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 .
Response to Amendment
This office action is written in response to an amendment filed on 11/24/2025. As directed by amendment: Claims 1-15 were amended. No new claims were added and no claims were cancelled. Thus, Claims 1-15 are presently pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claims 1-15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Interpretation
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.
Claims 10 and 14-15 are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because it/they use(s) the term “configured to” with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function.
Regarding Claim 10, “means for temporarily activating a pairing mode of the implant to facilitate receiving and/or transmitting data from/to the remote communication system via the local communication system”. Corresponding structure is shown in the PGPUB (US 20250023728) of the application, par 46. However, there is no corresponding algorithm for temporarily activating a pairing mode of the implant to facilitate receiving and/or transmitting data from/to the remote communication system via the local communication system.
“means for receiving a user input indicative of first data to be transmitted to the implant”. Corresponding structure is shown in the PGPUB (US 20250023728) of the application, Fig. 1A, elements {100, 200, 300}, par 62-69; par 72; par 82. “Receiving” is viewed as a coextensive function and therefore no algorithm is required.
“means for transmitting a first indication associated with the user input to the remote communication system for processing, prior to sending the first data to the implant”. Corresponding structure is shown in the PGPUB (US 20250023728) of the application, Fig. 1A, elements {100, 200, 300}, par 62-69; par 72; par 82. “Transmitting” is viewed as a coextensive function and therefore no algorithm is required.
“means for receiving second data from the implant; means for transmitting, without accessing the second data, a second indication associated with the second data to the remote communication system for processing”. Corresponding structure is shown in the PGPUB (US 20250023728) of the application, Fig. 1A, elements {100, 200, 300}, par 62-69; par 72; par 82. “Receiving” is viewed as a coextensive function and therefore no algorithm is required.
Regarding Claim 14, “means for temporarily activating a pairing mode of an implant to facilitate receiving and/or transmitting data from/to the remote communication system via the local communication system”. Corresponding structure is shown in the PGPUB (US 20250023728) of the application, par 46. However, there is no corresponding algorithm for temporarily activating a pairing mode of an implant to facilitate receiving and/or transmitting data from/to the remote communication system via the local communication system.
“means for receiving, from the local communication system, a first indication indicative of a user input associated with first data to be transmitted toy an implant”. Corresponding structure is shown in the PGPUB (US 20250023728) of the application, Fig. 1A, elements {100, 200, 300}, par 62-69; par 72; par 82. “Receiving” is viewed as a coextensive function and therefore no algorithm is required.
“means for sending a first response to the local communication system based at least in part on the first indication and stored data associated with the implant”. Corresponding structure is shown in the PGPUB (US 20250023728) of the application, Fig. 1A, elements {100, 200, 300}, par 62-69; par 72; par 82. “Sending” is viewed as a coextensive function and therefore no algorithm is required.
“means for receiving, from the local communication system, a second indication associated with second data that was received by the local communication system from an implant”. Corresponding structure is shown in the PGPUB (US 20250023728) of the application, Fig. 1A, elements {100, 200, 300}, par 62-69; par 72; par 82. “Receiving” is viewed as a coextensive function and therefore no algorithm is required.
“means for sending a second response to the local communication system based at least in part on the second indication and stored data associated with the implant”. Corresponding structure is shown in the PGPUB (US 20250023728) of the application, Fig. 1A, elements {100, 200, 300}, par 62-69; par 72; par 82. “Sending” is viewed as a coextensive function and therefore no algorithm is required.
Regarding Claim 15, “an implant comprising means for temporarily activating a pairing mode of the implant for facilitating receiving and/or transmitting data from/to the remote communication system via the local communication system”. Corresponding structure is shown in the PGPUB (US 20250023728) of the application, par 46. However, there is no corresponding algorithm for temporarily activating a pairing mode of the implant for facilitating receiving and/or transmitting data from/to the remote communication system via the local communication system.
“means for receiving, from the local communication system, a first indication indicative of a user input associated with first data to be transmitted to the implant”. Corresponding structure is shown in the PGPUB (US 20250023728) of the application, Fig. 1A, elements {100, 200, 300}, par 62-69; par 72; par 82. “Receiving” is viewed as a coextensive function and therefore no algorithm is required.
“means for sending a first response to the local communication system based at least in part on the first indication and stored data associated with the implant”. Corresponding structure is shown in the PGPUB (US 20250023728) of the application, Fig. 1A, elements {100, 200, 300}, par 62-69; par 72; par 82. “Sending” is viewed as a coextensive function and therefore no algorithm is required.
