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
This action is in reply to the present action filed on 03/03/2026.
Claims 1, 10, 11, and 20 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Oath/Declaration
The signed inventor oaths have not been received. Appropriate action is required.
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.
Claims 1-5, 9, 11-15, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Page et al. (US 20210064224 A1) in view of Hayter et al. (US 20220000399 A1), von Badinski et al. (US 20190086951 A1), and Francois et al. (US 20170262604 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Page discloses the following:
A method, comprising: acquiring physiological data associated with one or more users, … associated with respective one or more users; (Page discloses the systems and methods as disclosed herein collect and process a wide variety of medical device data. Medical device data includes physiological data [0019]. The edge device 20 continuously transmits de-identified medical device data [0035].)
causing a graphical user interface of an administrator device to display the physiological data; (Page discloses the application may facilitate the display of real-time medical device data obtained and/or determined from a plurality of medical devices monitoring a plurality of patients. The real-time medical device data may be displayed via various graphical user interfaces (GUIs)…a single-patient GUI may be displayed on a care provider device (e.g., mobile phone, tablet, and/or wearable) [0025].)
and causing the graphical user interface of the administrator device to display… data in conjunction with the physiological data, (Page discloses application that facilitates presentation of the medical device data in real-time or near real-time via one or more graphical user interfaces that may be displayed on a device of the supervising care provider, such as a mobile device (e.g., smart phone, tablet, wearable). The supervisory application may facilitate display of medical device data, including physiological data and medical device setting/parameter data, for a plurality of patients and for a plurality of different patient monitoring parameters to the supervising care provider [0021].)
Page does not disclose the following limitations met by Hayter:
receiving, via one or more user devices associated with the one or more users, supplemental data associated with the physiological data for the one or more users, the supplemental data comprising a plurality of tags associated with indications of events, subjective attributes, or both; (Hayter teaches these embodiments may allow a user to easily navigate through and between different user interfaces that can quickly indicate to the user various physiological conditions and/or actionable responses and correlate analyte data with meals, exercise, stress, or other factors, without requiring the user (or an HCP) to go through the arduous task of examining large volumes of analyte data [0014].)
wherein the graphical user interface indicates a plurality of subsets of the physiological data that correspond to the plurality of tags of the supplemental data; (Hayter teaches FIG. 5A depicts screen 502, which includes a series, listing, or group 500 of logged meals 505-1 through 505-N. Group 500 is generally referred to herein as a ranking report 500. Ranking report 500 shows all or a subset of meal events 505 (and activity, if applicable) for which data has been collected. If a meal cluster was identified, then the meal events within the cluster are grouped together and displayed as one meal event 505. The ranking of events 505 can be ordered by the magnitude of the glycemic response [0175, see also Fig. 5A].)
receiving,…an input indicating a tag selected…from a plurality of tags input by the one or more users via the one or more user devices, the tag associated with an event, a subjective attribute, or both; (Hayter teaches meal information can be entered so as to promote usage of the meal monitor application to gain a more intuitive understanding of glycemic impact of meal consumption, which in turn can improve the user's health. The meal information can be input in any desired manner, such as… by selection of the meal name from a list (e.g., a picklist or drop-down list), by selection of the meal picture from a group of pictures, by selection of recognizable indicia (e.g., a tag or code) of the meal, or any combination thereof [0019].)
causing the graphical user interface of the …device to display a subset of the physiological data that corresponds to the tag selected… (Hayter teaches real time feedback…can help the user internalize the undesirable effect of the consumed food. For example, if the type of meal event detected is a dinner meal, then the real-time notification can display the average glycemic response of all other meals of that type (dinner) along with the average glycemic response of the type of meal that was just consumed and an indication of the difference [0132]. Fig 5A shows the meals consumed and the corresponding glucose response.)
