DETAILED ACTION
Priority
This action is in response to the U.S. filing dated 11 April 2024 which is a national stage entry of PCT/CN2021/123082, dated 11 October 2021. Claims 1-20 are pending and have been considered below.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 11 April 2024 and 12 August 2025 have been received, entered into the record, and considered. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claims Interpreted as Invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f)/Sixth Paragraph
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: “system configured to store”, “system configured to execute”, “management module executable to add” in claims 1-6, 8, 11-14 and 20.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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, 6, 9-11, 13-15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kiani (US 2017/0147774 A1).
As for independent claim 1, Kiani discloses a device comprising:
a memory system configured to store available applications [(e.g. see Kiani paragraphs 0018, 0053) ”native software on the monitoring device … The steps of a method or algorithm described in connection with the embodiments disclosed herein can be embodied directly in hardware, in a software module executed by a processor, or in a combination of the two. A software module can reside in RAM memory, flash memory, ROM memory, EPROM memory, EEPROM memory, registers, hard disk, a removable disk, a CD-ROM, a DVD, or any other form of storage medium known in the art”].
a computing system configured to execute the available applications stored in the memory system, wherein each of the available applications corresponds to a function performed via the medical device [(e.g. see Kiani paragraphs 0016, 0048, 0053 and Fig. 3 numerals 303, 305, 307, 309) ” The steps of a method or algorithm described in connection with the embodiments disclosed herein can be embodied directly in hardware, in a software module executed by a processor, or in a combination of the two … the native software operates the backend and low level operational and processing features of a monitoring device … displays the software native to the patient care device … FIG. 3 illustrates an embodiment of a pulse oximeter 301. The pulse oximeter 301 includes a display screen 302 which displays various parameters 303 and 307 along with parameter trends 305 and 309”].
an applications management module executable by the computing system to add an additional application to the available applications stored in the memory system, wherein subsequent execution of the additional application by the computing system causes the medical device to perform the function corresponding thereto [(e.g. see Kiani paragraphs 0016, 0023) ”The decision to use or purchase third party software can be implemented in a home screen on the patient care device. The home screen can provide the user with the option of which preinstalled software the care giver wishes to use as well as the associated pricing. In an embodiment, the patient care device can link to a virtual store (such as the virtual store shown in FIG. 4) accessible via a network 15, such as the Internet or a private hospital network that will allow the care giver to purchase and download desired software onto the device … The third party proprietary software can also simply be an add-on to the existing device software. In an embodiment, the third party software is simply front end software, used to configure the display and possibly calculate higher level measurements, whereas the native software operates the backend and low level operational and processing features of a monitoring device”].
a display device configured to display the available applications stored in the memory system that are available for execution [(e.g. see Kiani paragraphs 0022, 0048 and Fig. 3) ”a care giver can choose to run a third party proprietary software application on the monitoring device. In this way, each different care provider can use the same hardware device to pick and choose which software to run. In an embodiment, the application is run on only a portion of the screen so that the rest of the screen is unobstructed and displays the software native to the patient care device. Alternatively a second, third, fourth, etc. application can also be displayed and run simultaneously. In this way, a care provider can use the hardware device and processing developed by one company, but can choose the display and information configuration of another company based on the care giver's preferences … proprietary parameters can be included using third party proprietary software as described above”].
As for dependent claim 6, Kiani discloses the device as described in claim 1 and Kiani further discloses:
wherein one of the available applications is configured to generate a notification for a user, and wherein the applications management module is configured to display a notification indication on the display device indicating when the notification is generated by the one of the available applications [(e.g. see Kiani paragraphs 0014, 0032) ”displaying information about the data on a visual or other display, producing alerts or warnings on the device … allow third party proprietary software to operate on any medical monitoring device. This allows a medical professional to pick and choose a monitoring device based on core functionality without compromising on desired third party proprietary parameters or display and alarm settings”].
As for dependent claim 9, Kiani discloses the device as described in claim 6 and Kiani further discloses:
wherein the notification is an alarm [(e.g. see Kiani paragraph 0038) ”generates alarms, otherwise known as faults, failures, or alerts, in response to physiological parameters exceeding certain safe thresholds”].
As for dependent claim 10, Kiani discloses the device as described in claim 1 and Kiani further discloses:
wherein the medical device is a monitoring device configured to measure physiological data from the patient [(e.g. see Kiani paragraph 0015) ”a patient monitor 10 connected to a sensor 5 for receiving signals indicative of a physiological condition of a patient. The monitor can include a processor running software configured to process and/or analyze the signal to determine the physiological condition of the patient”].
