DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on April 8, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed 11th February 2026 have been entered. Claims 1-6 & 8-17 are pending, with claims 8-17 previously withdrawn from consideration.
Response to Arguments
In response to the arguments regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101, Applicant argues that claim 1 provides a specific solution to a technical problem of distinguishing patient deterioration from measurement artifacts in automated interval-mode monitoring by implementing threshold-based confirmation that validates abnormal readings and reduces false alarms, improving functioning of the monitoring device and addressing technical challenges unique to continuous monitoring technology through a non-conventional technical implementation, citing amendments to claim 1. Applicant clarifies the amendments requires comparing two blood pressure measurements taken during interval mode monitoring and confirming abnormality when the second measurement is within a predefined threshold of the first measurement to distinguish actual patient deterioration from anomalies.
With regard to the argument that Claim 1 provides significantly more than any abstract idea because it recites a specific, non-conventional technical implementation the monitoring device merely follows the instructions to take measurements of blood pressure, compare measurements using a predetermined range, validates measurements, and triggers an alarm when a measurement is validated as outside of said predetermined range. This is not non-conventional and is known in the art as shown in the prior art rejection below, specifically taught by Kitagawa.
Applicants arguments regarding patentability with respect to Neale are moot, as that prior art is no longer used.
Applicant further maintains the argument that a transformation is present in the claim. As previously expressed and reiterated here: A transformation is not present in the operation of the monitoring device as the Applicant argues. There is no transformation recited in the Claims, and there does not appear to be an implied transformation in the claims in view of the disclosure. The operation of the monitoring device is not transformed, it merely follows the instructions to take measurements of blood pressure compare a first measurement using preset limits for abnormality detection, compare measurements using a predetermined range, validates measurements, and triggers an alarm when a measurement is validated as an abnormality. At no point is there a conceivable transformation in the operation of the monitoring device. Please See MPEP 2106.05(c).
Applicant argues that comparison of the first blood pressure measurement to preset limits to determine abnormal measurement (Taught by Tweed in the prior art rejections below in Para. [0067]), followed by a confirmatory measurement that compares the two measurements using a separate predefined threshold to confirm abnormality (Taught by Kitagawa in the prior art rejections below in Para. [0028]) demonstrates a concrete technical implementation for addressing the technical problem of distinguishing patient deterioration from anomalies, rather than merely performing abstract data comparison.
Examiner respectfully disagrees, the limitations recite comparing the first measured value with a preset limit (observation, mental process) and comparing a second measurement to the first measurement with a predefined threshold (observation, mental process) to differentiate between anomalies and patient deterioration (evaluation/opinion). This is clearly automation of a mental process.
Applicant continues, ‘the claimed subject matter improves the functioning of the monitoring device. Rather than merely automating a mental process, the claimed subject matter enhances the reliability and accuracy of the patient monitoring device by reducing false alarms and improving alarm confidence through distinguishing patient deterioration from anomalies. This technical improvement to device functionality integrates the judicial exception into a practical application’.
Examiner respectfully disagrees, as previously outlined, the alleged improvement is not new, and is well known in the art, evidenced by the prior art rejections below, the recited limitations claim an abstract idea implemented by generically recited additional elements that do not provide significantly more.
It is important to note that according to MPEP 2106.05(a), the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements. See the discussion of Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 187 and 191-92, 209 USPQ 1, 10 (1981)) in subsection II, below. In addition, the improvement can be provided by the additional element(s) in combination with the recited judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.04(d) (discussing Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc., 879 F.3d 1299, 1303-04, 125 USPQ2d 1282, 1285-87 (Fed. Cir. 2018)). Thus, it is important for examiners to analyze the claim as a whole when determining whether the claim provides an improvement to the functioning of computers or an improvement to other technology or technical field.
The evaluation of whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception or whether the claim is ‘directed to’ the judicial exception is performed by identifying additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception and evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim recites the additional elements of a processor, a memory device, a monitoring device, initiating an interval mode, and taking blood pressure measurements. The claim recites that the processor(s) execute the limitations using the monitoring device.
The limitations as underlined in the rejection below are mere data gathering, manipulating and output recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering and output, and, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. These limitations amount to necessary data gathering and outputting. See MPEP 2106.05.
Further, the limitations are executed on one or more processor(s) and utilize a patient monitoring device. The processor(s) and patient monitoring device are recited at a high level of generality. The processor(s) and patient monitoring device are used to perform an abstract idea, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1).
According to the specification, ‘clinicians are often unable to determine whether an alarm is triggered due to patient deterioration, or due to noise artifacts such as from patient motion. This can lead to confusion regarding the need to respond to the alarm, and can result in alarm fatigue.’ The disclosed system allegedly accounts for these issues through data measurement validation. However, blood pressure measurement comparison for validation using predetermined thresholds is well known in the art and technical field, as seen in the prior art cited on PTO-892, specifically Kitagawa. Thus, the claim as a whole does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application such that the claim is not directed to the judicial exception. The additional elements, when considered in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim does not improve the functioning of a computer or technical field.