one or more effects that the tag has on the one or more subsets of the physiological data, wherein the one or more effects indicates a correlation between the tag and the one or more subsets of physiological data. (Hayter teaches FIG. 3A, which is a flow diagram depicting an example embodiment of a method 300 for meal information collection, association with analyte data, and determination of glycemic impact of that meal. Referring to FIG. 3A, a meal event can be logged by the user at 302. The user can input meal information directly into reader device 120 (via a user interface) at his or her own discretion, before, during, or after consumption of the meal [0098-99, see also Fig. 3A-3D]. FIG. 3D is an annotated graph 350 of analyte data over time displaying an example set of data where four different meal events (352-1, 352-1, 352-3, and 352-4) have been automatically detected or manually logged [0161]. The Examiner interprets the meal consumed as the tag, and the glucose response is interpreted as the physiological data, meaning the meal effects the glucose level and therefore shows a correlation.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system and methods for receiving physiological data from a sensor and displaying the data to the user and the administrator as disclosed by Page to incorporate an input indicating a tag selected and displaying the selected tag and physiological data as taught by Hayter. This modification would create a system and methods which is capable of producing a technical effect at least in that they assist the user of the device to operate the device more accurately, more efficiently and more safely (see Hayter, ¶ 0015).
Page and Hayter do not teach the limitations of the ring-shaped housing which is met by von Badinski:
…using one or more wearable devices…wherein each wearable device of the one or more wearable devices comprises: a ring-shaped housing having an inner curved surface and an outer curved surface, wherein at least a portion of the inner curved surface is configured to contact a tissue of the one or more users; (von Badinski teaches the ring includes an outer ring 812a, an inner ring 812b, [0181, see also Fig. 8]. The form factor of the WCD [wearable computing device] 110 allows it to be worn for prolonged hours with constant and consistent contact with the skin area…[0160].)
one or more light-emitting components configured to emit light through the inner curved surface of the ring-shaped housing into the tissue of the one or more users; (von Badinski teaches the sensor modules 220 can include various sub-modules for the WCD 110 to perform different monitoring or sensing activities. A view 302 of the interior window (e.g., window 130) of a WCD (e.g., WCD 110) with example components exposed is shown in FIG. 3B. As shown in the example of FIG. 3B, the sensor modules 220 can include a temperature sensor 320a, a red light emitting diode (LED) 320b, a light sensor 320c, and an infra-red LED 320d [0167. Fig. 3b].)
one or more light-receiving components configured to receive the light transmitted by the one or more light-emitting components through the inner curved surface of the ring-shaped housing; (von Badinski teaches the photovoltaic device described above can include a concentrated photovoltaic element (CPV) that is constructed and arranged to receive concentrated light from the concentrated light source, e.g., laser light from a laser diode, light from a light emitting diode (LED), etc., [0217].)
one or more processors disposed at least partially within the ring- shaped housing, the one or more processors electrically coupled with the one or more light-emitting components and the one or more light-receiving components; (von Badinski teaches as shown in diagram 200, the WCD 110 can include a processor module 210, [0162]. The processor module 210 is coupled to all modules 220-270 in the WCD 110, either directly or indirectly, for data and control signal transmission [0164, see Fig. 2 (220 includes light sensor and LEDs)].)
a curved battery disposed at least partially within the ring-shaped housing, the curved battery electrically coupled with the one or more light-emitting components, the one or more light-receiving components, and the one or more processors; (von Badinski teaches a curved battery in the ring as seen in Fig. 4. The WCD 110 can also include a battery module 280 that provides electrical power for the WCD 110 [0162]. It is assumed that as the WCD includes the light-emitting components, light-receiving components, and the processors, that the battery provides power to all listed components.)
and a communication module electrically coupled with the one or more processors, the communication module configured to transmit the physiological data generated by the one or more processors; (von Badinski teaches the processor module 210 is coupled to all modules 220-270 in the WCD 110, either directly or indirectly, for data and control signal transmission [0164, see Fig. 2-250]. Some embodiments of the WCD 110 include the communication module 250 for wireless data transmission. Particularly, in some embodiments, the communication module 250 includes one Bluetooth chip and a Bluetooth antenna 350, such as shown in FIG. 3A. One or more embodiments of the WCD 110 also provides the capability of storing activity logs (e.g., in the memory 260). More specifically, fitness activities, exercise histories, as well as recorded biological signs such as heart rate and body temperature, can be stored onboard in the memory 260 of the WCD 110 [0174]. These data points are types of physiological data.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system and methods for receiving physiological data from a sensor and displaying the data to the user and the administrator as disclosed by Page to incorporate the data being collected and transmitted via a wearable ring device as taught by von Badinski. This modification would create a system and methods capable of improving lifestyles and helping monitor the activity within the wearer’s body while still being comfortable for wear (see von Badinski, ¶ 0003).
