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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 16, 18, 21-23, 25, and 28-33 are currently pending and under examination. As per the amendments filed on 12/23/2025, claims 16 and 30-32 are amended and claim 33 is newly added. Claims 1-15, 17, 19-20, 24, and 26-27 are canceled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks pages 7-10 (Rejections under 35 USC § 101), filed 12/23/2025, with respect to the 35 USC § 101 rejections of claims 16, 18, 21-23, 25, and 28-32 have been fully considered. Applicant provides a summary on pages 7-8 of the 12/23/2025 Remarks. Regarding Step 2A - Prong 1, Applicant specifically argues:
In order to determine if a claim is directed to an abstract ideal, such as a mental process, the Office must give the claim the broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification and must consider the claim as a whole. Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016). This was reiterated in the Ex parte review of DesJardins where the court found that "Examiners and panels should not evaluate claims at such a high level of generality" and should more carefully consider the decision in Enfish. Ex parte Desjardins, No. 2024-000567, at 1 (P.T.A.B. Apps. Rev. Sept. 26, 2025).
Here, the interpretation of the claims is impermissibly broad when merely considering the elements such as "monitor," "detect," and "evaluate," because they are being divorced from the technological context disclosed in the specification. The specification and the claims make clear that the monitoring and detecting is being performed by multiple "patient monitor modules" in the plurality of rooms and rely on the "real time" transmission of sensor data as well as the use of data and patient parameters not measurable by sensors. Additionally, the claims emphasize the utilization of distinct networks with different bandwidth qualities. The abstraction of the claim limitations in at least claim 16 ignores the disclosed architecture and provides an overly broad misinterpretation of the claims akin to DesJardins and Enfish. (12/23/2025 Remarks, page 8)
This argument is not persuasive. The limitations which were identified as mental processes are claim 16 limitations: “monitor in real time the received predetermined set of physiological parameters” and “detect a medical condition of the patient when each of the parameters of the predetermined set of parameters meets a predetermined criteria in a manner indicating a medical condition exists.” These limitations could simply be a human watching a sensor display and noting when a condition exists by observing when the sensor values move outside a normal range. Additionally, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)III.C states:
In evaluating whether a claim that requires a computer recites a mental process, examiners should carefully consider the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification. For instance, examiners should review the specification to determine if the claimed invention is described as a concept that is performed in the human mind and applicant is merely claiming that concept performed 1) on a generic computer, or 2) in a computer environment, or 3) is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept. In these situations, the claim is considered to recite a mental process.
The mental processes are performed within each room’s system where the sensor outputs and data transmission steps are insignificant extra-solution activity.
Applicant additionally argues:
Furthermore, claims that have process elements or limitations that cannot be "practically performed in the human mind" do not recite a mental process. MPEP 2106. See SRI Int'/, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 930 F.3d 1295, 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (declining to identify the claimed collection and analysis of network data as abstract because "the human mind is not equipped to detect suspicious activity by using network monitors and analyzing network packets as recited by the claims"); CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1376, 99 USPQ2d at 1699 (distinguishing Research Corp. Techs. v. Microsoft Corp., 627 F.3d 859, 97 USPQ2d 127 4 (Fed. Cir. 2010), and SiRF Tech., Inc. v. Int'/ Trade Comm'n, 601 F.3d 1319, 94 USPQ2d 1607 (Fed. Cir. 2010), as directed to inventions that "could not, as a practical matter, be performed entirely in a human's mind").
Here, at least independent claim 16 requires limitations that cannot be reasonably performed in the human mind and therefore cannot be considered an abstract idea of a mental process. For example, claim 16 requires, inter alia, "a critical care network to which each of the respective patient monitor modules are connected and over which the respective patient monitor modules communicate with one another, the critical care network providing a first real-time bandwidth quality-of-service" and "a hospital network providing a second bandwidth quality-of-service that is different from the first real-time bandwidth quality-of-service, and over which the respective patient monitor modules retrieve the at least one additional parameter that is not capable of being measured by the at least one sensor."
The transmission of signals over a "critical care network" as well as having multiple "bandwidth quality-of-service" is not something that can be reasonably done with the human mind. The human mind cannot connect to or communicate over a critical care network nor can it do so with multiple patient monitor modules in a plurality of rooms. The human mind cannot reasonably be located in more than one room at any given time; much less communicate over a network to multiple patient monitors in real time. At best a human mind can work with a single monitor in a single room at any one given time. It is unreasonable to allege and assume that a human mind could perform the limitations of claim 16. Accordingly, Applicant submits that the Office Action improperly abstracts the claims as being directed to a mental process and therefore, at least claim 16 passes prong one of step 2A of the Al ice test. (12/23/2025 Remarks, pages 8-9)
This argument is not persuasive. The identified mental process limitations are a diagnostic process which could be performed by a clinician looking at sensor readings (such as a clinician watching a temperature reading and noting when the temperature exceeds a maximum normal temperature range). The arguments above are primary concerned with how the results of the mental processes are transmitted and would pertain to insignificant extra-solution activity.
