DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s response filed 8/5/2026 has been fully considered. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied.
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 .
Claim Status
Claim 1 is cancelled by Applicant.
Claims 2-15 are currently pending and are under examination.
Claims 2-15 are rejected.
Priority
The instant application claims domestic benefit as continuation of US Application No. 13/548,637, filed 07/13/2012, which claims domestic benefit to U.S. Provisional Application No. 61/507,469, filed 07/13/2011. The claims to domestic benefit are acknowledged. As such, the effective filing date for claims 2-15 is 07/13/2011.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS filed 8/11/2026 follows the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and has been considered in full. A signed copy of the list of references cited from this IDS is included with this Office Action.
Drawings
The objections to the drawings are withdrawn in view of amendments to the specification and because Applicant’s argument is persuasive (pg. 7, para. 3 of remarks filed 8/5/2026). The drawings filed 8/2/2022 are accepted.
Withdrawn Rejections
35 USC 112(b)
The rejection of claims 4, 8, 10 and 13-15 under 35 USC 112(b) is withdrawn in view of claim amendments.
35 USC 101
The rejection of claims 2-15 under 35 USC 101 is withdrawn in view of claim amendments.
35 USC 103
The rejection of claims 2-15 under 35 USC 103 for being unpatentable over Lane et al.
in view of Fu et al. is withdrawn in view of claim amendments. However, a new ground of rejection is applied below as necessitated by claim amendment.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection of claims 2-15 over claims 1-7 and 9-13 of U.S. Patent No. 11,439,329 B2 is withdrawn in view of claim amendment. However, a new ground of rejection is applied below as necessitated by claim amendment.
Claim Objections
The objection to claim 9 is withdrawn in view of claim amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
35 USC 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
This rejection is newly recited as necessitated by claim amendment. Claims dependent from a rejected claim are also rejected unless otherwise noted.
Claim 3, lines 10-11, recites “a final value for the physiological parameter”. It’s unclear which physiological parameter is referenced because claim 2, line 4, recites “the physiological parameter” and claim 2, lines 29 and 31, recite “a physiological parameter value”. Clarify which parameter is referenced.
Claims 4-5 recite “the indication”. It’s unclear which indication is referenced because claim 2, line 24, recites “a user input indicating” and claim 2, line 35, recites “a user indication”. Clarify which indication is referenced.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2-3 and 5-15 are rejected under 35 USC 103 for being unpatentable over Gilham et al. (“Gilham”; US 2010/0298718 A1; newly cited) in view of Kiani et al. (“Kiani”; US 2008/0071155 A1; newly cited).
This rejection is newly recited as necessitated by claim amendment. The bold and italicized text below are the limitations of the instant claims, and the italicized text serves to map the prior art onto the instant claims.
Claim 2:
a physiological sensor configured to be applied to a measurement site by a user and to provide measurements indicative of the physiological parameter,
Gilham discloses a multiple mode portable patient monitoring system (abstract). The monitor contains sensors for Non-Invasive Blood Pressure (NIBP), Pulse Oximetry (SpO2) and Temperature [48] [57-58] [93].
wherein, during a first operating mode of the dual-mode, the physiological sensor is configured to obtain a single measurement;
Gilham teaches the monitor has a spot-check mode which takes a single measurement [2] [38] [63].
wherein, during a second operating mode of the dual-mode, the physiological sensor is configured to obtain a plurality of measurements, the plurality of measurements comprising at least a first measurement and a second measurement, wherein the physiological sensor is configured to obtain the first measurement during a first application of the physiological sensor to the measurement site and the second measurement obtained during a second application of the physiological sensor to the measurement site or to a new measurement site;
Gilham teaches the monitor has a continuous monitoring mode [2] [38] [59]. Continuous monitoring necessitates at least two measurements. The temperature, Sp02 and NIBP sensors are placed at measurement sites [58-59]. However, the second measurement is not obtained after a second application of the sensor to the same or different site.
Kiani discloses a device with a sensor that calculates a physiological parameter (abstract). The device prompts a user to attach a sensor to a baseline site to take a baseline sensor measurement [37]. Then the device prompts the user to reattach the sensor to a comparison site to take a comparison site measurement [37]. The comparison site is different from the baseline site [37].
