DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This communication is in response to the amendment filed 12/1/25. Claims 1-20 have been canceled. Claims 21-40 are new and now pending.
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 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e, a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
35 USC 101 enumerates four categories of subject matter that Congress deemed to be appropriate subject matter for a patent: processes, machines, manufactures and compositions of matter. As explained by the courts, these “four categories together describe the exclusive reach of patentable subject matter. If a claim covers material not found in any of the four statutory categories, that claim falls outside the plainly expressed scope of Section 101 even if the subject matter is otherwise new and useful.” In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1354, 84 USPQ2d 1495, 1500 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Step 1 of the eligibility analysis asks: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? Applicant’s claims fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claims 21-28 and 31-40 are drawn to a method; claims 30 and 40 are drawn to a system; claims 29 and 39 are drawn to articles of manufacture (computer readable medium storing instructions).
Determining that a claim falls within one of the four enumerated categories of patentable subject matter recited in 35 USC 101 (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter) in Step 1 does not complete the eligibility analysis. Claims drawn only to an abstract idea, a natural phenomenon, and laws of nature are not eligible for patent protection. As described in MPEP 2106, subsection III, Step 2A of the Office’s eligibility analysis is the first part of the Alice/Mayo test, i.e., the Supreme Court’s “framework for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts.” Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l,134 S. Ct. 2347, 2355, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1981 (2014) (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77-78, 101 USPQ2d at 1967-68).
In 2019, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) prepared revised guidance (2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance) for use by USPTO personnel in evaluating subject matter eligibility. The framework for this revised guidance, which sets forth the procedures for determining whether a patent claim or patent application claim is directed to a judicial exception (laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas), is described in MPEP sections 2106.03 and 2106.04.
As explained in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance explains that abstract ideas can be grouped as, e.g., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes. Moreover, this guidance explains that a patent claim or patent application claim that recites a judicial exception is not ‘‘directed to’’ the judicial exception if the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of the judicial exception. A claim that recites a judicial exception, but is not integrated into a practical application, is directed to the judicial exception under Step 2A and must then be evaluated under Step 2B (inventive concept) to determine the subject matter eligibility of the claim.
Step 2A asks: Does the claim recite a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature) or an abstract idea? If so, is the judicial exception integrated into a practical application of the judicial exception? A claim recites a judicial exception when a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. While the terms “set forth” and “describe” are thus both equated with “recite”, their different language is intended to indicate that there are different ways in which an exception can be recited in a claim. For instance, the claims in Diehr set forth a mathematical equation in the repetitively calculating step, while the claims in Mayo set forth laws of nature in the wherein clause, meaning that the claims in those cases contained discrete claim language that was identifiable as a judicial exception. The claims in Alice Corp., however, described the concept of intermediated settlement without ever explicitly using the words “intermediated” or “settlement.” A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.
In the instant case, claims 21-40 recite(s) a method and system for certain methods of organizing human activities, which is subject matter that falls within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas described in MPEP 2106.04 (2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance) Certain methods of organizing human activities includes fundamental economic practices, like insurance; commercial interactions (i.e. legal obligations, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations). Organizing human activity also encompasses managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions.) The recited method, CRM with instructions and system are drawn determining which stage of a blood loss protocol to select/implement. (i.e. following rules/ instructions)
In particular, claims 21, 29 and 30 recite a method for:
estimating an amount of blood lost by a patient during a procedure by analyising at least one pixel of at least one image…;
determining a current stage of a blood loss protocol based on the estimated amount of blood lost by the patient, wherein the blood loss protocol includes a plurality of stages that each include recommended actions to be performed by a user;
receiving an input corresponding to a selection of one of the at least one selectable element, wherein the input corresponds to one of recommended actions having been performed; and
reclassifying in response to the input, one of the at least one conditionally selectable element to be unlocked for selection.
Similarly, claims 31, 39, and 40 recite a method comprising:
estimating an amount of blood lost by a patient during a procedure estimating an amount of blood lost by a patient during a procedure by analyising at least one pixel of at least one image;
determining, a current stage of a blood loss protocol based on the estimated amount of blood lost by the patient, wherein the blood loss protocol includes a plurality of stages that each include recommended actions to be performed by a user;
receiving an input corresponding to a selection of one of the at least one selectable element, wherein the input corresponds to one of recommended actions having been performed; and
reclassifying in response to the input, one of the at least one conditionally unselectable element to be locked from selection.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim language does not recite any improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1); see also MPEP 2106.05(a)(I-II)). Moreover, the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because the claimed invention does not: apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b)); effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05(c)); or apply or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment see MPEP 2106.05(e). (Considerations for integration into a practical application in Step 2A, prong two and for recitation of significantly more than the judicial exception in Step 2B)
While abstract ideas, natural phenomena, and laws of nature are not eligible for patenting by themselves, claims that integrate these exceptions into an inventive concept are thereby transformed into patent-eligible inventions. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1981 (2014) (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71-72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1966 (2012)). Thus, the second part of the Alice/Mayo test is often referred to as a search for an inventive concept. Id. An “inventive concept” is furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception, and is sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2355, 110 USPQ2d at 1981 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73, 101 USPQ2d at 1966). Although the courts often evaluate considerations such as the conventionality of an additional element in the eligibility analysis, the search for an inventive concept should not be confused with a novelty or non-obviousness determination. See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 91, 101 USPQ2d at 1973 (rejecting “the Government’s invitation to substitute Sections 102, 103, and 112 inquiries for the better-established inquiry under Section 101”). As made clear by the courts, the “‘novelty’ of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the Section 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter.” Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec Corp.,838 F.3d 1307, 1315, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. at 188–89, 209 USPQ at 9).
