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 § 102
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 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, 2, 4, 6-8 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pham et al. (US Pub 2016/0321846).
As of claims 1 and 10-11, Pham discloses a system comprising:
a secured area (via secured areas; see paragraph [0011]); and
a security screening subsystem having:
a medical device identifier positioned at, near or within the secured area (via reader 147 and controller 145; see fig. 1), wherein the medical device identifier is configured to provide an output indicative of identifying information associated with an implanted medical device (via implanted BAN including one or more implanted device 169; see paragraph [0012]; also see fig. 1) of an individual seeking entry into the secured area (via reader 147 receiving the identification data/serial number of the implanted device and transmitting the identification data to an access control management server 110; see paragraphs [0014]-[0015]);
a computing device configured to receive the output from the medical device identifier (via access control management server 110 receiving signals from the reader 147); and
a database storing information associated with a plurality of registered medical devices, wherein the computing device of the security screening subsystem is in communication with the database (even though not explicitly stated but the server 110 will have a database or access to a database with stored identification data in order to authenticate the person) and configured to:
determine if the identifying information associated with the implanted medical device corresponds to a registered medical device among the plurality of registered medical devices (see paragraph [0015], “the access control management server 110 authenticates the person via the identification data”); and
provide an output indicative of the determination of whether the identity of the implanted medical device corresponds to a registered medical device (see paragraph [0015], “the reader 147 receives a response back from the access management server 110… At 226, the controller 145 operates the door 130 as a function of the response from the access control management server 110; also see fig. 2).
As of claim 2, Pham discloses that the secured area is located within an airport, a stadium, an arena, a theatre, an amusement park, a secured facility, an entertainment venue, a cruise ship or a public event space (via secure area located within hospital, laboratories, banks, schools and other businesses; see paragraph [0011]).
As of claims 4 and 12, Pham discloses that the medical device identifier is positioned at an access point (via reader 147 positioned at an access point 130), and wherein in response to the computing device determining that the identifying information associated with the implanted medical device corresponds to a registered medical device, the security screening subsystem is configured to grant the individual access to the secured area through the access point (“the reader 147 receives a response back from the access management server 110… At 226, the controller 145 operates the door 130 as a function of the response from the access control management server 110; also see figs. 1 and 2).
As of claim 6, Pham discloses that the implanted medical device is a cardiac implant (via implant being an ECG sensor 169; see paragraph [0012]).
As of claim 7, Pham does not explicitly disclose the output indicative of the determination of whether the identifying information associated with the implanted medical device corresponds to a registered medical device is provided in less than 20 seconds. The Examiner takes official notice that it is well known in the art of access control that the time period for user detection, authentication and the access decision is less than a second (see Lakamraju et al. (US Pub 2013/0027180) paragraph [0018]).
As of claim 8, Pham discloses that the medical device identifier does not emit X-rays (reader 147 does not emit X-rays).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jorgenson (US Pub 2008/0004663).
As of claim 17, Jorgenson discloses a screening and defibrillation device (via external defibrillator 12; see fig. 1) comprising:
a device body (see fig. 1);
a defibrillator coupled to the device body and configured to deliver electrical current to an individual’s heart (via external defibrillator delivering electrical current to an individual’s heart; see paragraph [0024]); and
a medical device identifier (via detection device 28) coupled to the device body and configured to provide an output indicative of identifying information associated with an implanted medical device of the individual (via detection device 28 providing an output indicative of identifying information associated with implantable medical device (IMD) 14 (see fig. 9; also see paragraphs [0067]- [0068]).
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 3, 5, 9 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pham et al. (US Pub 2016/0321846) in view of Horton et al. (US Pub 2014/0019076).
As of claims 9 and 13, Pham discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention as mentioned in claim 1 above, however it does not explicitly disclose the limitations of claim 9 as claimed.
Horton discloses a medical device identifier 10, wherein the information stored by the database comprises a plurality of digital templates corresponding to different medical devices of the plurality of registered medical devices (see abstract), and wherein the medical device identifier comprises:
a coil (via coil 16; see fig. 3);
a digital-to-analog converter coupled to the computing device (via DAC 34);
drive circuitry coupled to the coil and the digital-to-analog converter (via AMP 30); and
receiver circuitry coupled to the coil and the computing device (via AMP 22 and filters 24);
wherein the computing device is configured to cause the medical device identifier to:
sequentially excite the coil, via the digital-to-analog converter and the drive circuitry, to generate electromagnetic waveforms corresponding to one or more digitized waveforms (see paragraph [0007], “sequentially excite the coil, via the digital-to-analog converter and the drive circuitry, to generate electromagnetic waveforms corresponding to one or more of the digitized waveforms); and
receive and digitize, via the coil and the receiver circuitry, a returned electromagnetic waveform transmitted from the implanted medical device in response to the electromagnetic waveforms generated by the medical device identifier (see paragraph [0007], “The medical device identifier also receives and digitizes, via the coil and the receiver circuitry, a returned electromagnetic waveform transmitted from a medical device in response to the electromagnetic waveforms generated by the medical device identifier”),
wherein the computing device is configured to compare the digitized returned electromagnetic waveform with the plurality of digital templates to determine whether the digitized electromagnetic waveform corresponds to a digital template associated with a medical device of the plurality of registered medical devices (see paragraph [0007], “ the memory further holds a plurality of digital templates corresponding to different medical devices, and the instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the medical device identifier to identify the medical device based on a comparison of the digitized returned electromagnetic waveform with the plurality of digital templates. In some embodiments, the comparison of the digitized returned electromagnetic waveform with a respective one of the digital templates comprises a cross-correlation of the digitized returned electromagnetic waveform with the respective digital template”).
