DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 2, 4-13, 16-24 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 2, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 2, 12 recite the limitation “determine that a direct network connection … is unavailable”. The originally filed disclosure fails to disclose wherein the determined connection is “a direct” connection. The limitation is rejected as a new matter.
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.
Claims 2, 12 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 2, 12 recite the limitation “determine that a direct network connection to one or both of a Wi-Fi network or a cellular network is unavailable; … and establish via the wireless network a network connection to one of the Wi-Fi network or the cellular network.” It is not clear how the above limitation is implemented. If the network connection with one or both of the stated networks is determined to be unavailable, how is the connection established with the same networks determined to be unavailable?
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 9-13, 16-18, 20, 21, 23, 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beszteri et al. [US 20180365958] in view of Ganesh et al. [US 20140051379].
As to claim 1: Beszteri discloses A first device comprising:
communication circuitry, [figs. 1, 3, 0034] user device 120 comprising a first communication apparatus 122, configured to communicate between a medical device of a patient and a plurality of computing devices, [fig. 1, 0034] to communicate between a wearable device 110;
processing circuitry, [fig. 3, 0033] processor 126, communicatively coupled to the communication circuitry, [fig. 3] and configured to:
receive, via the communication circuitry, data from the medical device, [0054, 0072] receive message from the wearable device;
determine based on the data that the patient is experiencing an acute health event, [0054, 0072] the message including an emergency information, [0030, 0055, 0072] including medical emergency; and
in response to determining that the patient is experiencing the acute health event, establish a wireless network with a computing device, [fig. 1, 0073] establish a second wireless link 160 between the user device 120 and an emergency service entity 130 in response to receiving the emergency message;
transmit, via the wireless network, data, [fig. 5, 0073] rely the emergency information to the entity 130, to cause a second device to display an alert indicating that the patient is experiencing the acute health event, [0096] entity 130 displays video stream, images and received emergency information so a medical personnel interprets the emergency information received from the user device 120.
Bestzteri fails to disclose wherein the wireless network is established with a plurality of computing devices by broadcast a message to the plurality of computing devices.
Ganesh teaches a method, system and devices for prioritizing access to wireless networks during emergency situations, [abs.]; wherein the system comprises a plurality of mobile devices 10, [fig. 1]; wherein when one of the mobile devices detects an emergency situation, the mobile device determines the availability of a network connection, [0053]; wherein when a connection is not available, the device establishes a network with a plurality of other mobile devices by broadcasting a discovery signal, [0053].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Bestzteri with that of Ganesh so that pairing of the emergency entity with the user device can be implemented using a broadcasting scheme to allow all available devices to connect to the user device.
As to claim 2: Beszteri fails to disclose The first device of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: determine that a direct network connection to one or both of a Wi-Fi network or a cellular network is unavailable; broadcast the message to the plurality of computing devices in response to determining that the direct network connection is unavailable, and establish via the wireless network a network connection to one of the Wi-Fi network or the cellular network.
Ganesh teaches a method, system and devices for prioritizing access to wireless networks during emergency situations, [abs.]; wherein the system comprises a plurality of mobile devices 10, [fig. 1]; wherein when one of the mobile devices detects an emergency situation, the mobile device determines the availability of a network connection, [0053]; wherein when a connection is not available, the device establishes a network with a plurality of other mobile devices by broadcasting a discovery signal, [0053]; wherein the telecommunications network is a cellular network, [0076].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Bestzteri with that of Ganesh so that system can avoid the attempt to establish a network if a connection is already available.
As to claim 4: Beszteri fails to disclose The first device of claim 1, wherein to broadcast the message to the plurality of computing devices, the processing circuitry is configured to cause the communication circuitry to broadcast the message using a Bluetooth protocol.
Ganesh teaches a method, system and devices for prioritizing access to wireless networks during emergency situations, [abs.]; wherein the system comprises a plurality of mobile devices 10, [fig. 1]; wherein when one of the mobile devices detects an emergency situation, the mobile device determines the availability of a network connection, [0053]; wherein when a connection is not available, the device establishes a network with a plurality of other mobile devices by broadcasting a discovery signal from a Bluetooth transceiver, [0053].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Bestzteri with that of Ganesh so that pairing of the emergency entity with the user device can be implemented using a widely available communication protocol.
As to claim 6: Beszteri discloses The first device of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: establish a communication session with the second device and communicate over the wireless network with the second device, [0073] establish a channel, and send the data.
Beszteri fails to disclose wherein the second device communicate over the wireless network via a third device.
