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 .
Priority
This application is based on and claims priority under 35 USC 119 from Japanese Patent Application No. 2023-177880 filed on Oct. 13, 2023, the disclosure of which is incorporated by reference herein.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/09/2024 was filed along with the mailing date of the Non-Provisional Patent Application on 10/09/2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to a Non-Provisional Patent Application filed on 10/09/2024. In the application, claims 1-10 have been received for consideration and have been examined.
Specification
Applicant’s submitted specification has been reviewed and found to be in compliance.
Drawings
Applicant’s submitted drawings have been reviewed and found to be in compliance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 (Abstract Idea)
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more analyzed according to MPEP 2106.
Step 1: The independent claim 1 does fall into one of the four statutory categories of “system” claim. Nevertheless, the claim still is considered as abstract idea (i.e., Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity - managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)) for the following prongs and reasons.
Step 2A: Prong 1: The limitations of the independent claim 1 recite the abstract idea of:
[[a measurement device [a human nurse] that includes a first communication unit and a second communication unit and that]] acquires a measurement result of biological information of a user (Organizing Human Activity: a human nurse collects measurement result of biological information of a patient), [[the first communication unit performing communication by a first communication method and the second communication unit performing communication by a second communication method different from the first communication method]] (Organizing Human Activity: the human nurse can communicate the biological measurement information of the patient through predetermined communication method which is not used for regular communication);
[[a terminal device [another user] that includes a terminal communication unit that performs communication with the first communication unit of the measurement device]] (Organizing Human Activity: the human nurse can use selected terminal to communicate the biological measurement information of the patient); and
a notification [[device]] that includes a notification communication unit that performs communication with the second communication unit of the measurement device by the second communication method, and a notification unit that provides notification of information (Organizing Human Activity: the human nurse can provide a notification that predetermined communication method that safer than normal communication method is used to communicate the biological measurement information of the patient),
wherein higher security communication is performed between the measurement device and the terminal device in a case in which the measurement device is in communication with the notification device than in a case in which the measurement device is not in communication with the notification device (Organizing Human Activity: the human nurse communicates the patient biological information through predetermined communication that is determined to be safer than normal method of communication).
Step 2A: Prong 2: The judicial exception (i.e., communicating measurement results through various communication means) is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims do not recite any additional element to perform beyond routine steps. To show that the involvement of a computer assists in improving the technology, the claims must recite the details regarding how a computer aids the method, the extent to which the computer aids the method, or the significance of a computer to the performance of the method. Merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient. Thus, the claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology (MPEP 2106.5(a) II).
In this particular case, the additional elements of the claim are:
“a measurement device that includes a first communication unit and a second communication unit”, “a terminal device that includes a terminal communication unit”, and “a notification device that includes a notification communication unit”.
The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic terms performing generic computer functions (instant spec. Pre-grant-Pub [0033], [0037-0041], [0048], & [0060] discloses that a system including various components of an example device that can be implemented as any type of computing device as described and/or utilized with reference to FIGS. 2, 4, & 6 to implement embodiments of the techniques described herein) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the claims do not reflect improvement in the technology. Further, mere automated instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claims are not patent eligible.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements (i.e., ‘measurement device’, ‘terminal device’ and ‘notification device) amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using general purpose computer.
To support this factual conclusion, the examiner takes Official Notice that one of the ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found processors and/or software well-known and routine in technology that involves computers (instant spec. Pre-grant-Pub [0033], [0037-0041], [0048], & [0060] discloses that the functions of the disclosed claims can be implemented using generic computer(s)) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the examiner asserts that the above noted elements, when considered individually or in combination, do not constitute as “significantly more” than the abstract idea.
The dependent claims 2-10 of respective independent claim 1 have been analyzed and fall into one of the statutory categories and therefore passes step 1 analysis. However, under step 2, 2A & 2B analysis, the dependent claims recite concepts within the Certain Methods of organizing Human Activity grouping such as “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)” which can be implemented by one or more human users using pen and paper. Thus, dependent claims also recite abstract idea and considered ineligible.