“means for receiving, from the local communication system, a second indication associated with second data that was received by the local communication system from the implant”. Corresponding structure is shown in the PGPUB (US 20250023728) of the application, Fig. 1A, elements {100, 200, 300}, par 62-69; par 72; par 82. “Receiving” is viewed as a coextensive function and therefore no algorithm is required.
“means for sending a second response to the local communication system based at least in part on the second indication and stored data associated with the implant”. Corresponding structure is shown in the PGPUB (US 20250023728) of the application, Fig. 1A, elements {100, 200, 300}, par 62-69; par 72; par 82. “Sending” is viewed as a coextensive function and therefore no algorithm is required.
“means for receiving a user input indicative of first data to be transmitted to the implant”. Corresponding structure is shown in the PGPUB (US 20250023728) of the application, Fig. 1A, elements {100, 200, 300}, par 62-69; par 72; par 82. “Receiving” is viewed as a coextensive function and therefore no algorithm is required.
“means for transmitting a first indication associated with the user input to the remote communication system for processing, prior to sending the first data to the implant”. Corresponding structure is shown in the PGPUB (US 20250023728) of the application, Fig. 1A, elements {100, 200, 300}, par 62-69; par 72; par 82. “Transmitting” is viewed as a coextensive function and therefore no algorithm is required.
“means for receiving second data from the implant”. Corresponding structure is shown in the PGPUB (US 20250023728) of the application, Fig. 1A, elements {100, 200, 300}, par 62-69; par 72; par 82. “Receiving” is viewed as a coextensive function and therefore no algorithm is required.
“means for transmitting, without accessing the second data, a second indication associated with the second data to the remote communication system for processing”. Corresponding structure is shown in the PGPUB (US 20250023728) of the application, Fig. 1A, elements {100, 200, 300}, par 62-69; par 72; par 82. “Transmitting” is viewed as a coextensive function and therefore no algorithm is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
For a computer-implemented 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim limitation, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function, or else the claim is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) (b). See Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. Verisign. Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2008). See also In re Aoyama, 656 F.3d 1293, 1297, 99 USPQ2d 1936, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("[W]hen the disclosed structure is a computer programmed to carry out an algorithm, ‘the disclosed structure is not the general purpose computer, but rather that special purpose computer programmed to perform the disclosed algorithm.’") (quoting WMS Gaming, Inc. v. Int’l Game Tech., 184 F.3d 1339, 1349, 51 USPQ2d 1385, 1391 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).
In cases involving a special purpose computer-implemented means-plus-function limitation, the Federal Circuit has consistently required that the structure be more than simply a general purpose computer or microprocessor and that the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed function. See, e.g., Noah Systems Inc. v. Intuit Inc., 675 F.3d 1302, 1312, 102 USPQ2d 1410, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1333, 86 USPQ2d at 1239.
For a computer-implemented means-plus-function claim limitation invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) the Federal Circuit has stated that "a microprocessor can serve as structure for a computer-implemented function only where the claimed function is ‘coextensive’ with a microprocessor itself." EON Corp. IP Holdings LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 785 F.3d 616, 622, citing In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2011). "‘It is only in the rare circumstances where any general-purpose computer without any special programming can perform the function that an algorithm need not be disclosed.’" EON Corp., 785 F.3d at 621, quoting Ergo Licensing, LLC v. CareFusion 303, Inc., 673 F.3d 1361, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012). "‘[S]pecial programming’ includes any functionality that is not ‘coextensive’ with a microprocessor or general purpose computer." EON Corp., 785 F.3d at 623 (citations omitted). "Examples of such coextensive functions are ‘receiving’ data, ‘storing’ data, and ‘processing’ data—the only three functions on which the Katz court vacated the district court’s decision and remanded for the district court to determine whether disclosure of a microprocessor was sufficient." Id. at 622. Thus, "[a] microprocessor or general purpose computer lends sufficient structure only to basic functions of a microprocessor. All other computer-implemented functions require disclosure of an algorithm."
Claims 10 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 10, Claim 10 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
There is no corresponding algorithm for temporarily activating a pairing mode of the implant to facilitate receiving and/or transmitting data from/to the remote communication system via the local communication system.
Regarding Claim 14, Claim 14 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
There is no corresponding algorithm for temporarily activating a pairing mode of an implant to facilitate receiving and/or transmitting data from/to the remote communication system via the local communication system.
