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 .
Claim status
This action is in response to applicant filed on 09/23/2024. Claims 1-15 are pending for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7-9 & 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Haller et al. (US 7,149,7873).
Regarding claim 1: Haller discloses a pluggable radio adapter for a private patient monitoring network system, the adapter comprising:
at least a first communication radio configured to send and receive data within a first radio frequency, RF, range (Fig. 3, 6A-C and 7, item 10, Col. 19, Lines 60-67);
a radio controller operatively connected to at least the first communication radio, wherein the radio controller is configured to process and relay data through the pluggable radio adapter (Fig. 6A-C and 7, item 100, Col. 18, Lines 44-63)); and
a device interface operatively connected to the radio controller (Fig. 7, item 110), wherein the device interface is configured to operatively connect to the pluggable radio adapter to an associated network access point and to relay data between the pluggable radio adapter and the associated network access point (Col. 19, Line 60-Col. 20, Line 6).
Regarding claim 2: Haller discloses the pluggable radio adapter of claim 1, further at least comprising a second communication radio operatively connected to the radio controller and configured to send and receive data within a second RF Range, wherein the second RF Range is different from the first range (Col. 23, Lines 35-40: it is interpret that even if the same protocol, where it might establish common range within the communication devices, however, each communication device has its own unique range based on the particular communication devices condition that will shape each device RF range)
Regarding claim 3: Haller discloses the pluggable radio adapter of claim 1, further at least comprising a third communication radio operatively connected to the radio controller and configured to send and receive data within a third RF Range, wherein the third RF Range is different from the first and second range. (Col. 23, Lines 35-40: it is interpret that even if the same protocol, where it might establish common range within the communication devices, however, each communication device has its own unique range based on the particular communication devices condition that will shape each device RF range)
Regarding claim 7: Haller discloses the pluggable radio adapter of claim 1, wherein the access network point is a wireless local area network (Col. 9, Lines 32-45)
Regarding claim 8: Haller discloses a private patient monitoring network system comprising:
a network infrastructure comprising a plurality of network access points (Fig. 6A and 8, item 130, Col. 19, Lines 22-43)
a plurality of pluggable radio adapter, each adapter operatively connected to a corresponding network access points (Fig. 8), wherein each pluggable radio adapter comprises:
at least a first communication radio configured to send and receive data within a first radio frequency, RF, range (Fig. 3, 6A-C and 7, item 10, Col. 19, Lines 60-67);
a radio controller operatively connected to at least the first communication radio, wherein the radio controller is configured to process and relay data through the pluggable radio adapter (Fig. 6A-C and 7, item 100, Col. 18, Lines 4-63)); and
a device interface operatively connected to the radio controller (Fig. 7, item 110), wherein the device interface is configured to operatively connect to the pluggable radio adapter to an associated network access point and to relay data between the pluggable radio adapter and the associated network access point (Col. 19, Line 60-Col. 20, Line 6).
Regarding claim 9: Haller discloses the system of claim 8, further comprising: a patient monitoring backend system operatively connected to the network infrastructure of the private patient monitoring network system (Fig. 6A-B, item 137); and
one or more end devices in wireless communication with one or more of the plurality of network access points (Fig. 6A-B, item 135), each end device being configured to send and receive data from the one or more network access points within at least the first RF range of the pluggable radio adapter that is connected to each of the one or more network access points (Col. 20, Lines 7-20).
Regarding claim 11: Haller discloses the system of claim 8, further disclosing second and third communication radio having different ranges (Col. 23, Lines 35-40: it is interpret that even if the same protocol, where it might establish common range within the communication devices, however, each communication device has its own unique range based on the particular communication devices condition that will shape each device RF range)
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 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) 4-6, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haller et al. (US 7,149,7873).
Regarding claim 4: Haller discloses the pluggable radio adapter of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose the first range is at least one: from about 1.395GHz to about 1.4GHz, from about 1.427GHz to about 1.432 GHz from about 1.39GHZ to 1.395GHz, or from about 1.432 HZ to about 1.435GHz. However it does disclose that the communications air interface communication air interface standards, protocols and communication systems that may be employed in conjunction with communication module 100, mobile telephone 110, communication system 120, and remote system 130 of the present invention include, but are in no way limited including support a wide range of range bandwidths (Col. 26, Lines 35-53). Therefore, Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to the one of the ordinary skill in the art to include the feature of the first range is at least one: from about 1.395GHz to about 1.4GHz, from about 1.427GHz to about 1.432 GHz from about 1.39GHZ to 1.395GHz, or from about 1.432 HZ to about 1.435GHz in view of the teachings Haller since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only ordinary skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 5: Claim 5 recite essentially the same limitations of claim 4 but for different ranges and hence is rejected for the same reasons of claim 4.
Regarding claim 6: Haller discloses the pluggable radio adapter of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the radio controller is configured to relay data from at least the first communication radio through the device interface, and to the associated network access point, as serial data. Since Haller already disclose relaying data, before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to the one of the ordinary skill in the art to include the feature of wherein the radio controller is configured to relay data from at least the first communication radio through the device interface, and to the associated network access point, as serial data, since having a limited universe of potential options (relaying data), the selection of any particular option (serial data) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Jones, 412 F.2d 241, 162 USPO 224 (COPA 1969). Since either option would provide the same predictable result of (relay the data), either option would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill.