Regarding Step 2A Prong 2, Applicant argues:
Assuming arguendo that claim 16 is directed to an abstract idea, for which Applicant does not acquiesce, Applicant submits that at least claim 16 satisfies prong 2 of step 2A because it is integrated into a practical application. When considering the claim as a whole in light of the specification and not piecemealing the various limitations, it would be obvious that the claim limitations are applied to the concept of detecting a medical condition when various parameters have been identified by the combination of sensors and/or monitors and that such information can be transmitted electronically over the multiple networks between the monitors. Accordingly, the various elements of monitors, sensors, networks are not merely preforming generic computer functions, as alleged by the Office Action, but rather are being applied to determining a specific medical condition of a patient thereby aiding in the overall safety of a patient. (12/23/2025 Remarks, page 10)
This argument is not persuasive. The medical network transmitting data is not a practical application of a medical diagnosis mental process because the data transfer is merely moving sensor data to perform the diagnosis or transmitting data to other computers across the network, both processes being insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Regarding Step 2B, Applicant argues:
The Office Action further alleges that claim 16 does not pass Step 2B of the Alice test and therefore is not directed towards patent eligible subject matter. Applicant submits that no analysis is needed under Step 2B because at least independent claim 16 satisfies Step 2A both prongs. Notwithstanding, Applicant submits that Step 2B is satisfied by the limitations in at least independent claim 16 because it offers significantly more elements rather than generic conventional elements as interpreted by the Office Action.
As discussed above, the Office Action improperly interprets the limitations of the claim too broadly without consideration of the claim as whole in light of the specification, as is required in Enfish. More specifically, the Office Action fails to consider the requirement of claim 16 to have a "first real-time bandwidth quality-of-service" and "a second bandwidth quality-of-service that is different from the first real-time bandwidth quality-of-service." Such limitation is not even considered by the Office Action. Therefore, Applicant submits that independent claim 16 offers significantly more and therefore satisfies Step 2B of the Alice test.
In light of the discussion above, Applicant submits that at least independent claim 16 is directed to patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 and respectfully requests the rejection be withdrawn. (12/23/2025 Remarks, page 10)
This argument is not persuasive. The physical elements in the claim such as the hospital rooms and network would be considered conventional arrangements of parts in a hospital system to carry data from individual monitoring devices (see Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 for full analysis). Therefore, the rejections of claims 16, 18, 21-23, 25, and 28-32 are maintained.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks page 11 (Rejections under 35 USC § 112), filed 12/23/2025, with respect to the 35 USC § 112(b) rejections of claims 30-32 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections of claims 30-32 are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks pages 11-12 (Rejections under 35 USC § 103), filed 12/23/2025, with respect to the rejections of claims 16, 18, 21-23, 25, and 28-32 have been fully considered. Regarding claim 16, Applicant argues:
The primary reference Tremper is cited for teaching every limitation of claim 16 with the exception of the following:
plurality of critical care treatment rooms
• a critical car network over which the respective patient monitor modules communicate with one another, the critical car network providing a real-time bandwidth quality-of-service
• a central storage device storing at least one additional parameter that is not capable of being measured by the at least one sensor;
• a hospital network providing a second bandwidth quality-of-service over which the respective patient monitor modules retrieve the at least one additional parameter that is not capable of being measured by the at least one sensor.
The Office action alleges that Rusin teaches the above referenced limitations, specifically referencing paragraph [0047]. Rusin indeed illustrates the use of monitors connected to hospital network and suggests that there may be "more hospital networks" but does not specify the network or details of how the information is transmitted on the network.
In contrast, claim 16 requires, inter alia, "critical care network providing a first real
time bandwidth quality-of-service ... a hospital network providing a second bandwidth quality-of-service that is different from the first real-time bandwidth quality-of-service." Rusin does not mention the term bandwidth at all, nor does Rusin teach or suggest the use of multiple bandwidths. Furthermore, Rusin fails to teach the use of one or more bandwidth quality-of-service elements nor does it suggest such limitations. Finally, Rusin does not teach or suggest the bandwidth quality-of-service elements are different. Accordingly, Applicant submits that it would not be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Tremper with Rusin to teach the limitations of claim 16. As such, Applicant respectfully requests the rejection be withdrawn.
(12/23/2025 Remarks, pages 11-12)
This argument is persuasive. Rusin discusses the presence of multiple networks (which would each have a bandwidth property) but not describe networks with different real-time bandwidth quality of service. Therefore, the rejection of claim 16 (and by extension dependent claims 18, 21-23, 25, and 28) is withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Elaz (US PG Pub 2005/0133027 A1), see “Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103” section.
