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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on the following dates is/are entered and considered by Examiner:
* 02 February 2026
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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 1,3-4,21,23-25 and 27-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites:
A pulse oximeter system, the system comprising:
a physiological sensor that is applied to a tissue site of a patient and connected to a patient device associated with the patient, wherein the physiological sensor is configured to measure a plurality of oxygen saturation parameter values;
a data storage system that stores a plurality of historical events, wherein each historical event from the plurality of historical events comprises a respective oxygen saturation parameter value for the patient at a corresponding timestamp; and
a multi-patient monitoring and analytics system that communicates with the patient device and with a clinician device over a network, wherein the multi-patient monitoring and analytics system is configured to:
receive, from a plurality of patient devices, the plurality of oxygen saturation parameter values and the corresponding timestamps;
store the plurality of oxygen saturation parameter values and the corresponding timestamps in the data storage system;
receive input comprising a first domain indicating a group of patient devices;
receive a time range comprising a start time and an end time;
receive an oxygen drop percentage, a time window, and a duration;
execute a first query comprising input parameters, the input parameters comprising the domain, the start time, and the end time, wherein executing the first query comprises: identifying, from the plurality of historical events, a subset of the historical events from the domain and within the start time and the end time;
identify, from the first subset of the historical events, a second subset of the historical events, wherein to identify: the second subset of the historical events, the multi-patient monitoring and analytics system is configured to:
compute, for a particular patient, a patient-specific baseline oxygen saturation over the time window;
apply a sliding window to search the historical events; and
identify, for a particular patient, one or more desaturation events defined by oxygen saturation parameter values that are at least the oxygen drop percentage, below the patient-specific baseline for a continuous period that is at least the duration;
generate oxygen desaturation summary data comprising a quantity of oxygen desaturation events for each patient from the second subset of the historical events, wherein the oxygen desaturation summary data is associated with a plurality of patients;
output the oxygen desaturation summary data for presentation, wherein the presentation comprises desaturation data of the plurality of patients.
Step 1:
The claim as a whole falls within at least one statutory category, i.e. a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Step 2A Prong One:
The highlighted portion, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, falls under “Certain methods of organizing human activity” because the steps of processing data for a patient have been traditionally performed by a human being, i.e. managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)
But for the recitation of high-level computing components like a generic computer used, each of these steps, when considered as a whole, describe a selection process that could take place between various human entities of a patient’s care team, e.g. the patient and one or more medical professionals. For example, a patient could provide medical information about themselves (i.e. various forms of patient data as recited) to a medical professional during an appointment or other interaction, and the medical professional could analyze/process the received information to determine an appropriate alarm level. Thus, the steps recited in this claim describe the various interactions between a patient and one or more medical professionals, and accordingly claim 1 recites an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity.
At best, these claims recite the use of a generic computer to perform the abstract concept.
In the above steps, a clinician could perform this type of determination when viewing data for a patient. Therefore, the steps are directed towards certain methods of organizing human activities.
The highlighted portion, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, falls under “Mental processes”.
But for a generic computer recited with a high level of generality, the steps may be performed in the human mind either mentally or with pen and paper.
Accordingly, these limitations have been found to be directed towards concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)
The different categories of abstract ideas are being considered together as one single abstract idea. MPEP 2106.04(II)(B)
Dependent claim(s) recite(s) additional subject matter which further narrows or defines the abstract idea embodied in the claims (such as claim(s) 3-4, 32 reciting limitations further defining the abstract idea, which may be performed in the mind but for recitation of generic computer components, and/or may be a method of managing relationship or interactions between people).