The prima facie case for obviousness is recited below.
a user interface configured to receive a user input indicating a user selection between the first operating mode and the second operating mode;
Gilham recites “the touchscreen GUI of the present invention is used to enable a user to switch operating mode between continuous monitoring and spot check” [101].
a computer-readable memory storing executable instructions; and a processor, in communication with the computer-readable memory, wherein the processor is configured by the executable instructions to at least: receive the user input indicating the user selection between the first operating mode and the second operating mode; operate the physiological sensor based on the user selection; and
Gilham teaches output from sensors are sent to a processor in communication with memory to process the measured data [3] [10]. Gilham recites “the touchscreen GUI of the present invention is used to enable a user to switch operating mode between continuous monitoring and spot check” [101].
calculate and output to the user interface at least one predicted parameter value, wherein during the first operating mode, the processor is configured to estimate a physiological parameter value based on the single measurement, and wherein during the second operating mode, the processor is configured to estimate a physiological parameter value based on the plurality of measurements,
Gilham shows in Figures 5-6 the device outputting the calculated temperature, NIBP and Sp02 for both modes, the spot-check (single measurement) and continuous monitoring (plurality of measurements).
wherein, in response to the user input indicating the user selection of the second operating mode, the processor is further configured to suspend obtaining the second measurement and calculating the at least one predicted parameter value until having received a user indication from the user interface that the physiological sensor has been removed and reapplied after the first application.
Gilham discloses a continuous monitoring mode selected by a user on a user interface where a sensor takes measurements at a particular site and calculates a physiological parameter [38] [59] [101] [124]. However, Gilham does not suspend obtaining the second measurement or suspend calculating the parameter until having received a user indication that the sensor has been removed and reapplied.
Kiani teaches that the monitor prompts a user to attach a sensor to a baseline site to take a baseline sensor measurement [37]. Then the monitor prompts the user to reattach the sensor to a comparison site to take a comparison site measurement [37]. After the baseline and comparison site measurements are taken, the monitor calculates a difference between the baseline and comparison sites (FIG 7B).
It would have been prima facie obvious to have modified the continuous monitoring mode of Gilham by taking a baseline measurement at one site and taking a comparison measurement at another site to calculate a difference between the two measurements as taught by Kiani. Kiani teaches advantages for the baseline and comparison site measurement technique related to detecting congenital heart disease (CHD) when reciting “[b]ecause the innominate artery 260 is upstream from the ductus arteriosus 230, the oxygen saturation value and plethysmograph waveform obtained from the right hand are relatively unaffected by the shunt and serve as a baseline or reference for comparison with readings from other tissue sites” [8]. Also, Kiania teaches that the baseline and comparison site method “determines whether any site measurements, site measurement differences or trends are outside of preset limits. If limits are exceeded, the monitor generates visual and/or audio indicators of a potential CHD condition” [39]. This has the advantage of increasing the number of data points used to detect a potential CHD condition.
There would have been a reasonable expectation of success because Gilham teaches that any Sp02 sensor can be used [57], such as the attachable and detachable sensor in Kiani [37], and because the combination merely requires taking multiple measurements and calculating a difference between them.
Claim 3: Gilham discloses a continuous monitoring mode that takes measurements from a sensor [6]. However, Gilham does not output instructions to reapply the sensor, receive an indication that the sensor has been removed and reapplied, or obtain the second measurement based on the indication.
Kiani teaches that the monitor prompts a user to attach a sensor to a baseline site to take a baseline sensor measurement [37]. Then the monitor prompts the user to reattach the sensor to a comparison site (output instructions for the user to reapply) [37]. After reattaching the sensor to the comparison site, the user pushes a button to trigger the device to take a comparison site measurement (receive a user indication that the sensor has been removed and reapplied) (obtain the second measurement using the sensor in response to receiving the user indication) [37]. After the baseline and comparison site measurements are taken, the monitor calculates a difference between the baseline and comparison sites (calculate the at least one predicted parameter value for the physiological parameter based on the first and second measurements) (FIG 7B) [38].