Page, Hayter, and von Badinski do not teach the administrator device viewing the patient inputs and physiological data which is met by Francois:
causing a graphical user interface of an administrator device associated with an administrative user to display the physiological data, wherein the administrative user is different than the one or more users; (Francois teaches health care provider dashboards pertaining to an individual patient may be particularly useful to health care providers who treat that patient as an outpatient, e.g., “chronic care use” scenarios described further below [0314]. [W]hen a patient phones a physician or sends an electronic communication such as an email to the physician (e.g., from the patient's mobile device), an application on the physician’s mobile device automatically detects which patient is calling, accesses data from the patient's T-plan and/or from the patient's EMR and displays it on the screen, or provides a button on the screen that the physician can tap to access the data [0410].)
causing the graphical user interface of the administrator device to display one or more subsets of the physiological data from the plurality of subsets of the physiological data acquired from the one or more users that corresponds to the tag selected by the administrative user via the input (Francois teaches it is envisioned that health care provider dashboards pertaining to an individual patient may be particularly useful to health care providers who treat that patient as an outpatient, e.g., “chronic care use” scenarios described further below. Data elements may include compliance data, symptom data, physiological data, or any other types of data described herein [0356]. FIG. 6D is presented by way of example to illustrate various types of data collection modules that may be included in a T-plan …and to illustrate aspects of a physician interface that allows a physician to select a subset of a set of significant patient characteristics for COPD [0314].)
an input indicating a tag selected by the administrative user from a plurality of tags input by the one or more users via the one or more user devices, the tag associated with an event, a subjective attribute, or both; (Francois teaches at least some of the types of health data collected according to a T-plan are health care event data… health care event data are obtained through input of the data by a patient via a user interface of the system or by a personal monitoring device owned or controlled by the patient. A health care provider is presented with or able to access health care event data pertaining to procedures performed on the patient by or on the order of a different health care provider or pertaining to medications prescribed to the patient by a different health care provider [0101]. [S]tep (a) further comprises selecting, based on input from a health care provider, a set of health care events of one or more types that are relevant to a condition… step (b) further comprises storing information that identifies the health care event types and timeframes in association with an identifier of the patient and an identifier of the condition [0022].)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system and methods for receiving physiological data from a sensor and displaying the data to the user and the administrator as disclosed by Page to incorporate the use of both a user device and an administrator device as taught by Francois. This modification would create a system and methods capable of easily allowing multiple types of data to be collected by devices and permitting a physician to rapidly access particular data relevant to the condition of interest at a particular time (see Francois, ¶ 0003).
Regarding Claim 11, this claim recites limitations that are substantially similar to those recited in Claim 1 above; thus, the same rejection applies. Page further discloses:
An apparatus comprising a processor; (Page discloses the medical device data processing system 12, the system 12 is implemented by one or more networked processors or computing devices [0028].)
memory coupled with the processor; (Page discloses each memory may include one or more data storage structures, such as optical memory devices, magnetic memory devices, or solid-state memory devices, for storing programs and routines executed by the processor(s) [0062].)
and instructions stored in the memory and executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to: (Page discloses instructions stored on a tangible and non-transitory computer readable storage medium, such as a computer memory [0063].)
Page does not disclose both a patient device and an administrator device which is met by Francois:
one or more user devices associated with the one or more users; (Francois teaches there are a variety of ways by which data collected by a connected monitoring device may be obtained by the system…a connected monitoring device is or can be synchronized, e.g., wirelessly (e.g., via Bluetooth or Wi-Fi), to a computer or mobile device such as a smartphone and/or uploads data collected by the device to a website … or to a patient's personal health record, from where it can be obtained by a system of the invention. The particular way in which physiological data are obtained may depend at least in part on information in a patient record pertaining to which monitoring devices the patient has [0117].)
and an administrator device associated with an administrative user different than the one or more users, and wherein the administrator device comprises one or more additional processors, (Francois teaches a computer-implemented method whereby when a patient phones a physician or sends an electronic communication such as an email to the physician (e.g., from the patient's mobile device), an application on the physician's mobile device automatically detects which patient is calling, accesses data from the patient's T-plan and/or from the patient's EMR and displays it on the screen, or provides a button on the screen that the physician can tap to access the data [0410].)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system and methods for receiving physiological data from a sensor and displaying the data to the user and the administrator as disclosed by Page to incorporate the use of both a user device and an administrator device as taught by Francois. This modification would create a system and methods capable of easily allowing multiple types of data to be collected by devices and permitting a physician to rapidly access particular data relevant to the condition of interest at a particular time (see Francois, ¶ 0003).
Regarding Claim 20, this claim recites limitations that are substantially similar to those recited in Claim 1; thus, the same rejection applies. Page further discloses:
A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing code, the code comprising instructions executable by a processor to: (Page discloses, the example methods and systems may be implemented using coded instruction (e.g., computer readable instructions) stored on a non-transitory computer readable medium [0027].)
Regarding Claim 2, Page, Hayter, von Badinski, and Francois teach the limitations as seen in the rejection of Claim 1 above. Page discloses the following:
and causing the graphical user interface of the administrator device to display the … data in conjunction with the time interval associated with the physiological data based at least in part on receiving the user input (Page discloses a relative change in each patient monitoring parameter over a specified time duration may be determined and displayed in response to a single user input. Responsive to a first user input, adjust each of the plurality of trend lines to show values for the respective patient monitoring parameter over a second time range; and responsive to a second user input, display, on the GUI, and overlay that shows a relative change in each patient monitoring parameter [0206]… a single-patient GUI may be displayed on a care provider device [0025].)
Page is silent regarding receiving supplemental data associated with physiological data and a time interval which met by Hayter:
receiving, … a user input indicating additional supplemental data associated with the physiological data and a time interval associated with the additional supplemental data; (Hayter teaches meal information can be entered so as to promote usage of the meal monitor application to gain a more intuitive understanding of glycemic impact of meal consumption, which in turn can improve the user's health. The meal information can be input in any desired manner, such as by the manual entry of text, by selection of the meal name from a list (e.g., a picklist or drop-down list), by selection of the meal picture from a group of pictures, by selection of recognizable indicia (e.g., a tag or code) of the meal… [0119]. The meal information can include a meal type, for example, whether the meal is breakfast, lunch, snack, dinner, or dessert, etc. The meal information can include the time range (e.g., start time and stop time) during which the meal was consumed. This can be an actual time (e.g., a start time in hour: minutes) or can be a generalized or heuristic part of the day (e.g., early morning, late afternoon, etc.), or an approximated time range (e.g., 6-7 am, 5-6 pm, etc.) with any desired level of granularity of the time range…[0120].)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system and methods for receiving physiological data from a sensor and displaying the data to the user and an administrator as disclosed by Page to incorporate an input indicating a tag selected and displaying the selected tag and physiological data as taught by Hayter. This modification would create a system and methods capable of determining and understanding a user’s physiological response to tags and the associated time period in a meaningful manner that enables efficient action (see Hayter, ¶ 0005).
Regarding Claim 12, this claim recites limitations that are substantially similar to those recited in Claim 2 above; thus, the same rejection applies.
Regarding Claim 3, Page, Hayter, von Badinski, and Francois teach the limitations as shown in the rejection of Claim 1 above. Page further discloses:
determining that the physiological data associated with a user of the one or more users satisfies one or more thresholds; (Page discloses a determination that a patient monitoring parameter for a particular patient has reached a predefined condition relative to a threshold [0071].)
and causing the graphical user interface of the administrator device to display an alert associated with the user based at least in part on determining that the physiological data associated with the user satisfies the one or more thresholds (Page discloses the supervisory application may also monitor patient status, via the medical device data, and may output various notifications, such as alarms, when patient status changes or a specified patient monitoring parameter…reaches a predefined condition relative to a threshold (e.g. drops below a threshold) [0022]. The alarms may include threshold-based alarms, where a notification/alarm is generated and output to one or more care provider devices in response to a patient monitoring parameter value meeting a predetermined condition relative to a threshold (e.g., an alarm may be generated and sent to a care provider device in response to blood oxygen saturation for a particular patient dropping below a threshold saturation) [0071].)
