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
Response to Amendment
The present Office Action is in response to the Request for Continued Examination dated 03/17/2026.
In the amendment dated 03/17/2026, the following occurred: Claims 1, 2, 4, 9 and 15 were amended. Claims 5, 12 and 14 were canceled. Claims 16-20 are new.
Claims 1-4, 6-11, 13 and 15-20 are currently pending.
Request for Continued Examination
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/17/2026 has been entered.
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 1-4, 6-11, 13 and 15-20 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, 4 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
The claim recites a method and a system for transmission of data, which are within a statutory category.
Step 2A1
Regarding claims 1, 4 and 9, the limitation of (claim 1 being representative) establish and maintain a communication connection through one of at least two communication paths for data transmission, wherein each communication path uses a different communication protocol and/or has a different service set identifier, determine and analyze values of at least one of a plurality of connectivity parameters of each of the at least two communication paths and to automatically choose one communication path of the at least two communication paths for establishing and for maintaining the communication connection based on the analyzed values of the at least one connectivity parameter, choose the one communication path based on actually determined values of the at least one connectivity parameter and based on the values of the at least one connectivity parameter determined in the past, wherein the values of the at least one connectivity parameter determined in the past fall within a defined past time range adapted for system needs, wherein the at least one connectivity parameter includes a historical success rate of communication for the at least two communication paths and implements a weighting factor in choosing the one of at least two communication paths such that a higher weight is assigned to the at least one communication path having a higher average level of success, and regarding claim 4- the limitation of choose the one communication path based on the analysis of the values of the at least one connectivity parameter detected by itself and additionally based on the analysis of the values of the at least one connectivity parameter of all similar remote devices as drafted, is a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers certain methods of organizing human activity (i.e., managing personal behavior including following rules or instructions) but for recitation of generic computer components. The claims encompass a series of rules or instructions for a person or persons to follow, with or without the aid of a computer, to establish and maintain a communication connection through one of at least two communication paths for data transmission, determine and analyze values of at least one of a plurality of connectivity parameters, automatically choose one communication path based on the analyzed values of the at least one connectivity parameter, choose the one communication path and implements a weighting factor in choosing the one of at least two communication paths in the manner described in the identified abstract idea, supra. The rules or instructions are the claimed steps of “establish…maintain…determine…analyze… choose….choose…choose …and implements a weighting factor” as indicated supra.
Other than reciting generic computer components (discussed infra), i.e., a system, a remote monitoring server (RMS) and a communication module (in claims 1, 4 and 9), the claimed invention amounts to managing personal behavior or interaction between people. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or interactions between people but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A2
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claims 1, 4 and 9 recite the additional elements of a system, remote monitoring server (RMS) and a communication module. These additional elements are not exclusively defined by the applicant and are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., a generic server/computer component for enabling access to medical information or for performing generic computer functions, see Spec at page 5, 6, 8 ) such that they amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. As set forth in MPEP 2106.04(d) “merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer” is an example of when an abstract idea has not been integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, even in combination, 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 claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Claims 1 and 9 further recite the additional elements of at least one remote device of the group comprising at least one patient remote device and at least one health care professional remote device. Claim 4 further recite the additional elements of at least one remote device of the group comprising at least one patient remote device and at least one health care professional remote device and remote devices. These additional element are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. a general means to receive/transmit data) and amount to extra solution activity. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
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 the system, the remote monitoring server (RMS) and the communication module to perform the noted steps amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”). Moreover, using generic computer components to perform abstract ideas does not provide a necessary inventive concept. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 (“mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention”). Therefore, whether considered alone or in combination, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Also as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of at least one remote device of the group comprising at least one patient remote device and at least one health care professional remote device and remote devices were considered extra-solution activity. This has been re-evaluated under “significantly more” analysis and determined to be well-understood, routine and conventional activity in the field. MPEP 2016.05(d)(II) indicates that receiving and/or transmitting data over a network has been held by the courts to be well-understood, routine and conventional activity (citing Symantec, TLI Communications, OIP Techs., and buySAFE). Well-understood, routine and conventional activity cannot provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”). Therefore when considering the additional elements alone, and in combination, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus the claim is not patent eligible.
