DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
2. Acknowledgment is made of the present application is a continuation of U.S. Patent App. No. 18/303,344, filed April 19, 2023, issued as U.S. Patent No. 12,022,542 on June 25, 2024, and titled "CONTROLLING COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN DEVICES OF A WIRELESS BODY AREA NETWORK FOR A MEDICAL DEVICE SYSTEM," which is a continuation of U.S. Patent App. No. 17/157,783, filed January 25, 2021, issued as U.S. Patent No. 11,672,036 on June 6, 2023, and titled "METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR CONTROLLING COMMUNICATION BETWEEN DEVICES OF A WIRELESS BODY AREA NETWORK FOR A MEDICAL DEVICE SYSTEM," which is a continuation of U.S. Patent App. No. 16/417,487, filed May 20, 2019, issued as U.S. Patent No. 10,939,488 on March 2, 2021, and titled "METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR CONTROLLING COMMUNICATION BETWEEN DEVICES OF A WIRELESS BODY AREA NETWORK FOR AN MEDICAL DEVICE SYSTEM."
Preliminary Amendment
3. Acknowledgment is made of Applicant’s submission of the preliminary amendment, dated June 5, 2024. Claims 1-20 are pending. This communication is considered fully responsive and sets forth below.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. Acknowledgment is made of Applicant’s submission of information disclosure statement (IDS), dated on July 15, 2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Examiner's Notes
5. Applicant is encouraged to submit a written authorization for Internet communications (PTO/SB/439, http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf) in the instant patent application to authorize the examiner to communicate with the applicant via email. The authorization will allow the examiner to better practice compact prosecution. The written authorization can be submitted via one of the following methods only: (1) Central Fax which can be found in the Conclusion section of this Office action; (2) regular postal mail; (3) EFS WEB; or (4) the service window on the Alexandria campus. EFS web is the recommended way to submit the form since this allows the form to be entered into the file wrapper within the same day (system dependent). Written authorization submitted via other methods, such as direct fax to the examiner or email, will not be accepted. See MPEP § 502.03.
Double Patenting
6. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
7. Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,022,542.
Claim 1 recites, “A method, comprising:
determining, by a first device equipped with a plurality of wireless communication interfaces, a wireless communication interface to use for communicating with a second device,
wherein the first device and the second device are part of a network that includes a medical device, and
wherein the determining of the wireless communication interface is based on one or more factors including at least one of:
a proximity of the first device to the second device,
a quality of service level of a communication link established using the wireless communication interface, or
a security level of data to be transmitted to, or received from, the second device; and
communicating with the second device using the determined wireless communication interface.”
Claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,022,542 recites, “A method for controlling which communication interface of a plurality of communication interfaces is used for communication in a wireless body area network of medical devices, the method comprising:
determining, by a first device in the wireless body area network, a security level for data to be transmitted from the first device to a second device in the wireless body area network,
wherein the first device includes a first communication interface using a first wireless communication protocol and a second communication interface using a second wireless communication protocol, and
wherein signals communicated over the second communication interface have a shorter range compared to the first communication interface; and
transmitting the data using the second communication interface based on the first device determining that the security level for the data is higher than that associated with the first communication interface,
wherein transmitting the data using the second communication interface comprises: establishing a communication channel to the second device using the second communication interface, or switching to the second communication interface after establishing an initial communication channel using the first communication interface.”