As described in MPEP 2106.05, Step 2B of the Office’s eligibility analysis is the second part of the Alice/Mayo test, i.e., the Supreme Court’s “framework for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts.” Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. _, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2355, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1981 (2014) (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. 66, 101 USPQ2d 1961 (2012)). Step 2B asks: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 21; and claims 29-30, further recite: “displaying a graphical presentation of guidance that corresponds to the current stage of the blood loss protocol, wherein the graphical presentation of guidance comprises: at least one selectable element associated with one of the recommended actions, wherein the at least one selectable element is unlocked for selection; at least one conditionally selectable element associated with another one of the recommended actions and initially locked from selection.” Claims 31 and 39-40 also recite: “displaying a graphical presentation of guidance that corresponds to the current stage of the blood loss protocol, wherein the graphical presentation of guidance comprises: at least one selectable element associated with one of the recommended actions, wherein the at least one selectable element is unlocked for selection; at least one conditionally selectable element associated with another one of the recommended actions and initially locked from selection.”
The additional steps amount to insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). In the instant case, the additional step amount to necessary data outputting, (i.e., all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering or data output). See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (presenting offers and gathering statistics amounted to mere data gathering)
Claims 21-40 recite additional limitation(s) including: one or more processors; claims 29 and 39 additionally recite “ a non-transitory machine readable medium.” Claims 30 and 40 further recite a display and memory. These additional elements are common, generic computer components performing well-understood, routine and conventional activities that amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system.
The generic nature of the computer system used to carryout steps of the recited method is underscored by the system description in the instant application, which discloses: “the system 900 may at least partially include a handheld or mobile electronic computing device. Such a handheld or mobile device may, for example, be a tablet computer, laptop computer, mobile smartphone, or any suitable combination thereof, and such a device may include a camera (e.g., camera 930), a processor (e.g., processor 910), and a display (e.g., display 940). However, in other example embodiments, some or all of the system components may be separated as discrete, interconnected devices.” (par. 83) The specification further discloses: “The instructions may be executed by computer-executable components integrated with the application, applet, host, server, network, website, communication service, communication interface, hardware/firmware/software elements of a user computer or mobile device, wristband, smartphone, or any suitable combination thereof. The instructions may be stored on memory or other computer-readable medium such as RAMs, ROMs, flash memory, EEPROMs, optical devices (e.g., CD or DVD), hard drives, floppy drives, or any suitable device.” (par. 84)
The application explains: “the one or more processors 910 may be integrated into a handheld or mobile device. In other example embodiments, the one or more processors 910 may be incorporated into a computing device or system, such as a cloud-based computer system, a mainframe computer system, a grid-computer system, or other suitable computer system” (see par.85) The disclosure further explains: “The display 940 may include a screen on a handheld or mobile device, a computer monitor, a television screen, a projector screen, or other suitable display.’ (par. 88)
Such language underscores that the applicant's perceived invention/ novelty focuses on the computerized implementation of the abstract idea, not the underlying structure of the additional (generic) components.
Claims 22-28 are dependent from Claim 21 and include(s) all the limitations of claim(s) 21. Claims 22-28 also recite additional limitations to further define the abstract idea including additional steps or additional conditions in performing the recited steps. Claims 22-28 also recite descriptions of the type of data displayed. (i.e. insignificant extra-solution activities.) The additional limitations of the claims 22-28 fail to recite significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, claim(s) 22-28 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 32-38 are dependent from Claim 31 and include(s) all the limitations of claim(s) 31. Claims 32-38 recite additional limitations to further define the abstract idea including additional steps or additional conditions in performing the recited steps. Claims 32-38 also recite descriptions of the type of data displayed. (i.e. insignificant extra-solution activities.) However, the additional limitations of the claims 32-38 fail to recite significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, claim(s) 32-38 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Because Applicant’s claimed invention recites a judicial exception that is not integrated into a practical application and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself, the claimed invention is not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 21-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gomez et al (US 20170185739 A1) in view of Satish et al ( US 20130011042 A1), and in further view of Handler (US 20220285021 A1)
Claim 21. Gomez teaches a method comprising:
estimating, by one or more processors, an amount of blood lost by a patient during a procedure; (par. 22, par. 27: tracking blood loss of a patient during acute hemorrhaging (e.g., postpartum hemorrhage) or management of blood loss in a controlled clinical setting (e.g., surgical procedures), par. 42: The computing device may use the information and/or data to accurately and dynamically determine up-to-date quantitative blood loss of a patient (i.e. estimating, by one or more processors of a machine, an amount of blood lost by a patient during a procedure), determine hemorrhage stage information, and/ or provide clinical intervention recommendations based on the quantitative blood loss information,)
determining, by the one or more processors, a current stage of the blood loss protocol based on the estimated amount of blood lost by the patient, (The GUI 400 includes an indication of a patient's risk level 402, an indication of current hemorrhage stage 404 (i.e. determining, by the one or more processors of the machine, a current stage among a plurality of stages of a blood loss protocol), para 0082, a cumulative quantitative blood loss for this patient's particular hemorrhage event is displayed (e.g., 850.25 ml), identifying a hemorrhage stage that corresponds to the quantitative blood loss of the patient. Generally, a hemorrhage stage refers to a predetermined blood loss amount or a predefined blood loss amount to which a postpartum hemorrhage may be found to correspond [i.e. the current stage of the blood loss protocol being determined based on the estimated amount of blood lost by the patient during the procedure], par. 54), wherein the blood loss protocol includes a plurality of stages that each include recommended actions to be performed by a user; (par. 21- assess which clinical actions to implement that are responsive to the hemorrhage (e.g., stop or reduce blood loss) and appropriate for quantitative blood loss (e.g., a hemorrhage stage); par. 42- The computing device may use the information and/or data to accurately and dynamically determine up-to-date quantitative blood loss of a patient, determine hemorrhage stage information, and/or provide clinical intervention recommendations based on the quantitative blood loss information, hemorrhage stage information, and user input from a clinician and/or medical staff; par. 75-76-anticipatory actions and recommendations)
displaying on a display in communication with one or more processors a graphical presentation of guidance that corresponds to the current stage of the blood loss protocol (Fig. 4; par 80- 82), wherein the graphical presentation of guidance comprises:
one selectable element associated with one of the recommended actions, wherein the at least one selectable element is unlocked for selection to indicate that the first action is relevant to the current stage of the blood loss protocol; (par. 24- The computing device may provide interventions that are selected by user input (e.g., touchscreen buttons) for actionable items. Exemplary actionable items are items that prompt a user to perform a specific action. The performance of an actionable item may be noted or logged in a single user input (e.g., one click of mouse, single gesture received via a user interface, a particular keystroke or combination of keystrokes concurrently or in sequence) in some embodiments. For example, an actionable item may be displayed to a user… Actionable items are generally communicated to be user selectable such that selection results in the performance of an action; Fig. 13-par. 90-92: can select the different stages 466,468, 470, 472 which have different recommended actions associated with them ; Please note the phrase -to indicate that the first action is relevant to the current stage of the blood loss protocol is an intended use/goal of the element and does not patentably distinguish over the prior art)
receiving an input corresponding to a selection of one of the at least one selectable element, wherein the input corresponds to one of recommended actions having been performed; and (par. 92: a user may track which recommendations are addressed, not addressed, comments or reasoning for not addressing a recommendation (e.g., pop-up window 474), will be addressed, and the like during each stage of a postpartum hemorrhage. Par. 93: The recommendations may be flanked to the left or right with a symbol or icon that signals to a user whether that corresponding recommendation was performed, was not performed, is currently being performed, or will be performed. Exemplary symbols or icons include an “X,” an “O,” a checkmark, and the like.)