The examiner notes that: A well-known, general-purpose computer has been determined by the courts to be a well-understood, routine and conventional element (see, e.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank; see also MPEP 2106.05(d)).
Claims 2-3, 6-8, 10-11, 13 and 15-20 are similarly rejected because they either further define/narrow the abstract idea and/or do not further limit the claim to a practical application or provide as inventive concept such that the claims are subject matter eligible even when considered individually or as an ordered combination. Claim(s) 2 and 19 further merely describe(s) the plurality of connectivity parameters. Claim(s) 3, 10 and 20 further merely describe(s) choosing the one communication path based on the analysis of the values of the at least one connectivity parameter detected by itself only. Claim(s) 6, 13 and 16 further merely describe(s) storing values of the at least one connectivity parameter determined during one communication session in a data memory of the respective at least one remote device and/or in a data memory of the RMS at the end of the respective communication session. Claim(s) 6, 13 and 16 also include the additional element of “a data memory of the respective at least one remote device and/or in a data memory of the RMS” which is interpreted in the same manner as the additional elements of the system, RMS and communication module above and does not provide practical application or significantly more for the same reasons. Claim(s) 7, 13 and 17 further merely describe(s) using at least one Artificial Intelligence (AI) algorithm for analysis of the determined values of the at least one connectivity parameter. Claim(s) 7, 13 and 17 also include the additional element of “at least one Artificial Intelligence (AI) algorithm” which is interpreted as “apply it". MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) indicates that merely saying “apply it” or equivalent to the abstract idea cannot provide a practical application and MPEP2106.05(I)(A) indicates that merely saying “apply it” or equivalent to the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”). Claim(s) 8, 13 and 18 further merely describe(s) storing the determined values of the at least one connectivity parameter together with a location and/or time of determination, the location being determined based on a Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) value of the location. Claim(s) 8, 13 and 18 also include the additional element of “a Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS)” which is interpreted as generally linking abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) indicates that generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide a practical application and MPEP 2106.05(A) indicates that generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide significantly more. Claim(s) 11 further merely describe(s) choosing the one communication path based on the analysis of the values of the at least one connectivity parameter detected by itself and additionally based on the analysis of the values of the least one connectivity parameter of the communication module of all similar remote devices of the system. Claim(s) 15 further merely describe(s) computer readable data carrier. Claim(s) 15 also include the additional element of “computer readable data carrier comprising non-transitory memory” and “a processing unit” which are interpreted to be part of a computer and do not provide practical application or significantly more for the same reason as for the system, the remote monitoring server (RMS) and the communication module explained above. Claims 2-3, 6-8, 10-11, 13 and 15-20 further define the abstract idea and are rejected for the same reason presented above with respect to claims 1, 4 and 9.
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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4, 6-11, 13 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shu (CN 202750239 U), in view of Andreoli-Fang (US 2014/0003254) and in further view of Enzmann (US 2005/0286704).