Both claim 1 of the instant application and claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,022,542 are method-step claim. Claim 1 includes similar elements that are a part of the limitations in claim 12 of the patent. Here are the limitation mappings:
for the determining step, i.e., “determining, by a first device equipped with a plurality of wireless communication interfaces, a wireless communication interface to use for communicating with a second device,”
“a plurality of communication interfaces” indicated in italics in the preamble of claim 12 of the patent teaches the limitation of “a plurality of wireless communication interfaces;”
in fact, “controlling which communication interface of a plurality of communication interfaces is used for communication in a wireless body area network of medical devices” and “determining, by a first device in the wireless body area network, a security level for data to be transmitted from the first device to a second device in the wireless body area network,
wherein the first device includes a first communication interface using a first wireless communication protocol…” in claim 12 of the patent teaches this limitation;
for the first wherein clause, i.e., “wherein the first device and the second device are part of a network that includes a medical device,”
“a wireless body area network of medical devices” indicated in italics in the preamble of claim 12 of the patent teaches the limitation of “a network that includes a medical device;”
in fact, “a wireless body area network of medical devices” and “a security level for data to be transmitted from the first device to a second device in the wireless body area network” indicated in italics in claim 12 of the patent teaches this limitation;
for the second wherein clause, i.e., “wherein the determining of the wireless communication interface is based on one or more factors including at least one of:
a proximity of the first device to the second device,
a quality of service level of a communication link established using the wireless communication interface, or
a security level of data to be transmitted to, or received from, the second device,”
“a security level for data to be transmitted from the first device to a second device” indicated in italics in the determining step in claim 12 of the patent teaches the limitation of “a security level of data to be transmitted to, or received from, the second device;”
in fact, “determining, by a first device in the wireless body area network, a security level for data to be transmitted from the first device to a second device in the wireless body area network” in the determining step in claim 12 of the patent teaches this limitation;
for the last limitation, i.e., “communicating with the second device using the determined wireless communication interface,”
“transmitting the data using the second communication interface based on the first device determining that the security level for the data…” indicated in italics in the transmitting step in claim 12 of the patent reads on this limitation.
As the limitation mappings presented above, claim 1 includes similar elements that are a part of the limitations in claim 12 of the U.S. Patent No. 12,022,542. In fact, claim 1 is merely a broader version of the claim 12 of the patent by eliminating some limitations, e.g., “wherein signals communicated over the second communication interface have a shorter range compared to the first communication interface,” indicated in bold.
It has been held that the omission of an element and its function is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA).
Same rationale applies to claims 2, 4, 11, 12, 14, 19, and 20 as follows:
8. Claim 2 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 13 and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,022,542.
9. Claim 4 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,022,542.
10. Claim 11 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,022,542 (Examiner’s Note: claim 11 includes similar limitations as in claim 12 of the patent, though claim 11 is written in the system form and claim 12 of the patent is in method-step form).
11. Claim 12 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 13 and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,022,542 (Examiner’s Note: claim 12 includes similar limitations as in claims 13 and 14 of the patent, though claim 12 is written in the system form and claims 13 and 14 of the patent are in method-step form).
12. Claim 14 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,022,542 (Examiner’s Note: claim 14 includes similar limitations as in claim 14 of the patent, though claim 14 is written in the system form and claim 14 of the patent is in method-step form).
13. Claim 19 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,022,542 (Examiner’s Note: claim 19 includes similar limitations as in claim 12 of the patent, though claim 19 is written in the system form and claim 12 of the patent is in method-step form).
14. Claim 20 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,022,542 (Examiner’s Note: claim 20 includes similar limitations as in claim 12 of the patent, though claim 20 is written in the system form and claim 12 of the patent is in method-step form).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
15. 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.
16. 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
17. Claims 1, 2, 4, 8, 11, 12, 14, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ramtirth et al. (US 2020/0225054).