It would have been prima facie obvious to have modified the user interface and the continuous monitoring mode of Gilham by calculate a difference between a bassline site measurement and a comparison site measurement, wherein the monitoring device receives an indication that the sensor has been reapplied, as taught by Kiani. Kiani teaches advantages for the baseline and comparison site measurement technique related to detecting congenital heart disease (CHD) when reciting “[b]ecause the innominate artery 260 is upstream from the ductus arteriosus 230, the oxygen saturation value and plethysmograph waveform obtained from the right hand are relatively unaffected by the shunt and serve as a baseline or reference for comparison with readings from other tissue sites” [8]. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success because Gilham teaches that any Sp02 sensor can be used [57] and because the combination merely requires taking multiple measurements and calculating a difference between them.
Claims 5-6:
Gilham teaches that a notification sound can be a sound or a flashing light [124].
Claim 7:
Gilham shows that the input device is a touch screen display [11].
Claim 8:
Gilham shows in FIG 3F a start button associated the spot check mode. The processor is configured to receive and perform actions with various functionalities of the monitoring device [36].
Claim 9:
Gilham discloses a touch screen configured to receiver user input [101]. However, Gilham does not teach that the touch screen receives a user input indicating a sensor has been reapplied. Kiania discloses a touch screen that triggers the monitor device [36] which receives input from a user that the sensor has been reattached to the comparison site [37]. It would have been prima facie obvious to have modified the touch screen of Gilham to contain a button indicating the sensor has been reapplied in order to take a comparison measurement as taught by Kiania. Motivation is taught by Kiania who states that the baseline and comparison sites are advantageous to get accurate readings [8]. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success because both Gilham and Kiana are directed toward touch screen physiological monitoring devices using sensors, wherein the modification merely requires addition of another touch screen button.
Claim 10:
Gilham discloses a continuous monitoring mode, which can be selected by a user on a user interface, where a sensor takes measurements at a particular site and calculates a physiological parameter [38] [59] [101] [124]. However, Gilham does not obtain a third measurement based on a third application of the sensor.
Kiani teaches that the monitor prompts a user to attach a sensor to a baseline site to take a baseline sensor measurement [37]. Then the monitor prompts the user to reattach the sensor to a comparison site to take a comparison site measurement [37]. The monitor then determines if a third site measurement is to be taken [38]. If so, the monitor prompts the user to reattach the sensor to a third site [38]. After the baseline and comparison site(s) measurements are taken, the monitor calculates a difference between the baseline and comparison site(s) (FIG 7B) [38].
It would have been prima facie obvious to have modified the continuous monitoring mode of Gilham by taking a baseline measurement at one site and taking comparison measurements at other sites to calculate a difference between the baseline and comparison site measurements as taught by Kiani. Kiana teaches that this method is advantages particularly for detecting abnormalities associated with congenital heart disease [8]. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success because Gilham teaches that any Sp02 sensor can be used [57] and because the combination merely requires taking multiple measurements and calculating a difference between them.
Claims 11-12:
Gilham filters physiological measurements by removing a longest or shortest interval or selecting a median, which would result in the outputted measurement being calculated based on all other measurements [129].
Claims 13-14:
Gilham recites “the average interval data is derived by calculating a median value of the physical inputs” [130]. A median value can also be interpreted as a selected value among values that characterizes a distribution.
Claim 15:
Gilham recites “the average interval data is derived by first rejecting the longest and shortest interval data (outliers) generated by the physical inputs and then averaging the remaining data” [130].
Rejection over Gilham and Kiani in view of Al-Ali
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 USC 103 for being unpatentable over Gilham et al. (“Gilham”; US 2010/0298718 A1; newly cited) in view of Kiani et al. (“Kiani”; US 2008/0071155 A1; newly cited), as applied above to claims 2-3, and in further view of Al-Ali et al. (US 2008/0188733 A1; newly cited).
This rejection is newly recited as necessitated by claim amendment. The limitations of claims 2-3 are taught above by Gilham and Kiani.
