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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Federal Republic of Germany on 01/12/2024. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the DE10 2024 100 944.6 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 14 recites “the medical imaging instrument”, however, this should read –a medical imaging instrument— for purposes of proper antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
The limitation “pairing unit” in claims 1, 14, and 15 meets all 3 prongs of the analysis set forth in MPEP § 2181 (I). The limitation meets prong (A) because “unit” is a generic placeholder for “means”. The limitation meets prong (B) because the generic placeholder (the “unit”) is modified by functional language (“pairing” and “to establish a pairing of the imaging instrument and the display device”). The limitation meets prong (C) because this claim element is not further modified by sufficient structure or material for performing the claimed function.
A review of the specification shows that a processor and/or a microprocessor, a data store, a working memory, a graphics processor (pg. 15 lines 13-15 and pg. 46 lines 19-22 and/or pg. 48 first paragraph) for performing functions as disclosed in at least pg. 44 appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation.
The limitation “security unit” in claims 1, 14, and 15 meets all 3 prongs of the analysis set forth in MPEP § 2181 (I). The limitation meets prong (A) because “unit” is a generic placeholder for “means”. The limitation meets prong (B) because the generic placeholder (the “unit”) is modified by functional language (“to recognize a confirmation of the pairing by the user” and “to prevent the transmission of the image data from the imaging instrument to the display device in the absence of the confirmation of the pairing by the user”). The limitation meets prong (C) because this claim element is not further modified by sufficient structure or material for performing the claimed function.
A review of the specification shows that a processor and/or a microprocessor, a data store, a working memory, a graphics processor (pg. 15 lines 13-15 and pg. 46 lines 19-22 and/or pg. 48 first paragraph) for performing functions as disclosed in at least pg. 12, pg. 17 lines 12-18, and pg. 43 lines 25-33 of the originally filed specification appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1-7, and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Park et al. (US 20190313997 A1), hereinafter Park.
Regarding claims 1, 13, 14, and 15,
Park discloses a medical system (at least fig. 13 and corresponding disclosure in at least [0208]. See also at least fig. 1A (1) and corresponding disclosure in at least [0051] and fig. 3 (1)), comprising:
a medical imaging instrument (at least fig. 13 (400) and corresponding disclosure in at least [0210] or at least figs. 2A, 2B, and 2C (200 or 200 and 100 in combination) and corresponding disclosure in at [0075]) adapted to generate image data ([0212] which discloses the activation of the X-ray detector 400 may include turning the X-ray detector 400 on. In this case, when a sensor 460 that is always turned on senses incidence of an X-ray, a detector 440 may be activated and generate X-ray data. See also [0123] which discloses the detector 240 may include a light receiving device 241 that detects an X-ray and generates an electrical signal and a read-out circuit 242 that reads out the generated electrical signal. Hereinafter, the electric signal that is read out and output by the read-out circuit 242 will be referred to as X-ray data (i.e. image data));
a display device (at least fig. 13 (500) and corresponding disclosure in at least [0210]. See also at least fig. 1 (300) and corresponding disclosure in at least [0079]) adapted to receive image data and generate a representation for a user ([0231] which discloses The communicator 510 of the workstation 500 may receive the X-ray data. The controller 520 may generate an X-ray image from which a lesion can be identified by processing the received X-ray data using detector information. [0134] which discloses the controller 320 may process X-ray data received from the X-ray detector 200 to generate an X-ray image from which a lesion may be identified);
a pairing unit (at least fig. 14 (420) and corresponding disclosure in at least in at least [0220] and/or at least fig. 15 (520) an corresponding disclosure in at least [0026] or at least fig. 3 (320) and corresponding disclosure in at least [0131]) adapted to establish a pairing of the imaging instrument and the display device, wherein, in a paired state, the image data is transmittable from the imaging instrument to the display device ([0237] which discloses an approval request screen 540c may be displayed on the display 540 before the pairing is approved, thus allowing the user to select whether to approve the pairing. When the user selects a “yes” button 540c-1, the workstation 500 may send a pairing response to the X-ray detector 400, and thus the pairing may be completed. When the user selects a “no” button 540c-2, the workstation 500 does not send a pairing response to the X-ray detector 400. See also [0115] which discloses the communicator 210 may send detector information by communicating with the mobile device 100, receive a pairing request by communicating with the workstation 300, and send X-ray data to the workstation 300 in response to the pairing request after pairing);