REGARDING CLAIM 1
Shu discloses a system for transmission of data comprising a remote monitoring server (RMS) and at least one remote device of the group comprising at least one patient remote device and at least one health care professional remote device, wherein each of the at least one remote device and the RMS comprises a communication module that is configured to establish and maintain a communication connection between the RMS and the respective at least one remote device through one of at least two communication paths for data transmission, wherein each communication path uses a different communication protocol and/or has a different service set identifier ([abstract] teaches WIFI control transceiving module and a 3G communication control module and the utility model of internet of things gateway (interpreted by Examiner as the communication module), which can transmits collected vital signal data sent to a cloud data center (interpreted by Examiner as the remote monitoring server (RMS)) through WIFI or 3G (interpreted by Examiner as the at least two communication paths for data transmission wherein each communication path uses a different communication protocol and/or has a different service set identifier) network to realize the further use and analysis and [0013] teaches the network can connect quickly and effectively establish wireless connection to the health medical device (interpreted by Examiner as establish and maintain a communication connection between the RMS and the respective at least one remote device through one of at least two communication paths for data transmission)),
Shu does not explicitly disclose wherein the communication module is configured to determine and analyze values of at least one of a plurality of connectivity parameters of each of the at least two communication paths between the respective remote device and the RMS and to automatically choose one communication path of the at least two communication paths for establishing and for maintaining the communication connection between the respective remote device and the RMS based on the analyzed values of the at least one connectivity parameter, wherein the communication module is configured to choose the one communication path based on actually determined values of the at least one connectivity parameter and based on the values of the at least one connectivity parameter determined in the past, wherein the values of the at least one connectivity parameter determined in the past fall within a defined past time range adapted for system needs, however Andreoli-Fang discloses:
wherein the communication module is configured to determine and analyze values of at least one of a plurality of connectivity parameters of each of the at least two communication paths between the respective remote device and the RMS and to automatically choose one communication path of the at least two communication paths for establishing and for maintaining the communication connection between the respective remote device and the RMS based on the analyzed values of the at least one connectivity parameter (Andreoli-Fang at [0002] teaches assessing wireless network capabilities prior to connecting to the corresponding wireless network. [0006] teaches a wireless networking system that may be configured to facilitate any type of wireless signaling between the illustrated wireless networks 12, 14, 16, or additional wireless networks, and the mobile device 18 or additional mobile devices. The wireless networks 12, 14, 16 may be configured to support wireless signaling according to any one or more wireless signaling protocols and formats. The mobile device 18 may include a network selection decision engine 20 configured to assess performance parameters (interpreted by Examiner as wherein the communication module, of Shu above, is configured to determine and analyze values of at least one of a plurality of connectivity parameters of each of the at least two communication paths between the respective remote device and the RMS) broadcasted by the various networks 12, 14, 16 prior to deciding which one or more of the wireless networks 12, 14, 16 should be connected to (interpreted by Examiner as automatically choose one communication path of the at least two communication paths for establishing and/or for maintaining the communication connection between the respective remote device and the RMS based on the analyzed values of the at least one connectivity parameter)), wherein the communication module is configured to choose the one communication path based on actually determined values of the at least one connectivity parameter and based on the values of the at least one connectivity parameter determined in the past, wherein the values of the at least one connectivity parameter determined in the past fall within a defined past time range adapted for system needs ([0017] teaches receiving and processing receiving performance parameters and/or connection parameters [0018] teaches the mobile device determining a capacity need for the currently active service flows in kilobits per second (kbps) or unit of choice. The capacity needs may be based on actual measurements taken while facilitating the current service flow and/or based on historical values recorded for similar types of service flows. The capacity needs may be specified according to a threshold such that any network 12, 14, 16 exceeding the threshold may be considered to be a candidate to support the corresponding service flow while networks 12, 14, 16 below the threshold may not be considered to be a candidate to support the corresponding service flow and [0019] teaches the capacity capabilities may be based on previous capabilities measured or detective for the corresponding network 12, 14, 16 (interpreted by Examiner as to choose the one communication path based on actually determined values of the at least one connectivity parameter and based on the values of the at least one connectivity parameter determined in the past, wherein the values of the at least one connectivity parameter determined in the past fall within a defined past time range adapted for system needs)).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to combine the noted features of Shu with teaching of Andreoli-Fang since known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations in design in either the same field or a different field based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art of healthcare data processing would have found it obvious to update the communication module of the primary reference using the communication module automatically choosing and maintain a communication path based on the analyzed values of connectivity parameter and to choose the one communication path based on actually determined values of the at least one connectivity parameter and based on the values of the at least one connectivity parameter determined in the past, as found in the secondary reference, in order to gain the commonly understood benefits of such adaptation, such as efficiently identify suitable networks. This update would be accomplished with no unpredictable results.
