hill et al. teaches:
--wherein said monitoring client is 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 have wherein said monitoring client is 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