and a security unit (at least fig. 14 (420) and/or fig. 15 (520). See also at least fig. 3 (100 and/or 320)) adapted to recognize a confirmation of the pairing by the user, wherein the security unit is adapted to prevent the transmission of the image data from the imaging instrument to the display device in the absence of the confirmation of the pairing by the user ([0237] which discloses When the user selects a “yes” button 540c-1, the workstation 500 may send a pairing response to the X-ray detector 400, and thus the pairing may be completed. When the user selects a “no” button 540c-2, the workstation 500 does not send a pairing response to the X-ray detector 400. [0194] which discloses pairing between the X-ray detector 200 and the workstation 300 or between the X-ray detector 200 and the control panel 80 may be completed only when the user approves the pairing. see also [0197] which discloses when the user inputs a pairing approval command, the mobile device 100 sends a pairing approval signal to the workstation 300 and [0182] which discloses a pairing approval screen 140c for receiving an input on whether the pairing is approved from the user may be displayed on the display 140 of the mobile device 100. When the user selects a “yes” button 140c-1, the identification information of the X-ray detector 200 may be delivered to the workstation 300. When the user selects a “no” button 140c-2, the identification information of the X-ray detector 200 may not be delivered to the workstation 300 and [0168] which discloses here, the completion of the pairing means that the X-ray detector 200 and the workstation 300 may send and receive signals, thus indicating that transmission is prevented until the user selects “yes” and pairing is completed).
Examiner notes that the system of Park includes a medical instrument (i.e. detector) for use with the medical system as in claim 13, the pairing unit and security unit as in claim 14, and would perform the method of claim 15 having corresponding method steps.
Regarding claim 2,
Park teaches the elements of claim 1 as previously stated. Park further teaches wherein preventing transmission of image data comprises releasing the pairing of an imaging instrument and the display device ([0205] which discloses when the new identification information is delivered, the workstation 300 releases the previous pairing {circle around (3)}. That is, the workstation 300 releases the pairing with the first X-ray detector 200-1, thus preventing the transmission of the image data).
Regarding claim 3,
Park further teaches wherein the security unit is adapted to generate a request to the user for confirmation of the pairing (at least fig. 11 (3) and corresponding disclosure in at least [0196] and/or at least fig. 9B (340c) and corresponding disclosure in at least [0188])
Regarding claim 4,
Park further teaches wherein the display device (300, 500) is adapted to display the request to the user (see at least fig. 16 (540c)).
Regarding claim 5,
Park further discloses wherein the medical imaging instrument (200 and 100) comprises an operating element (100 or at least fig. 8B (140)), and wherein the confirmation of pairing comprises an actuation of the operating element (see at least fig. 8B (140c-1) and disclosure in at least [0182] where selecting a yes button on the display of the mobile terminal is considered actuation of the operating element (140))
Regarding claim 6,
Park further discloses wherien the confirmation of the pairing comprises an actuation of the operating element over a predetermined minimum confirmation time period (see at least fig. 8B (140c-1) and disclosure in at least [0182] where selecting a yes button on the display of the mobile terminal is considered actuation of the operating element (140). Examiner notes that the actuation of the operating element is done at any point in time including over a predetermined minimum confirmation time period (i.e. the selection of the button may occur at any point including over a time period throughout the duration of the procedure)) and wherein the confirmation time period is at least three seconds long or at least five seconds long (i.e. the selection of the button may occur at any point including over a predetermined time period of at least three seconds long or at least five seconds long)).
Regarding claim 7,
Park further discloses wherein the security unit is adapted to allow transmission of the image data from the imaging instrument to the display device when the confirmation of the pairing is present ([0168] which discloses here, the completion of the pairing means that the X-ray detector 200 and the workstation 300 may send and receive signals).