Shu and Andreoli-Fang do not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one connectivity parameter includes a historical success rate of communication for the at least two communication paths and the system implements a weighting factor in choosing the one of at least two communication paths such that a higher weight is assigned to the at least one communication path having a higher average level of success, however Enzmann further discloses:
wherein the at least one connectivity parameter includes a historical success rate of communication for the at least two communication paths and the system implements a weighting factor in choosing the one of at least two communication paths such that a higher weight is assigned to the at least one communication path having a higher average level of success (Enzmann at [0008] teaches to select routing of communications in a network with a plurality of paths between a first location and a second location, a routing choice is determined from among the plurality of paths based at least one of a likelihood of successfully completing communication for each of the plurality of paths (interpreted by Examiner as the historical success rate) and [0024] teaches that for each data path, the likelihood value associated therewith preferably relates to how often a call routed by carrier A through the data path is successfully completed. For example, suppose data path B1 successfully completes the data link nine times out of every ten attempted linkages. Data path B1 therefore has a 90% likelihood that a call attempted therethrough will be completed In one embodiment of the present invention, then, the likelihood value for each data path is an attempt success ratio (ASR) representative of a proportion of successful linkages by the data path to all attempted linkages by the data path (interpreted by Examiner as the system implements a weighting factor in choosing the one of at least two communication paths such that a higher weight is assigned to the at least one communication path having a higher average level of success)).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to combine the noted features of Shu and Andreoli-Fang with teaching of Enzmann since known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations in design in either the same field or a different field based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art of healthcare data processing would have found it obvious to update the communication module of the primary reference and the communication module automatically choosing and maintain a communication path based on the analyzed values of connectivity parameter and based on actually determined values of the at least one connectivity parameter and based on the values of the at least one connectivity parameter determined in the past of the secondary reference, using the connectivity parameters to includes a historical success rate of communication for the at least two communication paths and using a weighting factor in choosing the one of at least two communication paths such that a higher weight is assigned to the at least one communication path having a higher average level of success as found in the third reference, in order to gain the commonly understood benefits of such adaptation, such as a cost effective method for routing information between first and second location. This update would be accomplished with no unpredictable results.
REGARDING CLAIM 2
Shu, Andreoli-Fang and Enzmann disclose the limitation of claim 1.
Shu and Enzmann do not explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of connectivity parameters further comprise at least one parameter of the group containing network speed, ping time, packet loss percentage, transfer rate, signal strength, success rate of communication, however Andreoli-Fang further discloses:
The system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of connectivity parameters further comprise at least one parameter of the group containing network speed, ping time, packet loss percentage, transfer rate, signal strength, success rate of communication (Andreoli-Fang at [0026] teaches using a QoS Class Identifier characterized by packet delay bucket and acceptable packet loss rate (interpreted by Examiner as wherein the plurality of connectivity parameters comprise at least one parameter of the group containing packet loss percentage)).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to combine the noted features of Shu and Enzmann with teaching of Andreoli-Fang since known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations in design in either the same field or a different field based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art of healthcare data processing would have found it obvious to update the communication module of the primary (shu) reference and the method for determining communication path based on success rate of the third (Enzmann) reference using the plurality of connectivity parameters, as found in the secondary (Andreoli-Fang) reference, in order to gain the commonly understood benefits of such adaptation, such as efficiently identify suitable networks. This update would be accomplished with no unpredictable results.
REGARDING CLAIM 3
Shu, Andreoli-Fang and Enzmann disclose the limitation of claim 1.