As for dependent claim 11, Kiani discloses the device as described in claim 1 and Kiani further discloses:
wherein the applications management module is configured to download the additional application to the memory system of the medical device via a pool of applications stored in a remote database separate from the medical device [(e.g. see Kiani paragraph 0023) ”the patient care device can link to a virtual store (such as the virtual store shown in FIG. 4) accessible via a network 15, such as the Internet or a private hospital network that will allow the care giver to purchase and download desired software onto the device”].
As for dependent claim 13, Kiani discloses the device as described in claim 1 and Kiani further discloses:
wherein the applications management module is further configured to measure a usage of the additional application [(e.g. see Kiani paragraph 0023) ”a hospital may purchase the hardware separate from the software. In an embodiment, the software can be purchased on a per use or per patient basis. In this way, a hospital will not be charged significant upfront costs for various different software packages that are desired by individual care givers. The decision to use or purchase third party software can be implemented in a home screen on the patient care device”].
As for dependent claim 14, Kiani discloses the device as described in claim 13 and Kiani further discloses:
wherein the applications management module is configured to communicate the usage measured for the additional application to the remote database [(e.g. see Kiani paragraph 0023) ”a hospital may purchase the hardware separate from the software. In an embodiment, the software can be purchased on a per use or per patient basis. In this way, a hospital will not be charged significant upfront costs for various different software packages that are desired by individual care givers. The decision to use or purchase third party software can be implemented in a home screen on the patient care device … the patient care device can link to a virtual store (such as the virtual store shown in FIG. 4) accessible via a network 15, such as the Internet or a private hospital network that will allow the care giver to purchase and download desired software onto the device”].
As for independent claim 15, Kiani discloses a method. Claim 15 discloses substantially the same limitations as claim 1. Therefore, it is rejected with the same rational as claim 1.
As for dependent claim 18, Kiani discloses the method as described in claim 15; further, claim 18 discloses substantially the same limitations as claim 6. Therefore, it is rejected with the same rational as claim 6.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 2-5, 12, 16, 17, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kiani (US 2017/0147774 A1) in view of Melika et al. (US 2014/0236846 A1).
As for dependent claim 2, Kiani teaches the device as described in claim 1, but does not specifically teach wherein the applications management module is further executable to remove a removable application from the available applications stored in the memory system. However, in the same field of invention or solving similar problems, Melika teaches:
wherein the applications management module is further executable to remove a removable application from the available applications stored in the memory system [(e.g. see Melika paragraph 0055) ”the app download control module 515 can initiate automatic removal of previously downloaded applications from the client device or can disable the previously downloaded applications in response to the subscription status being invalid”].
Therefore, considering the teachings of Kiani and Melika, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add wherein the applications management module is further executable to remove a removable application from the available applications stored in the memory system, as taught by Melika, to the teachings of Kiani because it improves the monetization of applications in a market (e.g. see Melika paragraph 0014).
As for dependent claim 3, Kiani and Melika teach the device as described in claim 2, but Kiani does not specifically teach the following limitation. However, Melika teaches:
wherein the removable application was previously added as the additional application, and wherein the applications management module automatically removes the removable application after a predefined period after the removable application was added to the available applications in the memory system [(e.g. see Melika paragraphs 0029, 0054, 0055, 0056) ”The app manager 510 can also track and aggregate statistics relating to apps such as the … date/time each app is downloaded … the app download control module 515 can initiate automatic removal of previously downloaded applications from the client device or can disable the previously downloaded applications in response to the subscription status being invalid … the app license verification module 520 can also determine and provide other licensing information such as a license validity period associated with duration of the access right or license expiration date … can be used for a limited period of time”].
The motivation to combine is the same as that used for claim 2.
As for dependent claim 4, Kiani and Melika teach the device as described in claim 2, but Kiani does not specifically teach the following limitation. However, Melika teaches:
wherein the applications management module is configured such that the additional application is non-executable after a period of time [(e.g. see Melika paragraphs 0029, 0055, 0056) ”the app download control module 515 can initiate automatic removal of previously downloaded applications from the client device or can disable the previously downloaded applications in response to the subscription status being invalid … the app license verification module 520 can also determine and provide other licensing information such as a license validity period associated with duration of the access right or license expiration date … can be used for a limited period of time”].
The motivation to combine is the same as that used for claim 2.
