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 .
DETAILED ACTION
The response filed 4/15/2026 was received and considered.
Claims 1, 3-9, 11-17 and 19-23 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not fully persuasive.
Applicant’s remarks (p. 9, regarding objections to the specification) are persuasive. The objections are withdrawn.
Applicant’s remarks (p. 9, regarding rejections under non-statutory double patenting) request reconsideration in view of the amendments. Any necessary changes will be reflected in the written rejections.
Applicant’s remarks (p. 10, regarding rejections under 35 U.S.C. §112(a)) are persuasive. The rejections are withdrawn.
Applicant’s remarks (pp. 11-12, regarding rejections under 35 U.S.C. §103) argue that Van Oorschot is silent regarding wherein the first private key corresponds one or more additional medical treatment machines. The Examiner agrees. However, Ulis teaches that it was known to protect data destined to target devices of a particular type using a private key common to the target devices of a particular type (¶60), enabling protected data to be accessible to replacement devices of the same type and reducing the chance of improper use of the data on devices of a different type (¶60). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Van Oorschot such that the first private key corresponds one or more additional medical treatment machines to enable the prescription to be utilizes by a user having access to any of a plurality of devices of a particular type, as taught by Ulis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 4-5, 7, 9, 12-13, 15, 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 6,370,249 B1 to Van Oorschot, in view of US 2011/0118809 A1 to Rossi et al. (Rossi) and US 2018/0129793 A1 to Ulis et al. (Ulis).
Regarding claim 1, Van Oorschot discloses receiving, from a data source (transmitting client, col. 4, lines 58-60) that is external to a machine (devices are connected via a computer network, col. 3, lines 62-66), (i) a digital file (recipient receives encrypted message, col. 4, lines 66-67) and (ii) a certificate associated with an issuer of the digital file (recipient obtains public key certificate of transmitting client, col. 5, lines 1-3), wherein the digital file is encrypted using a first public key (message is encrypted using recipient public key, col. 4, lines 54-59) and digitally signed by the issuer using an issuer (transmitting client) private key (transmitting client signs the message, col. 4, lines 58-59; signature is verified using transmitting client public key, col. 5, lines 5-7), and wherein the certificate (public key certificate of transmitting client) includes an issuer public key corresponding to the issuer (recipient client obtains a public key certificate of the transmitting client which is signed by a certification authority, where the public key of the transmitting client is included in the certificate, col. 5, lines 1-8); decrypting the digital prescription file using a first private key that corresponds to the first public key (recipient client uses its own private key to decrypt the message, col. 5, lines 8-10), wherein the first private key corresponds to the machine (recipient client uses its own private key to decrypt the message, col. 5, lines 8-10); determining that the issuer of the digital prescription file is an authorized issuer by verifying that the certificate is digitally signed by a trusted authority service (recipient client obtains a public key certificate of the transmitting client which is signed by a certification authority; using the trusted keys its stores locally, the recipient client can authenticate the signature of the certification authority, col. 5, lines 1-5); and verifying a digital signature on the digital file using the issuer public key in the certificate to confirm that the digital signature is signed by the authorized issuer (recipient client can use the public key of the transmitting party, which is contained in the public key certificate, to verify the signature of the transmitting client, col. 5, lines 6-8). Van Oorschot teaches the well-known concept of using public key infrastructure to ensure privacy and integrity of digital data, but does not teach that the recipient is a medical treatment machine and the digital file is a digital prescription file. However, Rossi teaches that it was known to receive, by a medical treatment machine, a digital prescription file (stimulating device receives data package including prescription, ¶7, p. 3) prescribed by an authorized subject (¶7, p. 2), the file including instructions for medical treatments (prescription is used to program stimulation/administration of treatment, ¶7, p. 3) used for programming the machine according to the prescription received (¶7, p. 3, where the stimulating device administers the treatment, ¶7, p. 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Van Oorschot such that the recipient client is a medical treatment machine and the digital file is a digital prescription file. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification to utilize the fundamental building blocks of public key infrastructure to achieve privacy and integrity in the transfer of a medical prescription file, as taught by Rossi. As modified, Van Oorschot is silent regarding wherein the first private key corresponds one or more additional medical treatment machines. However, Ulis teaches that it was known to protect data destined to target devices of a particular type using a private key common to the target devices of a particular type (¶60), enabling protected data to be accessible to replacement devices of the same type and reducing the chance of improper use of the data on devices of a different type (¶60)1. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Van Oorschot such that the first private key corresponds one or more additional medical treatment machines. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification to enable the prescription to be utilizes by a user having access to any of a plurality of devices of a particular type, as taught by Ulis.