Claim 1 has been amended to recite: “estimating…by analyzing at least one pixel of at least one image depicting a fluid-containing substrate.”
Gomez does not expressly disclose, but Satish teaches blood volume estimates by analyzing at least one pixel of at least one image depicting a fluid-containing substrate. (par. 24- the extracted feature can be an estimated surface area of the sample shown in the image, an estimated surface area of a bloodied portion of the sample, a pixel count of the portion of the sample, a pixel count of the entire sample, or a pixel count of only the bloodied region of the sample, a color intensity value of an unsoiled portion of the sample, or any other relevant feature inherent in or available for extraction from the portion of the image of the sample.) At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system/method of Gomez with the teaching of Satish to estimate fluid/blood volumes using image analysis with the motivation of eliminating overestimation and underestimation of patient blood loss during a surgical procedure, which is significant contributor to high operating and surgical costs for hospitals, clinics and other medical facilities. (Satish: par. 3)
Claim 1 has been further amended to recite:
a conditionally selectable element associated with a second action of the recommended actions and initially locked from selection to indicate that the second action is not relevant to the current stage of the blood loss protocol unless the first action has been performed;
receiving an input corresponding to a selection of the selectable element, wherein the input corresponds to the first action having been performed; and
reclassifying, by the one or more processors and in response to the input, the conditionally selectable element to be unlocked for selection to indicate that the second action is now relevant to the current stage of the blood loss protocol.
Handler discloses a system in which: a conditionally selectable element associated with a second action of the recommended actions and initially locked from selection to indicate that the second action is not relevant to the current stage of the protocol unless the first action has been performed; (par. 7; par. 61-62- If the user selects a particular protocol, such as “Hypovolemia,” bedside brain 100 displays a summary of the protocol. For example, bedside brain 100 displays a description of the protocol, including what typical patient parameters may trigger action by bedside brain 100. Bedside brain also displays any “Potential Automatic Safety Actions.” These are actions that bedside brain 100 could potentially take, if there is no intervention by the user once certain conditions are met.; par. 88-89)
receiving an input corresponding to a selection of the selectable element, wherein the input corresponds to the first action having been performed; and( par. 7; par. 61-62.; par. 88-89)
reclassifying, by the one or more processors and in response to the input, the conditionally selectable element to be unlocked for selection to indicate that the second action is now relevant to the current stage of the blood loss protocol. (par. 7; par. 61-62)
At the time of filing it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the system/method of Gomez and Satish in combination with the teaching of Handler with the motivation of providing clear guidance to a user during a medical crisis.
Claim 22 Gomez does not disclose but Satish teaches a estimating the amount of blood lost by the patient during the procedure includes: receiving, by one or more processors, the at least one image of a fluid-containing substrate; detecting, by one or more processors, a fluid level in the fluid-containing substrate based on the at least one image; extracting, by one or more processors, a feature indicative of a blood component concentration from the at least one pixel of the at least one image; and estimating, by the one or more processors, the amount of blood lost by the patient based on the detected fluid level and the extracted feature. (par. 24-28 the extracted feature can be an estimated surface area of the sample shown in the image, an estimated surface area of a bloodied portion of the sample, a pixel count of the portion of the sample, a pixel count of the entire sample, or a pixel count of only the bloodied region of the sample, a color intensity value of an unsoiled portion of the sample, or any other relevant feature inherent in or available for extraction from the portion of the image of the sample.) At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system/method of Gomez with the teaching of Satish to estimate fluid/blood volumes using image analysis with the motivation of eliminating overestimation and underestimation of patient blood loss during a surgical procedure, which is significant contributor to high operating and surgical costs for hospitals, clinics and other medical facilities. (Satish: par. 3)
Claim 23. Gomez teaches the method of claim 22, wherein a plurality of ranges of blood loss values correspond to the current stage of the blood loss protocol, (par. 56- Each hemorrhage stage may include a predetermined quantitative blood loss range. For example, regarding a postpartum hemorrhage coinciding with a vaginal delivery, a quantitative blood loss between 0 mL and less than or equal to 500 mL defines a Stage 0 postpartum hemorrhage; a quantitative blood loss greater than 500 mL and less than or equal to 1000 mL (i.e., 1 L) defines a Stage 1 postpartum hemorrhage; a quantitative blood loss greater than 1000 mL and less than or equal to 1500 mL defines a Stage 2 postpartum hemorrhage; and a quantitative blood loss greater than 1500 mL defines a Stage 3 postpartum hemorrhage) and wherein the method comprises determining the current stage of the blood loss protocol by selecting one of the plurality of ranges of blood loss that corresponds to (i) the amount of blood lost by the patient and (ii) a medical parameter of the patient. (par. 89- as shown in FIG. 12, a cumulative quantitative blood loss for this patient's particular hemorrhage event is displayed (e.g., 850.25 mL), the quantitative blood loss functionality section 500 is automatically hidden, and the selectable tabs 412 and 414 are shifted upwards on the screen to their original location. Additionally, the postpartum hemorrhage has been identified as changing from Stage 0 to Stage 1, such that an indication of the current hemorrhage stage 404 is displayed)