As for dependent claim 5, Kiani and Melika teach the device as described in claim 4, but Kiani does not specifically teach the following limitation. However, Melika teaches:
wherein the applications management module is configured such that the predefined period is adjustable [(e.g. see Melika paragraph 0025) ”the disclosed platform for providing subscription service can provide one or more subscription plans that customers can choose from and enroll. Each subscription plan can be characterized by features such as price (e.g., per subscription period which can be month, six months, year, etc.)”].
The motivation to combine is the same as that used for claim 2.
As for dependent claim 12, Kiani teaches the device as described in claim 11, but does not specifically teach the following limitation. However, Melika teaches:
wherein the applications management module is configured such that the available applications stored in the memory system are executable without access to the remote database [(e.g. see Melika paragraph 0032) ”if the app is launched while the mobile device 110 is offline, the app can manage itself as instructed until the app can contact the server 210 to refresh the license status of the app (e.g., the app can launch with only features x, y and z enabled or the app can remains operational”].
The motivation to combine is the same as that used for claim 2.
As for dependent claim 16, Kiani teaches the method as described in claim 15; further, claim 16 discloses substantially the same limitations as claims 2 and 3. Therefore, it is rejected with the same rational as claims 2 and 3.
As for dependent claim 17, Kiani teaches the method as described in claim 15; further, claim 17 discloses substantially the same limitations as claim 4. Therefore, it is rejected with the same rational as claim 4.
As for dependent claim 19, Kiani teaches the method as described in claim 15; further, claim 19 discloses substantially the same limitations as claims 11 and 12. Therefore, it is rejected with the same rational as claims 11 and 12.
As for independent claim 20, Kiani teaches a device comprising:
a memory system configured to store available applications [(e.g. see Kiani paragraphs 0018, 0053) ”native software on the monitoring device … The steps of a method or algorithm described in connection with the embodiments disclosed herein can be embodied directly in hardware, in a software module executed by a processor, or in a combination of the two. A software module can reside in RAM memory, flash memory, ROM memory, EPROM memory, EEPROM memory, registers, hard disk, a removable disk, a CD-ROM, a DVD, or any other form of storage medium known in the art”].
a computing system configured to execute the available applications stored in the memory system, wherein each of the available applications corresponds to a function performed via the medical device [(e.g. see Kiani paragraphs 0016, 0048, 0053 and Fig. 3 numerals 303, 305, 307, 309) ” The steps of a method or algorithm described in connection with the embodiments disclosed herein can be embodied directly in hardware, in a software module executed by a processor, or in a combination of the two … the native software operates the backend and low level operational and processing features of a monitoring device … displays the software native to the patient care device … FIG. 3 illustrates an embodiment of a pulse oximeter 301. The pulse oximeter 301 includes a display screen 302 which displays various parameters 303 and 307 along with parameter trends 305 and 309”].
an applications management module executable by the computing system to download an additional application from a remote database to the available applications stored in the memory system, wherein subsequent execution of the additional application by the computing system causes the medical device to perform the function corresponding thereto [(e.g. see Kiani paragraphs 0016, 0023) ”The decision to use or purchase third party software can be implemented in a home screen on the patient care device. The home screen can provide the user with the option of which preinstalled software the care giver wishes to use as well as the associated pricing. In an embodiment, the patient care device can link to a virtual store (such as the virtual store shown in FIG. 4) accessible via a network 15, such as the Internet or a private hospital network that will allow the care giver to purchase and download desired software onto the device … The third party proprietary software can also simply be an add-on to the existing device software. In an embodiment, the third party software is simply front end software, used to configure the display and possibly calculate higher level measurements, whereas the native software operates the backend and low level operational and processing features of a monitoring device”].
a display device configured to display the available applications stored in the memory system that are available for execution [(e.g. see Kiani paragraphs 0022, 0048 and Fig. 3) ”a care giver can choose to run a third party proprietary software application on the monitoring device. In this way, each different care provider can use the same hardware device to pick and choose which software to run. In an embodiment, the application is run on only a portion of the screen so that the rest of the screen is unobstructed and displays the software native to the patient care device. Alternatively a second, third, fourth, etc. application can also be displayed and run simultaneously. In this way, a care provider can use the hardware device and processing developed by one company, but can choose the display and information configuration of another company based on the care giver's preferences … proprietary parameters can be included using third party proprietary software as described above”].
wherein the applications management module is configured to display a notification indication on the display device indicating when the notification is generated by the one of the available applications [(e.g. see Kiani paragraphs 0014, 0032) ”displaying information about the data on a visual or other display, producing alerts or warnings on the device … allow third party proprietary software to operate on any medical monitoring device. This allows a medical professional to pick and choose a monitoring device based on core functionality without compromising on desired third party proprietary parameters or display and alarm settings”].