Regarding claim 9, the claim is similar in scope to claim 1 and is therefore rejected using a similar rationale. Note that Van Oorschot discloses one or more processors (col. 8, line 66 – col. 9, line 8); and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the machine to perform operations (col. 8, line 66 – col. 9, line 8).
Regarding claim 17, the claim is similar in scope to claim 1 and is therefore rejected using a similar rationale. Note that Van Oorschot discloses a data storage (col. 8, line 66 – col. 9, line 8).
Regarding claims 4, 12 and 20, Van Oorschot, as modified, teaches wherein the certificate is stored on the medical treatment machine (recipient client obtains a public key certificate of the transmitting client which is signed by a certification authority, col. 5, lines 1-3).
Regarding claims 5 and 13, Van Oorschot, as modified, teaches wherein the certificate is received by the medical treatment machine in a manner that indicates that the trusted authority service is a trusted authorizer of prescription issuers (recipient client obtains a public key certificate of the transmitting client which is signed by a certification authority, col. 5, lines 1-3; Using the trusted keys its stores locally, the recipient client can authenticate the signature of the certification authority, col. 5, lines 3-5).
Regarding claims 7 and 15, Van Oorschot, as modified, teaches wherein the first private key is pre-loaded on the medical treatment machine (recipient client utilizes its own private key to decrypt the message (col. 5, lines 9-11; client devices have public/private key pairs at initialization, col. 9, lines 13-16).
Claims 3, 6, 11, 14 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Oorschot, Rossi and Ulis, as applied to claims 1, 9 and 17, in view of US 2003/0115456 A1 to Kapoor.
Regarding claims 3, 11 and 19, Van Oorschot, as modified, teaches determining that the trusted authority service (certification authority) is trusted to certify ownership of issuer public keys corresponding to the issuers (trusted public key of certification authority is stored in recipient client, col. 5, lines 3-5; as modified by Oishi, the CA issues anonymous public key certificates, indicating that the identity of the issuer (certificate holder) is verified (Oishi, p. 56, right column and p. 60, §3.1, ¶3)). Van Oorschot, as modified, teaches trust in the CA, which would indicate trust to verify identities of issuers, but does not explicitly teach the verification of identities of issuers. However, Kapoor teaches a PKI system, where it was known to implement policies for acquiring certificates, including requiring vetting a doctor’s identity and authorization to issue digitally signed prescriptions as part of certificate enrollment (¶66). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Van Oorschot to include determining that the trusted authority service is trusted to verify identities of issuers (certification authority has a policy for vetting physician prescription certificates). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification to ensure that a prescriber is authorized prior to receiving a certification, as taught by Kapoor.2
Regarding claims 6 and 14, Van Oorschot, as modified, teaches wherein the certificate is provided by the trusted authority service (recipient client obtains a public key certificate of the transmitting client which is signed by a certification authority; using the trusted keys its stores locally, the recipient client can authenticate the signature of the certification authority, col. 5, lines 1-5), but lacks after the trusted authority service verifies the identity of the issuer and certifies that the issuer is an authorized issuer. However, Kapoor teaches a PKI system, where it was known to implement policies for acquiring certificates, including requiring vetting a doctor’s identity and authorization to issue digitally signed prescriptions as part of certificate enrollment (¶66). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Van Oorschot such that the certificate is provided by the trusted authority service after the trusted authority service verifies the identity of the issuer and certifies that the issuer is an authorized issuer. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification to ensure that a prescriber is authorized prior to receiving a certification, as taught by Kapoor.
Claim 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Oorschot, Rossi and Ulis, as applied to claims 1 and 9, in view of US 2010/0010428 A1 to Yu et al. (Yu).
Regarding claims 8 and 16, Van Oorschot, as modified, teaches a medical treatment machine performing a medical treatment based on the digital prescription file (as modified by Ross ¶7, p. 2), but lacks performing a dialysis treatment based on the digital prescription file. However, Yu teaches that it was known to provide a remote dialysis machine (abstract) storing multiple prescriptions for the patient (¶10), the prescriptions loaded into the dialysis machine by a physician (¶67). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Van Oorschot such that the medical treatment machine performs a dialysis treatment based on the digital prescription file. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification to perform dialysis treatments, as taught by Yu.