Shu and Enzmann do not explicitly disclose wherein the communication module is configured to choose the one communication path based on the analysis of the values of the at least one connectivity parameter detected by itself only, however Andreoli-Fang further discloses:
The system of claim1, wherein the communication module is configured to choose the one communication path based on the analysis of the values of the at least one connectivity parameter detected by itself only (Andreoli-Fang at [abstract] teaches arbitrating use of a plurality of wireless networks according to their performance capabilities or parameters that may be identified from information broadcasted from the wireless networks. Mobile devices capable of wirelessly connecting to the networks may identify the performance capabilities prior to connecting to the wireless networks, thereby enabling the mobile devices to more efficiently identify suitable networks (interpreted by Examiner as wherein the communication module is configured to choose the one communication path based on the analysis of the values of the at least one connectivity parameter detected by itself only)).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to combine the noted features of Shu and Enzmann with teaching of Andreoli-Fang since known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations in design in either the same field or a different field based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art of healthcare data processing would have found it obvious to update the communication module of the primary (shu) reference and the method for determining communication path based on success rate of the third (Enzmann) reference using the communication module configured to choose the one communication path based on the analysis of the values of the at least one connectivity parameter detected by itself only, as found in the secondary (Andreoli-Fang) reference, in order to gain the commonly understood benefits of such adaptation, such as efficiently identify suitable networks. This update would be accomplished with no unpredictable results.
REGARDING CLAIM 4
Claim 4 is analogous to Claims 1 and 2 thus Claim 4 is similarly analyzed and rejected in a manner consistent with the rejection of Claim 1 and 2.
Andreoli-Fang further discloses wherein the communication module is configured to choose the one communication path additionally based on the analysis of the values of the at least one connectivity parameter of the communication module of all similar remote devices of the system (Andreoli-Fang at [0019] teaches the capacity capabilities of the nearby networks 12, 14, 16, which for exemplary purposes as described with respect to only the second wireless network 14, may be assessed based on performance parameters broadcasted from the corresponding network 14 or its access points. The capacity capabilities of networks 12, 14, 16 beyond the current communication range of the mobile device 18 may be based on previous capabilities measured or detective for the corresponding network 12, 14, 16 or based on pre-configured performance parameters made known to the mobile device 18 (interpreted by Examiner as means to choose the one communication path based on the analysis of the values of the at least one connectivity parameter of the communication module of all similar remote devices of the system)).
REGARDING CLAIM 6
Shu, Andreoli-Fang and Enzmann disclose the limitation of claim 1.
Shu and Enzmann do not explicitly disclose wherein the communication module is configured to store values of the at least one connectivity parameter determined during one communication session in a data memory of the respective at least one remote device and/or in a data memory of the RMS at the end of the respective communication session, however Andreoli-Fang further discloses:
The system of claim 1, wherein the communication module is configured to store values of the at least one connectivity parameter determined during one communication session in a data memory of the respective at least one remote device and/or in a data memory of the RMS at the end of the respective communication session (Andreoli-Fang at [0012] teaches storing the performance parameters with identification of the corresponding network 12, 14, 16 (interpreted by Examiner as wherein the communication module is configured to store values of the at least one connectivity parameter determined during one communication session in a data memory of the respective at least one remote device and/or in a data memory of the RMS at the end of the respective communication session)).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to combine the noted features of Shu and Enzmann with teaching of Andreoli-Fang since known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations in design in either the same field or a different field based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art of healthcare data processing would have found it obvious to update the communication module of the primary (shu) reference and the method for determining communication path based on success rate of the third (Enzmann) reference using the communication module configured to store values of the at least one connectivity parameter determined during one communication session in a data memory of the respective at least one remote device and/or in a data memory of the RMS at the end of the respective communication session, as found in the secondary (Andreoli-Fang) reference, in order to gain the commonly understood benefits of such adaptation, such as efficiently identify suitable networks. This update would be accomplished with no unpredictable results.
REGARDING CLAIM 7
Shu, Andreoli-Fang and Enzmann disclose the limitation of claim 1.