Regarding claim 11,
Park further discloses wherein the security unit is adapted to determine a user authorization of the user, to compare the user authorization with a predetermined required authorization, and to prevent the transmission of the image data form the imaging instrument to the display device if the user authorization does not reach the predetermined required authorization ([0182] which discloses a pairing approval screen 140c for receiving an input on whether the pairing is approved from the user may be displayed on the display 140 of the mobile device 100. When the user selects a “yes” button 140c-1, the identification information of the X-ray detector 200 may be delivered to the workstation 300. When the user selects a “no” button 140c-2, the identification information of the X-ray detector 200 may not be delivered to the workstation 300 and [0168] which discloses here, the completion of the pairing means that the X-ray detector 200 and the workstation 300 may send and receive signals, thus indicating that transmission is prevented until the user selects “yes” and pairing is completed).
Regarding claim 12,
Park further discloses further comprising a storage unit in which information about the pairing of the imaging instrument with the display device and/or the confirmation of the pairing by the user is stored ([0011] which discloses storage 130 may be a non-volatile memory or a volatile memory. Data temporarily needed may be stored in the volatile memory, and data needed until a deletion command is input may be stored in the non-volatile memory. For example, the identification information of the X-ray detector 200 or the identification information of the workstation 300 may be stored in the non-volatile memory and used when needed. See also [0117] which discloses the storage 230 may be a non-volatile memory or a volatile memory. For example, the identification information of the X-ray detector 200 or the identification information of the workstation 300 may be stored in the non-volatile memory and used when needed. See also [0135] which discloses The storage 330 may store the identification information of the X-ray detector 200 received from the mobile device 100 where such information is considered information about the pairing of the imaging instrument with display device and the confirmation of the pairing by the user).
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 (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 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.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Welsch (US 20180015218 A1), hereinafter Welsch.
Regarding claim 8,
Park teaches the elements of claim 1 as previously stated. Park further teaches wherein the display device has a recognition feature and is identifiable by means of the recognition feature.
Park fails to explicitly teach wherein the confirmation of the pairing comprises capturing an image of the recognition feature by means of the imaging instrument.
Welsch, in a similar field of endeavor involving pairing of devices, teaches wherein a display device (at least fig. 2 (200) and corresponding disclosure in at least [0044]-[0045] and/or at least fig. 4 (400) and corresponding disclosure in at least [0058]) has a recognition feature (at least fig. 2 (220) and corresponding disclosure in at least [0045] and/or at least fig. 4 (420) and corresponding disclosure in at least [0058]) and is identifiable by means of the recognition feature, wherein confirmation of a pairing comprises capturing an image of the recognition feature by means of an imaging instrument (at least fig. 4 (100) and corresponding disclosure in at least [0059]) ([0063] which discloses paired communication is entered at 340 only if, at 330, the association code is optically read from the dynamic display 204 and [0070] which discloses the controller 212 of the medical device 200 can be programmed and configured to pair with the portable device 100 after the controller of the medical device has determined that predetermined conditions for entering paired communication with the portable device have been met and [0057] which discloses communicated information related to the association code read by the portable device can include information relevant to the determination, such as an image of the association code captured by the optical imaging device 106).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Park to include a recognition capturing an image of the recognition feature by means of the imaging instrument as taught by Welsch in order to allow the imaging instrument in possession of the recognition feature to communicate with a specific individual display device referenced by the recognition feature (Welsch [0080]). Such a modification would provide enhanced security as to the confirmation/completion of pairing by ensuring that the appropriate code read from the display device is communicated to the imaging device accordingly.
Regarding claim 9,
Welsch, as applied to claim 8 above further teaches wherein the display device is adapted to display the recognition feature (220 or 420) (see at least figs. 2 and/or 4).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Cohen-Bacrie et al. (US 20230016828 A1), hereinafter Cohen.
Regarding claim 10,
Park further teaches wherein a first device identification is assigned to the imaging instrument, wherein a second device identification is assigned to the display device and wherein the pairing unit is and to establish or prevent pairing of the imaging instrument and the display device in accordance with application of an assignment rule ([0179] which discloses the recognition identification information may be sent by the X-ray detector 200 together with the identification information for pairing or may be mapped to the identification information for pairing and prestored in the storage 130 of the mobile device 100 and [0019] which discloses the controller may be further configured to control the second communicator to release a pairing with the X-ray detector in response to the first communicator receiving identification information of a new X-ray detector and [0207] which discloses whenever the workstation 300 receives new identification information from the mobile device 100, the workstation 300 releases the previous pairing and attempts a new pairing. When new identification information is again received from the mobile device 100 after the workstation 300 is paired with the second X-ray detector 200-2, the workstation 300 may release the pairing with the second X-ray detector 200-2 and retry a new pairing)
Park fails to explicitly teach wherein an assignment rule is stored in the pairing unit which defines combinations of different device identifications as permissible or impermissible, and wherein the pairing unit is adapted to compare the first device identification with the second device identification using the assignment rule and to establish or prevent pairing of the imaging instrument and the display device in accordance with the application of the assignment rule.