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 1-10 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.
Independent claim 1 recites “wherein higher security communication is performed between the measurement device and the terminal device in a case in which the measurement device is in communication with the notification device than in a case in which the measurement device is not in communication with the notification device”.
Applicant’s instant disclosure lacks support for the terms high and low security communication in terms of this being based on whether the notification device is communicating or not communicating with the measurement device, but in terms of whether the notification device has provided a passcode to a user of the terminal device, and whether the passcode has been input into the terminal device for requesting pairing with the measurement device. The instant disclosure [0027] defines high and low security communication as “Communication using a passcode is an example of high security communication, and communication not using a passcode is an example of low security communication. Hereinafter, communication using a passcode is referred to as high security communication, and communication not using a passcode is referred to as low security communication” and furthermore [0028] discloses “In the case of performing the high security communication, after the first communication is established, the first communication control unit 21 shares an encryption key used when performing communication with the measurement device 10 (performs pairing) with the measurement device 10, and stores (bonds) the encryption key”. From these passages and the commonly known term of "pairing" it can be understood that high security communication is the communication of data with an encryption key which has been previously established by means of a passcode. The description further specifies, e.g. in [0043], “In the case of performing the low security communication, the communication control unit 42 performs unidirectional communication with the measurement device 10. That is, when the measurement device 10 and the terminal device 30 approach each other to be within a communicable distance, the communication control unit 42 receives the measurement data indicating the measurement result transmitted from the measurement device 10 by the communication I/F 37”.
By looking at the citations from the instant disclosure, it appears that low security communication is the communication of data in communicable distance without the use of an encryption key.
Dependent claim 9 also lack support since it defines contradictory features, these being "a lower security level ... is established between the measurement device (10) and the terminal device" and "the higher security communication is performed between the measurement device (10) and the terminal device". These features appear to simultaneously define opposite security communication levels for the communication between the measurement device and the terminal device. Similar reasons as provided above apply to the expression "when the measurement device (10) performs communication with the notification device (50), the higher security communication is performed between the measurement device (10) and the terminal device (30).", which is considered not to be supported by the description, which does not disclose an automatic switch by the measurement device to use an encryption key to send encrypted messages to the terminal device when the former detects communication with the notification device. As expressed above it can at most be considered that high security communication is established after inputting into the terminal device a passcode provided on the notification device, the terminal device requesting a connection to the measurement device, the request including said passcode.
Dependent claims inherit these deficiencies.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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) 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) & (a)(2) as being anticipated by Hampauram et al., (US20160210099A1) hereinafter referred as Ham.
Regarding claim 1, Ham discloses:
A measurement system, comprising:
a measurement device ([0056] continuous glucose sensor system 100) that includes a first communication unit and a second communication unit ([0011] the continuous glucose monitor system transmits over a first and second wireless connections) and that is
configured to acquire a measurement result of biological information of a user ([0056] obtain measurements relating to glucose levels),the first communication unit being configured to perform communication by a first communication method and the second communication unit being configured to perform communication by a second communication method different from the first communication method ([0057] The wireless transmitter 101 may provide any type of wireless communications 102a and 102b, including a Bluetooth connection, WiFi connection, RF connection; [0058] the continuous glucose sensor system 100 may include wired ports, such as a USB port, Ethernet port, and others, for communicating with other devices and providing data relating to glucose levels; [0066-0067] display 104a and dipslay 106a with wireless connections and ports for wired communications, such as USB; [0076] The type of wireless connection between the continuous glucose sensor system 100 and the first display device need not be the same type of connection as between the continuous glucose sensor system 100 and the second display device. For example, the continuous glucose sensor system 100 may connect with the first display device using a RF connection and with the second display device using a connection, such as a Bluetooth connection);
a terminal device (i.e., smart phone 106a) that includes a terminal communication unit that is configured to perform communication with the first communication unit of the measurement device (fig. 1, smart phone with display 106a); and
a notification device (i.e., display 104a, dedicated display of smart phone) that includes a notification communication unit that is configured to perform communication with the second communication unit of the measurement device by the second communication method, and a notification unit that is configured to provide notification of information (fig. 1, device with display 104a, dedicated display),
wherein higher security communication is performed between the measurement device and the terminal device in a case in which the measurement device is in communication with the notification device than in a case in which the measurement device is not in communication with the notification device (these features are not considered to be part of the claim since they are not supported by the description).