Claim 24 Gomez discloses the method of claim 23, wherein the plurality of ranges of blood loss values includes at least one of a first range defined by threshold blood loss values for patients undergoing a vaginal birth, (par. 56-57: In identifying a postpartum hemorrhage stage for a patient having a vaginal delivery, the method 200 may reference data stored (e.g., locally or remotely) that defines hemorrhage stages specific to vaginal deliveries. Each hemorrhage stage may include a predetermined quantitative blood loss range. For example, regarding a postpartum hemorrhage coinciding with a vaginal delivery, a quantitative blood loss between 0 mL and less than or equal to 500 mL defines a Stage 0 postpartum hemorrhage; a quantitative blood loss greater than 500 mL and less than or equal to 1000 mL (i.e., 1 L) defines a Stage 1 postpartum hemorrhage; a quantitative blood loss greater than 1000 mL and less than or equal to 1500 mL defines a Stage 2 postpartum hemorrhage; and a quantitative blood loss greater than 1500 mL defines a Stage 3 postpartum hemorrhage) and a second range defined by a second set of threshold blood loss values for patients undergoing a cesarean section. (par. 58-In identifying a hemorrhage stage for a patient having a cesarean section, the method 200 may reference and use stored data (e.g., locally or remotely) that defines hemorrhage stages specific to cesarean sections. For example, regarding a postpartum hemorrhage coinciding with a cesarean section, a quantitative blood loss between 0 mL and less than or equal to 1000 mL defines a Stage 0 postpartum hemorrhage; a quantitative blood loss greater than 1000 mL defines a Stage 1 postpartum hemorrhage; a quantitative blood loss up to 1500 mL defines a Stage 2 postpartum hemorrhage; and a quantitative blood loss greater than 1500 mL defines Stage 3 postpartum hemorrhage…)
Claim 25 Gomez teaches the method of claim 21, further comprising:
determining, by the one or more processors, an additional amount of blood lost by the patient; (par. 64-updated quantitative blood loss amounts received: the hemorrhage stage and the quantitative blood loss information are stored temporarily in a memory (e.g., RAM) at a remote computing device until newer or more up-to-date quantitative blood loss information is received…the hemorrhage stage may be changed or updated to reflect the more recent quantitative blood loss information, and when such a change in hemorrhage stage occurs, the modified hemorrhage stage may be stored in a memory.)
determining, by the one or more processors, an updated current stage of the blood loss protocol based on the current stage of blood loss and the updated amount of blood lost by the patient; and (par. 64-updated quantitative blood loss amounts received: the hemorrhage stage and the quantitative blood loss information are stored temporarily in a memory (e.g., RAM) at a remote computing device until newer or more up-to-date quantitative blood loss information is received…the hemorrhage stage may be changed or updated to reflect the more recent quantitative blood loss information, and when such a change in hemorrhage stage occurs, the modified hemorrhage stage may be stored in a memory.)…each quantitative blood loss measured and each hemorrhage stage determined throughout a hemorrhage event of a patient may be stored permanently to an EMR and/or an EHR. Additional information (e.g., patient's vital signs, items weighed, item types, clinician notes) regarding the hemorrhage stage event may be stored on an on-going basis),
causing, by the one or more processors, the display to present an updated graphical presentation of guidance that corresponds to the updated current stage of the blood loss protocol. (par. 82-83- displaying updated/new QBL: The GUI 400 includes an indication of a patient's risk level 402, an indication of current hemorrhage stage 404 [i.e. determining, by the one or more processors of the machine, a current stage among a plurality of stages of a blood loss protocol]; figs. 13; par. 89-updated stage and guidance displayed: the postpartum hemorrhage has been identified as changing from Stage 0 to Stage 1, such that an indication of the current hemorrhage stage 404 is displayed; par. 91- Upon selecting the Stage and Recommendations tab 414, relevant information is displayed on the GUI, as shown in FIG. 13. The Stage and Recommendation section 464 includes recommendations 462 that are relevant to a Stage 1 postpartum hemorrhage. To the left of the Stage and Recommendation section 464 is a Stage 1 bookmark 466, which is visually distinguishable from the other hemorrhage stages, shown as bookmarks 468, 470, and 472. Recommendations that are specific to the other hemorrhage stages, shown as bookmarks 468, 470, and 472, are not displayed because the patient is currently in a different postpartum stage, Stage 1. Recommendations that are specific to the other hemorrhage stages, shown as bookmarks 468,470, and 472, may be displayed if or when a corresponding or matching hemorrhage stage is identified by the Postpartum Hemorrhage Advisor based at least on the cumulative quantitative blood loss of the patient)
claim 26. Gomez teaches the method of claim 21, further comprising:
determining, by the one or more processors, a total number of steps associated with the current stage of blood loss protocol, (par. 91: listing of steps for each stage which are specific to each stage: Upon selecting the Stage and Recommendations tab 414, relevant information is displayed on the GUI, as shown in FIG. 13. The Stage and Recommendation section 464 includes recommendations 462 that are relevant to a Stage 1 postpartum hemorrhage. To the left of the Stage and Recommendation section 464 is a Stage 1 bookmark 466, which is visually distinguishable from the other hemorrhage stages, shown as bookmarks 468, 470, and 472. Recommendations that are specific to the other hemorrhage stages, shown as bookmarks 468, 470, and 472) and a completed number of steps corresponding to the number of steps associated with the current stage of blood loss protocol which have been completed, wherein the graphical presentation of guidance further includes a summary graphic which relates the completed number of steps to the total number of steps. (par. 93- The recommendations may be flanked to the left or right with a symbol or icon that signals to a user whether that corresponding recommendation was performed, was not performed, is currently being performed, or will be performed. Exemplary symbols or icons include an “X,” an “O,” a checkmark, and the like. For example, it will be generally understood that a checkmark flanking a recommendation indicates that the recommendation has been addressed or otherwise performed. In another example, it will be understood that an “X” placed next to a recommendation indicates that the recommendation has not been addressed or will not be performed; fig. 13)
claim 27 Gomez discloses the method of claim 21, further comprising:
determining, by the one or more processors, a current blood loss in relation to the plurality of stages of blood loss protocol, the current blood loss being determined based on the estimated amount of blood lost by the patient during the procedure; and (par. 56-Each hemorrhage stage may include a predetermined quantitative blood loss range. For example, regarding a postpartum hemorrhage coinciding with a vaginal delivery, a quantitative blood loss between 0 ml and less than or equal to 500 ml defines a Stage 0 postpartum hemorrhage; a quantitative blood loss greater than 500 ml and less than or equal to 1000 ml (i.e., 1 l) defines a Stage 1 postpartum hemorrhage; a quantitative blood loss greater than 1000 ml and less than or equal to 1500 ml defines a Stage 2 postpartum hemorrhage; and a quantitative blood loss greater than 1500 ml defines a Stage 3 postpartum hemorrhage [i.e. a comparison of the estimated amount of blood lost by the patient to a range of blood loss values, the range corresponding to the current stage of the blood loss protocol)
determining, by the one or more processors, a total number of steps associated with the current stage of blood loss protocol, and a completed number of steps corresponding to the number of steps associated with the current stage of blood loss protocol which have been completed; (par. 91: listing of steps for each stage which are specific to each stage: Upon selecting the Stage and Recommendations tab 414, relevant information is displayed on the GUI, as shown in FIG. 13. The Stage and Recommendation section 464 includes recommendations 462 that are relevant to a Stage 1 postpartum hemorrhage. To the left of the Stage and Recommendation section 464 is a Stage 1 bookmark 466, which is visually distinguishable from the other hemorrhage stages, shown as bookmarks 468, 470, and 472. Recommendations that are specific to the other hemorrhage stages, shown as bookmarks 468, 470, and 472; par. 93- The recommendations may be flanked to the left or right with a symbol or icon that signals to a user whether that corresponding recommendation was performed, was not performed, is currently being performed, or will be performed. Exemplary symbols or icons include an “X,” an “O,” a checkmark, and the like. For example, it will be generally understood that a checkmark flanking a recommendation indicates that the recommendation has been addressed or otherwise performed. In another example, it will be understood that an “X” placed next to a recommendation indicates that the recommendation has not been addressed or will not be performed);
wherein the graphical presentation of guidance further includes a status bar split into sections based on the number of stages in the plurality of stages of blood loss and an icon disposed relative to the sections of the status bar based on the current blood loss. (Fig. 13-14; par. 93- The recommendations may be flanked to the left or right with a symbol or icon that signals to a user whether that corresponding recommendation was performed, was not performed, is currently being performed, or will be performed. Exemplary symbols or icons include an “X,” an “O,” a checkmark, and the like. For example, it will be generally understood that a checkmark flanking a recommendation indicates that the recommendation has been addressed or otherwise performed... colors may be used in addition to an icon to signal to a user whether that corresponding recommendation was performed, was not performed, is currently being performed, or will be performed.)
claim 28 Gomez teaches the method of claim 21, wherein the graphical presentation of guidance further comprises at least one conditionally unselectable element associated with a second of the recommended actions and initially unlocked for selection; (par. 24- The computing device may provide interventions that are selected by user input (e.g., touchscreen buttons) for actionable items. Exemplary actionable items are items that prompt a user to perform a specific action. The performance of an actionable item may be noted or logged in a single user input (e.g., one click of mouse, single gesture received via a user interface, a particular keystroke or combination of keystrokes concurrently or in sequence) in some embodiments. For example, an actionable item may be displayed to a user… Actionable items are generally communicated to be user selectable such that selection results in the performance of an action; Fig. 13-par. 90-92: can select the different stages 466,468, 470, 472 which have different recommended actions associated with them; Fig. 13; par. 90-92: can select the different stages 466,468, 470, 472 which have different recommended actions associated with them )
and wherein the method further comprises:
receiving a second input corresponding to a selection of a second of the at least one selectable element; and (par. 92: a user may track which recommendations are addressed, not addressed, comments or reasoning for not addressing a recommendation (e.g., pop-up window 474), will be addressed, and the like during each stage of a postpartum hemorrhage. Par. 93: The recommendations may be flanked to the left or right with a symbol or icon that signals to a user whether that corresponding recommendation was performed, was not performed, is currently being performed, or will be performed. Exemplary symbols or icons include an “X,” an “O,” a checkmark, and the like.)
reclassifying, by the one or more processors and in response to the second input, the second of the at least one conditionally unselectable element to be locked from selection. (other stages not displayed when patient medical data and recommended actions do not correspond to the hemorrhage stage; new information is displayed based on user selection and patient data; par. 91- Recommendations that are specific to the other hemorrhage stages, shown as bookmarks 468, 470, and 472, are not displayed because the patient is currently in a different postpartum stage, Stage 1. Recommendations that are specific to the other hemorrhage stages, shown as bookmarks 468, 470, and 472, may be displayed if or when a corresponding or matching hemorrhage stage is identified by the Postpartum Hemorrhage Advisor based at least on the cumulative quantitative blood loss of the patient. Fig. 13-14; Par. 92: the user has moved the arrow 424I in order to select a particular recommendation, shown as “Ongoing QBL q5-15 minutes.” Upon receiving an indication of the selection, a pop-up window 474 is displayed, as shown in FIG. 14. A user may input information that is relevant to the particular recommendation “Ongoing QBL q5-15 minutes,” and save the information)
Claim 29 Gomez discloses a non-transitory machine-readable medium comprising instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the machine to perform the method of claim 21. (par. 29-one or more computer storage media having computer-usable instructions thereon are provided. When the computer-usable instructions of the computer storage media are used by one or more computing devices, said instructions cause the one or more computing devices perform a method for postpartum hemorrhage risk assessment)
Claim 30 Gomez discloses a system comprising: the display; (par. 60)
the one or more processors (par. 32); and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform the method of claim 21. (par. 29-one or more computer storage media having computer-usable instructions thereon are provided. When the computer-usable instructions of the computer storage media are used by one or more computing devices, said instructions cause the one or more computing devices perform a method for postpartum hemorrhage risk assessment)
claim 31 The limitations of claim 31 are addressed by the rejection of claim 21, and are incorporated herein
claim 32 Gomez teaches the method of claim 31, wherein determining the current stage of the blood loss protocol includes comparing the estimated amount of blood lost by the patient to a range of blood loss values, the range corresponding to the current stage of the blood loss protocol. (par. 56-Each hemorrhage stage may include a predetermined quantitative blood loss range. For example, regarding a postpartum hemorrhage coinciding with a vaginal delivery, a quantitative blood loss between 0 ml and less than or equal to 500 ml defines a Stage 0 postpartum hemorrhage; a quantitative blood loss greater than 500 ml and less than or equal to 1000 ml (i.e., 1 l) defines a Stage 1 postpartum hemorrhage; a quantitative blood loss greater than 1000 ml and less than or equal to 1500 ml defines a Stage 2 postpartum hemorrhage; and a quantitative blood loss greater than 1500 ml defines a Stage 3 postpartum hemorrhage [i.e. a comparison of the estimated amount of blood lost by the patient to a range of blood loss values, the range corresponding to the current stage of the blood loss protocol)
claim 33 Gomez teaches method of claim 32, wherein a plurality of ranges of blood loss values correspond to the current stage of the blood loss protocol (par. 56- Each hemorrhage stage may include a predetermined quantitative blood loss range. For example, regarding a postpartum hemorrhage coinciding with a vaginal delivery, a quantitative blood loss between 0 mL and less than or equal to 500 mL defines a Stage 0 postpartum hemorrhage; a quantitative blood loss greater than 500 mL and less than or equal to 1000 mL (i.e., 1 L) defines a Stage 1 postpartum hemorrhage; a quantitative blood loss greater than 1000 mL and less than or equal to 1500 mL defines a Stage 2 postpartum hemorrhage; and a quantitative blood loss greater than 1500 mL defines a Stage 3 postpartum hemorrhage), and wherein the method comprises determining the current stage of the blood loss protocol by selecting one of the plurality of ranges of blood loss that corresponds to (i) the amount of blood lost by the patient and (ii) a medical parameter of the patient. (par. 89- as shown in FIG. 12, a cumulative quantitative blood loss for this patient's particular hemorrhage event is displayed (e.g., 850.25 mL), the quantitative blood loss functionality section 500 is automatically hidden, and the selectable tabs 412 and 414 are shifted upwards on the screen to their original location. Additionally, the postpartum hemorrhage has been identified as changing from Stage 0 to Stage 1, such that an indication of the current hemorrhage stage 404 is displayed)
claim 34 Gomez teaches the method of claim 33, wherein the plurality of ranges of blood loss values includes at least one of a first range defined by threshold blood loss values for patients undergoing a vaginal birth, (par. 56-57: In identifying a postpartum hemorrhage stage for a patient having a vaginal delivery, the method 200 may reference data stored (e.g., locally or remotely) that defines hemorrhage stages specific to vaginal deliveries. Each hemorrhage stage may include a predetermined quantitative blood loss range. For example, regarding a postpartum hemorrhage coinciding with a vaginal delivery, a quantitative blood loss between 0 mL and less than or equal to 500 mL defines a Stage 0 postpartum hemorrhage; a quantitative blood loss greater than 500 mL and less than or equal to 1000 mL (i.e., 1 L) defines a Stage 1 postpartum hemorrhage; a quantitative blood loss greater than 1000 mL and less than or equal to 1500 mL defines a Stage 2 postpartum hemorrhage; and a quantitative blood loss greater than 1500 mL defines a Stage 3 postpartum hemorrhage) and a second range defined by a second set of threshold blood loss values for patients undergoing a cesarean section. (par. 58-In identifying a hemorrhage stage for a patient having a cesarean section, the method 200 may reference and use stored data (e.g., locally or remotely) that defines hemorrhage stages specific to cesarean sections. For example, regarding a postpartum hemorrhage coinciding with a cesarean section, a quantitative blood loss between 0 mL and less than or equal to 1000 mL defines a Stage 0 postpartum hemorrhage; a quantitative blood loss greater than 1000 mL defines a Stage 1 postpartum hemorrhage; a quantitative blood loss up to 1500 mL defines a Stage 2 postpartum hemorrhage; and a quantitative blood loss greater than 1500 mL defines Stage 3 postpartum hemorrhage…)
claim 35 Gomez discloses the method of claim 31, further comprising:
determining, by the one or more processors, an additional amount of blood lost by the patient; (par. 64-updated quantitative blood loss amounts received: the hemorrhage stage and the quantitative blood loss information are stored temporarily in a memory (e.g., RAM) at a remote computing device until newer or more up-to-date quantitative blood loss information is received…the hemorrhage stage may be changed or updated to reflect the more recent quantitative blood loss information, and when such a change in hemorrhage stage occurs, the modified hemorrhage stage may be stored in a memory.)