From the teaching of Horton, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to combine the teachings of Pham and Horton to include the function of medical device identifier to detect medical implants as taught by Horton in order to effectively determine the implanted medical device identification.
As of claim 3, Horton discloses that the medical device identifier is a portable, handheld device (via handheld medical device identifier 10; see paragraph [0049]).
As of claim 5, Horton discloses that the computing device is a component of the medical device identifier (via computer subsystem 28; see fig. 3; also see paragraph [0040]).
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pham et al. (US Pub 2016/0321846) in view of Jorgenson (US Pub 2008/0004663).
As of claims 14, Pham discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention as mentioned in claim 1 above, however it does not explicitly disclose a metal detector coupled to the body and configured to identify a nearby presence of a metallic material and to provide an output indicative of the nearby presence of the metallic material.
Jorgenson discloses a system to detect implanted medical device 14, wherien a medical device identifier 12 comprises a metal detector 28 configured to identify a nearby presence of a metallic material and to provide an output indicative of the nearby presence of the metallic material (see paragraph [0028]).
Form the teaching of Jorgenson it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include a metal detector in a medical device identifier as taught by Jorgenson in order to identify metals in a human body and further since it is known that the pacemaker and other cardiac implants contain metal.
As of claim 15, Pham discloses that the medical device identifier communicates with a computing device, wherein the computing device is configured to receive an output from the medical device identifier that is indicative of the identifying information associated with the implanted medical device, wherein the computing device is in communication with a database that stores information associated with a plurality of registered medical devices, and wherein the computing device is configured to: determine if the identifying information associated with the implanted medical device corresponds to a registered medical device among the list of registered medical devices; and provide an output indicative of the determination of whether the identifying information associated with the implanted medical device corresponds to a registered medical device (please see the rejection of claim 1).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pham et al. (US Pub 2016/0321846) in view of Jorgenson (US Pub 2008/0004663) further in view of Horton et al. (US Pub 2014/0019076).
As of claim 16, combination of Pham and Jorgenson discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention as mentioned in claim 14 above, however it does not explicitly disclose the limitations of claim 16. Claim 16 claims the same limitations as claimed in claim 9 which are disclosed by Horton as explained in the rejection of claim 9 (please see the rejection of claim 9).
Claims 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jorgenson (US Pub 2008/0004663) in view of Pham et al. (US Pub 2016/0321846).
As of claim 18, Jorgenson discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention as mentioned in claim 17 above, however it does not explicitly disclose the limitations wherein the computing device is configured to: determine if the identifying information associated with the implanted medical device corresponds to a registered medical device among the list of registered medical devices; and provide an output indicative of the determination of whether the identifying information associated with the implanted medical device corresponds to a registered medical device.
Pham discloses a system comprising: a medical device identifier (via reader 147 and controller 145; see fig. 1), wherein the medical device identifier is configured to provide an output indicative of identifying information associated with an implanted medical device (via implanted BAN including one or more implanted device 169; see paragraph [0012]; also see fig. 1) of an individual seeking entry into the secured area (via reader 147 receiving the identification data/serial number of the implanted device and transmitting the identification data to an access control management server 110; see paragraphs [0014]-[0015]);
a computing device configured to receive the output from the medical device identifier (via access control management server 110 receiving signals from the reader 147); and
a database storing information associated with a plurality of registered medical devices, wherein the computing device of the security screening subsystem is in communication with the database (even though not explicitly stated but the server 110 will have a database or access to a database with stored identification data in order to authenticate the person) and configured to:
determine if the identifying information associated with the implanted medical device corresponds to a registered medical device among the plurality of registered medical devices (see paragraph [0015], “the access control management server 110 authenticates the person via the identification data”); and
provide an output indicative of the determination of whether the identity of the implanted medical device corresponds to a registered medical device (see paragraph [0015], “the reader 147 receives a response back from the access management server 110… At 226, the controller 145 operates the door 130 as a function of the response from the access control management server 110; also see fig. 2).
From the teaching of Pham, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the system of Jorgenson to include the function using the implanted device in a security access system as taught by Pham in order to operate a door, gate or other barrier at the entry or access point as a function of implanted medical device identification data.
Claims 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jorgenson (US Pub 2008/0004663) in view of Pham et al. (US Pub 2016/0321846) and further in view of Horton et al. (US Pub 2014/0019076).
As of claim 19, combination of Jorgenson and Pham discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention as mentioned in claim 18 above, however it does not explicitly disclose the limitations of claim 19. Claim 19 claims the same limitations as claimed in claim 9 which are disclosed by Horton as explained in the rejection of claim 9 (please see the rejection of claim 9).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Buchheit (US 9630017) discloses an external defibrillator comprising a medical device identifier (see abstract).
Westby et al. (US Pub 2019/0043291) discloses using a reader 34 to read implanted medical device identifier and perform access control (see claim 1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NABIL H SYED whose telephone number is (571)270-3028. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-5:00 M-F.
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, Brian Zimmerman can be reached at 571-272-3059. 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.
/NABIL H SYED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686