The addition of a threshold as a basis for determining abnormality in a comparison between two data readings is a conventional data comparison, there is nothing in the claims that is specific or novel about the way the monitoring device makes the comparison, the additional elements are all generically recited computer elements. A data measurement validation is not enough to provide significantly more than the abstract idea of receiving data values, comparing data values to determine if there is an abnormality against a predetermined threshold, and outputting an alert after validating an abnormal result. The argument that the comparison of data values being blood pressure measurements within a predefined threshold is a new or unique improvement and provides meaningful constraint on the abstract idea is not persuasive, as the Claims do not reflect any specifics to show the alleged improvement. Further, comparing data values based on a predetermined threshold, making a determination that an abnormal data value is valid, and alerting are all within the capability of the human mind.
In response to the arguments regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103, Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-6 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.
Each of Claims 1-6 has been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions.
Step 2A, Prong 1
Each of Claims 1-6 recites at least one step or instruction for making determinations about data, averaging data, comparing data, alarming based on data, instructing a patient to remain still, storing data, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG or a certain method of organizing human activity under the 2019 PEG. Accordingly, each of Claims 1-6 recites an abstract idea.
Specifically, Claim 1 recites
A patient monitoring device, comprising: at least one processing device; and a memory device storing instructions which, when executed by the at least one processing device, cause the at least one processing device to:
initiate an interval mode that includes measuring blood pressure of a patient using a cuff at predetermined intervals over a predetermined period of time;
automatically take a first blood pressure measurement at one of the predetermined intervals according to the interval mode using the cuff,
determine whether the first blood pressure measurement is abnormal by comparing the first blood pressure measurement to preset limits (Judgement);
automatically take a second blood pressure measurement after a predetermined delay when the first blood pressure measurement is determined abnormal according to the interval mode using the cuff;
compare the first blood pressure measurement to the second blood pressure measurement (Judgement),
wherein, when the second blood pressure measurement is within a predefined threshold of the first blood pressure measurement, the first blood pressure measurement is confirmed as abnormal to distinguish actual patient deterioration from anomalies during the interval mode (Evaluation/Opinion); and
trigger an alarm when the first blood pressure measurement is confirmed as abnormal (Evaluation/Opinion).
Underlined portions of which are abstract ideas: (observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG); (processing device and memory device implement the above abstract idea; initiating an interval mode, taking blood pressure measurements are insignificant extra-solutionary activity)
Further, dependent Claims 2-6 merely include limitations that either further define the abstract idea (and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract) or amount to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they’re merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the process steps are performed.
Accordingly, as indicated above, each of the above-identified claims recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2
The above-identified abstract idea in each of independent Claim 1 (and their respective dependent Claims 2-6) is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the additional elements (identified above in independent Claim 1), either alone or in combination, generally link the use of the above-identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. More specifically, the additional elements of: a processor, a memory device, initiating an interval mode, and taking blood pressure measurements as recited in independent Claim 1 and its dependent claims are generically recited computer elements in independent Claim 1 (and their respective dependent claims) which do not improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field. Nor do these above-identified additional elements serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine, effect a transformation or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Furthermore, the above-identified additional elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. For at least these reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claim 1 and their respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG.
Moreover, the above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the claimed method and system merely implements the above-identified abstract idea (e.g., mental process and certain method of organizing human activity) using rules (e.g., computer instructions) executed by a computer (e.g., processor, memory device as claimed). In other words, these claims are merely directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements which do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. Additionally, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. That is, like Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution. Thus, for these additional reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claim 1 (and their respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG.
Accordingly, independent Claim 1 (and their respective dependent claims) are each directed to an abstract idea under 2019 PEG.
Step 2B
None of Claims 1-6 include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for at least the following reasons.
These claims require the additional elements of: a processor, a memory device, initiating an interval mode, and taking blood pressure measurements as recited in independent claim 1 and its respective dependent claims.
The above-identified additional elements are generically claimed computer components which enable the above-identified abstract idea(s) to be conducted by performing the basic functions of automating mental tasks. The courts have recognized such computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. , 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
Per Applicant’s specification, processor (Para. [0045] ‘the at least one processing device 122 can include one or more digital signal processors, field-programmable gate arrays, or other electronic circuits.’), memory device (Para. [0046] ‘The memory device 124 includes computer-readable media, which may include any media that can be accessed by the monitoring device 22. By way of example, computer-readable media include computer readable storage media and computer readable communication media.’; Para. [0047]), initiating an interval mode (Para. [0004] ‘the interval mode including measuring the blood pressure at predetermined intervals over a predetermined period of time’), and taking blood pressure measurements (Para. [0063])
Accordingly, in light of Applicant’s specification, the claimed terms processor and memory device is reasonably construed as a generic computing device. Like SAP America vs Investpic, LLC (Federal Circuit 2018), it is clear, from the claims themselves and the specification, that these limitations require no improved computer resources, just already available computers, with their already available basic functions, to use as tools in executing the claimed process.