determining, by the one or more processors, an updated current stage of the blood loss protocol based on the current stage of blood loss and the updated amount of blood lost by the patient; (par. 64-updated quantitative blood loss amounts received: the hemorrhage stage and the quantitative blood loss information are stored temporarily in a memory (e.g., RAM) at a remote computing device until newer or more up-to-date quantitative blood loss information is received…the hemorrhage stage may be changed or updated to reflect the more recent quantitative blood loss information, and when such a change in hemorrhage stage occurs, the modified hemorrhage stage may be stored in a memory.)…each quantitative blood loss measured and each hemorrhage stage determined throughout a hemorrhage event of a patient may be stored permanently to an EMR and/or an EHR. Additional information (e.g., patient's vital signs, items weighed, item types, clinician notes) regarding the hemorrhage stage event may be stored on an on-going basis), and
causing, by the one or more processors, the display to present an updated graphical presentation of guidance that corresponds to the updated current stage of the blood loss protocol. (par. 82-83- displaying updated/new QBL: The GUI 400 includes an indication of a patient's risk level 402, an indication of current hemorrhage stage 404 [i.e. determining, by the one or more processors of the machine, a current stage among a plurality of stages of a blood loss protocol]; figs. 13; par. 89-updated stage and guidance displayed: the postpartum hemorrhage has been identified as changing from Stage 0 to Stage 1, such that an indication of the current hemorrhage stage 404 is displayed; par. 91- Upon selecting the Stage and Recommendations tab 414, relevant information is displayed on the GUI, as shown in FIG. 13. The Stage and Recommendation section 464 includes recommendations 462 that are relevant to a Stage 1 postpartum hemorrhage. To the left of the Stage and Recommendation section 464 is a Stage 1 bookmark 466, which is visually distinguishable from the other hemorrhage stages, shown as bookmarks 468, 470, and 472. Recommendations that are specific to the other hemorrhage stages, shown as bookmarks 468, 470, and 472, are not displayed because the patient is currently in a different postpartum stage, Stage 1. Recommendations that are specific to the other hemorrhage stages, shown as bookmarks 468,470, and 472, may be displayed if or when a corresponding or matching hemorrhage stage is identified by the Postpartum Hemorrhage Advisor based at least on the cumulative quantitative blood loss of the patient)
claim 36 Gomez discloses the method of claim 31, further comprising:
determining, by the one or more processors, a total number of steps associated with the current stage of blood loss protocol, (par. 91: listing of steps for each stage which are specific to each stage: Upon selecting the Stage and Recommendations tab 414, relevant information is displayed on the GUI, as shown in FIG. 13. The Stage and Recommendation section 464 includes recommendations 462 that are relevant to a Stage 1 postpartum hemorrhage. To the left of the Stage and Recommendation section 464 is a Stage 1 bookmark 466, which is visually distinguishable from the other hemorrhage stages, shown as bookmarks 468, 470, and 472. Recommendations that are specific to the other hemorrhage stages, shown as bookmarks 468, 470, and 472) and a completed number of steps corresponding to the number of steps associated with the current stage of blood loss protocol which have been completed; wherein the graphical presentation of guidance further includes a summary graphic which relates the completed number of steps to the total number of steps. (par. 93- The recommendations may be flanked to the left or right with a symbol or icon that signals to a user whether that corresponding recommendation was performed, was not performed, is currently being performed, or will be performed. Exemplary symbols or icons include an “X,” an “O,” a checkmark, and the like. For example, it will be generally understood that a checkmark flanking a recommendation indicates that the recommendation has been addressed or otherwise performed. In another example, it will be understood that an “X” placed next to a recommendation indicates that the recommendation has not been addressed or will not be performed; fig. 13)
claim 37 Gomez discloses the method of claim 31, further comprising:
determining, by the one or more processors, a current blood loss in relation to the plurality of stages of blood loss protocol, the current blood loss being determined based on the estimated amount of blood lost by the patient during the procedure; (par. 56-Each hemorrhage stage may include a predetermined quantitative blood loss range. For example, regarding a postpartum hemorrhage coinciding with a vaginal delivery, a quantitative blood loss between 0 ml and less than or equal to 500 ml defines a Stage 0 postpartum hemorrhage; a quantitative blood loss greater than 500 ml and less than or equal to 1000 ml (i.e., 1 l) defines a Stage 1 postpartum hemorrhage; a quantitative blood loss greater than 1000 ml and less than or equal to 1500 ml defines a Stage 2 postpartum hemorrhage; and a quantitative blood loss greater than 1500 ml defines a Stage 3 postpartum hemorrhage [i.e. a comparison of the estimated amount of blood lost by the patient to a range of blood loss values, the range corresponding to the current stage of the blood loss protocol) and
determining, by the one or more processors, a total number of steps associated with the current stage of blood loss protocol, and a completed number of steps corresponding to the number of steps associated with the current stage of blood loss protocol which have been completed; (par. 91: listing of steps for each stage which are specific to each stage: Upon selecting the Stage and Recommendations tab 414, relevant information is displayed on the GUI, as shown in FIG. 13. The Stage and Recommendation section 464 includes recommendations 462 that are relevant to a Stage 1 postpartum hemorrhage. To the left of the Stage and Recommendation section 464 is a Stage 1 bookmark 466, which is visually distinguishable from the other hemorrhage stages, shown as bookmarks 468, 470, and 472. Recommendations that are specific to the other hemorrhage stages, shown as bookmarks 468, 470, and 472; par. 93- The recommendations may be flanked to the left or right with a symbol or icon that signals to a user whether that corresponding recommendation was performed, was not performed, is currently being performed, or will be performed. Exemplary symbols or icons include an “X,” an “O,” a checkmark, and the like. For example, it will be generally understood that a checkmark flanking a recommendation indicates that the recommendation has been addressed or otherwise performed. In another example, it will be understood that an “X” placed next to a recommendation indicates that the recommendation has not been addressed or will not be performed);
wherein the graphical presentation of guidance further includes a status bar split into sections based on the number of stages in the plurality of stages of blood loss and an icon disposed relative to the sections of the status bar based on the current blood loss. (Fig. 13-14; par. 93- The recommendations may be flanked to the left or right with a symbol or icon that signals to a user whether that corresponding recommendation was performed, was not performed, is currently being performed, or will be performed. Exemplary symbols or icons include an “X,” an “O,” a checkmark, and the like. For example, it will be generally understood that a checkmark flanking a recommendation indicates that the recommendation has been addressed or otherwise performed... colors may be used in addition to an icon to signal to a user whether that corresponding recommendation was performed, was not performed, is currently being performed, or will be performed.)