Applicant also argues:
Claims 29-32 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tremper (U.S. 8,936,555, "Tremper'') in view of Rusin (2015/0137968) and Murphy (2006/0289586). However, claims 29-32 depend directly or indirectly from independent claim 16, which is novel, non-obvious, and otherwise allowable over Tremper and Rusin and Murphy fails to remedy the deficiencies of Tremper and Rusin. Therefore, claims 29- 32 are allowable over the combination of Tremper, Rusin, and Murphy for reasons including their dependency on an allowable base claim. Applicant respectfully requests the rejection be withdrawn. (12/23/2025 Remarks, page 11)
This argument is persuasive. The rejection of claim 16 was withdrawn, meaning the rejections of dependent claims 29-32 would similarly be withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Elaz (US PG Pub 2005/0133027 A1), see “Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103” section.
Newly added claim 33 is being evaluated in light of the above arguments and rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103, see “Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103” section.
Summary: The 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejections for claims 16, 18, 21-23, 25, and 28-32 are maintained. The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections for claims 16, 18, 21-23, 25, and 28-32 are withdrawn. New 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections for claims 16, 18, 21-23, 25, and 28-32, newly in view of Elaz, are added. A new 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection is added for newly added claim 33.
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.
Section 33(a) of the America Invents Act reads as follows:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no patent may issue on a claim directed to or encompassing a human organism.
Claims 16, 18, 21-23, 25, and 28-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea (mental process) without significantly more.
Step 1
The inventions in claims 16, 18, 21-23, 25, and 28-33 are to a statutory subject matter as the claims apparatuses to monitor and display data for medical evaluation and diagnosis, which would belong to one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A, Prong One
Claims 16 and 33 recite abstract ideas in the form of mental processes that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) subsection (III)).
Regarding claims 16 and 33, the limitations of “monitor in real time the received predetermined set of physiological parameters” and “detect a medical condition of the patient when each of the parameters of the predetermined set of parameters meets a predetermined criteria in a manner indicating a medical condition exists” could be performed by the human mind.
The selected limitations constitute processes which, as drafted, can be performed by the human mind (including observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion) under each limitation’s broadest reasonable interpretation. These limitations could be interpreted as a person monitoring sensor outputs/readings or diagnosing a medical condition based on collected parameters.
Step 2A, Prong Two
For the claim 16 limitations from Step 2A Prong One, the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Additional limitations include “a patient monitor module having at least one sensor for monitoring a physiological parameter of a patient,” “a display configured to visually emphasize a predetermined data set and a warning sign for a medical condition,” “at least one processor that is electrically connected to the patient monitor and the display,” “notification through the display, the notification identifying the medical condition,” “a plurality of critical care treatment rooms,” “a critical care network to which each of the respective patient monitor modules are connected and over which the respective patient monitor modules communicate with one another, the critical care network providing a real-time bandwidth quality-of-service,” “a central storage device storing at least one additional parameter that is not capable of being measured by the at least one sensor,” and “a hospital network providing a second bandwidth quality-of-service that is different from the first real-time bandwidth quality-of-service and over which the respective patient monitor modules retrieve the at least one additional parameter that is not capable of being measured by the at least one sensor.”
The physiologic sensor(s) is part of data gathering (insignificant extra-solution activity), the processor is composed of generic computer structures for performing generic computer functions, the display and notification system are insignificant extra-solution activity of data display, and the network allowing communication between modules involves the facilitation of data transmission (insignificant extra-solution activity).
For the claim 33 limitations from Step 2A Prong One the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Claim 33 has the same limitations as claim 16, but incorporates a central processor, where the processor is composed of generic computer structures for performing generic computer functions.
Step 2B
For the claim 16 limitations from Step 2A Prong One, the claim does not recite additional
elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. . Additional limitations include “a patient monitor module having at least one sensor for monitoring a physiological parameter of a patient,” “a display configured to visually emphasize a predetermined data set and a warning sign for a medical condition,” “at least one processor that is electrically connected to the patient monitor and the display,” “notification through the display, the notification identifying the medical condition,” “a plurality of critical care treatment rooms,” “a critical care network to which each of the respective patient monitor modules are connected and over which the respective patient monitor modules communicate with one another, the critical care network providing a real-time bandwidth quality-of-service,” “a central storage device storing at least one additional parameter that is not capable of being measured by the at least one sensor,” and “a hospital network providing a second bandwidth quality-of-service that is different from the first real-time bandwidth quality-of-service and over which the respective patient monitor modules retrieve the at least one additional parameter that is not capable of being measured by the at least one sensor.”
The physiologic sensor(s) is part of data gathering (insignificant extra-solution activity), the processor is composed of generic computer structures for performing generic computer functions, the display and notification system are insignificant extra-solution activity of data display, and the network allowing communication between modules involves the facilitation of data transmission (insignificant extra-solution activity).