Double Patenting
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 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 3-9 and 17, are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,623,188, in view of US 2018/0129793 A1 to Ulis et al. (Ulis), according to the provided correspondence table.
Claims 9, 11-17 and 19-23 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,623,188, in view of US 6,370,249 B1 to Van Oorschot and US 2018/0129793 A1 to Ulis et al. (Ulis), according to the provided correspondence table.
Claims 1 and 3-8 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,424,934, in view of US 2018/0129793 A1 to Ulis et al. (Ulis), according to the provided correspondence table.
Claims 9, 11-17 and 19-23 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,424,934, in view of US 6,370,249 B1 to Van Oorschot and US 2018/0129793 A1 to Ulis et al. (Ulis), according to the provided correspondence table.
Claims 1, 3-9 and 17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,101,414, in view of US 2018/0129793 A1 to Ulis et al. (Ulis) , according to the provided correspondence table.
Claims 9, 11-17 and 19-23 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,101,414, in view of US 6,370,249 B1 to Van Oorschot and US 2018/0129793 A1 to Ulis et al. (Ulis) , according to the provided correspondence table.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patent claims anticipate the corresponding instant claims. Further, a skilled artisan would have found removal of limitations from the patent claims to achieve the instant claims to be an obvious modification, for reasons of breadth. Additional substantive differences between the instant claims and the patented claims are discussed in the provided correspondence table.
18/816,648
10,623,188
11,424,934
12,101,414
1
1 - The patent claim lacks “wherein the first private key corresponds to the medical treatment machine and one or more additional medical treatment machines”. However, Ulis teaches that it was known to protect data destined to target devices of a particular type using a private key common to the target devices of a particular type (¶60), enabling protected data to be accessible to replacement devices of the same type and reducing the chance of improper use of the data on devices of a different type (¶60). In view of Ulis, a skilled artisan would have found it obvious to modify the invention described in the patent claim the first private key corresponds to the medical treatment machine and one or more additional medical treatment machines to gain the flexibility of machine replacement, as taught by Ulis.
1 – The patent claim lacks “wherein the first private key corresponds to the medical treatment machine and one or more additional medical treatment machines”. However, Ulis teaches that it was known to protect data destined to target devices of a particular type using a private key common to the target devices of a particular type (¶60), enabling protected data to be accessible to replacement devices of the same type and reducing the chance of improper use of the data on devices of a different type (¶60). In view of Ulis, a skilled artisan would have found it obvious to modify the invention described in the patent claim the first private key corresponds to the medical treatment machine and one or more additional medical treatment machines to gain the flexibility of machine replacement, as taught by Ulis.
1 - The patent claim lacks “wherein the first private key corresponds to the medical treatment machine and one or more additional medical treatment machines”. However, Ulis teaches that it was known to protect data destined to target devices of a particular type using a private key common to the target devices of a particular type (¶60), enabling protected data to be accessible to replacement devices of the same type and reducing the chance of improper use of the data on devices of a different type (¶60). In view of Ulis, a skilled artisan would have found it obvious to modify the invention described in the patent claim the first private key corresponds to the medical treatment machine and one or more additional medical treatment machines to gain the flexibility of machine replacement, as taught by Ulis.
3
9
8
8
4
10
9
9
5
11
10
10
6
12
11
11
7
2
2
2
8
5
1
17 – The instant claim is directed to a method, where the patent claim is directed to a medical system comprising a medical device performing operations. However, a skilled artisan would have found it obvious to perform the method executed by the claimed system. Therefore, the claimed invention would have been considered an obvious variation of the patent claim. The patent claim lacks “wherein the first private key corresponds to the medical treatment machine and one or more additional medical treatment machines”. However, Ulis teaches that it was known to protect data destined to target devices of a particular type using a private key common to the target devices of a particular type (¶60), enabling protected data to be accessible to replacement devices of the same type and reducing the chance of improper use of the data on devices of a different type (¶60). In view of Ulis, a skilled artisan would have found it obvious to modify the invention described in the patent claim the first private key corresponds to the medical treatment machine and one or more additional medical treatment machines to gain the flexibility of machine replacement, as taught by Ulis.