Regarding claim 4, Gilham discloses a processor configured to perform various functions of the physiological monitoring device with sensors [36] and collects multiple measurements using a continuous monitoring mode [6]. However, Gilham and Kiani do not determine a confidence value from a number of measurements.
Al-Ali discloses a system having parameter inputs responsive to physiological sensor data and determines quality indicators relating to confidence in parameter inputs (abstract). The quality indicator is a value [52]. It would have been prima facie obvious to have modified the method of Gilham and Kiania for obtaining physiological parameters by determining a confidence value for each measurement as taught by Al-Ali. Motivation is that confidence values help determine whether a measured sensor signal is unreliable. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success because the confidence values of Al-Ali are related to Sp02 [52] [62] [76], wherein Gilham and Kiana are both directed toward measuring Sp02.
Response to Arguments under 35 USC 103
Applicant's arguments filed 8/5/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments regarding Lane and Fu are noted but are not persuasive because the new ground of rejection, as necessitated by claim amendment, does not rely on Lane or Fu (pg. 9-10 of remarks).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 2-15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 and 9-13 of U.S. Patent No. 11,439,329 B2 (hereinafter “Patent ‘329”) in view of Kiani et al. (“Kiani”; US 2008/0071155 A1; newly cited).
This rejection is newly recited as necessitated by claim amendment.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are an obvious variation of the claims in Patent ‘329. The following table shows claims in Patent ‘329 that read on the claims of the instant application:
Instant Application claims
Patent ‘329
2: A dual-mode system for decreasing a probability of an erroneous value in a measured physiological parameter, the dual-mode system comprising: a physiological sensor configured to be applied to a measurement site by a user and to provide measurements indicative of the physiological parameter, wherein, during a first operating mode of the dual-mode, the physiological sensor is configured to obtain a single measurement; wherein, during a second operating mode of the dual-mode, the physiological sensor is configured to obtain a plurality of measurements, the plurality of measurements comprising at least a first measurement and a second measurement, wherein the physiological sensor is configured to obtain the first measurement during the second operating mode, the processor is configured to estimate a physiological parameter value based on the plurality of measurements, wherein, in response to the user input indicating the user selection of the second operating mode, the processor is further configured to suspend obtaining the second measurement and calculating the at least one predicted parameter value until having received a user indication from the user interface that the physiological sensor has been removed and reapplied after the first application.
1: a physiological sensor configured to be applied to a measurement site by a user and to provide measurements indicative of the physiological parameter; a user interface; a computer-readable memory storing executable instructions; and a processor in communication with the computer readable memory, wherein the processor is configured by the executable instructions to at least: receive an indication of a user selection of a multiple measurement operating mode, wherein the user selection is made from among a plurality of operating modes of the system comprising a normal operating mode and the multiple measurement operating mode, wherein during the normal mode, the physiological parameter is estimated based only on a single measurement, and wherein during the multiple measurement operating mode, the physiological parameter is estimated based on a number of distinct measurements with a reapplication of the physiological sensor to a same measurement site between measurements; in response to receiving the indication of the user selection of the multiple measurement operating mode, output, to the user interface, instructions for the user to obtain the number of distinct measurements using the physiological sensor and to reapply the physiological sensor between each of the distinct measurements; obtain at least some of the distinct measurements of the number of distinct measurements, wherein, to obtain the at least some of the distinct measurements, the processor is configured to: output, to the user interface, instructions for the user to remove the physiological sensor from the measurement site and reapply the physiological sensor to the measurement site, receive an indication from the user that the physiological sensor has been removed and reapplied, and receive from the physiological sensor a measurement indicative of the physiological parameter after receiving the indication from the user that the physiological sensor has been removed and reapplied; determine a confidence value from the number of distinct measurements corresponding to the same measurement site; and calculate a final value for the physiological parameter based on the acquired number of distinct measurements.
3: wherein to operate the physiological sensor, the processor is configured to: obtain the first measurement using the physiological sensor; output, to the user interface, instructions for the user to reapply the physiological sensor; receive an indication that the physiological sensor has been removed and reapplied; obtain the second measurement using the physiological sensor; and calculate a final value for the physiological parameter based on the first and second measurements.
