DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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 1-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “translating communication between said monitoring client and the plurality of databases utilizing said middleware and analyzing whether a treatment and/or order for a treatment is safe”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a system…comprising: a monitoring server…” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “monitoring server” and “monitoring client” language, translating and analyzing in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually translating communications and performing safety checks on data.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites one additional element – using a monitoring server to perform translating and analyzing. The server in both steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of translating and comparing data to rules) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
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 element of using a server to perform both the translating and analyzing steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
The dependent only further limit the abstract idea as in the independent claim, as they further limit insignificant extrasolution activity such as how the data is received such as in 2-4, 11-12, provide additional computer hardware performing routine functions such as the middleware of claims 5-10, 13, or access control as in claim 14, a medical pump providing routine medical pump functions as in claims 15-24, and further limit the same abstract idea as the independent claim as in claim 24 and do not therefore, in combination, recite significantly more than the abstract idea or provide a practical application of the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-13 and 15-20, and 24 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2005/0246205 to Wang et al. in view of 2007/0255126 to Moberg et al. in further view of U.S. Patent 9,820,658 to Tran.
As to claim 1, Wang discloses a system for electronic patient care, the system comprising:
a monitoring server comprising middleware configured to communicate with a plurality of databases, wherein at least one of the plurality of databases includes a data formatting or a communications protocol different from another database of the plurality of databases (Wang [0014]);
a monitoring client configured to communicate with the plurality of databases via the monitoring server (Wang [0014] and [0051]);
However, Wang does not explicitly teach but Moberg teaches:
Wherein said monitoring server is configured for translating communication between said monitoring client and the plurality of databases utilizing said middleware (Moberg [0133]-[0140]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to retrieve data from medical pumps as in Moberg in the information management system of Wang to centralize data retrieved from various medical data sources.
However, Wang and Moberg do not explicitly teach wherein said monitoring server translates communication between said monitoring client and the plurality of databases during a patient treatment utilizing said middleware. Tran discloses wherein said monitoring server translates communication between said monitoring client and the plurality of databases during a patient treatment utilizing said middleware (Tran abstract and column 1 lines 49-67 and column 2 lines 48-67) and the monitoring client configured for, during a treatment, analyzing whether an order for a treatment is safe (Tran column 6 lines 29-37 see performing a drug interaction analysis on the prescription (order)) and if not, preventing the treatment (Tran column 7 lines 1-42 see the system minimizes the danger from…drug interactions).
It would have been obvious if one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing of the invention by applicant to translate communications during treatment as in Tran in the system of Wang and Moberg to improve communications and improve monitoring capabilities.
As to claim 2, see the discussion of claim 1, additionally, Wang discloses the system wherein said monitoring server is adapted to format data from the plurality of databases to download the formatted data into the monitoring client (Wang [0014] and [0051]).
As to claim 3, see the discussion of claim 1, additionally, Wang discloses the system wherein said monitoring server is configured to interrogate an electronic health records database to receive patient information therefrom using said middleware (Wang [0014] and [0051]).
As to claim 4, see the discussion of claim 3, additionally, Wang discloses the system wherein said monitoring server is further configured to populate said monitoring client with a predefined set of information in accordance with patient information (Wang [0014] and [0051] see subscription).
As to claim 5, see the discussion of claim 1, additionally, Wang discloses the system wherein the middleware is configured to mediate communication between the monitoring client and intra-facility databases or extra-facility databases (Wang [0014] and [0051]).
As to claim 6, see the discussion of claim 1, additionally, Wang discloses the system wherein said middleware is configured to provide an application programming interface for communicating with the plurality of databases (Wang [0014]).
As to claim 7, see the discussion of claim 6, additionally, Wang discloses the system wherein at least two of the plurality of databases has disparate organization protocols, wherein the application programming interface provides a common interface to the disparate organization protocols (Wang [0014]).
As to claim 8, see the discussion of claim 6, additionally, Wang discloses the system wherein at least two of the plurality of databases has disparate formatting protocols, wherein the application programming interface provides a common interface to the disparate formatting protocols (Wang [0014]).
As to claim 9, see the discussion of claim 6, additionally, Wang discloses the system wherein at least two of the plurality of databases has disparate communication protocols, wherein the application programming interface provides a common interface to the disparate communication protocols (Wang [0014]).
As to claim 10, see the discussion of claim 1, additionally, Wang discloses the system wherein said middleware is configured to provide ephemeral storage of at least one of patient-treatment parameters received from the monitoring client for uploading into an electronic health records database of the plurality of databases (Wang [0060]).