Regarding claim 1, Ramtirth et al. teach the method, comprising:
determining, by a first device equipped with a plurality of wireless communication interfaces, a wireless communication interface to use for communicating with a second device (paragraph [0014] lines 1-7; Examiner’s Notes: user device 130 depicted in FIG. 1 in the prior art teaches the limitation of “a first device;”
bluetooth enabled device 125 depicted in FIG. 1 in the prior art teaches the limitation of “a second device;”
in fact, user device 130 determining an interface, e.g., OBD interface 120 among others, to communicate with Bluetooth enabled device 125, as illustrated in FIG. 1 in the prior art teaches the limitation of “determining, by a first device equipped with a plurality of wireless communication interfaces, a wireless communication interface to use for communicating with a second device” in the instant application),
wherein the first device and the second device are part of a network that includes a medical device (paragraph [0014] lines 1-7; Examiner’s Notes: network 150 depicted in FIG. 1 in the prior art teaches the limitation of “a network;”
health monitor 140 depicted in FIG. 1 in the prior art teaches the limitation of “a medical device;”
in fact, user device 130, Bluetooth enabled device 125 and health monitor 140 are part of the network 150, as illustrated in FIG. 1 in the prior art teaches the limitation of “wherein the first device and the second device are part of a network that includes a medical device” in the instant application), and
wherein the determining of the wireless communication interface is based on one or more factors including at least one of:
a proximity of the first device to the second device,
a quality of service level of a communication link established using the wireless communication interface, or
a security level of data to be transmitted to, or received from, the second device (paragraph [0030] lines 1-19; Examiner’s Notes: the telematics information, e.g., the distance/location between user device 130 and bluethooth enabled device 125, as illustrated in FIG. 1 in the prior art teaches the limitation of “a proximity of the first device to the second device;”
in fact, determining the interface, e.g., OBD interface 120 based on the telematics information, e.g., the distance/location between user device 130 and bluethooth enabled device 125, as illustrated in FIG. 1 in the prior art teaches the limitation of “wherein the determining of the wireless communication interface is based on one or more factors including at least one of:
a proximity of the first device to the second device,
a quality of service level of a communication link established using the wireless communication interface, or
a security level of data to be transmitted to, or received from, the second device” in the instant application); and
communicating with the second device using the determined wireless communication interface (paragraph [0029] lines 1-8; Examiner’s Notes: communicating with bluethooth enabled device 125 via OBD interface 120, as illustracted in FIG. 1 in the prior art teaches the limitation of “communicating with the second device using the determined wireless communication interface” in the instant application).
Regarding claim 2, Ramtirth et al. further teach the method, wherein the plurality of wireless communication interfaces comprises a near-field interface and a far-field interface (paragraph [0049] lines 1-13; Examiner’s Notes: the NFC wireless interface and the WiFi interface, as illustrated in FIG. 1 in the prior art teaches this limitation in the instant application).
Regarding claim 4, Ramtirth et al. further teach the method, wherein the near-field interface comprises: a near-field magnetic induction (NFMI) radio communication interface; a near-field electromagnetic induction (NFeMI) radio communication interface; a near-field communication (NFC) interface; or a high-frequency radio-frequency identification (RFID) communication interface (paragraph [0049] lines 1-13; Examiner’s Notes: the NFC wireless interface as illustrated in FIG. 1 in the prior art teaches this limitation in the instant application).
Regarding claim 8, Ramtirth et al. further teach the method, wherein the data to be transmitted to, or received from, the second device is generated by a third device in the network (paragraph [0014] lines 1-7; Examiner’s Notes: health monitor 140 depicted in FIG. 1 in the prior art teaches the limitation of “a medical device;”
in fact, receiving information/data, from bluetooth enabled device 125, is generated by health monitor 140, as illustrated in FIG. 1 in the prior art teaches the limitation of “wherein the data to be transmitted to, or received from, the second device is generated by a third device in the network” in the instant application).
Regarding claim 11, Ramtirth et al. teach the system, comprising:
a first device equipped with a plurality of wireless communication interfaces (paragraph [0014] lines 1-7; Examiner’s Notes: user device 130 depicted in FIG. 1 in the prior art teaches the limitation of “a first device;”
in fact, user device 130 communicating via an interface, e.g., OBD interface 120 among others, as illustrated in FIG. 1 in the prior art teaches the limitation of “a first device equipped with a plurality of wireless communication interfaces” in the instant application),
wherein the first device is configured to determine a wireless communication interface to use for communicating with a second device based on one or more factors (paragraph [0014] lines 1-7; Examiner’s Notes: bluetooth enabled device 125 depicted in FIG. 1 in the prior art teaches the limitation of “a second device;”
in fact, user device 130 determining an interface, e.g., OBD interface 120 among others, to communicate with Bluetooth enabled device 125, as illustrated in FIG. 1 in the prior art teaches the limitation of “wherein the first device is configured to determine a wireless communication interface to use for communicating with a second device based on one or more factors” in the instant application),
wherein the first device and the second device are part of a network that includes a medical device (paragraph [0014] lines 1-7; Examiner’s Notes: network 150 depicted in FIG. 1 in the prior art teaches the limitation of “a network;”
health monitor 140 depicted in FIG. 1 in the prior art teaches the limitation of “a medical device;”
in fact, user device 130, Bluetooth enabled device 125 and health monitor 140 are part of the network 150, as illustrated in FIG. 1 in the prior art teaches the limitation of “wherein the first device and the second device are part of a network that includes a medical device” in the instant application), and
wherein the one or more factors includes at least one of:
a proximity of the first device to the second device,
a quality of service level of a communication link established using the wireless communication interface, or
a security level of data to be transmitted to, or received from, the second device (paragraph [0030] lines 1-19; Examiner’s Notes: the telematics information, e.g., the distance/location between user device 130 and bluethooth enabled device 125, as illustrated in FIG. 1 in the prior art teaches the limitation of “a proximity of the first device to the second device;”
in fact, the cited paragraph teaches this limitation in the instant application); and
wherein the first device is further configured to communicate with the second device using the determined wireless communication interface (paragraph [0029] lines 1-8; Examiner’s Notes: communicating with bluethooth enabled device 125 via OBD interface 120, as illustracted in FIG. 1 in the prior art teaches the limitation of “wherein the first device is further configured to communicate with the second device using the determined wireless communication interface” in the instant application).