Regarding Claim 15, Claim 15 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
There is no corresponding algorithm for temporarily activating a pairing mode of the implant for facilitating receiving and/or transmitting data from/to the remote communication system via the local communication system.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Claims 1-3, 5-11, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masoud et al (“Masoud”, US 20160330573, included in the IDS filed 5/15/2024) in view of Zellmer et al (“Zellmer”, US 20170157407).
Regarding Claim 1, Masoud teaches a method for communication, by a local communication system, with an implant and with a remote communication system, comprising:
receiving a user input indicative of first data to be transmitted to the implant, transmitting a first indication associated with the user input to the remote communication system for processing, prior to sending the first data to the implant (Fig. 8A, elements {100, 200, 300, 400}, par 71-73; The implant is the sensor device 100. The local communication system is the portable device 200. The remote communication system is the remote server 300. The user input is the user credentials entered at step 6. The first indication is the user credentials. The first data is the connection question at step 8.);
and/or receiving second data from the implant, without accessing the second data, transmitting a second indication associated with the second data to the remote communication system for processing (Fig. 8B, elements {100, 200, 300}, par 74-76; The second data is the double encrypted sensor data. The second indication is the single encrypted sensor data. The remote communication system is the remote server 300.).
Masoud does not explicitly teach temporarily activating a pairing mode of the implant for facilitating receiving and/or transmitting data from/to the remote communication system via the local communication system.
Zellmer teaches temporarily activating a pairing mode of the implant for facilitating receiving and/or transmitting data from/to the remote communication system via the local communication system (par 79).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Masoud with the temporary pairing of Zellmer because it allows for connections to be closed when not in use, so that unwanted users do not access the communication channel, thereby improving security.
Regarding Claim 2, Masoud and Zellmer teach the method of claim 1.
Masoud teaches further comprising receiving a first response from the remote communication system to the first indication (Fig. 8A, elements {100, 200, 300, 400}, par 71-73; The implant is the sensor device 100. The local communication system is the portable device 200. The remote communication system is the remote server 300. The user input is the user credentials entered at step 6. The first indication is the user credentials. The first data is the connection question at step 8. The first response is the connection secret at step 4.).
Regarding Claim 3, Masoud and Zellmer teach the method of claim 2.
Masoud teaches further comprising sending the first data to the implant upon receiving the first response (Fig. 8A, elements {100, 200, 300, 400}, par 71-73; The implant is the sensor device 100. The local communication system is the portable device 200. The remote communication system is the remote server 300. The user input is the user credentials entered at step 6. The first indication is the user credentials. The first data is the connection question at step 8. The first response is the connection secret at step 4.).
Regarding Claim 5, Masoud and Zellmer teach the method of claim 1.
Masoud further teaches wherein the receiving the second data includes receiving the second data in an encrypted manner (Fig. 8B, elements {100, 200, 300}, par 74-76; The second data is the double encrypted sensor data. The second indication is the single encrypted sensor data. The remote communication system is the remote server 300.).
Regarding Claim 6, Masoud and Zellmer teach the method of claim 1.
Masoud teaches further comprising receiving a second response from the remote communication system upon the second indication (Fig. 8B, elements {100, 200, 300}, par 74-76; The local communication system is the portable device 200. The second data is the double encrypted sensor data. The second indication is the single encrypted sensor data. The second response is the processed/decrypted data.).
Regarding Claim 7, Masoud and Zellmer teach the method of claim 6.
Masoud further teaches wherein the second response includes the second data in a decrypted manner (Fig. 8B, elements {100, 200, 300}, par 74-76; The local communication system is the portable device 200. The second data is the double encrypted sensor data. The second indication is the single encrypted sensor data. The second response is the processed/decrypted data.).
Regarding Claim 8, Masoud and Zellmer teach the method of claim 6.
Masoud teaches further comprising providing a display based on the second response (Fig. 8B, elements {100, 200, 300}, par 75; The local communication system is the portable device 200. The second data is the double encrypted sensor data. The second indication is the single encrypted sensor data. The second response is the processed/decrypted data.).
Regarding Claim 9, Masoud and Zellmer teach the method of claim 1.
Masoud further teaches wherein communication between the local communication system and the remote communication system is encrypted (Fig. 8B, elements {100, 200, 300}, par 74-76; The implant is the sensor device 100. The local communication system is the portable device 200. The remote communication system is the remote server 300.).