4: wherein the processor further determines a confidence value from a number of measurements taken.
5
2
6
3
7
4
8
5
9
6
10
7
11
9
12
10
13
11
14
12
15
13
Patent ‘329 differs from instant claim 2 because it does not output through the user interface the value for the physiological parameter. However, this limitation was obvious in view of the claims of Patent ‘329. It would have been prima facie obvious to output the physiological parameter value through the user interface for the user to see the value. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to output the value using the user interface because claim 4 shows that the user interface has a touch screen which can display visual prompts.
Patent ‘329 also differs from instant claim 2 because it does not suspend both obtaining a second measurement and calculating a predicted parameter until receiving an indication that the sensor has been removed and reapplied.
Kiani discloses a congenital heart disease monitor that uses a sensor to measure and calculate a physiological parameters such as Sp02 (abstract) [31]. The monitor prompts a user to attach a sensor to a baseline site to take a baseline sensor measurement [37]. Then the monitor prompts the user to reattach the sensor to a comparison site to take a comparison site measurement [37]. The monitor calculates a difference between the baseline and comparison site measurements (FIG 7B) [38].
It would have been prima facie obvious to have modified the multiple measurement operating mode Patent ‘329 by taking a baseline measurement at one site and taking a comparison measurement at another site to calculate a difference between the baseline and comparison site measurements as taught by Kiani. Kiani teaches advantages for the baseline and comparison site measurement technique related to detecting congenital heart (CHD) disease when reciting “[b]ecause the innominate artery 260 is upstream from the ductus arteriosus 230, the oxygen saturation value and plethysmograph waveform obtained from the right hand are relatively unaffected by the shunt and serve as a baseline or reference for comparison with readings from other tissue sites” [8]. Also, Kiania teaches that the baseline and comparison site method “determines whether any site measurements, site measurement differences or trends are outside of preset limits. If limits are exceeded, the monitor generates visual and/or audio indicators of a potential CHD condition” [39]. This has the advantage of increasing the number of data points used to detect a potential CHD condition.
There would have been a reasonable expectation of success because Gilham teaches that any Sp02 sensor can be used [57], such as one that is attachable and detachable as in Kiani [37], and because the combination merely requires taking multiple measurements and calculating a difference between them.
Response to Arguments under Double Patenting
Applicant's arguments filed 8/5/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments regarding double patenting are noted but are not persuasive because they pertain to a withdrawn ground of rejection. The new double patenting rejection, as necessitated by claim amendment, relies upon newly cited reference Kiani et al. (US 2008/0071155 A1) for the amended limitation in instant claim 1.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Claims 2-15 are patent eligible under 35 USC 101. The following additional elements in claim 2 when viewed in combination are not well-understood, routine, and conventional: “a physiological sensor configured to be applied to a measurement site by a user and to provide measurements indicative of the physiological parameter, wherein, during a first operating mode of the dual-mode, the physiological sensor is configured to obtain a single measurement; wherein, during a second operating mode of the dual-mode, the physiological sensor is configured to obtain a plurality of measurements, the plurality of measurements comprising at least a first measurement and a second measurement, wherein the physiological sensor is configured to obtain the first measurement during a first application of the physiological sensor to the measurement site and the second measurement obtained during a second application of the physiological sensor to the measurement site or to a new measurement site; a user interface … a computer-readable memory storing executable instructions; and a processor, in communication with the computer-readable memory, wherein the processor is configured by the executable instructions to at least: … operate the physiological sensor based on the user selection … wherein, in response to the user input indicating the user selection of the second operating mode, the processor is further configured to suspend obtaining the second measurement and calculating the at least one predicted parameter value until having received a user indication from the user interface that the physiological sensor has been removed and reapplied after the first application.”
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.
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Noah A. Auger whose telephone number is (703)756-4518. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30 EST.
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, Karlheinz Skowronek can be reached at (571) 272-9047. 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.
/N.A.A./Examiner, Art Unit 1687
/KAITLYN L MINCHELLA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1685
Prosecution Insights