Regarding claim 12, Ramtirth et al. further teach the system, wherein the plurality of wireless communication interfaces comprises a near-field interface and a far-field interface (paragraph [0049] lines 1-13; Examiner’s Notes: the NFC wireless interface and the WiFi interface, as illustrated in FIG. 1 in the prior art teaches this limitation in the instant application).
Regarding claim 14, Ramtirth et al. further teach the system, wherein the near-field interface comprises: a near-field magnetic induction (NFMI) radio communication interface; a near-field electromagnetic induction (NFeMI) radio communication interface; a near-field communication (NFC) interface; or a high-frequency radio-frequency identification (RFID) communication interface (paragraph [0049] lines 1-13; Examiner’s Notes: the NFC wireless interface as illustrated in FIG. 1 in the prior art teaches this limitation in the instant application).
Regarding claim 19, Ramtirth et al. teach the system, comprising:
a first device equipped with a plurality of wireless communication interfaces (paragraph [0014] lines 1-7; Examiner’s Notes: user device 130 depicted in FIG. 1 in the prior art teaches the limitation of “a first device;”
in fact, user device 130 communicating via an interface, e.g., OBD interface 120 among others, as illustrated in FIG. 1 in the prior art teaches the limitation of “a first device equipped with a plurality of wireless communication interfaces” in the instant application) and
is configured to determine a wireless communication interface from among the plurality of wireless communication interfaces (paragraph [0014] lines 1-7; Examiner’s Notes: user device 130 determining/communicating via an interface, e.g., OBD interface 120 among others, as illustrated in FIG. 1 in the prior art teaches the limitation of “is configured to determine a wireless communication interface from among the plurality of wireless communication interfaces” in the instant application); and
a second device that connects with the first device using the wireless communication interface, which is determined based on one or more factors including at least one of:
a proximity of the first device to the second device,
a quality of service level of a communication link established using the wireless communication interface, or
a security level of data to be transmitted to, or received from, the second device (paragraph [0014] lines 1-7; Examiner’s Notes: bluetooth enabled device 125 depicted in FIG. 1 in the prior art teaches the limitation of “a second device;”
the telematics information, e.g., the distance/location between user device 130 and bluethooth enabled device 125, as illustrated in FIG. 1 in the prior art teaches the limitation of “a proximity of the first device to the second device;”
in fact, Bluetooth enabled device 125 connecting with user device 130 via OBD interface 120 among others, is determined based on the telematics information, e.g., the distance/location between user device 130 and bluethooth enabled device 125, as illustrated in FIG. 1 in the prior art teaches this limitation in the instant application).
Regarding claim 20, Ramtirth et al. teach the system, further comprising: a medical device that is communicatively coupled to the first device and the second device and is the source or destination of the data (paragraph [0014] lines 1-7; Examiner’s Notes: health monitor 140 depicted in FIG. 1 in the prior art teaches the limitation of “a medical device;”
in fact, user device 130, Bluetooth enabled device 125 and health monitor 140 are part of the network 150, and health monitor 140 transmits the data/information to user device 130, as illustrated in FIG. 1 in the prior art teaches the limitation of “a medical device that is communicatively coupled to the first device and the second device and is the source or destination of the data” in the instant application).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
18. 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 of this title, 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.
