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 .
This is in response to the correspondence filed on 07/06/26. Claims 1-20 are still pending and have been considered below.
Claim Objections
Claims 4 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities: the instant claims should be amended to recite, “…the second interface [[if]]when the communication partner…”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The amendments and/or arguments submitted by Applicant have been considered and are persuasive; thus, the previous claim rejection(s) have been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-17, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hickey et al. (2020/0261673).
Claim 1: Hickey et al. discloses a device for executing cybersecurity functions with respect to information security and safety functions with respect to operational safety, the device comprising:
a first computing unit configured to execute at least one of the cybersecurity functions, the first computing unit comprising a communication module which has a first interface and is configured to check incoming data(remote server performs a variety of security functions, such as generating/providing a nonce, computing a signing key, computing authorization codes, authenticating the therapy data by comparing the authorization codes) [pages 2-3, paragraph 0026 | page 5, paragraph 0050];
a second computing unit configured to execute at least one of the safety functions, the second computing unit comprising an alarm module which is configured to generate an information signal(RT device configured to send data relating to the respiratory therapy, such as time of usage, number of respiratory events, compliance rule evaluation results) [page 2, paragraph 0022 | pages 10-11, paragraph 0136]; and
a second interface configured for data exchange between the first computing unit and the second computing unit, wherein the first computing unit and the second computing unit are configured to exchange data to one another via the second interface(RT devices are connected to remote server through corresponding control devices) [page 10, paragraph 0135 | figure 6], the second interface being configured to transmit the incoming data, checked by the first computing unit, from the first computing unit to the second computing unit(server sends firmware upgrade file to RT device via control device, server derives authorisation code and sends it to RT device via control device) [pages 15-16, paragraphs 0190-0195].
Claim 2: Hickey et al. discloses a device according to claim 1, wherein the first computing unit is configured to access a first data memory, and the second computing unit is configured to access a second data memory [page 22, paragraphs 0319-0320 | page 9, paragraphs 0121-0124].
Claim 3: Hickey et al. discloses a device according to claim 2, wherein the first data memory and the second data memory are comprised by a data storage medium with the first data memory and the second data memory being non-overlapping or are comprised by separate data storage media that are not shared by the first and second computing units [page 22, paragraphs 0319-0320 | page 9, paragraphs 0121-0124].
Claim 5: Hickey et al. discloses a device according to claim 1, wherein the second computing unit comprises a sensor module for recording sensor data [page 8, paragraph 0084].
Claim 6: Hickey et al. discloses a device according to claim 1, wherein the first computing unit and/or the second computing unit comprises a memory module for managing data on a data storage medium [page 22, paragraphs 0319-0320 | page 9, paragraphs 0121-0124].
Claim 7: Hickey et al. discloses a device according to claim 1, further comprising a third computing unit, wherein the third computing unit comprises a user interaction module for inputting and/or outputting information [page 2, paragraphs 0024-0025].
Claim 8: Hickey et al. discloses a device according to claim 7, wherein the third computing unit is connected to the first computing unit and/or second computing unit for data exchange [page 10, paragraph 0135 | figure 6].
Claim 9: Hickey et al. discloses a device according to claim 1, wherein the device is comprised by a gas measuring device [page 2, paragraph 0021 | page 18, paragraph 0213].
Claim 10: Hickey et al. discloses a device according to claim 1, wherein the device is comprised by a ventilator or an anesthesia device [page 2, paragraph 0022].
Claim 11: Hickey et al. discloses a process for executing cybersecurity functions with respect to information security and safety functions with respect to operational safety on a device comprising a first computing unit and a second computing unit, the process comprising the steps of:
receiving and checking data with a communication module of the first computing unit [pages 2-3, paragraph 0026 | page 5, paragraph 0050];
storing the data in a first data memory and/or transmitting the data to the second computing unit [page 22, paragraphs 0319-0320 | page 9, paragraphs 0121-0124], wherein the data is checked by the first computing unit to provide checked data prior to the second computing unit receiving the checked data [pages 15-16, paragraphs 0190-0195];
evaluating the data relating to an alarm situation with an alarm module of the second computing unit [page 2, paragraph 0022 | pages 10-11, paragraph 0136]; and
generating an information signal by the alarm module [page 2, paragraph 0022 | pages 10-11, paragraph 0136].
Clam 12: Hickey et al. discloses a process according to claim 11, further comprising the steps of: determining a sensor measured value with a sensor module of the second computing unit(time of usage, number of respiratory events); and evaluating the sensor measured value with regard to an alarm situation by the alarm module(time of usage, number of respiratory events, compliance rule evaluation) [page 2, paragraph 0022 | pages 10-11, paragraph 0136].