This display could define any number of displays in medical monitoring systems. Freeman (US PG Pub 2017/0325695 A1), as part of the background for a respiratory monitor and system, discloses: “For example, modern monitoring devices can detect abnormal heart rhythms, blood oxygen saturation, and body temperature, which can alert clinicians of a deterioration that would otherwise go unnoticed” ([0003]) and “In 1925, MacKenzie emphasized the importance of continuous recording and monitoring of physiological signals such as the pulse rate and blood pressure. He specifically stressed that the graphical representation of these signals is important in the assessment of a patient's condition. In the 1960s, with the advent of computers, patient monitors improved with the addition of a real-time graphical display of multiple vital signs being recorded simultaneously. Alarms were also incorporated into monitors and were triggered when signals, such as a pulse rate or blood pressure, reached a certain threshold” ([0005]). Tremper (US 8936555 B2), used in the prior art rejections, discloses “historically, physiology data have all been displayed in electronic fashion and, in some cases, at least some of the data can be stored. More recently, the patients' medical history data are being collected in an electronic format. Some of those data collection systems supply those data in a structured format (relational database) that allows fields to be queried. Additionally, over the past decade, anesthesia intraoperative records have become available in electronic format” (Col 1, Lines 34-42). Tremper further discloses a display which is able to show parameters such as end-tidal Co2 ([Col 7, Lines 25-28]), ECG ([Col 6, Lines 19-25]), and temperature ([Col 12, Lines 30-33]).
The critical care treatment rooms, critical care network, central storage device, and hospital network are understood as conventional aspects of monitoring large numbers of patients in a hospital setting. Sze (US PG Pub 2012/0203078 A1) teaches “monitoring a patient's vital signs is very important during hospitalization, especially for a surgical operation, recovery, intensive care, and other medical reasons. Patient monitoring systems have become commonplace and are standard in hospitals” ([0003]). Murphy (US PG Pub 2006/0287586 A1) teaches networks of hospital monitoring devices are known in the field ([0002-0004]). Sze ([0077-0078]) and Rusin (US PG Pub 2015/0137968 A1, [0047-0048]) also discuss a network of monitoring devices connected via a hospital network. Therefore, the hospital network spread across multiple patients in different rooms is not interpreted as unconventional. Additionally, Elaz (US PG Pub 2005/0133027 A1) teaches a central processor communicating more time-sensitive data via a critical care network with a real time bandwidth quality-of-service and less time-sensitive data on a standard office bandwidth quality-of-service would be a known feature of hospital networks ([0038]).
- Claims 18 and 21-22 only further describe the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering.
- Claims 23 and 25 only further describe the insignificant extra-solution activity of data display/reporting.
- Claims 28-32 only further describe the insignificant extra-solution activity of data transmission and display/reporting as part of a hospital network.
For the Claim 33 limitations from Step 2A Prong One, the claim does not recite additional
elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim 33 has the same limitations as claim 16, but incorporates a central processor, where the processor is composed of generic computer structures for performing generic computer functions (which would be considered similar to the analysis of the processor in claim 16’s analysis above).
Therefore, Claims 16, 18, 21-23, 25, and 28-33 are directed to a judicial exception, as abstract ideas (mental processes), without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C.
103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claims 16, 18, 21-23, 25, 28, and 33 are rejected under U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over
Tremper (US 8,936,555 B2, see previously cited) in view of Rusin (US PG Pub 2015/0137968 A1, see previously cited) and Elaz (US PG Pub 2005/0133027 A1, see “Notice of References Cited”).
Regarding Claim 16, Tremper discloses a patient monitoring system ([Col 1, Lines 18-23]) comprising:
a patient monitor module having at least one sensor for monitoring a physiological parameter of a patient ([Col 5, Lines 54-66] – “The plurality of sensors 14 can be operable to be coupled to a patient and collect real-time physiologic data from the patient”);
a display ([Col 2, Lines 53-67, Col 3, Lines 1-17] – description of display features) configured to visually emphasize a predetermined data set and a warning sign for a medical condition ([Col 2, Lines 66-67, Col 3 Lines 1-3] - Tremper provides a mechanism for icons representing parameters associated with corresponding organ systems to be visibly emphasized based on whether parameters are abnormal: “the icons can be color coded to signify the parameters are in various ranges, such as a normal range being depicted in the color green, a marginal range being depicted in the color yellow, and an abnormal range being depicted in the color red”);
at least one processor that is electrically connected to the patient monitor module and the display ([Col 2, Lines 53-67, Col 3, Lines 1-17] – description of display features - and [Col 5, Lines 61-66] – use of a controller which interacts with the display), the at least one processor being adapted to:
receive a predetermined set of physiological parameters, the predetermined set of physiological parameters including the physiological parameter measured by the at least one sensor ([Col 5, Lines 54-61] – collection of data from sensor) and at least one additional parameter that is not capable of being measured by the at least one sensor ([Col 16, Lines 8-14] – prior medical history information can be an input), at least the physiological parameter measured by the at least one sensor being received in real time ([Col 5, Lines 59-61] – real-time sensor data collected),
monitor in real time the received predetermined set of physiological parameters ([Col 5, Lines 55-66] – real-time analysis and issuing of alerts),
detect a medical condition of the patient when each of the parameters of the predetermined set of parameters meets a predetermined criteria in a manner indicating a medical condition exists ([Col 15, Lines 1-37] – risk factors detected in order to identify medical condition and issue an alert); and
alert a user to the medical condition by providing a notification through the display, the notification identifying the medical condition ([Col 3, Lines 11-22] – alerts are issued where a “combination of events occurs which produces a situation where there could be a possible important physiologic or medical system abnormality”).
However, Tremper does not disclose:
a plurality of critical care treatment rooms
a critical care network to which each of the respective patient monitor modules are connected and over which the respective patient monitor modules communicate with one another, the critical care network providing a first real-time bandwidth quality-of-service
a central storage device storing at least one additional parameter that is not capable of being measured by the at least one sensor;
a hospital network providing a second bandwidth quality-of-service that is different from the first real-time bandwidth quality-of-service, and over which the respective patient monitor modules retrieve the at least one additional parameter that is not capable of being measured by the at least one sensor.
Rusin, in the same field of endeavor of monitoring physiologic data which is used to determine alarm management ([0082]), teaches bedside monitoring devices which can be placed in multiple rooms ([0048]). These bedside monitors are integrated into a hospital network which allows real-time communication ([0029]) between monitoring devices in the network ([0048]). Rusin states “all of the servers 180-190 connect to each other and the bedside monitors via one or more hospital networks 130” ([0047]) where the informatics servers store both physiologic data from the sensors ([0152]) and patient history data not collected from sensors ([0095]). The patient history data not collected by sensors can be accessed by the system for determining when to issue alarms ([0095]). Multiple networking protocols can be used with different interconnected networks ([0047] – “Although illustrated as a single hospital Ethernet network 130, any number of interconnected networks may be used, using any desired networking protocols and techniques”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alter Tremper’s patient monitoring system by incorporating the network between patient monitoring devices in Rusin. This would have been obvious because both Tremper and Rusin discuss patient monitoring devices where data is analyzed to determine when to issue alarms and Rusin provides a centralized network with analysis and storage connected to each patient monitoring module to enable communication and standardization between multiple devices (such as Tremper’s device). Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to improve the system of Tremper by incorporating the network between patient monitoring devices in Rusin.
Elaz, in the same field of endeavor of a monitoring module ([0014]) for diagnosis which is used to determine alarm management ([0047]), teaches a central processor which communicates more time-sensitive data via a critical care network with a real time bandwidth quality-of-service and less time-sensitive data on a standard office bandwidth quality-of-service ([0038] - “The central processor 220 is also coupled to the critical care area LAN 205, which, as illustrated in FIG. 2, is coupled to other central units 300 in processing device and display systems in other rooms. The central processor 220 may also be optionally coupled to a hospital LAN 230. The critical care LAN 205 requires real time bandwidth quality-of-service while the hospital LAN 230 requires standard office bandwidth quality-of-service. As described above, if connected to a hospital LAN 230, the central processor 220 may exchange data with a central storage device 232, or any other desired device (not shown) at a remote location in the hospital”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alter Tremper’s patient monitoring system by incorporating the communication of a medical monitoring device with multiple networks using different bandwidth qualities of service in Elaz. This would have been obvious because both Tremper and Elaz discuss patient monitoring devices where data is analyzed to determine when to issue an alert message and Elaz provides a system where data can be transmitted along different networks with different bandwidth capacities based on the criticality of the medical data. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to improve the system of Tremper by incorporating the communication of a medical monitoring device with multiple networks using different bandwidth qualities of service in Elaz.
Therefore, Claim 16 is obvious over Tremper in view of Rusin and Elaz.
Regarding Claim 18, the patient monitoring system in Claim 28 is obvious over Tremper in view of Rusin and Elaz, as indicated hereinabove. Tremper further discloses the operating parameters of the hospital system comprise a detection of anesthesia administration ([Col 17, Lines 20-23] – “The present teachings use the simultaneous collection of data from anesthesia machine and an anesthesia information system and monitors to identify the onset of malignant hyperthermia to allow early detection and treatment”). Note the parameters measured to characterize anesthesia administration are disclosed in more detail in [Col 7, Lines 63-67, Col 8, Lines 1-13].
Therefore, Claim 18 is obvious over Tremper in view of Rusin and Elaz.
Regarding Claim 21, the patient monitoring system in Claim 16 is obvious over Tremper in view of Rusin and Elaz, as indicated hereinabove. Tremper further discloses the at least one processor is adapted to continue monitoring the predetermined set of physiological parameters for a predetermined period of time after a flow of an inhalation anesthetic agent to the patient commences ([Col 17, Lines 5-39] – conditions which occur under anesthesia, such as Malignant Hyperthermia, have physiological monitoring during the anesthesia period where data from the anesthesia machine is collected for a predetermined time period).
Therefore, Claim 21 is obvious over Tremper in view of Rusin and Elaz.