claim 38 Gomez teaches the method of claim 31, wherein the graphical presentation of guidance further comprises at least one conditionally unselectable element associated with a second of the recommended actions, where the at least one conditionally unselectable element is initially unlocked for selection, (par. 24- The computing device may provide interventions that are selected by user input (e.g., touchscreen buttons) for actionable items. Exemplary actionable items are items that prompt a user to perform a specific action. The performance of an actionable item may be noted or logged in a single user input (e.g., one click of mouse, single gesture received via a user interface, a particular keystroke or combination of keystrokes concurrently or in sequence) in some embodiments. For example, an actionable item may be displayed to a user… Actionable items are generally communicated to be user selectable such that selection results in the performance of an action; Fig. 13-par. 90-92: can select the different stages 466,468, 470, 472 which have different recommended actions associated with them; Fig. 13; par. 90-92: can select the different stages 466,468, 470, 472 which have different recommended actions associated with them ) and wherein the method further comprises:
receiving a second input corresponding to a selection of a second of the at least one selectable element; and (par. 92: a user may track which recommendations are addressed, not addressed, comments or reasoning for not addressing a recommendation (e.g., pop-up window 474), will be addressed, and the like during each stage of a postpartum hemorrhage. Par. 93: The recommendations may be flanked to the left or right with a symbol or icon that signals to a user whether that corresponding recommendation was performed, was not performed, is currently being performed, or will be performed. Exemplary symbols or icons include an “X,” an “O,” a checkmark, and the like.)
reclassifying, by the one or more processors and in response to the second input, the second of the at least one conditionally unselectable element to be locked from selection. (other stages not displayed when patient medical data and recommended actions do not correspond to the hemorrhage stage; new information is displayed based on user selection and patient data; par. 91- Recommendations that are specific to the other hemorrhage stages, shown as bookmarks 468, 470, and 472, are not displayed because the patient is currently in a different postpartum stage, Stage 1. Recommendations that are specific to the other hemorrhage stages, shown as bookmarks 468, 470, and 472, may be displayed if or when a corresponding or matching hemorrhage stage is identified by the Postpartum Hemorrhage Advisor based at least on the cumulative quantitative blood loss of the patient. Fig. 13-14; Par. 92: the user has moved the arrow 424I in order to select a particular recommendation, shown as “Ongoing QBL q5-15 minutes.” Upon receiving an indication of the selection, a pop-up window 474 is displayed, as shown in FIG. 14. A user may input information that is relevant to the particular recommendation “Ongoing QBL q5-15 minutes,” and save the information)
Claim 39 Gomez teaches non-transitory machine-readable medium comprising instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the machine to perform the method of claim 31. (par. 29-one or more computer storage media having computer-usable instructions thereon are provided. When the computer-usable instructions of the computer storage media are used by one or more computing devices, said instructions cause the one or more computing devices perform a method for postpartum hemorrhage risk assessment)
Claim 40 Gomez discloses a system comprising:
the display; (par. 60) the one or more processors; (par. 32); and
a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform the method of claim 31. (par. 29-one or more computer storage media having computer-usable instructions thereon are provided. When the computer-usable instructions of the computer storage media are used by one or more computing devices, said instructions cause the one or more computing devices perform a method for postpartum hemorrhage risk assessment)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/1/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
(A) Applicant argues that the claims, as amended, overcome the claim rejections under 35 USC 101 and are not directed to an abstract idea.
In response, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The amended claim language is noted. However, the additional determining step further defines the abstract idea.
Applicant further argues that the newly added language regarding the display of information does not recite a generic extra-solution activity and is tailored to novel and non-obvious invention. Applicant further suggest that the display includes conditionally selectable elements or conditionally unselectable elements. These are not new or non-obvious features, but conventional steps associated with the displaying of information (i.e. data outputting). The additional steps amount to insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
As explained in MPEP 2106.05(g), examples of insignificant extra-solution activity include mere data gathering, selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated, and insignificant application. See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (presenting offers and gathering statistics amounted to mere data gathering)
It should be noted that the “mental process” aspect of the 101 rejection has been removed in light of the claim amendments.
(B) Applicant argues that the claim amendments are not taught by the Gomez reference.
In response, new grounds of rejection have been applied.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Silkaitis et al (AU 2011253917 A1)- discloses an GUI in which certain elements are conditionally available or unavailable. (pg. 42, lines 14-25: the Select 20 Units area 142 in FIG. 5K would be prefilled, inactivated, unavailable or grayed to indicate that selection was not allowed by the user. The user interface automatically grays or inactivates certain data entry areas in FIG. 5K depending on the units selected.)
Feldschuh ( US 20240016421 A1)-discloses Systems and methods are disclosed for providing ongoing monitoring and updating of blood volume status, where the system or method can include guidance in the form of recommendations for treatment actions or alerts about altered patient status.
Sharareh et al (Sharareh B, Woolwine S, Satish S, Abraham P, Schwarzkopf R. “Real Time Intraoperative Monitoring of Blood Loss with a Novel Tablet Application.” Open Orthop J; 2015 Aug 31; 9:422-6. doi: 10.2174/1874325001509010422. PMID: 26401167; PMCID: PMC4578129.)- discloses an app that tracks blood loss during a surgical procedure.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Rachel L Porter whose telephone number is (571)272-6775. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 10-6:30.
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, Shahid Merchant can be reached on 571-270-1360. 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.
/Rachel L. Porter/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626