Regarding claim 2, Ham discloses:
The measurement system according to claim 1, wherein:
the higher security communication is performed by inputting a passcode for establishing communication to the terminal device, and lower security communication, of which a security level is lower than a security level of the higher security communication and which is performed in a case in which the measurement device is not in communication with the notification device, is performed without using the passcode ([0081] At step 206, the continuous glucose sensor system 100 may exchange an application key with the connected display devices. Step 206 is an optional step that occurs in some embodiments. Communications may initially be established using a fixed key. The fixed key can be based on a transmitter identifier or a portion of a transmitter identifier printed on the continuous glucose sensor system 100 or transmitter 101. The user may enter the transmitter identifier into the dedicated display 104 a and display 106 a to establish communications. The transmitter identifier may also be sent from continuous glucose sensor system 100 to the dedicated display 104 a and display 106 a, so that a comparison can be made between the transmitter identifier received from the continuous glucose sensor system 100 and the transmitter identifier entered by a user. When the transmitter identifiers match, communications may be allowed, or additional security steps may occur to further authenticate the two devices. When the transmitter identifiers do not match, the requested connection may be denied).
Regarding claim 3, Ham discloses:
The measurement system according to claim 2, wherein the passcode is a code unique to the measurement device ([0081]).
Regarding claim 4, Ham discloses:
The measurement system according to claim 2, wherein the passcode is randomly generated by the measurement device ([0081]).
Regarding claim 5, Ham discloses:
The measurement system according to claim 3, wherein the notification device provides notification of the passcode using the notification unit in a case in which the measurement device is in communication with the notification device ([0081]).
Regarding claim 6, Ham discloses:
The measurement system according to claim 5, wherein the notification unit of the notification device is a display, and the notification device provides notification of the passcode by displaying the passcode on the display ([0081]).
Regarding claim 7, Ham discloses:
The measurement system according to claim 2, wherein the notification device is configured to perform switching between a first mode in which notification of the measurement result transmitted from the measurement device is provided and a second mode in which notification of the passcode is provided, and the notification device provides notification of the measurement result in a case in which switching to the first mode is performed, and provides notification of the passcode in a case in which switching to the second mode is performed ([0081] discloses the possibility of displaying a passcode and measurement results).
Regarding claim 8, Ham discloses:
The measurement system according to claim 7, wherein the measurement device stops communication with the terminal device in a case in which the notification device is switched to the first mode, and the measurement device performs communication with the terminal device in a case in which the notification device is switched to the second mode ([0072] As a result, in one embodiment, each continuous glucose sensor system 100 may limit the number of devices that it connects with, and only connect with paired, authenticated devices in a secure fashion. For example, the continuous glucose sensor system 100 may connect to only a single dedicated display 104 a and display 106 a at a given time. Limiting the number of devices with which the continuous glucose sensor system 100 can communicate during a particular session also saves battery life of the sensor 100).
Regarding claim 9, Ham discloses:
The measurement system according to claim 1, wherein, in a case in which lower security communication having a lower security level than a security level of the higher security communication is established between the measurement device and the terminal device, when the measurement device performs communication with the notification device, the higher security communication is performed between the measurement device and the terminal device ([0081]).
Regarding claim 10, Ham discloses:
The measurement system according to claim 1, wherein, in a case in which the higher security communication is established between the measurement device and the terminal device, and the measurement device is in communication with the notification device, the notification device provides notification of identification information of the terminal device ([0081]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sjolund et al., US20230064614A1
Lida., US20190394638A1
Mu et al., US10284929B2
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYED M AHSAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5018. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM - 6:00 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, Amir Mehrmanesh can be reached at 571-270-3351. 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.
/SYED M AHSAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2491