Regarding Claim 13, this claim recites limitations that are substantially similar to those recited in Claim 3 above; thus, the same rejection applies.
Regarding Claim 4, Page, Hayter, von Badinski, and Francois teach the limitations as shown in the rejection of Claim 1 above. Page further discloses:
receiving, via the administrator device, a user input comprising the one or more thresholds, wherein determining that the physiological data satisfies the one or more thresholds is based at least in part on receiving the user input (Page discloses the predefined set of parameters may include any patient monitoring parameter available in the system, and thus selection of the condition menu 2904 may launch a view that is similar to the view shown in FIG. 16… The predefined set of parameters may include other insights that the user has created or selected to be applied. The supervisory application may also monitor patient status, via the medical device data and may output various notifications...Once a patient monitoring parameter is selected, a threshold for that parameter may be entered [0153]. The supervisory application may also monitor patient status, via the medical device data, and may output various notifications,…when… a specified patient monitoring parameter… (such as blood oxygenation) reaches a predefined threshold (e.g., drops below a threshold) [0022].)
Regarding Claim 14, this claim recites limitations that are substantially similar to those recited in Claim 4 above; thus, the same rejection applies.
Regarding Claim 5, Page, Hayter, von Badinski, and Francois teach the limitations as shown in the rejection of Claim 1 above. Page further discloses:
determining that the physiological data associated with a user of the one or more users satisfies one or more thresholds; (Page discloses a determination that a patient a patient monitoring parameter for a particular patient has reached a predefined condition relative to a threshold [0071]. Further, as shown in FIG. 9 …an alarm tile may be displayed as part of a single-patient or multi-patient graphical user interface of the supervisory application 44, where the alarm tile includes an indication of how many alarms have been triggered for a particular patient, where an alarm is generated by a medical device in response to a determination that a patient monitoring parameter for a particular patient has reached a predefined condition relative to a threshold [0071].)
and causing the graphical user interface of a user device associated with the user to display a message based at least in part on determining that the physiological data associated with the user satisfies the one or more thresholds. (Page discloses the insights may be similar to threshold-based alarms, but may be multi-modal and/or multi-parameter such that an insight may only be triggered when more than one parameter meets a predetermined condition and/or when a selected parameter meets a predetermined condition during a particular stage of a medical procedure, meets the predetermined condition for a specified amount of time, changes at a specified rate, etc. The messages tile 304 may notify the user if any messages have been received, such as text messages from another care provider [0090].)
Regarding Claim 15, this claim recites limitations that are substantially similar to those recited in Claim 5 above; thus, the same rejection applies.
Regarding Claim 9, Page, Hayter, von Badinski, and Francois teach the limitations as shown in the rejection of Claim 1 above. Page further discloses:
wherein causing the graphical user interface of the administrator device to display at least the portion of the physiological data comprises causing the graphical user interface of the administrator device to display at least the portion of the physiological data… (Page discloses presentation of the medical device data in real-time or near real-time via one or more graphical user interfaces that may be displayed on a device of the supervising care provider, such as a mobile device (e.g., smart phone, tablet, wearable) [0021].)
Page does not disclose the following limitations met by Hayter:
receiving… an indication of one or more data sets, each data set of the one or more data sets comprising a set of parameters associated with the physiological data, (Hayter teaches these embodiments may allow a user to easily navigate through and between different user interfaces that can quickly indicate to the user various physiological conditions and/or actionable responses and correlate analyte data with meals, exercise, stress, or other factors, without requiring the user (or an HCP) to go through the arduous task of examining large volumes of analyte data [0014].)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system and methods for receiving physiological data from a sensor and displaying the data to the user and the administrator as disclosed by Page to incorporate the use of additional data sets associated with the physiological data as taught by Hayter. This modification would create a system and methods capable of determining and understanding a user’s physiological response to tags in a meaningful manner that enables efficient action (see Hayter, ¶ 0005).
Regarding Claim 19, this claim recites limitations that are substantially similar to those recited in Claim 9 above; thus, the same rejection applies.