Furthermore, Applicant’s specification does not describe any special programming or algorithms required for the processor and memory device. This lack of disclosure is acceptable under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) since this hardware performs non-specialized functions known by those of ordinary skill in the computer arts. By omitting any specialized programming or algorithms, Applicant's specification essentially admits that this hardware is conventional and performs well understood, routine and conventional activities in the computer industry or arts. In other words, Applicant’s specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the above-identified additional elements because it describes these additional elements in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) (see Berkheimer memo from April 19, 2018, (III)(A)(1) on page 3). Adding hardware that performs “‘well understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry” will not make claims patent-eligible (TLI Communications).
The recitation of the above-identified additional limitations in Claims 1-6 amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Simply using a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); and TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Moreover, implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not add significantly more, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer.
A claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). However, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification for any assertion that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. Here, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. Instead, as in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC 838 F.3d 1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution.
For at least the above reasons, the system of Claims 1-6 are directed to applying an abstract idea as identified above on a general purpose computer without (i) improving the performance of the computer itself, or (ii) providing a technical solution to a problem in a technical field. None of Claims 1-6 provides meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that these claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements do not provide significantly more. Specifically, when viewed individually, the above-identified additional elements in independent Claim 1 (and their dependent claims) do not add significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. That is, neither the general computer elements nor any other additional element adds meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because these additional elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity. When viewed as a combination, these above-identified additional elements simply instruct the practitioner to implement the claimed functions with well-understood, routine and conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment. As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. When viewed as whole, the above-identified additional elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Thus, Claims 1-6 merely apply an abstract idea to a computer and do not (i) improve the performance of the computer itself (as in Bascom and Enfish), or (ii) provide a technical solution to a problem in a technical field (as in DDR).
Therefore, none of the Claims 1-6 amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, Claims 1-6 are not patent eligible and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20050148885 A1 to Tweed et al. (hereinafter, Tweed) in view of US 20190380579 A1 to Kitagawa et al. (hereinafter, Kitagawa).
Regarding Claim 1, Tweed discloses a patient monitoring device (Tweed: Abstract), comprising:
at least one processing device (Tweed: Para. [0014]); and
a memory device storing instructions (Tweed: Para. [0120]) which, when executed by the at least one processing device, cause the at least one processing device to:
initiate an interval mode (Tweed Fig. 5, item 200) that includes measuring blood pressure of a patient using a cuff at predetermined intervals over a predetermined period of time (Tweed: Para. [0041], [0046]; [0088]);
automatically take a first blood pressure measurement at one of the predetermined intervals according to the interval mode using the cuff (Tweed: Para. [0041], [0046]; [0088]),
determine whether the first blood pressure measurement is abnormal by comparing the first blood pressure measurement to preset limits (Tweed: Para. [0041], [0067]; Para. [0088]);
automatically take a second blood pressure measurement after a predetermined delay when the first blood pressure measurement is determined abnormal according to the interval mode using the cuff (Tweed: Para. [0041];[0046];[0088]);
While Tweed does discuss the monitoring device having the ability to compare a measurement with a previous measurement (Tweed: Fig. 5, item 260 tracking changes/triggering new occlusive measurement) and setting time and alarm limits (Tweed: Para. [0016] lines 5-11),
Tweed does not explicitly disclose the comparison including the second blood pressure measurement being within a predefined threshold of the first blood pressure measurement, confirming the abnormality of the first blood pressure measurement to distinguish actual patient deterioration from anomalies during the interval mode, and triggering an alarm when the first blood pressure measurement is confirmed as abnormal.
However, Kitagawa teaches comparison including the second blood pressure measurement being within a predefined threshold of the first blood pressure measurement, confirming the abnormality of the first blood pressure measurement (Kitagawa: Para. [0028]);
triggering an alarm when the first blood pressure measurement is confirmed as abnormal (Kitagawa: Para. [0028])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was filed to modify the blood pressure measurement steps of Tweed to confirm whether the first blood pressure measurement is abnormal with a second blood pressure measurement and trigger an alarm when the first blood pressure measurement is confirmed as abnromal as taught by Kitagawa in order to determine failures in the sensing apparatus thus further improving measurements with high precision (Kitagawa: Para. [0028]).
Claim(s) 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tweed in view of Kitagawa and further in view of US 9572538 B2 to Sitzman et al. (hereinafter, Sitzman).