As to claim 11, see the discussion of claim 1, additionally, Wang wherein the monitoring server is configured to update said monitoring client (Wang [0014] and [0051]).
As to claim 12, see the discussion of claim 1, additionally, Moberg wherein said monitoring server is configured to update a medical pump (Moberg [0121]).
As to claim 13, see the discussion of claim 1, additionally, Wang wherein said middleware is configured to provide an application programming interface for communicating with the plurality of databases, wherein the application programming interface includes a secure data class (Wang [0049] and [0053]).
As to claim 15, see the discussion of claim 1, additionally, Wang further comprising a bus, configured for operative communication with a medical pump (White column 4 lines 60-67 and column 5 lines 1-19).
As to claim 16, see the discussion of claim 1, additionally, Moberg further comprising a medical pump configured to communicate an alarm or an alert to the monitoring client (Moberg [0178]).
As to claim 17, see the discussion of claim 1, additionally, Moberg further comprising a medical pump is configured to determine if the treatment is safe for a patient (Moberg [0178]).
As to claim 18, see the discussion of claim 1, additionally, Moberg further comprising a medical pump configured to display data on a display of said monitoring client (Moberg [0178]).
As to claim 19, see the discussion of claim 1, additionally, Moberg further comprising a medical pump configured to communicate to the monitoring client (Moberg [0177]-[0178]).
As to claim 20, see the discussion of claim 1, additionally, Moberg wherein said monitoring client is configured to analyze data from a medical pump for a predefined condition to issue an alarm or an alert (Moberg [0178]).
As to claim 23, see the discussion of claim 1, additionally, Moberg discloses wherein said monitoring client is configured for initiating a remedial action respecting a malfunctioning pump (Moberg see initating an alarm or alert when a telemetered device within the local infusion system is out of range of the monitor [0094]).
As to claim 24, see the discussion of claim 1, additionally, Moberg discloases evaluating a compatibility patient-specific information (Moberg [0094]).
Claims 14 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2005/0246205 to Wang et al. in view of 2007/0255126 to Moberg et al. in further view of U.S. Patent 9,820,658 to Tran. in view of OFFICIAL NOTICE.
As to claim 14, see the discussion of claim 1, however, Wang and White do not explicitly teach said monitoring client includes a sandbox component configured to control access to the at least one of a hardware resource and a software resource. Examiner takes OFFICIAL NOTICE that sandbox components configured to control access to the at least one of a hardware resource and a software resource are exceedingly well known in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have incorporated a sandbox component into the system of White and Wang for the well-known benefit of testing and isolating software revisions.
Claims 21-22 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2005/0246205 to Wang et al. in view of 2007/0255126 to Moberg et al. in further view of U.S. Patent 9,820,658 to Tran in view of U.S. Patent 8,486,019 to White et al.
As to claim 21, see the discussion of claim 1, however, Wang and Moberg do not explicitly teach but White discloses the system wherein said bus is configured for operative communication with a second medical pump (White column 12 lines 1-19),
wherein said medical pump and said second medical pump are configured to wirelessly communicate with each other when communication via said bus is inoperative (White column 12 lines 1-19).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to retrieve data from medical pumps as in White in the information management system of Wang and Moberg to centralize data retrieved from various medical data sources.
As to claim 22, see the discussion of claim 1, however, Wang and Moberg do not explicitly teach but White discloses further comprising a medical pump configured for retransmitting data to a respective adjacent device of said monitoring client and said second medical pump (White column 12 lines 1-19).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to retrieve data from medical pumps as in White in the information management system of Wang and Moberg to centralize data retrieved from various medical data sources.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that the amendment overcomes the 101 rejection. The rejection is maintained for the reasons above. Examiner notes that while processes occur while a patient is being treated, a patient may be treated in any way including, e.g. taking an oral medication. Similarly with respect to the 103 rejection, Applicant asserts that the amendment overcomes the prior rejection. The client configured for operating during a treatment does not structurally differentiate the claims from the combination of references. Tran discloses analyzing whether an order for a treatment is safe (Tran column 6 lines 29-37 see performing a drug interaction analysis on the prescription (order)). Providing a notice of an interaction to allow a patient to receive medications “without subjecting the patient to dangerous interactions” (Tran column 7 lines 1-42) teaches the broad limitation of analyzing whether an order for the treatment is safe and if not, preventing the treatment. In combination with the other references as cited above, the claimed subject matter is obvious.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Eliza Lam whose telephone number is (571)270-7052. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-4:30PST.
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, Peter Choi can be reached at 469-295-9171. 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.
/ELIZA A LAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3681