Ganesh teaches a method, system and devices for prioritizing access to wireless networks during emergency situations, [abs.]; wherein the system comprises a plurality of mobile devices 10, [fig. 1]; wherein when one of the mobile devices detects an emergency situation, the mobile device determines the availability of a network connection, [0053]; wherein when a connection is not available, the device establishes a network with a plurality of other mobile devices by broadcasting a discovery signal from a Bluetooth transceiver, [0053]; wherein a device 1210 detecting an emergency situation can connect to the remote server 16 through a third device 10, using a short range wireless network, to connect to a cellular network 12, [fig. 12, 0100].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Bestzteri with that of Ganesh so that pairing of the emergency entity with the user device can be implemented using a widely available communication protocol.
As to claim 7: Beszteri discloses The first device of claim 6, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to send, via the communication circuitry, encrypted medical information to the second device, [0079].
As to claim 9: Beszteri discloses The device of claim 1, wherein the wireless network is established with the one or more of the plurality of computing devices to facilitate an acute care response by one or more responders who are physically proximate to the patient, [0036] the emergency service entity 130 is a device carried with the emergency personnel in a hospital.
As to claim 10: Beszteri discloses The first device of claim 1, wherein the wireless network is established with the one or more of the plurality of computing devices to automatically share patient data in compliance with patient data privacy constraints to one or more responders who are physically proximate to the patient in order to facilitate an acute care response by the responders, [0036] the emergency service entity 130 is a device carried with the emergency personnel in a hospital; wherein systems in a hospital are required to be in compliance with laws and regulations.
As to claim 11 is rejected using the same prior arts and reasoning as to that of claim 1.
As to claim 12 is rejected using the same prior arts and reasoning as to that of claim 2.
As to claim 13: Beszteri discloses A system comprising:
a first device, [figs. 1, 3, 0034] user device 120, configured to:
receive data from a medical device, [0054, 0072] receive message from the wearable device;
determine based on the data that a patient is experiencing an acute health event, [0054, 0072] the message including an emergency information, [0030, 0055, 0072] including medical emergency; and
in response to determining that the patient is experiencing the acute health event, send a message to a plurality of computing devices, [fig. 1, 0073] establish a second wireless link 160 between the user device 120 and an emergency service entity 130 in response to receiving the emergency message; and
a second device, [fig. 1, 0025] emergency service entity 130, wherein the second device belongs to the plurality of computing devices and the second device is configured to:
receive the message from the first device, [0073]; and
establish a communication session with the first device in response to receiving the message, [0073] establish a channel;
receive data from the first device during the communication session, [fig. 5, 0073] rely the emergency information to the entity 130; and
display an alert indicating that the patient is experiencing the acute health event in response to receiving the data, [0096] entity 130 displays video stream, images and received emergency information so a medical personnel interprets the emergency information received from the user device 120.
Bestzteri fails to disclose wherein the wireless network is established with a plurality of computing devices by broadcast a message to the plurality of computing devices.
Ganesh teaches a method, system and devices for prioritizing access to wireless networks during emergency situations, [abs.]; wherein the system comprises a plurality of mobile devices 10, [fig. 1]; wherein when one of the mobile devices detects an emergency situation, the mobile device determines the availability of a network connection, [0053]; wherein when a connection is not available, the device establishes a network with a plurality of other mobile devices by broadcasting a discovery signal, [0053].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Bestzteri with that of Ganesh so that pairing of the emergency entity with the user device can be implemented using a broadcasting scheme to allow all available devices to connect to the user device.
As to claim 16: Beszteri fails to discloses The system of claim 13, wherein to establish the communication session with the first device, the second device is configured to establish an ad hoc, wireless network with one or more of the plurality of computing devices.
Ganesh teaches a method, system and devices for prioritizing access to wireless networks during emergency situations, [abs.]; wherein the system comprises a plurality of mobile devices 10, [fig. 1]; wherein when one of the mobile devices detects an emergency situation, the mobile device determines the availability of a network connection, [0053]; wherein when a connection is not available, the device establishes a network with a plurality of other mobile devices by broadcasting a discovery signal, [0053]; wherein the established network is an ad-hoc network, [0053].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Bestzteri with that of Ganesh so that the emergency can be communicated using all available paths.
As to claim 17 is rejected using the same prior arts and reasoning as to that of claims 2 and 3.
As to claim 18 is rejected using the same prior arts and reasoning as to that of claim 4.
