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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 – 3 and 5 - 13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Woods et al. (US Pub. No. 20140304773), hereinafter Woods.
Referring to claim 1, Woods discloses a communication adapter (portable electronic device 90, figs. 1–2) for use with an implantable medical device (implantable medical device 30, figs. 1–2) for transferring data between the implantable medical device and a mobile device (mobile computing device 60, figs. 1–2), comprising:
a MICS telemetry interface for data transfer between the communication adapter and the implantable medical device (first communications protocol – MICS, par. [0048], describing re-modulating received data using MICS protocol);
a communication and power supply interface (port 120, figs. 1–2) for data transfer between the communication adapter and the mobile device and for power supply from the mobile device to the communication adapter (hardware interface and power supply path, figs. 1–2 (120); pars. [0027]–[0029], [0031], discussing bidirectional communication and charging capabilities via USB/Lightning/Thunderbolt; it is noted here that communication and power supply interface 120 -- by being disclosed (see par. [0031]) as a Lightning interface or a Thunderbolt interface -- is capable of bi-directional power supply);
and a connector (same port 120, figs. 1–2) for connecting to the mobile device (connector and physical interface description, figs. 1–2 (120); pars. [0027]–[0029], [0031], describing connection between adapter and mobile device),
wherein the communication adapter is powered via the communication and power supply interface (power from mobile device to adapter via port 120, figs. 1–2; pars. [0027]–[0029], [0031], disclosing power sourcing and interface roles),
and wherein the communication adapter is configured to transfer data sent via the MICS telemetry interface by the implantable medical device to the mobile device via the communication and power supply interface (data routing from IMD to mobile device, pars. [0027]–[0029], [0031], [0040]–[0041], [0048], describing signal flow via both interfaces)
and to transfer data sent via the communication and power supply interface by the mobile device to the implantable medical device via the MICS telemetry interface (reverse data path from mobile to IMD, pars. [0027]–[0029], [0031], [0040]–[0041], [0048], detailing reformatting and transfer steps).
As to claim 2, Woods discloses the communication adapter of claim 1, wherein:
the communication adapter is configured to connect the mobile device with a further device by a USB connector (“the portable electronic device 90 may include a port 120 (or connector) that can be mated with a corresponding port or connector of an external electronic device”, para. [0028]; “the port 120 allows the portable electronic device 90 to communicate with the mobile computing device via a hardware interface… USB… Lightning®… Thunderbolt®”, para. [0031]).
As to claim 3, Woods discloses the communication adapter of claim 1, wherein:
the communication adapter is integratable into a protective case of the mobile device, into a USB-cable or into a connector (“a portable electronic device 90 in an alternative embodiment... may have a case-like form factor... to encase or house the mobile computing device 60 therein”, para. [0029];
“In various example embodiments, the hardware interface may include… USB interface… Lightning® interface… or other proprietary hardware interfaces”, para. [0031]).
As to claim 5, Woods discloses the communication adapter of claim 1, wherein:
the communication adapter comprises or is connected to at least a first MICS-band antenna and a second MICS-band antenna (“the transceiver 420 may include (or may be coupled to) an antenna 440… the transceiver 430… an antenna 450”, para. [0111]; “the portable electronic device 90 may include one or more multiplexors and/or demultiplexers, as well as a plurality of antennas (e.g., a plurality of MICS antennas)”, para. [0048]).
As to claim 6, Woods discloses the communication adapter of claim 1, wherein:
the communication adapter comprises an authentication unit configured to authenticate a user of the mobile device in order to access patient-related data stored in a data storage unit of the communication adapter and/or the implantable medical device (“memory partitions 411–414… may be unlocked in response to different users being authenticated”, para. [0109]; “the mobile computing device 60 is configured to authenticate a user based on the user’s biometric data”, para. [0051]; “the mobile computing device 60… automatically displays a suitable user interface… where the patient programmer user interface has only basic levels of access”, para. [0066]).
As to claim 7, Woods discloses a protective case for a mobile device comprising a frame mountable around an edge of the mobile and the communication adapter of claim 1 (“a portable electronic device 90… may have a case-like form factor… to encase or house the mobile computing device 60 therein… [and] may also provide additional power”, para. [0029]).
As to claim 8, Woods discloses: a cable, comprising a further connector and the communication adapter of claim 1 (“the portable electronic device 90 may include a port 120 (or connector)… USB port, micro-USB port, HDMI port, Lightning® port, or Thunderbolt® port”, para. [0028]; “In the embodiment shown in FIG. 2, the portable electronic device 90 is physically attached to the mobile computing device 60 through the port 120”, para. [0028]).
As to claim 9, Woods discloses: a connector comprising the communication adapter of claim 1, wherein the connector comprises a first antenna connection and a second antenna connection (“the transceiver 420 may include (or may be coupled to) an antenna 440… the transceiver 430… an antenna 450”, para. [0111]; “antenna layout shown in FIG. 16”, fig. 16).