Regarding Claim 10, Claim 10 is rejected with the same reasoning as Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 11, Masoud teaches a method for communication, by a remote communication system, with a local communication system, the method comprising:
receiving, from the local communication system, a first indication indicative of a user input associated with first data to be transmitted to the implant (Fig. 8A, elements {100, 200, 300, 400}, par 71-73; The implant is the sensor device 100. The local communication system is the portable device 200. The remote communication system is the remote server 300. The user input is the user credentials entered at step 6. The first indication is the user credentials. The first data is the connection question at step 8.),
sending a first response to the local communication system based at least in part on the first indication and stored data associated with the implant (Fig. 8A, elements {100, 200, 300, 400}, par 71-73; The implant is the sensor device 100. The local communication system is the portable device 200. The remote communication system is the remote server 300. The user input is the user credentials entered at step 6. The first indication is the user credentials. The first data is the connection question at step 8. The first response is the connection secret at step 4.);
and/or receiving, from the local communication system, a second indication associated with second data that was received by the local communication system from an implant (Fig. 8B, elements {100, 200, 300}, par 74-76; The second data is the double encrypted sensor data. The second indication is the single encrypted sensor data.);
sending a second response to the local communication system based at least in part on the second indication and stored data associated with the implant (Fig. 8B, elements {100, 200, 300}, par 74-76; The local communication system is the portable device 200. The second data is the double encrypted sensor data. The second indication is the single encrypted sensor data. The second response is the processed/decrypted data.).
Masoud does not explicitly teach temporarily activating a pairing mode of the implant for facilitating receiving and/or transmitting data from/to the remote communication system via the local communication system.
Zellmer teaches temporarily activating a pairing mode of the implant for facilitating receiving and/or transmitting data from/to the remote communication system via the local communication system (par 79).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Masoud with the temporary pairing of Zellmer because it allows for connections to be closed when not in use, so that unwanted users do not access the communication channel, thereby improving security.
Regarding Claim 14, Claim 14 is rejected with the same reasoning as Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 15, Masoud teaches a system for communicating with an implant, comprising at least two of the following:
a remote communication system for communication with a local communication system, the remote communication system comprising (Fig. 8A, elements {100, 200, 300, 400}, par 71-73; The implant is the sensor device 100. The local communication system is the portable device 200. The remote communication system is the remote server 300.):
means for receiving, from the local communication system, a first indication indicative of a user input associated with first data to be transmitted to the implant (Fig. 8A, elements {100, 200, 300, 400}, par 71-73; The implant is the sensor device 100. The local communication system is the portable device 200. The remote communication system is the remote server 300. The user input is the user credentials entered at step 6. The first indication is the user credentials. The first data is the connection question at step 8.);
means for sending a first response to the local communication system based at least in part on the first indication and stored data associated with the implant (Fig. 8A, elements {100, 200, 300, 400}, par 71-73; The implant is the sensor device 100. The local communication system is the portable device 200. The remote communication system is the remote server 300. The user input is the user credentials entered at step 6. The first indication is the user credentials. The first data is the connection question at step 8. The first response is the connection secret at step 4.);
and/or means for receiving, from the local communication system, a second indication associated with second data that was received by the local communication system from the implant (Fig. 8B, elements {100, 200, 300}, par 74-76; The second data is the double encrypted sensor data. The second indication is the single encrypted sensor data.);
means for sending a second response to the local communication system based at least in part on the second indication and stored data associated with the implant (Fig. 8B, elements {100, 200, 300}, par 74-76; The local communication system is the portable device 200. The second data is the double encrypted sensor data. The second indication is the single encrypted sensor data. The second response is the processed/decrypted data.);
and the local communication system for communication with the implant and with the remote communication system, comprising: means for receiving a user input indicative of first data to be transmitted to the implant; means for transmitting a first indication associated with the user input to the remote communication system for processing, prior to sending the first data to the implant (Fig. 8A, elements {100, 200, 300, 400}, par 71-73; The implant is the sensor device 100. The local communication system is the portable device 200. The remote communication system is the remote server 300. The user input is the user credentials entered at step 6. The first indication is the user credentials. The first data is the connection question at step 8.);
and/or means for receiving second data from the implant (Fig. 8B, elements {100, 200, 300}, par 74-76; The second data is the double encrypted sensor data. The second indication is the single encrypted sensor data.);
means for transmitting, without accessing the second data, a second indication associated with the second data to the remote communication system for processing (Fig. 8B, elements {100, 200, 300}, par 74-76; The second data is the double encrypted sensor data. The second indication is the single encrypted sensor data. The remote communication system is the remote server 300.).