19. Claims 3, 5-7, 9, 10, 13, and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramtirth et al. (US 2020/0225054) in view of Cabrol et al. (US 2022/0038136).
Regarding claim 3, Ramtirth et al. teach the method without explicitly teaching prioritizing the near-field interface over the far-field interface when a communication link between the first device and second device has successfully been established using the near-field interface.
Cabrol et al. from the same or similar field of endeavor teach implementing fairness of the method, prioritizing the near-field interface over the far-field interface when a communication link between the first device and second device has successfully been established using the near-field interface (paragraphs [0100] lines 1-8 & [0148] lines 1-7; Examiner’s Notes: setting up the priority for the near-field interface while suitable for transmission in the prior art teaches the limitation of “prioritizing the near-field interface over the far-field interface when a communication link between the first device and second device has successfully been established using the near-field interface” in the instant application),
Thus, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in art to implement the method of Cabrol et al. in the system of Ramtirth et al.
The motivation for prioritizing the near-field interface over the far-field interface when a communication link between the first device and second device has successfully been established using the near-field interface, is to further enhance the mechanism for resonance magnetic coupling (RMC) communication between devices, wherein a device uses a discovery mechanism to transmit and exchange information, uses the discovery mechanism to establish a RMC communication channel and determines its parameterization, and the device using a RMC communication senses the channel for potential signals from other devices.
Regarding claim 5, Ramtirth et al. teach the method without explicitly teaching determining of the wireless communication interface is based on the security level of the data.
Cabrol et al. from the same or similar field of endeavor teach implementing fairness of the method, wherein the determining of the wireless communication interface is based on the security level of the data to be transmitted to, or received from, the second device (paragraph [0054] lines 1-21; Examiner’s Notes: determining data transmission to the WTRU according to the security level/function in the prior art teaches the limitation of “wherein the determining of the wireless communication interface is based on the security level of the data to be transmitted to, or received from, the second device” in the instant application),
classifying the data as being either secure or non-secure (paragraph [0062] lines 1-19; Examiner’s Notes: indicating the data type as secure, e.g., a suitable/secure type in the prior art teaches the limitation of “classifying the data as being either secure or non-secure” in the instant application),
Thus, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in art to implement the method of Cabrol et al. in the system of Ramtirth et al.
The motivation for determining of the wireless communication interface is based on the security level of the data, is to further enhance the mechanism for resonance magnetic coupling (RMC) communication between devices, wherein a device uses a discovery mechanism to transmit and exchange information, uses the discovery mechanism to establish a RMC communication channel and determines its parameterization, and the device using a RMC communication senses the channel for potential signals from other devices.
Regarding claim 6, Cabrol et al. further teach the method, wherein the determining of the wireless communication interface comprises:
determining, based on classifying the data as secure, the wireless communication interface as being the near-field interface (paragraphs [0062] lines 1-19 & [0100] lines 1-8; Examiner’s Notes: identifying a suitable interface, e.g., the near-field interface, according to the data security type in the prior art teaches the limitation of “determining, based on classifying the data as secure, the wireless communication interface as being the near-field interface” in the instant application).
Regarding claim 7, Cabrol et al. further teach the method, wherein the network comprises an insulin infusion device and a glucose sensor device (paragraph [0044] lines 1-26; Examiner’s Notes: the medical devices in the wireless network in the prior art teaches this limitation in the instant application), and
wherein classifying the data comprises: classifying the data as secure when the data is being communicated between the insulin infusion device and the glucose sensor device (paragraphs [0062] lines 1-19; Examiner’s Notes: identifying/classifying the data type as secure data in transmission between the medical devices in the prior art teaches the limitation of “classifying the data as secure when the data is being communicated between the insulin infusion device and the glucose sensor device” in the instant application).
Regarding claim 9, Ramtirth et al. teach the method without explicitly teaching determining that the wireless communication interface is to be used for communicating with the second device based on the quality of service level of the communication link.