Shu and Enzmann do not explicitly disclose wherein the communication module is configured to use at least one artificial intelligence (Al) algorithm for analysis of the determined values of the at least one connectivity parameter, however Andreoli-Fang further discloses:
The system of claim1, wherein the communication module is configured to use at least one artificial intelligence (Al) algorithm for analysis of the determined values of the at least one connectivity parameter (Andreoli-Fang at [0012] teaches the mobile device 18 may include an algorithm (interpreted by Examiner as the AI algorithm) or other feature to facilitate analysis of the performance parameters received from various networks 12, 14, 16. This may include cross-referencing or temporarily storing the performance parameters with identification of the corresponding network 12, 14, 16. The algorithm may assign weights and/or other priorities to each performance parameter specified within the synchronization message for use in assessing the suitability of the corresponding network 12, 14, 16 to support one or more of the service flows (interpreted by Examiner as use at least one Al algorithm for analysis of the determined values of the at least one connectivity parameter)).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to combine the noted features of Shu and Enzmann with teaching of Andreoli-Fang since known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations in design in either the same field or a different field based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art of healthcare data processing would have found it obvious to update the communication module of the primary (shu) reference and the method for determining communication path based on success rate of the third (Enzmann) reference using the communication module configured to use at least one artificial intelligence (Al) algorithm for analysis of the determined values of the at least one connectivity parameter, as found in the secondary (Andreoli-Fang) reference, in order to gain the commonly understood benefits of such adaptation, such as efficiently identify suitable networks. This update would be accomplished with no unpredictable results.
REGARDING CLAIM 8
Shu, Andreoli-Fang and Enzmann disclose the limitation of claim 1.
Shu and Enzmann do not explicitly disclose wherein the communication module is configured to store the determined values of the at least one connectivity parameter together with the location and/or time of determination by the respective at least one remote device and/or RMS (1), the location being determined based on a Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) value of the location, however Andreoli-Fang further discloses:
The system of claim1, wherein the communication module is configured to store the determined values of the at least one connectivity parameter together with the location and/or time of determination by the respective at least one remote device and/or RMS (1), the location being determined based on a Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) value of the location (Andreoli-Fang at [0019] teaches a GPS unit included within the mobile device that may be used to communicate current location of the mobile device so that an independent entity may be configured to transmit the mobile device corresponding performance parameters for any number of nearby wireless networks 12, 14, 16 and [0021] teaches geo-location (interpreted by Examiner as means to store the determined values of the at least one connectivity parameter together with the location, the location being determined based on a Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) value of the location)).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to combine the noted features of Shu and Enzmann with teaching of Andreoli-Fang since known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations in design in either the same field or a different field based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art of healthcare data processing would have found it obvious to update the communication module of the primary (shu) reference and the method for determining communication path based on success rate of the third (Enzmann) reference using the communication module configured to store the determined values of the at least one connectivity parameter together with the location and/or time of determination by the respective at least one remote device and/or RMS (1), the location being determined based on a Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) value of the location, as found in the secondary (Andreoli-Fang) reference, in order to gain the commonly understood benefits of such adaptation, such as efficiently identify suitable networks. This update would be accomplished with no unpredictable results.
REGARDING CLAIMS 9-11, 13 and 15-20
Claims 9-15-20 are analogous to Claims 1-4 and 6-8 thus Claims 9-11, 13 and 15-20 are similarly analyzed and rejected in a manner consistent with the rejection of Claims 1-4 and 6-8.
Response to Arguments
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101
Regarding the subject matter rejection of claims 1-4, 6-11, 13 and 15-20, the Examiner has considered the Applicant’s arguments, but does not find them persuasive. Applicant argues:
… The claims are not focused on or directed to interactions between people or a person's interaction with a computer. Rather, the claims are directed to machine-based network control. Even when misconstrued as being directed to an abstract idea, the claims require determining/analyzing values of connectivity parameters of communication paths to adapt network operability - choosing the best communication path (e.g., different protocols or SSIDs), which is integration of the alleged abstract idea into a practical application. It would be impossible for a human to perform the recited functions of determining/analyzing values of connectivity parameters of communication paths to choose the best communication path. Such functionality can only be performed by a computer. Similar to the claims found patent eligible in Uniloc Usa, Applicant's claims alter how a system establishes/maintains the link across alternative protocols/SSIDs using defined measurements/history.