Regarding Claim 22, the patient monitoring system in Claim 21 is obvious over Tremper in view of Rusin and Elaz, as indicated hereinabove. Tremper further discloses the at least one processor is adapted to continue monitoring of the predetermined set of physiological parameters for a predetermined period of time after a flow of an inhalation anesthetic agent to the patient ([Col 17, Lines 31-43] – Regarding reaching thresholds during the anesthesia period, “With all three of these events happening simultaneously for more than 10 minutes or other predetermined time period, then Malignant Hyperthermia or Malignant Neuroleptic Syndrome is diagnosed”).
Therefore, Claim 22 is obvious over Tremper in view of Rusin and Elaz.
Regarding Claim 23, the patient monitoring system in Claim 16 is obvious over Tremper in view of Rusin and Elaz, as indicated hereinabove. Tremper further discloses the notification directs the user to check the patient at least one additional parameter that is indicative of the presence of the medical condition ([Col 15, Lines 23-45] – provides relevant references for the user to check for additional factors to verify diagnosis, Figures 10-13 have a “Check Monitors and Medical Record before Making Medical Decisions” under alert as well).
Therefore, Claim 23 is obvious over Tremper in view of Rusin and Elaz.
Regarding Claim 25, the patient monitoring system in Claim 16 is obvious over Tremper in view of Rusin and Elaz, as indicated hereinabove. Tremper further discloses the at least one processor is adapted to cause representations of each of the physiological parameters of the predetermined set of parameters that meets the predetermined criteria to be visually emphasized on the display when the notification is being displayed ([Col 2, Lines 53-67, Col 3, Lines 1-17] – color coded alerts for each organ system on the display showing whether parameter is abnormal in [Col 2, Lines 66-67, Col 3 Lines 1-3] and
notification provided [Col 3, Lines 11-16]). Note that Figure 11 shows the arrangement of these features on the display screen in Tremper.
Therefore, Claim 25 is obvious over Tremper in view of Rusin and Elaz.
Regarding Claim 28, the patient monitoring system in Claim 16 is obvious over Tremper in view of Rusin and Elaz, as indicated hereinabove. Tremper further discloses wherein the at least one additional parameter that is not capable of being measured by the at least one sensor includes at least one of a plurality of parameters selected from the group consisting of physiological parameters of the patient (Claim 5 – baseline parameters captured from stored data for comparison with live sensors), laboratory test data from the patient ([Col 12, Lines 31-52]; [Col 13, Lines 21-32] - lab values derived from blood samples), operating parameters of a hospital system ([Col 17, Lines 20-23] – “The present teachings use the simultaneous collection of 20 data from anesthesia machine and an anesthesia information system and monitors to identify the onset of malignant hyperthermia to allow early detection and treatment”), and patient medical history ([Col 16, Lines 8-14] – prior medical history information can be an input).
Therefore, Claim 28 is obvious over Tremper in view of Rusin and Elaz.
Regarding Claim 33, Tremper discloses a patient monitoring system ([Col 1, Lines 18-23]) comprising:
a patient monitor module having at least one sensor for monitoring a physiological parameter of a patient ([Col 5, Lines 54-66] – “The plurality of sensors 14 can be operable to be coupled to a patient and collect real-time physiologic data from the patient”);
a display ([Col 2, Lines 53-67, Col 3, Lines 1-17] – description of display features) configured to visually emphasize a predetermined data set and a warning sign for a medical condition ([Col 2, Lines 66-67, Col 3 Lines 1-3] - Tremper provides a mechanism for icons representing parameters associated with corresponding organ systems to be visibly emphasized based on whether parameters are abnormal: “the icons can be color coded to signify the parameters are in various ranges, such as a normal range being depicted in the color green, a marginal range being depicted in the color yellow, and an abnormal range being depicted in the color red”); and
at least one processor that is electrically connected to the patient monitor module and the display ([Col 2, Lines 53-67, Col 3, Lines 1-17] – description of display features - and [Col 5, Lines 61-66] – use of a controller which interacts with the display), the at least one processor being adapted to:
receive a predetermined set of physiological parameters, the predetermined set of physiological parameters including the physiological parameter measured by the at least one sensor ([Col 5, Lines 54-61] – collection of data from sensor) and at least one additional parameter that is not capable of being measured by the at least one sensor ([Col 16, Lines 8-14] – prior medical history information can be an input), at least the physiological parameter measured by the at least one sensor being received in real time ([Col 5, Lines 59-61] – real-time sensor data collected),
monitor in real time the received predetermined set of physiological parameters ([Col 5, Lines 55-66] – real-time analysis and issuing of alerts),
detect a medical condition of the patient when each of the parameters of the predetermined set of parameters meets a predetermined criteria in a manner indicating a medical condition exists ([Col 15, Lines 1-37] – risk factors detected in order to identify medical condition and issue an alert); and
alert a user to the medical condition by providing a notification through the display, the notification identifying the medical condition ([Col 3, Lines 11-22] – alerts are issued where a “combination of events occurs which produces a situation where there could be a possible important physiologic or medical system abnormality”).