Regarding claim 10: Haller discloses the system of claim 8, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the radio controller of each pluggable radio adapter is configured to relay data from at least the first communication radio through the device interface of the pluggable radio adapter, and to the associated network access point, as serial data. Since Haller already disclose relaying data, before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to the one of the ordinary skill in the art to include the feature of wherein the radio controller is configured to relay data from at least the first communication radio through the device interface, and to the associated network access point, as serial data, since having a limited universe of potential options (relaying data), the selection of any particular option (serial data) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Jones, 412 F.2d 241, 162 USPO 224 (COPA 1969). Since either option would provide the same predictable result of (relay the data), either option would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill.
Claim(s) 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haller et al. (US 7,149,7873).
Regarding claim 12: Haller discloses the system of claim 8, wherein each network access point of the plurality of network access points comprises:
at least one processor (Fig. 12a, item 112);
a network interface (Fig. 12a, item 137);
an input/output interface operatively connecting a corresponding pluggable radio adapter to the network access point (Fig. 12a , item 137 Col. 18, Lines 44-63: communication module 100 is disposed within housing 102 and is connected by a suitable interface to mobile telephone 110 via link, connection, cable or line 107.); and
a computer-readable memory storing a radio adapter component, the radio adapter component including instructions that (Fig. 12a , item 137 Col. 18, Lines 44-63: communication module 100 is disposed within housing 102 and is connected by a suitable interface to mobile telephone 110 via link, connection, cable or line 107. If there is a connection, then there is an radio component adapter in order to make the system compatible), when executed by the at least one processor, causes the network access point to perform one or more of the following:
establish an end-to-end data path between at least one end device and a backend system (Col. 18, Line 44-Col. 19, Line 63),
receiving, via the first communication link of the established end-to-end data path, data from the at least one end device using the pluggable radio adapter; and transmitting the data received from the at least one end device, using the network interface, to the backend device via the second communication link of the established end-to-end data path. (Col. 19, Lines 15-43).
Haller does not explicitly disclose wherein the end-to-end data path includes at least a first wireless communication link between the end device and the network access point, and a second communication link between the network access point and the backend system, the first communication link using a network protocol corresponding to the first RF range and the second communication link using at least one of an IEEE 802.3 network protocol and an IEEE 802.11 network protocol. However, it does disclose the use of hardwire links (such as 802.3 (i.e. ethernet) and wireless link (such as 802.11 (i.e. Wi-Fi)) for communication (Col. 18, Lines 44-63) and using a network protocol corresponding to the first RF range and the second communication link using at least one of an IEEE 802.3 network protocol and an IEEE 802.11 as evidence by Wittenberg where it teaches using a network protocol corresponding to the first RF range and the second communication link using at least one of an IEEE 802.3 network protocol and an IEEE 802.11 (¶0053).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to the one of the ordinary skill in the art to include the feature of wherein the end-to-end data path includes at least a first wireless communication link between the end device and the network access point, and a second communication link between the network access point and the backend system, the first communication link using a network protocol corresponding to the first RF range and the second communication link using at least one of an IEEE 802.3 network protocol and an IEEE 802.11 network protocol, as disclose by Wittenberg and Haler. The motivations is to provide wired and wi-fi protocols in order to provide flexibility to the connection of the system.
Regarding claim 13: Claim 13 recite a method with the functional limitation of claim 8 and 12 combined and therefore is rejected for the same reasons of claim 8 and 12, combined.
Regarding claim 14: The combination of Haller and Wittenberg discloses the method of claim 13 but does not explicitly disclose about 608 MHz to about 614 MHz; about 1390 MHz to about 1395 MHz; about 1395 MHz to about 1400 MHz; about 1427 MHz to about 1432 MHz; and/or about 1432 MHz to about 1435 MHz. 15. However it does disclose that the communications air interface communication air interface standards, protocols and communication systems that may be employed in conjunction with communication module 100, mobile telephone 110, communication system 120, and remote system 130 of the present invention include, but are in no way limited including support a wide range of range bandwidths (Col. 26, Lines 35-53). Therefore, Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to the one of the ordinary skill in the art to include the feature of the first range is about 608 MHz to about 614 MHz; about 1390 MHz to about 1395 MHz; about 1395 MHz to about 1400 MHz; about 1427 MHz to about 1432 MHz; and/or about 1432 MHz to about 1435 MHz. 15 in view of the teachings Haller since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only ordinary skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 15: The combination of Haller and Wittenberg discloses the method of claim 13, wherein a radio adaptor component is executed on each network access point of the plurality of network access points that operates an adapter management component instance within a network access point host container on the network access point. (Fig. 12a , item 137 Col. 18, Lines 44-63: communication module 100 is disposed within housing 102 and is connected by a suitable interface to mobile telephone 110 via link, connection, cable or line 107. If there is a connection, then there is an radio component adapter in order to make the system compatible).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record cited in the PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMAR CASILLASHERNANDEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-5432. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30AM-4:30PM.
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, Davetta Goins can be reached at (571) 272-2957. 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.
/OMAR CASILLASHERNANDEZ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689