Regarding 1, The Examiner respectfully disagree. Current claims as drafted recite a method and system for determine and analyze values to choose a communication path which is an abstract idea. The claims encompass a series of rules or instructions for a person or persons to follow, with or without the aid of a computer, to establish and maintain a communication connection through one of at least two communication paths for data transmission, determine and analyze values of at least one of a plurality of connectivity parameters, choose one communication path based on the analyzed values of the at least one connectivity parameter, choose the one communication path, choose the one communication path based on the analysis of the values of the at least one connectivity parameter detected by itself and additionally based on the analysis of the values of the at least one connectivity parameter of all similar remote devices and implements a weighting factor in choosing the one of at least two communication paths in the manner described in the identified bolded abstract idea under 35 U.S.C. § 101 analysis. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or interactions between people but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
"In accordance with this precedent, we hold the claims at issue are directed to a patent-eligible improvement to computer functionality, namely the reduction of latency experienced by parked secondary stations in communication systems. Uniloc Usa, Inc. v. LGElecs. Usa, Inc., 957 F.3d 1303, 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2020); see also, Koninklijke KPNN. V. v. Gemalto M2M GmbH, 942 F.3d 1143, 1145 (Fed. Cir. 2019).
Regarding 2, The Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that it is unclear how Applicant claims reduce latency experienced by parked secondary stations in communication systems. The claims transmit data and select a communication path based on data processing. The claims do not support such improvements.
Under Step 2B of the analysis, the PTO dismisses Applicant's claimed features of establishing and maintaining a communication connection between two devices through one of at least two communication paths (each communication path using a different communication protocol and/or has a different service set identifier) by determining/analyzing values of connectivity parameters of communication paths, along with the other features required by the claims, as routine and conventional activity. However, the PTO has not provided an exposition of the claimed features regarding how they fall withing routine or conventional activity. "A factual determination is required to support a conclusion that an additional element (or combination of additional elements) is well-understood, routine, conventional activity." MPEP 2106.05(d) I.2 (citing to Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018)). Instead, the PTO merely states "receiving and/or transmitting data over a network has been held by the courts to be well-understood, routine and conventional activity (citing Symantec, TLI Communications, OIP Techs., and buySAFE)." (Office Action, p. 5). Applicant's claims go well beyond merely receiving and/or transmitting data. Under a Berkheimer-level inquiry, the PTO is required to set forth evidence substantiating what the claimed features as a whole are routine and conventional - i.e., the PTO is required to show how the features recited by the claims relate to what has been deemed routine and conventional. Applicant submits that the PTO has not met this burden. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the § 101 rejections that the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Regarding 3, The Examiner respectfully submits that Applicants claims, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers certain methods of organizing human activity (i.e., managing personal behavior including following rules or instructions) but for recitation of generic computer components. The claims encompass a series of rules or instructions for a person or persons to follow, with or without the aid of a computer, to perform the identified bolded abstract idea under 35 U.S.C. § 101 analysis. The claims recite generic computer components such as a system, a remote monitoring server (RMS) and a communication and they are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements of the system, the remote monitoring server (RMS) and the communication module to perform the noted steps amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”). Moreover, using generic computer components to perform abstract ideas does not provide a necessary inventive concept. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 (“mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention”). Therefore, whether considered alone or in combination, these additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Also as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of at least one remote device of the group comprising at least one patient remote device and at least one health care professional remote device and remote devices were considered extra-solution activity. This has been re-evaluated under “significantly more” analysis and determined to be well-understood, routine and conventional activity in the field. MPEP 2016.05(d)(II) indicates that receiving and/or transmitting data over a network has been held by the courts to be well-understood, routine and conventional activity (citing Symantec, TLI Communications, OIP Techs., and buySAFE). Well-understood, routine and conventional activity cannot provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”). Therefore when considering the additional elements alone, and in combination, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus the claim is not patent eligible.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Regarding the rejection of claims 1-4, 6-11, 13 and 15-20, the Examiner has considered the Applicant’s arguments, but does not find them persuasive. Applicant argues:
As amended, independent claim 1, in part, recites "wherein the at least one connectivity parameter includes a historical success rate of communication for the at least two communication paths and the system implements a weighting factor in choosing the one of at least two communication paths such that a higher weight is assigned to the at least one communication path having a higher average level of success." Independent claim 9 recites similar, but not identical, features as those recited by independent claim 1 and, in particular, the features identified above. Accordingly, arguments presented herein in favor of patentability for claim 1 are similarly applicable to claim 9. None of Shu or Andreoli-Fang discloses or suggests the features of choosing a communication path using a weighting factor based on a historical success rate as recited in independent claims 1 and 9. Accordingly, independent claims 1 and 9 are submitted to be allowable over the cited art, and Applicant respectfully request withdrawal of the § 103 rejections..