Cabrol et al. from the same or similar field of endeavor teach implementing fairness of the method, determining that the wireless communication interface is to be used for communicating with the second device based on the quality of service level of the communication link established using the wireless communication interface being greater than or equal to a threshold (paragraph [0054] lines 1-21; Examiner’s Notes: determining/identifying the wireless interface for communicating with the WTRU based on the QoS requirements in the prior art teaches the limitation of “determining that the wireless communication interface is to be used for communicating with the second device based on the quality of service level of the communication link established using the wireless communication interface being greater than or equal to a threshold” in the instant application),
Thus, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in art to implement the method of Cabrol et al. in the system of Ramtirth et al.
The motivation for determining that the wireless communication interface is to be used for communicating with the second device based on the quality of service level of the communication link, is to further enhance the mechanism for resonance magnetic coupling (RMC) communication between devices, wherein a device uses a discovery mechanism to transmit and exchange information, uses the discovery mechanism to establish a RMC communication channel and determines its parameterization, and the device using a RMC communication senses the channel for potential signals from other devices.
Regarding claim 10, Ramtirth et al. teach the method without explicitly teaching switching among the plurality of wireless communication interfaces based on a change in the one or more factors.
Cabrol et al. from the same or similar field of endeavor teach implementing fairness of the method, switching among the plurality of wireless communication interfaces based on a change in the one or more factors (paragraph [0092] lines 1-10; Examiner’s Notes: switching/facilitating among wireless interfaces based on with different/changing target WTRU in the prior art teaches the limitation of “switching among the plurality of wireless communication interfaces based on a change in the one or more factors” in the instant application),
Thus, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in art to implement the method of Cabrol et al. in the system of Ramtirth et al.
The motivation for switching among the plurality of wireless communication interfaces based on a change in the one or more factors, is to further enhance the mechanism for resonance magnetic coupling (RMC) communication between devices, wherein a device uses a discovery mechanism to transmit and exchange information, uses the discovery mechanism to establish a RMC communication channel and determines its parameterization, and the device using a RMC communication senses the channel for potential signals from other devices.
Regarding claim 13, Ramtirth et al. teach the system without explicitly teaching prioritizing the near-field interface over the far-field interface when a communication link between the first device and second device has successfully been established using the near-field interface.
Cabrol et al. from the same or similar field of endeavor teach implementing fairness of the method, prioritizing the near-field interface over the far-field interface when a communication link between the first device and second device has successfully been established using the near-field interface (paragraphs [0100] lines 1-8 & [0148] lines 1-7; Examiner’s Notes: setting up the priority for the near-field interface while suitable for transmission in the prior art teaches the limitation of “prioritizing the near-field interface over the far-field interface when a communication link between the first device and second device has successfully been established using the near-field interface” in the instant application),
Thus, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in art to implement the method of Cabrol et al. in the system of Ramtirth et al.
The motivation for prioritizing the near-field interface over the far-field interface when a communication link between the first device and second device has successfully been established using the near-field interface, is to further enhance the mechanism for resonance magnetic coupling (RMC) communication between devices, wherein a device uses a discovery mechanism to transmit and exchange information, uses the discovery mechanism to establish a RMC communication channel and determines its parameterization, and the device using a RMC communication senses the channel for potential signals from other devices.
Regarding claim 15, Ramtirth et al. teach the system without explicitly teaching classifying the data as being either secure or non-secure.
Cabrol et al. from the same or similar field of endeavor teach implementing fairness of the method, classifying the data as being either secure or non-secure (paragraph [0062] lines 1-19; Examiner’s Notes: indicating the data type as secure, e.g., a suitable/secure type in the prior art teaches the limitation of “classifying the data as being either secure or non-secure” in the instant application),
determining, based on classifying the data as secure, the wireless communication interface as being the near-field interface (paragraphs [0062] lines 1-19 & [0100] lines 1-8; Examiner’s Notes: identifying a suitable interface, e.g., the near-field interface, according to the data security type in the prior art teaches the limitation of “determining, based on classifying the data as secure, the wireless communication interface as being the near-field interface” in the instant application).