Step 2A Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the following additional element(s), if any:
a physiological sensor that is applied to a tissue site of a patient and connected to a patient device associated with the patient, wherein the physiological sensor is configured to measure a plurality of oxygen saturation parameter values;
a data storage system that stores a plurality of historical events, wherein each historical event from the plurality of historical events comprises a respective oxygen saturation parameter value for the patient at a corresponding timestamp; and
a multi-patient monitoring and analytics system that communicates with the patient device and with a clinician device over a network, wherein the multi-patient monitoring and analytics system is configured to:
receive, from a plurality of patient devices, the plurality of oxygen saturation parameter values and the corresponding timestamps;
store the plurality of oxygen saturation parameter values and the corresponding timestamps in the data storage system;
receive input comprising a first domain indicating a group of patient devices;
receive a time range comprising a start time and an end time;
receive an oxygen drop percentage, a time window, and a duration;
output the oxygen desaturation summary data for presentation, wherein the presentation comprises desaturation data of the plurality of patients.
The additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, other than the abstract idea per se.
Regarding the patient device, the Specification as originally filed on 08 October 2018 in parent application 62742781 (hereafter referred to as “the Provisional Specification”) discloses a variety of types of devices (page 10 paragraph 0043 disclosing “and the like”).
Regarding the data storage system invoked to store a plurality of data, the Provisional Specification discloses a generic computer storage system with a high level of generality (page 10 paragraph 0043 disclosing a data storage system without any additional details).
Regarding the a multi-patient monitoring and analytics system recited to receive and process data, this limitation, the Provisional Specification discloses a generic computer to perform the various steps (page 60 paragraph 0161 disclosing “any number of devices”).
Regarding the clinician device, the Provisional Specification discloses any generic computer (page 10-11 paragraph 0044 disclosing “any other device”).
Accordingly, these limitations amount(s) to mere instructions to apply an exception (invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea). MPEP 2106.05(f))
Regarding the physiological sensor measuring data with timestamps, the Provisional Specification discloses a variety of sensors (page 10 paragraph 0043 disclosing “and the like”).
Regarding the network, the Provisional Specification discloses any type of known network (page 9-10 paragraph 0042).
Regarding the user interfaces used to display and receive data, the Provisional Specification discloses many types of user interfaces, including generic user interfaces capable of providing the recited functionality (page 16 paragraph 0053).
Regarding the user input to launch an interface by selecting a displayed component, i.e. patient indicator, this limitation is merely directed towards insignificant extra-solution activity, i.e. data selection for display.
Similarly, the step of displaying data in a full-screen display of a device is also merely directed towards insignificant extra-solution activity, i.e. data selection for display.
Accordingly, these limitations merely add(s) insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea (mere data gathering, selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated, insignificant application). MPEP 2106.05(g))
Dependent claim(s) recite(s) additional subject matter which amount to limitation(s) consistent with the additional element(s) in the independent claims (such as claim(s) 3-4, 32 reciting a generic computer and display in a manner consistent with the independent claim 1 above and incorporated herein).
Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation and do not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2B:
The claim does 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 additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception, add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use.
The additional elements, as discussed above and incorporated herein, amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception, add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed above and incorporated herein.
Mere instructions to apply an exception, insignificant extra-solution activity, and linking to a particular technological environment using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Examiner notes that the physiological sensors have been described by Applicant in a manner that would be well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) in the pertinent arts as performing their existing and known functions (Provisional Specification, page 10 paragraph 0043).
Regarding the network, this limitation has been identified by the courts as being WURC in the pertinent arts, e.g., receiving or transmitting data over a network. Symantec, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)
Regarding the user interface, the Provisional Specification discloses that generic computer graphical user interfaces may be used to implement the recite functionality (page 16 paragraph 0053), and amounts to a finding of well-understood, routine, and conventional in the pertinent arts.
Regarding the step of displaying data in a full-screen display of a device, Sampath (20160283665) discloses a window that can be maximized to occupy the entire display of a physician’s device (Figure 28 upper right corner illustrating a Maximize Window icon) in a manner that would be WURC in the pertinent arts.
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which amount to limitations consistent with the additional elements in the independent claims.
Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 21,23-25 and 27-31, 33-34 recite methods and systems for performing substantially similar functions at the systems of claims 1, 3-4, 32, and therefore rejected for substantially similar rationale as applied to claims 1, 3-4, 32 above, and incorporated herein.
In particular, the abstract idea for claims 21 and 25 are identical as the abstract idea identified for claims 1.
Subject Matter Free of Prior Art
Claim(s) 1,3-4,21,23-25 and 27-34 distinguish(es) over the prior art for the following reasons.
The following is a statement of reasons for the subject matter free of prior art:
Claim 1: the primary reason for the indication of subject matter free of prior art is the inclusion of the following limitations in the combination as recited in the abstract concept and not found in the closest available prior art of record:
execute a first query comprising input parameters, the input parameters comprising the domain, the start time, and the end time, wherein executing the first query comprises: identifying, from the plurality of historical events, a subset of the historical events from the domain and within the start time and the end time;
identify, from the first subset of the historical events, a second subset of the historical events, wherein to identify: the second subset of the historical events, the multi-patient monitoring and analytics system is configured to:
compute, for a particular patient, a patient-specific baseline oxygen saturation over the time window;
apply a sliding window to search the historical events; and
identify, for a particular patient, one or more desaturation events defined by oxygen saturation parameter values that are at least the oxygen drop percentage, below the patient-specific baseline for a continuous period that is at least the duration;
generate oxygen desaturation summary data comprising a quantity of oxygen desaturation events for each patient from the second subset of the historical events, wherein the oxygen desaturation summary data is associated with a plurality of patients;
The closest available prior art of record are as follows:
Sampath discloses a pulse oximetry capable of generating an alarm when SpO.sub.2 drops below safe levels (page 14 paragraph 0185), but does not fairly disclose or suggest generating an summary based on the sliding window, as claimed.
Based on the evidence presented above, none of the closest available prior art of record fairly discloses or suggests the claimed invention. For this reason, claim 1 would be found to be subject matter free of prior art.
Claim(s) 3-4, 32: this/these claim(s) would also be found to be subject matter free of prior art for at least the same rationale as applied to parent claim 1 above, and incorporated herein.
Claim(s) 21,23-25 and 27-31, 33-34: this/these claim(s) would also be found to be subject matter free of prior art for substantially similar rationale as applied to claim(s) 1, 3-4, 32 above, and incorporated herein.
Response to Arguments
In the Remarks filed on 02 February 2026, Applicant makes numerous arguments. Examiner will address these arguments in the order presented.
On page 13-17 Applicant argues that the previously applied art do not fairly disclose or suggest the claimed invention.
Applicant’s arguments, have been carefully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of all pending claims under Section 102 and 103(a) has been withdrawn.
On page 18 Applicant argues that the steps of computing a baseline and sliding-window for patients and devices cannot be practically performed in the human mind.
While Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered, they are not found persuasive because the claims do not recite any limitation that would not be practically performed in the human mind either mentally or with pen and paper. In making this argument, Applicant provides no evidence or assertion regarding why these steps would not be practically performed in the human mind.
Additionally, these steps are also directed towards Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. See the section above, and incorporated herein.
On page 18-19 Applicant argues that the claims provide technical improvement.
While Applicant’s arguments have been carefully considered, they are not persuasive because the argued limitations are part of the abstract idea.
Even newly discovered or novel judicial exceptions are still exceptions. MPEP 2106.04(I)
Based on the evidence presented above, Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Woronka (20080243549) discloses a Web-based patient tracking and reporting tool (Abstract) in a manner similar to those disclosed in the instant pending Specification as originally filed.
Vigneux (20130138450) discloses a GUI for managing patient data and treatments (Abstract) in a manner similar to those disclosed in the instant pending Specification as originally filed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRAN N NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-0259. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM Eastern.
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, KAMBIZ ABDI can be reached on (571)272-6702. 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.
/T.N.N./ Examiner, Art Unit 3685 /KAMBIZ ABDI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3685
Prosecution Insights