Claim 13: Hickey et al. discloses a process according to claim 11, further comprising the step of storing information of the second computing unit in a second data memory, wherein the second data memory and the first data memory are non-overlapping [page 22, paragraphs 0319-0320 | page 9, paragraphs 0121-0124].
Claim 14: Hickey et al. discloses a process according to claim 11, further comprising the step of receiving and/or outputting information with a user interaction module of a third computing unit of the device [page 2, paragraphs 0024-0025].
Claim 15: Hickey et al. discloses a gas measuring device comprising:
a device for executing cybersecurity functions with respect to information security and safety functions with respect to operational safety, the device comprising:
a first computing unit configured to execute at least one of the cybersecurity functions, the first computing unit comprising a communication module which has a first interface and is configured to check incoming data [pages 2-3, paragraph 0026 | page 5, paragraph 0050];
a second computing unit configured to execute at least one of the safety functions, the second computing unit comprising an alarm module which is configured to generate an information signal [page 2, paragraph 0022 | pages 10-11, paragraph 0136]; and
a second interface configured for data exchange between the first computing unit and the second computing unit, wherein the first computing unit and the second computing unit are configured to exchange data to one another via the second interface [page 10, paragraph 0135 | figure 6], the second interface being configured to transmit the incoming data, checked by the first computing unit, from the first computing unit to the second computing unit [pages 15-16, paragraphs 0190-0195].
Claim 16: Hickey et al. discloses a gas measuring device according to claim 15, wherein the first computing unit is configured to access a first data memory and the second computing unit is configured to access a second data memory [page 22, paragraphs 0319-0320 | page 9, paragraphs 0121-0124].
Claim 17: Hickey et al. discloses a gas measuring device according to claim 16, wherein the first computing unit and/or the second computing unit comprises a memory module for managing data on a data storage medium or on data storage media, wherein the first data memory and the second data memory are comprised by the data storage medium or the data storage media with the first data memory and the second data memory being non-overlapping or are comprised by separate data storage media that are not shared by the respective memory module [page 22, paragraphs 0319-0320 | page 9, paragraphs 0121-0124].
Claim 19: Hickey et al. discloses a gas measuring device according to claim 15, wherein the second computing unit comprises a sensor module for recording sensor data [page 8, paragraph 0084].
Claim 20: Hickey et al. discloses a gas measuring device according to claim 15, further comprising a third computing unit, wherein the third computing unit comprises a user interaction module for inputting and/or outputting information and wherein the third computing unit is connected to the first computing unit and/or second computing unit for data exchange [page 2, paragraphs 0024-0025].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/06/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
First, Applicant argues that the prior art does not disclose a single device containing both a first computing unit and a second computing unit, nor a second interface configured to provide data exchange between the two computing units within the device, as claimed; in particular, Applicant appears to contend that the implementations of the prior art are all directed to separate external devices.
Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that the claim language as currently found, does not necessarily require an interpretation of each and every element being implemented and housed within a single chassis, nor does it appear to preclude the interpretations of external elements and/or distributed elements implementing all or part of the claimed “device”. Simply put, the claim merely appears to require a “device” comprising a first and second computing unit and a second interface, while making no mention of where and/or how each of these elements are located with respect to one another.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a single device where each and every one of the claimed elements are collocated, or the likes) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Second, Applicant argues that the prior art does not disclose that incoming data, after being checked by the first computing unit, is transmitted from the first computing unit to the second computing unit via a second interface, as claimed; in particular, Applicant appears to contend that the prior art merely discloses transmitting various data towards the remote server.
Initially, Examiner notes that as already discussed in the prior rejection above, the remote server of Hickey et al. would appear to reasonably describe a bi-directional communication of data between the remote server and the RT device.
Additionally, Examiner submits that the claimed “checking” of the incoming data does not appear to be specifically limited to anything in particular; thus, would appear to encompass practically any form of “reviewing” the data, so to speak.
Therefore, Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that the prior art does in fact disclose the allegedly deficient features as one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the cited portions of Hickey et al. to teach the remote server checking and then transmitting various pieces of data to the RT device via the control device [pages 15-16, paragraphs 0190-0195].
Third, Applicant argues that the prior art does not disclose an alarm module that is configured to generate an information signal, as claimed; in particular, Applicant appears to contend that the claimed alarm module must encompass various explicit interpretations found in Applicant’s specification.
Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that the claim language as currently recited, does not necessarily require anything beyond the alarm module generating an information signal in accordance with an alarm situation; nor does Applicant’s Specification appear to explicitly describe any of the desired interpretations as controlling definitions of the claimed terms.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the specific features of how the an alarm is configured, as described in the cited portions of Applicant’s Specification, or the likes) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
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 EDWARD ZEE whose telephone number is (571)270-1686. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM EST.
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.
/EDWARD ZEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2435
Prosecution Insights