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Page, Hayter, von Badinski, and Francois in view of Shklarski et al. (US 20070197878 A1).
Regarding Claim 6, Page, Hayter, von Badinski, and Francois teach the limitations as shown in the rejection of Claim 5 above. Page further discloses:
receiving, via the administrator device, a user input comprising the one or more thresholds; (Page discloses when a parameter is selected, the user may be presented with predefined or adjustable thresholds to apply to the parameter [0074].)
and receiving, via the administrator device, one or more messages associated with the one or more thresholds, the one or more messages configured to be communicated upon satisfaction of the one or more thresholds, the message included within the one or more messages, (Page discloses GUI 200 further includes…a message tile 304, and alarm tile 306… The messages tile 304 may notify the user if any messages have been received, such as text messages from another care provider. The alarms tile 306 may notify the user if any alarms have been triggered. An alarm may be triggered when a select patient monitoring parameter… reaches a predetermined condition relative to a threshold, [0090, Fig. 4A].)
receiving the user input and (Page discloses a relative change in each patient monitoring parameter over a specified time duration may be determined and displayed in response to a single user input [0023].)
Page, Hayter, von Badinski, and Francois do not teach the following limitation met by Shklarski:
wherein causing the graphical user interface of the user device to display the message is based at least in part on …the one or more messages via the administrator device. (Shklarski teaches wearable device 105 may be able to receive SMS messages, for example, from the MC server 110 via the SMS channel [0041].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system and methods for determining if physiological data falls within a predetermined threshold input by the user and alerting an administrator when the threshold is reached as disclosed by Page to incorporate displaying on a user device the message from the administrator as taught by Shklarski. This modification would create a system and methods capable of streamlining communication between the administrator and user by focusing on events when the threshold is reached (see Shklarski, ¶ 0002-0004).
Regarding Claim 16, this claim recites limitations that are substantially similar to those recited in Claim 6 above; thus, the same rejection applies.
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Page, Hayter, von Badinski, and Francois in view of Scaletta et al. (US 20130218951 A1).
Regarding Claim 7, Page, Hayter, von Badinski, and Francois teach the limitations as shown in the rejection of Claim 5 above. Page, Hayter, von Badinski, and Francois do not teach the following limitations met by Scaletta:
the message comprises additional information associated with physiological data associated with the user, a link to an external document or survey, medical guidance, or any combination thereof. (Scaletta teaches a unique link to the survey may be generated by the server 8. The link may be a character string such as a uniform resource locator or URL containing a reference to an internet resource, such as, the server 8 where the survey may be located… the server 8 may send a text message to a phone 12 via communication link 14 [0028].)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system and methods for receiving physiological data and displaying the data to the user and the administrator as disclosed by Page to incorporate sending the user a message which includes a link to a survey as taught by Scaletta. This modification would create a system and methods which can follow up on a patient’s wellbeing, identify any potential concerns, and receive feedback on the care provider or staff (see Scaletta, ¶ 0003).
Regarding Claim 17, this claim recites limitations that are substantially similar to those recited in Claim 7 above; thus, the same rejection applies.
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Page, Hayter, and von Badinski, and Francois in view of Abbate et al. (US 20160259461 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, Page, Hayter, von Badinski, and Francois teach the limitations as shown in the rejection of Claim 1 above. Page further discloses:
receiving an indication … from the administrator device, (Page discloses a user of the supervisory application… may create a set of rules or an algorithm…that may be executed using real-time medical device data to determine a result (e.g.… a recommended course of action) [0025].)
Page, Hayter, von Badinski, and Francois do not teach the use of a restriction period which is met by Abbate:
receiving an indication of a restriction period … the restriction period comprising a time duration that the one or more users are unable to view physiological data collected via each wearable device associated with each respective user; (Abbate teaches the processor may be configured to restrict viewing of screen [0043]. At step 501 context aware circuitry 407 and/or microprocessor 403 determines if a user is in an environment where they should not be distracted … If the user is not in an environment where they should not be distracted … no screen restrictions take place (step 503). However, if it is determined that the user is in such an environment, the logic flow continues to step 505 where logic circuitry 403 restricts the viewing of screen/display 101 for a first period of time while the user is in the environment where they should not be distracted [0048].)