Masoud does not explicitly teach an implant comprising means for temporarily activating a pairing mode of the implant for facilitating receiving and/or transmitting data from/to the remote communication system via the local communication system.
Zellmer teaches implant comprising means for temporarily activating a pairing mode of the implant for facilitating receiving and/or transmitting data from/to the remote communication system via the local communication system (par 79).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Masoud with the temporary pairing of Zellmer because it allows for connections to be closed when not in use, so that unwanted users do not access the communication channel, thereby improving security.
Claims 4 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masoud and Zellmer in view of Graafstra et al (“Graafstra”, US 20190386987).
Regarding Claim 4, Masoud and Zellmer teach the method of claim 2.
Masoud does not explicitly teach wherein the first response includes the first data in an encrypted manner.
Graafstra teaches wherein the first response includes the first data in an encrypted manner (par 16; par 54).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Masoud and Zellmer with the encryption of Graafstra because it provides easy, secure, and effective transfer of critical data in a frictionless, management-free, and cryptographically-secure manner (Graafstra; par 65).
Regarding Claim 12, Masoud and Zellmer teach the method according to claim 11.
Masoud does not explicitly teach wherein the first response comprises the first data.
Graafstra teaches wherein the first response comprises the first data (par 16; par 54).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Masoud and Zellmer with the encryption of Graafstra because it provides easy, secure, and effective transfer of critical data in a frictionless, management-free, and cryptographically-secure manner (Graafstra; par 65).
Regarding Claim 13, Masoud, Zellmer, and Graafstra teach the method according to claim 12.
Masoud does not explicitly teach wherein the first data is encrypted.
Graafstra teaches wherein the first data is encrypted (par 16; par 54).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Masoud and Zellmer with the encryption of Graafstra because it provides easy, secure, and effective transfer of critical data in a frictionless, management-free, and cryptographically-secure manner (Graafstra; par 65).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Kawamura et al (US 20100220857), Abstract - A secret key registration system which registers a secret key in a portable key device and vehicle. A first transformation equation is stored in a writer and the vehicle. A second transformation equation is stored in the portable key device and the vehicle. The writer transmits a registration code to the portable key device and generates intermediate data with the first transformation equation of the writer. The intermediate data is transmitted to the portable key device, which generates the secret key from the intermediate data with the second transformation equation. The portable key device transmits the registration code to the vehicle. The vehicle generates intermediate data from the registration code with the first transformation equation of the vehicle, and then generates the secret key from the intermediate data with the second transformation equation.
Chen et al (US 20160065544), Abstract - The claimed subject matter provides systems and/or methods that effectuate a simple protocol for tangible security on mobile devices. The system can include devices that generate sets of keys and associated secret identifiers, employs the one or more keys to encrypt a secret and utilizes the identifiers and encryptions of the secret to populate a table associated with a security token device that is used in conjunction with a mobile device to release sensitive information persisted on the mobile device for user selected purposes.
Konrad et al (US 20110170692), Abstract - A method and system establishing cryptographic communications between a remote device and a medical device, with the medical device having less processing power than the remote device are disclosed. The method may comprise establishing unencrypted communication between the remote device and the medical device, generating an asymmetric key pair by the remote device comprising a public key and a private key, generating a key request message and sending of the key request message together with the public key to the medical device, generating a pre-master key and encryption of the pre-master key with the received public key by the medical device, generating a key response message and sending of the key response message together with the encrypted pre-master key from the medical device to the remote device, decrypting the encrypted pre-master key with the private key by the remote device, and deriving a master key as a symmetric key from the pre-master key.
Doerr et al (US 20090018598), Abstract - The invention comprises a system and a method for secure remote programming of an implant. For this purpose, a TAN list is generated on the part of the programming device and both stored in the implant (10) and also provided to a physician. The TAN list is preferably indexed and the implant predefines the index of a TAN in each case, which a physician must input to have a programming instruction executed by the implant.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAQIUL AMIN CHOUDHURY whose telephone number is (571)272-2482. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 AM - 5:30 PM.
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, John Follansbee can be reached at 571-272-3964. 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.
/RAQIUL A CHOUDHURY/Examiner, Art Unit 2444