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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/26/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 19-22, filed on 11/26/2025, with respect to the prior art rejection of claims 1, 13, and 24 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The prior art rejection of claims 1, 13, and 24 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed on 11/26/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
35 USC 101
Applicant argues that the claims of the instant application are analogous to the claims discussed in BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 119 USPQ2d (BASCOM) which were found to be patent eligible. Examiner respectfully disagrees as “BASCOM involved a system for filtering content retrieved from an internet computer network, which generates access requests for individual accounts, associates each account with at least one filtering scheme and at least one set of filtering elements from a plurality of sets of filtering elements, receives the access requests, and executes the associated filtering scheme utilizing the associated set of filtering elements” which is not analogous to the instant claims since the instant claims are not directed towards a filtering process.
Applicant further argues that “the recited arrangement of elements results in an improvement in the technology of measuring physiological parameters because it offers the benefit of concurrently seeing the current physiological parameters values while changing the measurement schedule and concurrently seeing changes in the physiological parameters in response to the changed measurement schedule” to which Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner acknowledges that the measured physiological parameters are concurrently displayed with the measurement schedule, but maintains that concurrently displaying measured parameters with a customized schedule is merely providing results of gathered data along with a chosen interval. There appears to be no analysis of the measured physiological parameter and its correlation with the chosen measurement schedule being performed, only that the measured physiological parameter and the chosen measurement schedule are concurrently displayed. Applicant further argues that the alleged improvement of concurrently displaying the physiological parameters with the customizable schedule allows a user to utilize the current physiological parameters in making changes to the measurement schedule, and see the changes in the measured physiological parameters in response to the customization of the measurement schedule. Examiner maintains that having a user/caregiver choose to adjust the measurement schedule based off of the concurrently displayed physiological parameters would require a mental analysis of the gathered data, and that displaying the physiological parameters amounts to nothing more than displaying gathered data. Regarding claims 17, 28, 36, and 37, Applicant also argues that displaying an indication of the measurements currently in progress along while concurrently displaying the customizable schedule and the measured physiological parameters provides an improvement since it offers the benefit of knowing what parts of the measurement schedule have been completed. Examiner notes that displaying an indication of measurement progress amounts to the insignificant extra-solution activity of providing results. For the reasons discussed above, Examiner maintains that the claims as a whole, fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2, 14, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 2, the limitation of, “…subtract one or more selections of one or more number of measurements, one or more intervals between measurements, one or more duration of measurements and one or more of the different cycles of measurements” renders the claim unclear. Specifically, it is unclear as to what the one or more selections is being subtracted from. For examination purposes, Examiner will interpret the claim as subtracting the one or more selections from the customizable measurement schedule.
Regarding claim 14, the limitation of, “…subtracting one or more selections of one or more number of measurements, one or more intervals between measurements, one or more duration of measurements and one or more of the different cycles of measurements” renders the claim unclear. Specifically, it is unclear as to what the one or more selections is being subtracted from. For examination purposes, Examiner will interpret the claim as subtracting the one or more selections from the customizable measurement schedule.
Regarding claim 25, the limitation of, “…subtracts one or more selections of one or more number of measurements, one or more intervals between measurements, one or more duration of measurements and one or more of the different cycles of measurements” renders the claim unclear. Specifically, it is unclear as to what the one or more selections is being subtracted from. For examination purposes, Examiner will interpret the claim as subtracting the one or more selections from the customizable measurement schedule.
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, 5, 8-11, 13-15, 17, 20, 22, 24-26, 28, 31, and 33-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea (mental process of adjusting a customizable physiological measurement schedule) without significantly more.
Step 1
The claimed invention in claims 1-3, 5, 8-11, 13-15, 17, 20, 22, 24-26, 28, 31, and 33-42 are directed to statutory subject matter as the claims recite a method/system for adjusting a customizable physiological measurement schedule.
Step 2A, Prong One
Regarding claims 1-3, 5, 8-11, 13-15, 17, 20, 22, 24-26, 28, 31, and 33-42, the recited steps are directed to mental processes of performing concepts in a human mind or by a human using a pen and paper (See MPEP 2106.05(a)(2) subsection (III)).
Regarding claims 1, 13, and 24, adjusting a customizable schedule based off of gathered data is a process, as drafted, that can be performed by a human mind (including an observation, evaluation, and judgment) under the broadest reasonable interpretation. For example, these limitations recited in claims 1, 13, and 24 amount to a healthcare provider deciding whether or not to adjust measurement based on patient information.
Step 2A, Prong Two
For claims 1-3, 5, 8-11, 13-15, 17, 20, 22, 24-26, 28, 31, and 33-42, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. For claims 1, 13, and 24, the additional limitations of:
a display
a memory
one or more programs
one or more processors
a graphical user interface (GUI)
are recited at a high level of generality and amount to nothing more than parts of a generic computer. Merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Further, the limitations of “a sensor interface” and “configure the measurement of the one or more physiological parameters based on the customized measurement schedule” directed towards measuring physiological parameters amounts to nothing more than the extra-solution activity of data gathering. The limitation of “displaying the one or more physiological parameters concurrent with a customizable measurement schedule” amounts to nothing more than the extra-solution activity of providing results (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Step 2B
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient enough 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 limitations “a sensor interface…”, “configure the measurement of the one or more physiological parameters based on the customized measurement schedule”, and “displaying the one or more physiological parameters concurrent with a customizable measurement schedule” are directed to insignificant extra-solution activities which do not amount to an inventive concept. In addition, “a sensor interface including amplifying, filtering and analog-to-digital circuitry” is recited at a high level of generality and considered to be well known, routine, and conventional in the art. For examples, see Teller et al (US 2004/0034289) [0095] and Hwang (US 2007/0239070) [0033].
Dependent claims 2, 8, 10-11, 14, 20, 22, 25, 31, 33-35, 38-40 , and 42 are further directed towards the abstract idea. The above mentioned claims do not introduce any additional elements which amount to significantly more under the Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B analyses.
Dependent claims 3, 5, 9, 15, 17, 26, 28, 36-37, and 41 are further directed towards insignificant extra-solution activities (MPEP 2106.05(g)). The above mentioned claims do not introduce any additional elements which amount to significantly more under the Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B analyses. Further, the additional limitation of “a communication interface” is generally recited and amounts to parts of a generic computer component.
Examiner’s Note Regarding Prior Art
While claims 1-3, 5, 8-11, 13-15, 17, 20, 22, 24-26, 28, 31, and 33-42 have been rejected under 35 USC 101 and claims 2, 14, and 25 have also been rejected under 35 USC 112, Examiner has not found any prior art that teaches or suggests the limitations recited in claims 1, 13, and 24. Specifically, Examiner has not found any prior art that teaches, “displaying the one or more physiological parameters concurrent with a customizable measurement schedule” as required by claims 1, 13, and 24.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLOW GRACE WELCH whose telephone number is (703)756-1596. The examiner can normally be reached Usually M-F 8:00am - 4:00pm.
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, Benjamin Klein can be reached at 571-270-5213. 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.
/WILLOW GRACE WELCH/Examiner, Art Unit 3792
/Benjamin J Klein/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3792