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 .
Claims 1 and 6-24 are pending.
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) 1, 6-21, 23 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luna et al. (hereinafter Luna) (US 20160270717 A1) in view of Lettow (US 20160327979 A1), and further in view of Carter et al. (hereinafter Carter) (US 20140223421 A1).
Luna and Lettow were cited as prior art in the previous office action mailed on 01/08/2026. Their teachings are incorporated by reference to the extent that is applicable to amended claims.
By the way of amendment, Applicant inserted the limitation “wherein changing the functionality comprises: receiving a flash loadable module (FLM) file implementing a function associated with at least one of the one or more medical devices, and loading the FLM file into flash memory of the device” into claim 1.
As to claim 1, Luna in view of Lettow does not teach wherein changing the functionality comprises: receiving a flash loadable module (FLM) file implementing a function associated with at least one of the one or more medical devices, and loading the FLM file into flash memory of the device.
Carter teaches that changing the functionality comprises: receiving a flash loadable module (FLM) file implementing a function associated with at least one of the one or more medical devices, and loading the FLM file into flash memory of the device [0019: “…providing a customized version of firmware for controlling the functionality of a wearable sensor device. The customized version of the firmware can be customized based on how a particular wearable sensor device is used or one or more characteristics of a user that intends to use or has used the wearable sensor device. In this way, the functionality provided by the wearable sensor device can be tailored to a particular way in which the user uses the wearable sensor device.”] [0064: “In FIG. 3B, mobile device 301 is shown as wirelessly transmitting the second version of firmware 310b to wearable sensor device 302. Then, as shown in FIG. 3C, with the second version of firmware 310b being installed on wearable sensor device 302, sensor 303 generates data 350 in accordance with the second version of firmware 310b (e.g. using a customized sampling rate, a customized power level, a customized data set, etc.). Accordingly, data 350 generated after the second version of firmware 310b is installed can be optimized for the particular way in which the user is using or will be using wearable sensor device 302.”].
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teaching of providing a customized firmware for controlling the functionality as suggested in Carter into Luna in view of Lettow to implement changing functionality of a device. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modification to improve the flexibility and efficiency for adding or removing features.
As to claims 6-20, the rejections are respectfully maintained for the reasons as set forth in the previous office action and incorporated by reference to the extent that is applicable to current claims.
As to claim 21, Carter further teaches wherein the FLM file comprises diagnostic-test software for one or more diagnostic tests ordered for or by the user [0054: “As another example, a wearable sensor device that comprises a pulse oximeter may be sold with firmware that optimizes the functionality of the pulse oximeter for a user having average skin density. However, if the user's skin has an increased density (and therefore requires a stronger intensity of light for the sensor to adequately work), the firmware can be adjusted so that a stronger light is emitted. Such determinations can be made during or after use of the pulse oximeter (e.g. by identifying that data received from the pulse oximeter is deficient), or prior to use (e.g. by receiving user input that indicates that a stronger light intensity may be desired).”].
As to claim 23, it relates to method claim comprising the similar subject matters claimed in claim 1. Therefore, it is rejected under the same reasons applied to claims 1.
As to claim 24, it relates to computer-readable medium claim comprising the similar subject matters claimed in claim 1. Therefore, it is rejected under the same reasons applied to claims 1.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luna et al. (hereinafter Luna) (US 20160270717 A1) in view of Lettow (US 20160327979 A1), and Carter et al. (hereinafter Carter) (US 20140223421 A1), and further in view of Wilson et al. (hereinafter Wilson) (US 20030005249 A1).
As to claim 22, Luna in view of Lettow and Cater does not teach wherein an FLM loader repeatedly loads a code block into flash buffer of the device, reads relocation entries for the code block from the FLM file, performs relocation on the code block in the flash buffer to form a relocated code block, and writes the relocated code block to the flash memory of the device.
Wilson teaches loading code blocks into a buffer, reading relocation entries , performing relocation on the code blocks in the buffer and writing the relocated code blocks to a flash memory [abstract: “In one embodiment, each memory page is divided into relocation blocks located at various physical locations, and a relocation table is created with entries used to locate these blocks. To access memory for a particular piece of data, a program first uses a virtual address of the data, which, through a translation look-aside buffer, is translated into a physical address within the computer system. Using the relocation table, the physical address is then translated to a relocation address that identifies the relocation block containing the requested data. From the identified relocation block, the data is returned to the program.”].
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teaching of using relocation entries to relocate data blocks as suggested in Wilson into Luna in view of Lettow and Carter to implement data management. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modification to improve efficient use of memory space for large data.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XUXING CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-3486. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5:30PM.
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, Jaweed Abbaszadeh can be reached at 571-270-1640. 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.
/XUXING CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2176
Prosecution Insights