9
15 - The patent claim lacks “wherein the first private key corresponds to the medical treatment machine and one or more additional medical treatment machines”. However, Ulis teaches that it was known to protect data destined to target devices of a particular type using a private key common to the target devices of a particular type (¶60), enabling protected data to be accessible to replacement devices of the same type and reducing the chance of improper use of the data on devices of a different type (¶60). In view of Ulis, a skilled artisan would have found it obvious to modify the invention described in the patent claim the first private key corresponds to the medical treatment machine and one or more additional medical treatment machines to gain the flexibility of machine replacement, as taught by Ulis.
1 – The patent claim is directed to a method and thus lacks the medical treatment machine comprising: one or more processors; and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the medical treatment machine to perform operations. However, Van Oorschot teaches one or more processors (col. 8, line 66 – col. 9, line 8); and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the machine to perform operations (col. 8, line 66 – col. 9, line 8). In view of Van Oorschot, a skilled artisan would have found it obvious to modify the patent claim to achieve the instant claim. The patent claim lacks “wherein the first private key corresponds to the medical treatment machine and one or more additional medical treatment machines”. However, Ulis teaches that it was known to protect data destined to target devices of a particular type using a private key common to the target devices of a particular type (¶60), enabling protected data to be accessible to replacement devices of the same type and reducing the chance of improper use of the data on devices of a different type (¶60). In view of Ulis, a skilled artisan would have found it obvious to modify the invention described in the patent claim the first private key corresponds to the medical treatment machine and one or more additional medical treatment machines to gain the flexibility of machine replacement, as taught by Ulis.
1 - The patent claim is directed to a method and thus lacks the medical treatment machine comprising: one or more processors; and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the medical treatment machine to perform operations. However, Van Oorschot teaches one or more processors (col. 8, line 66 – col. 9, line 8); and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the machine to perform operations (col. 8, line 66 – col. 9, line 8). In view of Van Oorschot, a skilled artisan would have found it obvious to modify the patent claim to achieve the instant claim. The patent claim lacks “wherein the first private key corresponds to the medical treatment machine and one or more additional medical treatment machines”. However, Ulis teaches that it was known to protect data destined to target devices of a particular type using a private key common to the target devices of a particular type (¶60), enabling protected data to be accessible to replacement devices of the same type and reducing the chance of improper use of the data on devices of a different type (¶60). In view of Ulis, a skilled artisan would have found it obvious to modify the invention described in the patent claim the first private key corresponds to the medical treatment machine and one or more additional medical treatment machines to gain the flexibility of machine replacement, as taught by Ulis.
16 - The patent claim lacks “wherein the first private key corresponds to the medical treatment machine and one or more additional medical treatment machines”. However, Ulis teaches that it was known to protect data destined to target devices of a particular type using a private key common to the target devices of a particular type (¶60), enabling protected data to be accessible to replacement devices of the same type and reducing the chance of improper use of the data on devices of a different type (¶60). In view of Ulis, a skilled artisan would have found it obvious to modify the invention described in the patent claim the first private key corresponds to the medical treatment machine and one or more additional medical treatment machines to gain the flexibility of machine replacement, as taught by Ulis.
1 – The patent claim is directed to a method and thus lacks the medical treatment machine comprising: one or more processors; and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the medical treatment machine to perform operations. However, Van Oorschot teaches one or more processors (col. 8, line 66 – col. 9, line 8); and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the machine to perform operations (col. 8, line 66 – col. 9, line 8). In view of Van Oorschot, a skilled artisan would have found it obvious to modify the patent claim to achieve the instant claim. The patent claim lacks “wherein the first private key corresponds to the medical treatment machine and one or more additional medical treatment machines”. However, Ulis teaches that it was known to protect data destined to target devices of a particular type using a private key common to the target devices of a particular type (¶60), enabling protected data to be accessible to replacement devices of the same type and reducing the chance of improper use of the data on devices of a different type (¶60). In view of Ulis, a skilled artisan would have found it obvious to modify the invention described in the patent claim the first private key corresponds to the medical treatment machine and one or more additional medical treatment machines to gain the flexibility of machine replacement, as taught by Ulis.
11
9
8
8
12
10
9
9
13
11
10
10
14
12
11
11
15
2
2
2
16
5
1
17, as modified with respect to rejection of claim 8.