Kiani does not specifically teach wherein the management module is configured such that the available applications stored in the memory system are executable without access to the remote database or wherein the applications management module is configured such that the additional application is non-executable a predefined period after being downloaded. However, in the same field of invention or solving similar problems, Melika teaches:
wherein the management module is configured such that the available applications stored in the memory system are executable without access to the remote database [(e.g. see Melika paragraph 0032) ”if the app is launched while the mobile device 110 is offline, the app can manage itself as instructed until the app can contact the server 210 to refresh the license status of the app (e.g., the app can launch with only features x, y and z enabled or the app can remains operational”].
wherein the applications management module is configured such that the additional application is non-executable a predefined period after being downloaded [(e.g. see Melika paragraphs 0029, 0055, 0056) ”the app download control module 515 can initiate automatic removal of previously downloaded applications from the client device or can disable the previously downloaded applications in response to the subscription status being invalid … the app license verification module 520 can also determine and provide other licensing information such as a license validity period associated with duration of the access right or license expiration date … can be used for a limited period of time”].
Therefore, considering the teachings of Kiani and Melika, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add wherein the management module is configured such that the available applications stored in the memory system are executable without access to the remote database and wherein the applications management module is configured such that the additional application is non-executable a predefined period after being downloaded, as taught by Melika, to the teachings of Kiani because it improves the monetization of applications in a market (e.g. see Melika paragraph 0014).
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kiani (US 2017/0147774 A1) in view of Hyun et al. (US 2018/0356954 A1).
As for dependent claim 7, Kiani teaches the device as described in claim 6, but does not specifically teach wherein the notification generated by the one of the available applications is one of a plurality of notifications, and wherein the notification indication includes a number of the plurality of notifications generated. However, in the same field of invention or solving similar problems, Hyun teaches:
wherein the notification generated by the one of the available applications is one of a plurality of notifications, and wherein the notification indication includes a number of the plurality of notifications generated [(e.g. see Hyun paragraphs 0023, 0136, 0137and Fig. 3A) ” a user interface managing notification information of an event that occurs … As illustrated in (a) of FIG. 3A, when an event occurs in at least one application included in the folder, the controller 180 can output an icon indicating occurrence of the event on a folder icon 310 in an overlapping manner … The badge icon 320 represents the number of events which have occurred in the folder. That is, when two events occur in a first application and one event occurs in a second application, the badge icon can represent 3 as the number of events”].
Therefore, considering the teachings of Kiani and Hyun, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add wherein the notification generated by the one of the available applications is one of a plurality of notifications, and wherein the notification indication includes a number of the plurality of notifications generated, as taught by Hyun, to the teachings of Kiani because it allows the user to quickly read notification information and avoids the user missing essential notification information (e.g. see Hyun paragraphs 0006, 0008).
As for dependent claim 8, Kiani teach the device as described in claim 6, but does not specifically teach the following limitation. However, Hyun teaches:
wherein the notification indication is selectable to display the notification generated by the one of the available applications, and wherein selecting the notification indication to display the notification causes the applications management module to discontinue displaying the notification indication [(e.g. see Hyun paragraphs 0142, 0143, 0152 and Fig. 3A) ”As illustrated in (b) of FIG. 3A, when the first touch input is applied, and when events have occurred in different applications, the controller 180 can output a list 330 including summary information of each application. Through this, the user can check the applications in which events have occurred … When the summary information is output, and when a second touch input following the first touch input is applied, the controller 180 can output a notification window 340 including detailed information of the event which has occurred in at least one application … Referring to (d) of FIG. 3A, when the event is set to the read state, the controller 180 can stop displaying the badge icon 320 indicating occurrence of the event”].
The motivation to combine is the same as that used for claim 7.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. PGPub 2017/0147192 A1 issued to Keegan et al. on 25 May 2017. The subject matter disclosed therein is pertinent to that of claims 1-20 (e.g. user installed applications on a patient monitoring device).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER J FIBBI whose telephone number is (571)-270-3358. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday (8am-6pm).
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, William Bashore can be reached at (571)-272-4088. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER J FIBBI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2174