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
The present application claims the benefit of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 17/494,137 for BLOOD PRESSURE DEVICE, filed Oct. 5, 2021, and U.S. Patent Application No. 63/088,204 for BLOOD PRESSURE DEVICE, filed Oct. 6, 2020, the entire contents of which are incorporated herein by reference.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/28/2025 was filed after the mailing date of the Non-Provisional Patent Application on 11/27/2024. 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 received on 11/27/2024. In the application, claims 1-16 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 § 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 1-16 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 “generate, via the private network, a second hash” and similarly claim 10 recites “wherein upon receipt of the encrypted blood pressure measurements, the private network generates a second hash”.
Examiner consulted instant specification; however, instant specification is silent with respect to how a network can generate a hash.
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 1-16 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.
Independent claim 1 recites “generate, via the private network, a second hash” and similarly claim 10 recites “wherein upon receipt of the encrypted blood pressure measurements, the private network generates a second hash”.
It is unclear for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to understand in a manner in which a network can create a hash.
Dependent claim inherits this deficiency.
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 1-16 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 claims 1, and 10 do fall into one of the four statutory categories of “a system” and “a method” claim. Nevertheless, the claim still is considered as abstract idea (i.e., combination of Mental process and Mathematical Concepts) for the following prongs and reasons.
Step 2A: Prong 1: The limitations of the independent claims 1, and 10 recite the abstract idea of:
an [[electronic]] blood pressure monitor; [[a wireless network connected to the electronic blood pressure monitor]] (Mental process: a human carries blood pressure monitor);
[[a private network connected to the wireless network via a persistent and fully redundant Internet Protocol Security (IPsec) Virtual Private Network (VPN) tunnel]];
[[one or more computer processors]]; and
[[a memory having stored therein machine executable instructions, that when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to:]]
collect, via the [[electronic]] blood pressure monitor, initial blood pressure measurements from a patient (Mental process: the human collects initial blood pressure measurements from a patient);
encrypt, via the [[electronic]] blood pressure monitor, the initial blood pressure measurements with a shared secret (Mental process: the human encrypt the collected blood pressure measurements with a shared secret),
wherein encrypting the initial blood pressure measurements creates encrypted blood pressure measurements (Mental process & Mathematical concept: the human performs mathematical calculations using the shared secret and encrypts the initial blood pressure measurements);
generate, via the [[electronic blood pressure monitor]] the human, a first hash using a signing algorithm (Mental process & Mathematical concept: the human generates a first hash using a signing algorithm);
transmit, [[via the persistent and fully redundant IPsec VPN tunnel]], the encrypted blood pressure measurements from the electronic blood pressure monitor to [[the private network]] another entity (Mental process: the human transmits the encrypted blood pressure measurements from the electronic blood pressure monitor to another entity);
generate, via [[the private network]] another entity, a second hash (Mental process & Mathematical concept: another entity generates a second hash);
compare, [[via the one or more computer processors]] by the human, the first hash to the second hash (Mental process & Mathematical concepts: the human compares the first hash against the second hash);
decrypt, [[via the one or more computer processors]], the encrypted blood pressure measurements upon a match of the first and second hash (Mental process & Mathematical concepts: the human decrypts the encrypted blood pressure measurements upon a match of the first and second hash),
wherein decrypting the encrypted blood pressure measurements creates verified blood pressure measurements (Mental process: based on decryption of the encrypted blood pressure measurements, the human verifies the blood pressure measurements); and
transmit, [[via the one or more computer processors]], the verified blood pressure measurements to a target recipient (Mental process: the human transmits the verified blood pressure measurements to a target recipient).
Step 2A: Prong 2: The judicial exception (i.e., encrypting/decrypting data and generating hash through algorithm) 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:
“the system comprising: an electronic blood pressure monitor; a wireless network connected to the electronic blood pressure monitor; a private network connected to an Internet Protocol Security (IPsec) Virtual Private Network (VPN) tunnel; one or more computer processors; and a memory executing instructions” (claim 1) and
“an Access Point Name (APN)” (claim 10).
The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic terms performing generic computer functions (see instant spec. Pregrant-Pub [0025-0031]) 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., “the system comprising: an electronic blood pressure monitor; a private network connected to an Internet Protocol Security (IPsec) Virtual Private Network (VPN) tunnel; one or more computer processors; and a memory executing instructions” (claim 1) and “an Access Point Name (APN)” (claim 10) 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. Pregrant-Pub [0025-0031] 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 2-9, and 11-16 of respective independent claims 1 and 10 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 mental processes which can be implemented by one or more human users using pen and paper. Thus, dependent claims also recite abstract idea and considered ineligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Poltorak et al., US-9942051-B1
Dicks et al., US-20080224852-A1
Yarger et al., US-20140313052-A1
Cronin et al., US-20180263495-A1
Williams et al., US-20080040602-A1
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, William Korzuch can be reached at 571-272-7589. 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