As to claim 20: Beszteri discloses The system of any of claim 13, wherein the first device is configured, during the communication session, to transmit encrypted medical information to the second device, [0079], and the second device is configured to transmit the encrypted medical information to a third party, [0091] transmit the emergency information to a service device 140, using one or both of an Internet connection or a cellular network connection, [0093] the server provides a cloud service, which is implemented using the internet.
As to claim 21 is rejected using the same prior arts and reasoning as to that of claim 7.
As to claim 23. Beszteri discloses The device of claim 6, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: transmit encrypted medical information regarding the acute health event to the second device, [0079] the emergency message is encrypted for transmission from the wearable device to the emergency service entity 130.
Beszteri fails to disclose wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to broadcast the message to the plurality of computing devices as a Bluetooth pairing request; establish a communication session with the third device in response to the third device accepting the Bluetooth pairing request; and wherein the transmission to the second device is via the communication session and the third device.
Ganesh teaches a method, system and devices for prioritizing access to wireless networks during emergency situations, [abs.]; wherein the system comprises a plurality of mobile devices 10, [fig. 1]; wherein when one of the mobile devices detects an emergency situation, the mobile device determines the availability of a network connection, [0053]; wherein when a connection is not available, the device establishes a network with a plurality of other mobile devices by broadcasting a discovery signal from a Bluetooth transceiver, [0053]; wherein a device 1210 detecting an emergency situation can connect to the remote server 16 through a third device 10, using a short range wireless protocol, to connect to a cellular network 12, [fig. 12, 0100]; wherein the short range wireless protocol is Bluetooth.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Bestzteri with that of Ganesh so that emergency data can be transmitted even if some communication nodes experience failure.
As to claim 24. Beszteri fails to disclose The system of claim 13, wherein the first device is further configured to:
broadcast the message to the plurality of computing devices as a Bluetooth pairing request, [0041] the connection can be through Bluetooth; [0054] wherein a Bluetooth connection is established through broadcasting a Bluetooth signal, and then a paring request from the second device; and establish a communication session with the second device of the plurality of computing devices in response to the Bluetooth pairing request, [0040].
Claim(s) 5, 8, 19, 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beszteri in view of Ganesh as applied to claims 1, and 13 above, further in view of Miller et al. [US 20220068473].
As to claim 5: the combination of Beszteri and Ganesh fails to disclose The first device of claim 1, wherein the message includes a universally unique identifier (UUID) for the device.
Miller teaches a system and method for processing and transmitting sensor data comprising a sensor system 8, and a plurality of user devices 14, [fig. 1, 0071]; wherein the sensor system 8 comprises a sensor module 12 and an analyte sensor 10, [fig. 1, 0072], that are separate from each other, [0189]; wherein the sensor system 8 and a display device 14 can be paired, [0188], for establishing a communication channel by broadcasting a unique ID, [0185], of the sensor system [0188].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Beszteri and Ganesh with that of Miller so that device can be identified.
As to claim 8: the combination of Beszteri and Ganesh fails to disclose The first device of claim 1, wherein the medical device comprises an implantable medical device.
Miller teaches a system and method for processing and transmitting sensor data comprising a sensor system 8, and a plurality of user devices 14, [fig. 1, 0071]; wherein the sensor system 8 comprises a sensor module 12 and an analyte sensor 10, [fig. 1, 0072], that are separate from each other, [0189]; wherein the sensor system 8 and a display device 14 can be paired, [0188], for establishing a communication channel by broadcasting a unique ID, [0185], of the sensor system [0188]; wherein the sensor is an implantable sensor, [109].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Beszteri and Ganesh with that of Miller so that the system can be used with a variety of sensor systems.
As to claim 19 is rejected using the same prior arts and reasoning as to that of claim 5.
As to claim 22 is rejected using the same prior arts and reasoning as to that of claim 8.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/05/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Argument 1: The prior arts of record do not teach the newly amended limitations of the claims.
Response 1: The Office Action has been amended to consider the newly added limitations as detailed above.
Argument 2: The purpose of the cited portion of Ganesh is different from the purpose of the current invention.
Response 2: In response to applicant's argument that emergency in Ganesh is different from the emergency in the claimed invention, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Argument 3: The teachings of Ganesh in [0101] do not teach the limitations in the current invention.
Response 3: The Office Action is not relying on the above embodiment of Ganesh.
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 BENYAM HAILE whose telephone number is (571)272-2080. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00 AM - 5:30 PM Mon. - Thur..
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, Steven Lim can be reached at (571)270-1210. 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.
/Benyam Haile/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2688
Prosecution Insights