and preventing graphical user interfaces of user devices associated with the one or more users from displaying the physiological data during the restriction period (Abbate teaches device 400 preferably comprises processor 403 that is communicatively coupled with various system components, including …a user interface (GUI) 411 [0022]. Logic circuitry 403 restricts the viewing of screen/display 101 [0048, Fig. 5].)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system and methods for receiving physiological data and displaying the data to the user and the administrator and further recommending a course of action as disclosed by Page to incorporate the user having restricted access to viewing their data during a restriction period as taught by Abbate. This modification would create a system and methods in which the administrator can recommend the restriction of data viewing and therefore reduce user distraction in certain situations where focus or attention is required (see Abbate, ¶ 0002).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Page, Hayter, von Badinski, and Francois in view of Ahmed et al. (US 20150250385 A1).
Regarding Claim 10, Page, Hayter, von Badinski, and Francois teach the limitations as shown in the rejection of Claim 1 above. Page does not disclose the following limitation met by Hayter:
causing the graphical user interface to display the one or more subsets of the physiological data that correspond to the selected tag comprises:… and causing the graphical user interface to display an indication of a respective subset of the physiological data, from the plurality of subsets of the physiological data, (Hayter teaches the individual's meal-related analyte responses collected by an analyte monitoring system, such as an in vivo analyte monitoring system, can be compared with or linked to meal information to discover common consistencies (or inconsistencies) along with trends… [0010]. These embodiments may allow a user to easily navigate through and between different user interfaces that can quickly indicate to the user various physiological conditions and/or actionable responses and correlate analyte data with meals, exercise, stress, or other factors, without requiring the user (or an HCP) to go through the arduous task of examining large volumes of analyte data [0014]. The Examiner interprets the meal consumed as the tag, and the glucose response is interpreted as the physiological data, meaning the meal effects the glucose level and therefore shows a correlation.))
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system and methods for receiving physiological data from a sensor and displaying the data to the user and the administrator as disclosed by Page to incorporate each of the tags being supplemental data associated with physiological data as taught by Hayter. This modification would create a system and methods capable of determining and understanding a user’s physiological response to tags in a meaningful manner that enables efficient action (see Hayter, ¶ 0005).
Page, Hayter, von Badinski, and Francois do not teach displaying the corresponding days related to the data which is met by Ahmed:
identifying one or more days during which the selected tag was input by the one or more users;… causing the graphical user interface to display an indication of a respective subset of the physiological data, … that corresponds to each day of the one or more days (Ahmed teaches the panels may enable the user to select…informative panels that appear in his/her user interface display. The workout panel 1514 may present quantitative information on the user's health and exercise routines, for example, a graph 1530 of the user's continuous heart rate during the exercise, statistics 1532 on the maximum heart rate, average heart rate, duration of exercise, number of steps taken and calories expended, zones 1534 in which the maximum heart rate fell during the exercise, and a graph 1536 of the intensity scores over a period of time (e.g., seven days) [0184-185, see also Fig. 15B]. Fig 15B displays a user’s workout information (physiological data) over a seven day period with data corresponding to each day.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system and methods for receiving physiological data from a sensor and displaying the data as disclosed by Page to incorporate the display of data corresponding to the days in which they were collected as taught by Ahmed. This modification would create a system and methods capable of providing a user with continuous fitness monitoring and reliable analysis of physiological data (see Ahmed, ¶ 0003).
Relevant Prior Art Made of Record Not Currently Being Applied
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure.
Kumar et al. (US 20020198473 A1) teaches a system and method for network-based monitoring of physiological data in which a provider device receives patient data collected in real-time from wearable sensors.
Response to Arguments
Regarding rejections under 35 USC 103 to Claims 1-20, Applicant’s arguments, filed 3 March 2026 with respect to 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new rejection has been made in light of the amendments, rejecting the independent claims over Page in view of Hayter, von Badinski, and Francois.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLIVIA R GEDRA whose telephone number is (571)270-0944. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am-5:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Peter H Choi can be reached on (469)295-9171. 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.
/OLIVIA R. GEDRA/Examiner, Art Unit 3681
/PETER H CHOI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3681
Prosecution Insights