Cohen, in a similar field of endeavor involving pairing of devices in the medical field, teaches an assignment rule is stored in a pairing unit which defines combinations of different device identifications as permissible or impermissible, and wherein the pairing unit is adapted to compare the first device identification with the second device identification using the assignment rule and to establish or prevent pairing of an imaging instrument and a display device in accordance with the application of the assignment rule ([0168] which discloses the storage unit of the platform 3 comprises a table classifying all the probes 1 manufactured by and/or belonging to the organization and [0190] which discloses The terminal identifier, the terminal public key and the terminal certificate are retained in a table stored in the storage unit of the platform 3. In the scenario where the probe identifier is also transmitted to the platform, this platform stores in a probe/terminal correspondence table the identifiers of the probe and of the terminal that must be combined for the implementation of an examination session and [0230] which discloses This examination request message is sent to the platform 3 which records it in the storage unit and updates the probe/terminal correspondence table by associating with it the probe and terminal identifiers). The terminal identifier, the terminal public key and the terminal certificate are retained in a table stored in the storage unit of the platform 3. In the scenario where the probe identifier is also transmitted to the platform, this platform stores in a probe/terminal correspondence table the identifiers of the probe and of the terminal that must be combined for the implementation of an examination session. [0225] This information and other information such as: [0226] the identifier of the terminal, [0227] personal data relating to the patient (first name, surname, case number etc.) [0228] data related to the examination (acquisition date of the examination data, type of examination etc.) [0229] are incorporated into an examination request message [0230] This examination request message is sent to the platform 3 which records it in the storage unit and updates the probe/terminal correspondence table by associating with it the probe and terminal identifiers).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Park to include comparing the first device identification with the second device identification using the assignment rule and to establish or prevent pairing of an imaging instrument and a display device in accordance with the application of the assignment rule as taught by Cohen in order to ensure connection is only made between authorized devices. Such a modification would ensure that the display device and the medical imaging device are paired according to a desired examination request by a user and further preventing any fraud or leaks of data to display devices or other terminals which are not desired to be paired.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Gu et al. (US 20230263383 A1) teaches a system comprising a medical imaging device (see fig. 5 (14)), a display device (see fig. 5 (12)), a pairing unit (58) configured to establish a pairing between the imaging device and the display device and a security unit (58) configured to recognized confirmation of the pairing ([0036])
Molettiere et al. (US 20140235171 A1) teaches wherein confirming a pairing comprises actuating an operating element on a measurement instrument ([0039]-[0040] which discloses other validation interactions include, but are not limited to multiple taps of the device, pressing a button, picking up device, either touching or performing a gesture on a touch sensitive part of the device, etc.)
Nakagawa (US 9877652 B2) teaches releasing a pairing between a measurement device and a display device (thus preventing transmission of data from the measurement device to the display device) in the absence of confirmation (Col. 8 lines 57-Col. 9 line 3 When the confirmation code input by a user does not match the confirmation code received from the measurement device 10, or when there is no input after a certain period of time from the start of reception of input, both of the external device 14 and the measurement device 10 execute processing of invalidating the paired device. For example, the external device 14 transmits a deletion command to the measurement device 10 (S106). By deleting the communication information recorded in the memory portion 5, the measurement device 10 can invalidate the communication setting between the external device 14 and the measurement device 10 (S206). Thereby, even when erroneous pairing is established, it is possible to prevent exchange of data, leakage of personal information, etc.)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BROOKE L KLEIN whose telephone number is (571)270-5204. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-4.
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, Anne Kozak can be reached at 571-270-0552. 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.
/BROOKE LYN KLEIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797
Prosecution Insights