However, Tremper does not disclose:
• a plurality of critical care treatment rooms
• a critical care network to which each of the respective patient monitor modules are connected and over which the respective patient monitor modules communicate with one another, the critical care network providing a first real-time bandwidth quality-of-service;
• a central storage device storing at least one additional parameter that is not capable of being measured by the at least one sensor;
• a hospital network providing a second bandwidth quality-of-service that is different from the first real-time bandwidth quality-of-service, and over which the respective patient monitor modules retrieve the at least one additional parameter that is not capable of being measured by the at least one sensor; and
• a central processor electrically coupled to the patient monitor module and in communication with the at least one processor, wherein the central processor is programmed to transmit operational data to the patient monitor module and receive the physiological parameter measured by the at least one sensor.
Rusin, in the same field of endeavor of monitoring physiologic data which is used to determine alarm management ([0082]), teaches bedside monitoring devices which can be placed in multiple rooms ([0048]). These bedside monitors are integrated into a hospital network which allows real-time communication ([0029]) between monitoring devices in the network ([0048]). Rusin states “all of the servers 180-190 connect to each other and the bedside monitors via one or more hospital networks 130” ([0047]) where the informatics servers store both physiologic data from the sensors ([0152]) and patient history data not collected from sensors ([0095]). The patient history data not collected by sensors can be accessed by the system for determining when to issue alarms ([0095]). Multiple networking protocols can be used with different interconnected networks ([0047] – “Although illustrated as a single hospital Ethernet network 130, any number of interconnected networks may be used, using any desired networking protocols and techniques”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alter Tremper’s patient monitoring system by incorporating the network between patient monitoring devices in Rusin. This would have been obvious because both Tremper and Rusin discuss patient monitoring devices where data is analyzed to determine when to issue alarms and Rusin provides a centralized network with analysis and storage connected to each patient monitoring module to enable communication and standardization between multiple devices (such as Tremper’s device). Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to improve the system of Tremper by incorporating the network between patient monitoring devices in Rusin.
Elaz, in the same field of endeavor of a monitoring module ([0014]) for diagnosis which is used to determine alarm management ([0047]), teaches a central processor which communicates more time-sensitive data via a critical care network with a real time bandwidth quality-of-service and less time-sensitive data on a standard office bandwidth quality-of-service ([0038] - “The central processor 220 is also coupled to the critical care area LAN 205, which, as illustrated in FIG. 2, is coupled to other central units 300 in processing device and display systems in other rooms. The central processor 220 may also be optionally coupled to a hospital LAN 230. The critical care LAN 205 requires real time bandwidth quality-of-service while the hospital LAN 230 requires standard office bandwidth quality-of-service. As described above, if connected to a hospital LAN 230, the central processor 220 may exchange data with a central storage device 232, or any other desired device (not shown) at a remote location in the hospital”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alter Tremper’s patient monitoring system by incorporating the communication of a medical monitoring device with multiple networks using different bandwidth qualities of service in Elaz. This would have been obvious because both Tremper and Elaz discuss patient monitoring devices where data is analyzed to determine when to issue an alert message and Elaz provides a system where data can be transmitted along different networks with different bandwidth capacities based on the criticality of the medical data. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to improve the system of Tremper by incorporating the communication of a medical monitoring device with multiple networks using different bandwidth qualities of service in Elaz.
Therefore, Claim 33 is obvious over Tremper in view of Rusin and Elaz.
Claims 29-32 are rejected under U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Tremper (US 8,936,555 B2, see previously cited) in view of Rusin (US PG Pub 2015/0137968 A1, see previously cited), Elaz (US PG Pub 2005/0133027 A1, see “Notice of References Cited”), and Murphy (US PG Pub 2006/0289586 A1, see previously cited).
Regarding Claim 29, the patient monitoring system in Claim 16 is obvious over Tremper in view of Rusin and Elaz, as indicated hereinabove. Tremper discloses sensors which are coupled to the monitoring system (Col 5, Lines 54-66). Tremper does not disclose a patient area network over which the at least one sensor communicates the physiological parameter to the at least one processor.
Murphy, in the same field of endeavor of monitoring physiologic data ([0001]) which is used to determine alarm management ([0058]), teaches a local wireless network which communicates sensor data to the medical monitor ([0046]) where the sensors are detected and controlled by the processor ([0055]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alter Tremper’s patient monitoring system by incorporating the networking wireless communication between patient monitoring devices in Murphy. This would have been obvious because both Tremper and Murphy discuss patient monitoring devices where data is analyzed to determine when to issue alarms and Murphy provides for communication between similarly-constructed patient monitoring devices to share data across different medical rooms. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to improve the system of Tremper by incorporating the networking wireless communication between patient monitoring devices in Murphy.
Therefore, Claim 29 is obvious over Tremper in view of Rusin, Elaz, and Murphy.
Regarding Claim 30, the patient monitoring system in Claim 16 is obvious over Tremper in view of Rusin and Elaz, as indicated hereinabove. Tremper discloses sensors which are coupled to the monitoring system (Col 5, Lines 54-66). Tremper does not wherein a first one of the at least one processors in a first one of the plurality of treatment rooms controls a second one of the at least one processors in a second one of the plurality of treatment rooms over the critical care network.