17
15 - The patent claim lacks “wherein the first private key corresponds to the medical treatment machine and one or more additional medical treatment machines”. However, Ulis teaches that it was known to protect data destined to target devices of a particular type using a private key common to the target devices of a particular type (¶60), enabling protected data to be accessible to replacement devices of the same type and reducing the chance of improper use of the data on devices of a different type (¶60). In view of Ulis, a skilled artisan would have found it obvious to modify the invention described in the patent claim the first private key corresponds to the medical treatment machine and one or more additional medical treatment machines to gain the flexibility of machine replacement, as taught by Ulis.
1 – The patent claim is directed to a method and thus lacks a medical system comprising a data storage. However, Van Oorschot teaches memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the machine to perform operations (col. 8, line 66 – col. 9, line 8). In view of Van Oorschot, a skilled artisan would have found it obvious to modify the patent claim to achieve the instant claim. The patent claim lacks “wherein the first private key corresponds to the medical treatment machine and one or more additional medical treatment machines”. However, Ulis teaches that it was known to protect data destined to target devices of a particular type using a private key common to the target devices of a particular type (¶60), enabling protected data to be accessible to replacement devices of the same type and reducing the chance of improper use of the data on devices of a different type (¶60). In view of Ulis, a skilled artisan would have found it obvious to modify the invention described in the patent claim the first private key corresponds to the medical treatment machine and one or more additional medical treatment machines to gain the flexibility of machine replacement, as taught by Ulis.
1 - The patent claim is directed to a method and thus lacks a medical system comprising a data storage. However, Van Oorschot teaches memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the machine to perform operations (col. 8, line 66 – col. 9, line 8). In view of Van Oorschot, a skilled artisan would have found it obvious to modify the patent claim to achieve the instant claim. The patent claim lacks “wherein the first private key corresponds to the medical treatment machine and one or more additional medical treatment machines”. However, Ulis teaches that it was known to protect data destined to target devices of a particular type using a private key common to the target devices of a particular type (¶60), enabling protected data to be accessible to replacement devices of the same type and reducing the chance of improper use of the data on devices of a different type (¶60). In view of Ulis, a skilled artisan would have found it obvious to modify the invention described in the patent claim the first private key corresponds to the medical treatment machine and one or more additional medical treatment machines to gain the flexibility of machine replacement, as taught by Ulis.
17 - The patent claim lacks “wherein the first private key corresponds to the medical treatment machine and one or more additional medical treatment machines”. However, Ulis teaches that it was known to protect data destined to target devices of a particular type using a private key common to the target devices of a particular type (¶60), enabling protected data to be accessible to replacement devices of the same type and reducing the chance of improper use of the data on devices of a different type (¶60). In view of Ulis, a skilled artisan would have found it obvious to modify the invention described in the patent claim the first private key corresponds to the medical treatment machine and one or more additional medical treatment machines to gain the flexibility of machine replacement, as taught by Ulis.
1 - The patent claim is directed to a method and thus lacks a medical system comprising a data storage. However, Van Oorschot teaches memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the machine to perform operations (col. 8, line 66 – col. 9, line 8). In view of Van Oorschot, a skilled artisan would have found it obvious to modify the patent claim to achieve the instant claim. The patent claim lacks “wherein the first private key corresponds to the medical treatment machine and one or more additional medical treatment machines”. However, Ulis teaches that it was known to protect data destined to target devices of a particular type using a private key common to the target devices of a particular type (¶60), enabling protected data to be accessible to replacement devices of the same type and reducing the chance of improper use of the data on devices of a different type (¶60). In view of Ulis, a skilled artisan would have found it obvious to modify the invention described in the patent claim the first private key corresponds to the medical treatment machine and one or more additional medical treatment machines to gain the flexibility of machine replacement, as taught by Ulis.
19
9
8
8
20
10
9
9
21
1
1
1
22
15
19
16
23
15
19
16
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J SIMITOSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-3841. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:00-3:00.
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, Carl Colin can be reached at 571-272-3862. 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.
/Michael Simitoski/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2493
June 10, 2026
1 US 20090327702 A1 (Schnell; Patrik) teaches a similar approach to Ulis, where a DRM system comprises domains, and each of the devices in the domain have a private key which is common to the domain, such that protected content can be bound to the domain (¶18).
2 “Anonymous e-prescriptions” (Ateniese et al.) also teaches “doctor must be able to provide a proof-of-capacity, which authorizes the doctor to issue the prescription” (p. 22, §4.1).
Prosecution Insights