Regarding Claim 2, Tweed in view of Kitagawa disclose the invention as discussed in Claim 1. Tweed further discloses wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processing device, further cause the at least one processing device to: store at least one of the first blood pressure measurement (Tweed Fig. 13B, item 528 input/store: pressure), the second blood pressure measurement (Tweed: Para. [0014] lines 5-9), and an average of the first and second blood pressure measurements (Tweed: Para. [0013] lines 2-11),
Storing the above signals in an electronic medical record is absent from Tweed.
However, Sitzman teaches an electronic medical records (EMR) server (140) that is in communication with the database (150) for storing data (Sitzman: Col. 4 lines 19-23; Col. 1 line 64-Col 2 line 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to store the patient blood pressure measurement data of Tweed in a storage medium that is in communication with an electronic medical records (EMR) server as taught by Sitzman to have a basis to evaluate alarms and update/adapt when new data becomes available from patient monitors (Sitzman: Col. 1, line 63-Col. 2 line 7).
Regarding Claim 3, Tweed in view of Kitagawa disclose the invention as discussed in Claim 1. Tweed further teaches wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processing device, further cause the at least one processing device to: determine whether a delay limit for the one of the predetermined intervals is reached;
determine an average value of the first and second blood pressure measurements when the delay limit is reached (Tweed: Para. [0096] lines 10-11 continuously measuring mean blood pressure; Para. [0041] mean blood pressure…after a predetermined period of time); and store the average value (Tweed: Para. [0013] lines 2-11)
Storing the above signals in an electronic medical record is absent from Tweed.
However, Sitzman teaches an electronic medical records (EMR) server (140) that is in communication with the database (150) for storing data (Sitzman: Col. 4 lines 19-23; Col. 1 line 64-Col 2 line 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to store the patient blood pressure measurement data of Tweed in a storage medium that is in communication with an electronic medical records (EMR) server as taught by Sitzman to have a basis to evaluate alarms and update/adapt when new data becomes available from patient monitors (Sitzman: Col. 1, line 63-Col. 2 line 7).
Claim(s) 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tweed in view of Kitagawa and further in view of US 20200323440 A1 to Vule et al. (hereinafter, Vule).
Regarding Claim 4, Tweed in view of Kitagawa disclose the invention as discussed in Claim 1. Tweed further discloses wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processing device, further cause the at least one processing device to: determine whether a delay limit for the one of the predetermined intervals is reached (Tweed: Para. [0041] lines 12-15 after a predetermined period of time…);
and taking a third (Tweed: Para. [0041] blood pressure measurement is continually determined; Para. [0088] lines 8-12) blood pressure measurement after the predetermined delay (Tweed: Para. [0041] lines 12-15 after a predetermined period of time…; Para. [0088] lines 8-12).
Providing instruction to remain still when the delay limit is not reached is absent from Tweed.
However, Vule further teaches providing an instruction to remain still (Vule: Para. [0100] lines 9-17 …remain at rest…).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to modify the settings of Tweed to include the instruction to remain still as taught by Vule in order to minimize the need for motion compensation (Vule: Para. [0100] lines 5-17)
Regarding Claim 6, Tweed in view of Kitagawa and in further view of Vule disclose the invention as discussed in Claim 4. Tweed further discloses wherein the delay limit is based on an allowed delay for the second blood pressure measurement during the one of the predetermined intervals (Tweed: Para. [0041] lines 12-15 after a predetermined period of time…).
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tweed in view of Kitagawa in view of Vule and further in view of Sitzman.
Regarding Claim 5, Tweed in view of Kitagawa disclose the invention as discussed in Claim 4. Tweed further teaches wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processing device, further cause the at least one processing device to: determine at least one of an average value and a majority value of the first, second, and third blood pressure measurements when the delay limit is reached (Tweed: Para. [0096] lines 10-11 continuously measuring mean blood pressure; Para. [0041] mean blood pressure…after a predetermined period of time); and store the average value (Tweed: Para. [0013] lines 2-11)
Storing the above signals in an electronic medical record is absent from Tweed. However, Sitzman teaches an electronic medical records (EMR) server (140) that is in communication with the database (150) for storing data (Sitzman: Col. 4 lines 19-23; Col. 1 line 64-Col 2 line 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to store the patient blood pressure measurement data of Tweed in a storage medium that is in communication with an electronic medical records (EMR) server as taught by Sitzman to have a basis to evaluate alarms and update/adapt when new data becomes available from patient monitors (Sitzman: Col. 1, line 63-Col. 2 line 7).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAWN CURTIS BROUGHTON whose telephone number is (571)272-2891. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8am-4pm 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, Alexander Valvis can be reached at 571-272-4233. 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.
/SHAWN CURTIS BROUGHTON/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/PATRICK FERNANDES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights