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 .
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claims 1-20, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamen et al., USPN 2013/0191513.
With regard to claims 1, 12, and 20, Kamen discloses a method for an authenticated application and a central server (0035, 0092-0093), the method including downloading an application onto a computer device to create a computer hub for tracking medication, drugs, substances (0035, 0027, 0091-0093), and medical devices (0182-0184, 0192-0194, 0497-0499, 0029), establishing a secure communication channel between the central server and the application on the computer device (0401), receiving a security code at a user interface of the application on the computer device to identify the application to the central server (0068-0070, 0525, 0651), communicating, over the secure communication channel, the security code for verification at the central server (0525, 0547-0555, 0401, 0502-0503), receiving an identity confirmation message to create an authenticated application (0547), receiving control directives including operational usage parameters (0376, 0471, 0483, 0555, 0565) to direct operation of the authenticated application (0141, 0031, 0347, 0374, 0407), providing a hub manager interface for selecting and assigning one or more electronic assets and control directives defining the operational usage parameters for the authenticated computer hub (0027, 0068, 0097-0114), receiving identification for one or more approved objects, the one or more approved objects selected from at least one of medications, drugs, substances and medical devices (0035, 0547, 0374, 0407, 0652, 0870), the approved objects being selected and assigned at the central server through a hub manager interface (0028-0037), associating, at an interface of the authenticated application, an asset tag to an approved object of the one or more approved objects (0035, 0547, 0374, 0407, 0652, 0870, 0501), executing control directives to direct the use of the approved object (0035, 0547, 0374, 0407, 0652, 0870, 0500, 0501), detecting and reading, at the computer hub, the asset tag or sensor for tracking usage of the approved object (0047-0048, 0778, 0872, 0407, 0029, 0619, 0634, 0035), and sending results, from the execution of the control directives and data from reading the asset tag for tracking usage of the approved object, to the central server (0775-0780). While Kamen does not outline each device authenticating and verifying with the bub and each downloaded application authenticating and verifying with the server, he does disclose that client devices and applications are authenticated and verified (0068-0070, 0365, 0532, 0547, 0663, 0664), and discloses authentication and verification by validating identifying codes (0035, 0757, 0763, 0525, 0547-0555, 0401), and discloses challenge-response verification (0391, 0394). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to authenticate the application of Kamen with a challenge code and the devices of Kamen with the hub for the motivation of ensuring protected and accurate patient care and ultimately improving overall patient care.
With regard to claim 2, Kamen discloses the method of claim 1, as outlined above, and further discloses receiving, at the computer hub, approval of use of the approved object (0035, 0547, 0374, 0407, 0652, 0870, 0501).
With regard to claim 3, Kamen discloses the method of claim 1, as outlined above, and further discloses receiving the control directives at the computer hub, the control directives specifying actions relative to dosage ranges (0376, 0471, 0483, 0555, 0565).
With regard to claim 4, Kamen discloses the method of claim 1, as outlined above, and further discloses detecting a tap of the asset tag at the computer hub for each use of the approved asset (0349-0351, 0431, 0447, 0461, 0778, 0872, 0407, 0029, 0619, 0634, 0035, 0547).
With regard to claims 5 and 13, Kamen discloses the method of claim 1, as outlined above, and further discloses identifying a user associated with the application to grant them access (0068-0070, 0365, 0735).
With regard to claim 6, Kamen discloses the method of claim 1, as outlined above, and further discloses receiving additional identifiers at the authenticated application when use of the electronics assets without identifiers has been requested for a first time (0029, 0349-0351). Further, Kamen discloses giving identifiers to entities that need to be identified (0075). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to provide an identifier to an unidentified device, patient, or provider in the method of Kamen for the motivation of ensuring protected and accurate patient care and ultimately improving overall patient care.
With regard to claims 7 and 14, Kamen discloses the method of claim 1, as outlined above, and further discloses detecting and reading the asset tag using one of RFID communications, barcode scanning identification, or Bluetooth communications (0029, 0349-0351, 0118-0119).
With regard to claims 8 and 15, Kamen discloses the method of claim 1, as outlined above, and further discloses using a biometric input received at the authenticated application to verify a user at the authenticated application and grant access to functionality of the authenticated application (0047-0048, 0365, 0525).
With regard to claims 9 and 16, Kamen discloses the method of claim 1, as outlined above, and further discloses identifying electronic assets on a computer screen of the authenticated computer hub (0129, 0176, 0379).
With regard to claims 10 and 17, Kamen discloses the method of claim 1, as outlined above, and further discloses the application is a mobile application (0094, 0345, 0370, 0547).
With regard to claims 11 and 18, Kamen discloses the method of claim 1, as outlined above, and further discloses the authenticated application forms part of an authenticated computer hub (0035, 0027, 0091-0093, 0182-0184, 0192-0194, 0497-0499, 0029).
With regard to claim 19, Kamen discloses the method of claim 1, as outlined above, and further discloses the control directives include identifying information for one or more approved objects identifying at least one of medications, drugs, substances and medical devices (0035, 0547, 0374, 0407, 0652, 0870).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 25 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not fully persuasive.
Applicants arguments about the 112 rejection, in light of the amendment filed with them are found persuasive and the 112 rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant argues that the hub in Kamen is different than the hub of the instant claims. The examiner disagrees, and further points out that any device that monitors patient care through the RFID tags of Kamen and ensures that they are appropriate, as taught by Kamen (0029-0047) through the use of a server, reads on the claimed hub.
Applicant argues that Kamen does not discloses the limitation of the instant claims that states that once an application is installed a secure connection is established “whereby the application is authenticated as a trusted node”. The examiner first points out that the claims do not discuss trust. Secondly, the examiner points out that this is exactly why the rejection is a 103 and not 102. It would have been obvious over Kamen’s other authentication techniques to ensure that the server was dealing with an authentic application, as outlined above.
Applicant further argues that the server of Kamen does not select approved objects. The examiner disagrees as outlined above, and states that the server of Kamen does monitor that only appropriate medical devices are used correctly in patient care.
Applicant further argues that Kamen does not select approved objects from a list in the association step. This limitation was not found in the claims, and the term “associating” read on the tag usage of Kamen, as outlined above.
Applicant argues that the control parameters of Kamen are different than the usage parameters of the instant claims. The examiner disagrees, as outlined above, and feels the usage parameters of a medical device read on the claimed usage parameters.
Applicant further argues that Kamen does not disclose the newly added limitation of claim 20, of a hub manager interface. The examiner disagrees, as outlined above.
References Cited
Yeluri et al., USPN 2010/0063845, discloses a hub to identify and monitor patient records (claim 1).
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB LIPMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3837. The examiner can normally be reached 5:30AM-6:00PM.
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, Ali Shayanfar can be reached at 571-270-1050. 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.
/JACOB LIPMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2434
Prosecution Insights