Regarding 1, The Examiner respectfully submits that new reference Enzmann has been cited to teach the newly amended feature of claims 1 and 9, "wherein the at least one connectivity parameter includes a historical success rate of communication for the at least two communication paths and the system implements a weighting factor in choosing the one of at least two communication paths such that a higher weight is assigned to the at least one communication path having a higher average level of success.". Please refer to the new rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Given the broadest reasonable interpretation, the cited references in combination teach the claimed features.
As amended, independent claim 4, in part, recites "wherein the communication module is configured to choose the one communication path based on the analysis of the values of the at least one connectivity parameter detected by itself and additionally based on the analysis of the values of the at least one connectivity parameter of the communication module of all similar remote devices of the system."… However, the preemption takeover process of the service flow of a lower-priority mobile device disclosed by Andreoli-Fang does not include comparing network parameters of ALL other similar mobile devices for selecting a communication path, as recited in claim 4. Thus, none of Shu or Andreoli-Fang, whether considered individually or in any combination, discloses or otherwise suggests each and every limitation required by independent claim 4. Accordingly, independent claim 4 is submitted to be allowable over the cited art, and Applicant respectfully request withdrawal of the § 103 rejections.
Regarding 2, The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Andreoli-Fang at [abstract] teaches arbitrating use of a plurality of wireless networks according to their performance capabilities or parameters that may be identified from information broadcasted from the wireless networks. Mobile devices capable of wirelessly connecting to the networks may identify the performance capabilities prior to connecting to the wireless networks, thereby enabling the mobile devices to more efficiently identify suitable networks (interpreted by Examiner as wherein the communication module is configured to choose the one communication path based on the analysis of the values of the at least one connectivity parameter detected by itself only). Moreover, Andreoli-Fang at [0019] teaches the capacity capabilities of the nearby networks 12, 14, 16, which for exemplary purposes as described with respect to only the second wireless network 14, may be assessed based on performance parameters broadcasted from the corresponding network 14 or its access points. The capacity capabilities of networks 12, 14, 16 beyond the current communication range of the mobile device 18 may be based on previous capabilities measured or detective for the corresponding network 12, 14, 16 or based on pre-configured performance parameters made known to the mobile device 18 (interpreted by Examiner as means to choose the one communication path based on the analysis of the values of the at least one connectivity parameter of the communication module of all similar remote devices of the system)). Given the broadest reasonable interpretation the cited references in combination teach the claimed feature.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record though not relied upon in the present basis of rejection are noted in the attached PTO 892 and include:
Pulini (US 2014/0369211) discloses apparatus and method for reporting of communication path quality within a wireless network. Johnson (US 9848058 B2) teaches medical data transport over wireless life critical network employing dynamic communication link mapping.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIZA TONY KANAAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4664. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thu 9:00am-6:00pm 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, Robert Morgan can be reached on 571-272-6773. 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 the 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/docs 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.
/LIZA TONY KANAAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3683
Prosecution Insights