Ex Parte Jha et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 26, 2018

13839768 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 26, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/839,768 03/15/2013 14333 7590 03/28/2018 Meagher Emanuel Laks Goldberg & Liao, LLP ONE PALMER SQUARE SUITE 325 Princeton, NJ 08542 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Niraj K. Jha UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www .uspto.gov ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. Princeton - 30102 3148 EXAMINER FAROOQUI, QUAZI ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2491 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/28/2018 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address( es): molech@meagheremanuel.com 14333-docket@meagheremanuel.eom tmeagher@meagheremanuel.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte NIRAJ K. IHA, ANAND RAGHUNATHAN, and MENG ZHANG Appeal2017-010640 1 Application 13/839,768 Technology Center 2400 Before MARC S. HOFF, MONICA S. ULLAGADDI, and JASON M. REPKO, Administrative Patent Judges. ULLAGADDI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) of the Examiner's final decision rejecting claim 1, which constitute all the claims pending in this application. App. Br. 14. Claims 2-26 have been cancelled. Id. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We reverse. 1 Appellants identify The Trustees of Princeton University, of Princeton, New Jersey, and Purdue Research Foundation, of West Lafayette, Indiana, the assignees of record as the real party in interest. App. Br. 3. Appeal2017-010640 Application 13/839,768 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The present invention relates to a "medical device monitor[,] ... method and computer readable medium." Abstract. Independent claim 1 is pending and is reproduced below, with emphasis added to a key limitation. 1. A medical device monitor (MedMon) configured to operate in a system having communications between a first medical device associated with a patient and a second device, the MedMon compnsmg: a unitary device comprising a receiver, an anomaly detector and a response generator; the receiver being configured to monitor communications between the first medical device and second device; the anomaly detector being configured to detect physical anomalies in a transmitted signal and behavioral anomalies in underlying medical information contained in the transmitted signal by analyzing the communications between the first medical device and second device for compliance with a set of security policies, the security policies defining allowable thresholds of both physical characteristics of the transmitted signal and underlying physiological data of the patient; and the response generator being configured to generate a response on a condition that an anomaly is detected. THE REJECTION Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Garcia Morchon et al. (US 2011/0145894 Al; June 16, 2011, hereinafter "Garcia Morchon") and Muaddi et al. (US 2004/0162995 Al; pub. Aug. 19, 2004, hereinafter "Muaddi"). ANALYSIS The Examiner finds that the combination of Garcia Morchon and Muaddi teaches the "anomaly detector" limitation recited in claim 1. Final 2 Appeal2017-010640 Application 13/839,768 Act. 6-7. Specifically, the Examiner finds Garcia Morchon teaches "security policies defining allowable thresholds of both physical characteristics of the transmitted signal and underlying medical data or commands." Id. at 7 (citing Garcia Morchon i-f 142). More particularly, the Examiner finds that communication payload, in Garcia Morchon, could be data "such as patient vitals or clinician commands for dose or medication change or lab work etc." Final Act. 7. The Examiner acknowledges that Garcia Morchon does not teach the remainder of the anomaly detector limitation, "the anomaly detector being configured to detect physical anomalies in a transmitted signal and behavioral anomalies in underlying medical information contained in the transmitted signal by analyzing the communications between the first medical device and second device for compliance with a set of security policies," and further finds that Muaddi teaches the same. Id. The Examiner finds that "signals originating from a location different than that of known, authorized users may be evidence of an intruder" and that "[a] patient's location change is one of the examples of behavioral anomaly ... for compliance with a set of security policies." Id. at 7-8 (citing Muaddi i-fi-19, 14 ). The Examiner further finds that "the fusion stations may correlate the calculated attributes with stored attributes of signals of known, authorized users of the network, here, stored attributes of physical layer characteristics are security policy for this IDS." Id. at 8. In the Advisory Action, the Examiner additionally cited paragraph 155 of Garcia Morchon, finding that GARCIA teaches security policies for end to end healthcare system (Fig.I element 'security protocol' & [0155] lines 8-12, the PSM (personal security manager) is configured with the 3 Appeal2017-010640 Application 13/839,768 corresponding a secure KM (Keying Material) to enable secure communications with WMSs (wireless medical sensor), as well as with the local access control policy for that patient. This local policy is stored on the patient's HCC (health care card), and in the patient's back-end healthcare record). Advisory Act. 2-3 (citing Garcia Morchon i-f 155, emphasis omitted). In the Answer, the Examiner additionally cites paragraph 15 8 of Garcia Morchon, finding that the cited portion teaches "security policies defining allowable thresholds" because "the system can also implement dynamic context aware privacy and access control policies that allow dynamic adaptation of access control rules," for example, by raising an alarm if a patient suffers a heart attack. Ans. 9-10 (citing Garcia Morchon i-f 158). Appellants take issue with the Examiner's reliance on Garcia Morchon for the broader teaching of "defining security policies for securing communications in general are known" instead of the narrower claim limitation "security policies defining allowable thresholds of both physical characteristics of the transmitted signal and underlying physiological data of the patient." App. Br. 10. Appellants argue that the cited portion of Garcia Morchon in paragraph 142 "simply teaches that it is known [that] information can be transmitted securely between devices." Id. at 9. Appellants further argue that "in the Advisory Action, the Examiner changed the citation to paragraph [O 155] in asserting Garcia teaches security policies for an end to end healthcare system," thus "overgeneralizing the security policy limitation at issue." Id. Appellants further contend in addition to failing to teach or suggest the security policies as claimed, Garcia Morchon does not teach or suggest detecting an anomaly "by analyzing the communications between the first medical device and second device for 4 Appeal2017-010640 Application 13/839,768 compliance with a set of security policies," as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 10. We agree with Appellants. The cited portion in paragraph 142 of Garcia Morchon teaches a cryptographic security policy for communications, whereas paragraph 155 discloses a "mutual authentication handshake ... to enable secure communications," as well as a local access control policy. Garcia Morchon i-fi-f 142, 155. Neither of the cited portions of Garcia Morchon define "allowable thresholds of both physical characteristics of the transmitted signal and underlying physiological data of the patient," as recited in claim 1. Even assuming, arguendo, that the Garcia Morchon's disclosure of raising an alarm if a patient suffers a heart attack in paragraph 158 constitutes a security policy related to a patient, the Examiner merely finds that Garcia Morchon teaches "security policies defining allowable thresholds," instead of the narrower recitation of "security policies defining allowable thresholds of ... underlying physiological data of the patient," as recited in claim 1. See Ans. 9 (citing Garcia Morchon i-f 158). In addition, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner does not make the finding that anomalies are detected "by analyzing the communications between the first medical device and second device for compliance with a set of security policies," as recited in claim 1. For the foregoing reasons, we determine that Appellants' arguments are persuasive to show error in the Examiner's findings, and accordingly, the ultimate conclusion of obviousness. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1. 5 Appeal2017-010640 Application 13/839,768 DECISION The Examiner's decision to reject claim 1 is reversed. REVERSED 6