Thus, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in art to implement the method of Cabrol et al. in the system of Ramtirth et al.
The motivation for classifying the data as being either secure or non-secure, is to further enhance the mechanism for resonance magnetic coupling (RMC) communication between devices, wherein a device uses a discovery mechanism to transmit and exchange information, uses the discovery mechanism to establish a RMC communication channel and determines its parameterization, and the device using a RMC communication senses the channel for potential signals from other devices.
Regarding claim 16, Cabrol et al. further teach the system, wherein the network comprises an insulin infusion device and a glucose sensor device (paragraph [0044] lines 1-26; Examiner’s Notes: the medical devices in the wireless network in the prior art teaches this limitation in the instant application), and
wherein classifying the data comprises: classifying the data as secure when the data is being communicated between the insulin infusion device and the glucose sensor device (paragraphs [0062] lines 1-19; Examiner’s Notes: identifying/classifying the data type as secure data in transmission between the medical devices in the prior art teaches the limitation of “classifying the data as secure when the data is being communicated between the insulin infusion device and the glucose sensor device” in the instant application).
Regarding claim 17, Ramtirth et al. teach the system without explicitly teaching determining that the wireless communication interface is to be used for communicating with the second device based on the quality of service level of the communication link.
Cabrol et al. from the same or similar field of endeavor teach implementing fairness of the method, determining that the wireless communication interface is to be used for communicating with the second device based on the quality of service level of the communication link established using the wireless communication interface being greater than or equal to a threshold (paragraph [0054] lines 1-21; Examiner’s Notes: determining/identifying the wireless interface for communicating with the WTRU based on the QoS requirements in the prior art teaches the limitation of “determining that the wireless communication interface is to be used for communicating with the second device based on the quality of service level of the communication link established using the wireless communication interface being greater than or equal to a threshold” in the instant application),
Thus, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in art to implement the method of Cabrol et al. in the system of Ramtirth et al.
The motivation for determining that the wireless communication interface is to be used for communicating with the second device based on the quality of service level of the communication link, is to further enhance the mechanism for resonance magnetic coupling (RMC) communication between devices, wherein a device uses a discovery mechanism to transmit and exchange information, uses the discovery mechanism to establish a RMC communication channel and determines its parameterization, and the device using a RMC communication senses the channel for potential signals from other devices.
Regarding claim 18, Ramtirth et al. teach the system without explicitly teaching switching among the plurality of wireless communication interfaces based on a change in the one or more factors.
Cabrol et al. from the same or similar field of endeavor teach implementing fairness of the method, switching among the plurality of wireless communication interfaces based on a change in the one or more factors (paragraph [0092] lines 1-10; Examiner’s Notes: switching/facilitating among wireless interfaces based on with different/changing target WTRU in the prior art teaches the limitation of “switching among the plurality of wireless communication interfaces based on a change in the one or more factors” in the instant application),
Thus, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in art to implement the method of Cabrol et al. in the system of Ramtirth et al.
The motivation for switching among the plurality of wireless communication interfaces based on a change in the one or more factors, is to further enhance the mechanism for resonance magnetic coupling (RMC) communication between devices, wherein a device uses a discovery mechanism to transmit and exchange information, uses the discovery mechanism to establish a RMC communication channel and determines its parameterization, and the device using a RMC communication senses the channel for potential signals from other devices.
Conclusion
20. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Stein et al. (US 2017/0300654) is cited to show a telemedicine system operable to communicate with a remote operations center, communications can be transmitted/received using a transceiver having an antenna, where a controller of the system establishes, using the transceiver, a telemedicine session with the operations center using a Transport Morphing Protocol (TMP), the TMP being an acknowledgement-based user datagram protocol, and the telemedicine system includes a 2D and 3D carotid Doppler and transcranial Doppler diagnostic devices, and provides for real-time connectivity and communication between medical personnel in an emergency vehicle and a receiving hospital for immediate diagnosis and treatment to a patient in need.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WEI ZHAO whose telephone number is (571)270-5672. The examiner can normally be reached from 8:00AM to 5:00PM Monday through Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, JAE Y LEE can be reached on (571) 270-3936. 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.
/WEI ZHAO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2479
Prosecution Insights