As to claim 10, Woods discloses: a communication adapter system comprising the connector of claim 9 and an adhesive film attachable to the mobile device, wherein a first MICS-band antenna and a second MICS-band antenna are arranged on a surface of the adhesive film (“Portable electronic device 90 may also be configured as a patch or other device that is worn on or attached to a patient’s body over IMD 30, thereby permitting enhanced communication coupling”, para. [0029]; “the wearable medical device 300 and the portable electronic device 90 may be integrated into a single device”, para. [0091]).
Claims 11 and 13 recite the corresponding limitation of claim 1. Therefore, they are rejected accordingly.
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woods in view of Von (US Pat. No. 7831828).
As to claim 4, Woods discloses, wherein the MICS telemetry interface comprises a MICS-band-radio module comprising an encryption unit..." (implantable medical device 30, figs. 1–2)
Woods discloses the MICS-band radio module as part of telemetry interface 130 used for wireless communication with an implantable medical device (telemetry interface 130, fig. 2; para. [0044]).
Woods does not disclose an encryption unit configured to encrypt a communication between the MICS telemetry interface and the implantable medical device.
Von discloses a cryptographic encryption unit within the telemetry system of an implantable medical device. The encryption can be implemented via hardware or software and is used to secure communications between the IMD and an external programmer over a wireless RF link (secure telemetry encryption, col. 6, lines 12–33; col. 9, lines 1–17; session key exchange protocol, fig. 2).
Von therefore teaches what Woods lacks—encryption within the telemetry system, specifically designed for protecting data exchanged with an IMD over MICS-band or similar wireless links.
Woods and Von are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor—wireless communication systems for implantable medical devices—and both address the problem-solving area of secure, wireless data exchange between a mobile/external device and an implantable medical device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Woods and Von before him or her, to modify the MICS telemetry interface of Woods to include the encryption unit disclosed in Von, because Von teaches the importance of securing medical telemetry communication using encryption hardware or software, and such integration would protect sensitive patient data being transmitted wirelessly.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to ensure data privacy and integrity in wireless communication with implantable medical devices, as stated in Von: “To ensure secure communication, encryption is applied using session keys negotiated between the IMD and external device” (col. 6, lines 12–33).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Von with Woods to obtain the invention as specified in Claim 4, specifically by incorporating a hardware and/or software-based encryption unit into the MICS-band telemetry interface for secure communication with the IMD.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that Woods allegedly fails to disclose “a communication and power supply interface for power supply from a mobile device to a communication adapter,” asserting that Woods requires a separate power interface and teaches power flowing in the opposite direction. This argument is not persuasive for the reasons set forth below.
Woods Discloses a Communication and Power Supply Interface
Independent claim 1 recites, in relevant part:
“a communication and power supply interface for data transfer between the communication adapter and the mobile device and for power supply from the mobile device to the communication adapter, wherein the communication adapter is powered via the communication and power supply interface.”
Woods discloses a portable electronic device that includes a communication interface to a mobile computing device and further discloses that power may be transferred through that same interface, depending on the operational configuration.
Specifically, Woods teaches that the portable electronic device includes a port for communicating with a mobile computing device, and that power transfer occurs through that port (Woods, pars. [0027]–[0028]). The fact that Woods also discloses alternative power arrangements (e.g., wall outlet or charger) does not negate the disclosure that the interface between the portable electronic device and the mobile computing device is capable of providing power.
Direction of Power Flow Is Not Limiting in the Claim
Applicant further argues that Woods discloses power flowing from the portable electronic device to the mobile computing device, rather than from the mobile device to the adapter. However, claim 1 does not require exclusive or fixed power‑flow direction, nor does it exclude bidirectional power capability.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, an interface that is capable of supplying power between connected devices inherently satisfies the limitation of “for power supply,” regardless of which device is acting as the source in a particular operating mode. Woods’ disclosure of power transfer through the communication port therefore reasonably encompasses power delivery via that interface.
Moreover, claim 1 does not recite that the communication adapter must lack other power inputs, nor does it exclude embodiments where multiple power options exist. Thus, Applicant’s argument regarding an “additional power supply interface” is not commensurate in scope with the claim language.
No Requirement That the Adapter Be Powered Only by the Mobile Device
Applicant further asserts that Woods requires a separate power supply interface, whereas the claimed adapter does not. However, claim 1 does not prohibit additional power interfaces; it merely requires that the communication adapter is powered via the communication and power supply interface. Woods satisfies this requirement by disclosing power transfer via the interface connecting the portable electronic device and the mobile computing device.
Therefore, Woods discloses an interface between a portable electronic device and a mobile computing device that supports both communication and power transfer.
The claim does not require exclusive power sourcing, fixed power‑flow direction, or the absence of alternative power inputs.
Applicant’s arguments improperly import limitations that are not recited in the claim.
As such, the §102 rejection of claim 1 over Woods is maintained.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUANITO C BORROMEO whose telephone number is (571)270-1720. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 9 - 5.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Henry Tsai can be reached on 5712724176. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/J.C.B/ Assistant Examiner, Art Unit 2184
/HENRY TSAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2184