Murphy, in the same field of endeavor of monitoring physiologic data ([0001]) which is used to determine alarm management ([0058]), teaches each monitor can either be similarly constructed master or slave monitors with the ability to share displays ([0070] – “In the case of the master monitor, the microprocessor 26 receives ‘raw’ medical data from the sensors S1 to Sn and 17 of the master monitor and processes that data. The processor packages the data into a form suitable for display on the display 22 of the master monitor. In addition, the master monitor receives the medical data from the slave monitors, and processes that data for display on the display 22 of the master monitor … Alternatively, the slave monitors may have all the features of the master monitor as described in the following description”) where monitors are distributed to a number of patients ([0034]), who would be in different locations. The master monitor can control the slave monitors ([0063-0064]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alter Tremper’s patient monitoring system by incorporating the networking wireless communication between patient monitoring devices in Murphy. This would have been obvious because both Tremper and Murphy discuss patient monitoring devices where data is analyzed to determine when to issue alarms and Murphy provides for communication between similarly-constructed patient monitoring devices to share data across different medical rooms. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to improve the system of Tremper by incorporating the networking wireless communication between patient monitoring devices in Murphy.
Therefore, Claim 30 is obvious over Tremper in view of Rusin, Elaz, and Murphy.
Regarding Claim 31, the patient monitoring system in Claim 16 is obvious over Tremper in view of Rusin and Elaz, as indicated hereinabove. Tremper discloses sensors which are coupled to the monitoring system (Col 5, Lines 54-66). Tremper does not disclose wherein a first one of the at least one processors in a first one of the plurality of treatment rooms displays on a second one of the at least one processors in a second one of the plurality of treatment rooms over the critical care network patient related data.
Murphy, in the same field of endeavor of monitoring physiologic data ([0001]) which is used to determine alarm management ([0058]), teaches each monitor can either be similarly constructed master or slave monitors with the ability to share displays ([0070] – “In the case of the master monitor, the microprocessor 26 receives ‘raw’ medical data from the sensors S1 to Sn and 17 of the master monitor and processes that data. The processor packages the data into a form suitable for display on the display 22 of the master monitor. In addition, the master monitor receives the medical data from the slave monitors, and processes that data for display on the display 22 of the master monitor … Alternatively, the slave monitors may have all the features of the master monitor as described in the following description”) where monitors are distributed to a number of patients ([0034]), who would be in different locations.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alter Tremper’s patient monitoring system by incorporating the networking wireless communication between patient monitoring devices in Murphy. This would have been obvious because both Tremper and Murphy discuss patient monitoring devices where data is analyzed to determine when to issue alarms and Murphy provides for communication between similarly-constructed patient monitoring devices to share data across different medical rooms. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to improve the system of Tremper by incorporating the networking wireless communication between patient monitoring devices in Murphy.
Therefore, Claim 31 is obvious over Tremper in view of Rusin, Elaz, and Murphy.
Regarding Claim 32, the patient monitoring system in Claim 16 is obvious over Tremper in view of Rusin and Elaz, as indicated hereinabove. Tremper discloses sensors which are coupled to the monitoring system (Col 5, Lines 54-66). Tremper does not disclose:
• a first one of the at least one processors in a first one of the plurality of treatment rooms transmits data on a second one of the at least one processors in a second one of the plurality of treatment rooms over the critical care network;
• the second one of the at least one processors processes the received data; and sends control data to one or more patient modules in response to the received data.
Murphy, in the same field of endeavor of monitoring physiologic data ([0001]) which is used to determine alarm management ([0058]), teaches a set of identical patient monitors ([0017]) where the monitors can share data over a network ([0018] – “Furthermore, that one example of the system may be arranged so that any monitor can be selected as the central station and displays the medical data of any other monitor in the network. Alternatively, even though all monitors have the further wireless transceivers, the network may be configured so that only one monitor, the master monitor, can act as the central station, the other monitors acting as slave monitors”) and monitors are distributed to a number of patients ([0034]), who would be in different locations. Both the master ([0070]) and slave ([0062]) monitors can process received data. The master monitor can control the slave monitor from which the data was received ([0063]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alter Tremper’s patient monitoring system by incorporating the networking wireless communication between patient monitoring devices in Murphy. This would have been obvious because both Tremper and Murphy discuss patient monitoring devices where data is analyzed to determine when to issue alarms and Murphy provides for communication between similarly-constructed patient monitoring devices to share data across different medical rooms. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to improve the system of Tremper by incorporating the networking wireless communication between patient monitoring devices in Murphy.
Therefore, Claim 32 is obvious over Tremper in view of Rusin, Elaz, and Murphy.
Conclusions
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner Benjamin Schmitt, whose telephone number is 703-756-1345. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:30 am to 5:00 pm.
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, Jennifer McDonald can be reached on 571-270-3061. 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.
/Benjamin A. Schmitt/
Examiner
Art Unit 3796
/ALLEN PORTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796