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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of species A) a method for determining a health condition which encompass claims 62 - 64 in the reply filed on 10/31/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 65 - 67 have been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 10/31/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 62, 63, 64, 75, 76, 78, & 85 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.
In regard to claim 62, line 4 recites, “the one or more potential conditions are one or more potential health conditions” and lines 6 -7 recite, “the one or more identified potential conditions are one or more identified potential health conditions,” but it is unclear if the potential condition is the same as the identified potential condition or if there are two separate conditions, making the scope of the claim unclear. Claims 63 and 64 are rejected by virtue of dependence on claim 62.
In regard to claims 75, 76, & 78, each listed claim is directed towards a method but the claim limitations only contain details about the structure of the system, not further method steps making the scope of the claim unclear. Additionally, claim 75, line 2 recites “a respiratory device of the respiratory system,” but “the respiratory system” lacks antecedent basis and should be amended to -- a respiratory system --.
In regard to claim 85, line 6 recites, “collect and store in the memory data,” but it is unclear what is being collected and stored in the memory data. Examiner is interpreting the claim to mean collecting and storing data in the memory data.
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, 62 - 64, & 68 - 85 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Independent claims 1 and 85 recite steps or executable instructions as part of a method or system (both of which are within a statutory category of invention) directed towards “analyzing” data to “make an initial determination”, which falls in the category of a mental process. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because with regard to Revised step 2A, prong 1, an exception is present as noted above, and with regard to Revised step 2A, prong 2, the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Further, with regard to step 2B, the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into practical application. In particular, the steps of “transmitting” or “receiving” a command or instructions and “executing one or more… modules… to verify the initial determination” is directed towards general data and signal processing in a generic computer environment, and do not integrate the judicial exception into practical application. Additionally, the memory and processing devices are general structures and do not impose a meaningful limitation onto the claim scope, as the limitation do not constitute use of the exception in the context of a “particular machine”. Claims 62 - 64 and 73 - 74 are directed towards the type of data used in the analysis step, but do not designate a specific structure for collection and thus are not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into practical application. Claims 68 and 69 are directed towards further details on the outcome of the analysis of the data and determining additional features of a potential condition, which is a part of the mental process of “determining” a condition. Claims 70 - 72 and 79 are directed towards additional details about the modules or instructions being transmitted, which merely constitutes signal processing activity and is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into practical application. Claims 75 – 77 mention a “respiratory device” and a “respiratory system”, but the structures referred to are merely nominal or high level and do not provide specific structures beyond well understood structures in the art, and thus provide no meaningful limitations or sufficient structure to integrate the judicial exception into practical application. Claim 78 is directed towards the use of an app, which does not overcome the 101 rejection. Examiner notes that MPEP 2106.05(g) states that the addition of extra-solution activity, such as navigating an app, does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional. Claims 80 - 83 are directed towards generating a report and sending or receiving the report to another device, which is considered general data processing and does not serve to integrate the judicial exception into practical application. Claim 84 is directed towards a general machine learning algorithm and is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into practical application without further detail on what steps the machine learning algorithm is actually performing for “analyzing select data”.
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 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.
Claims 1, 62 - 64, 68 - 79, 84, & 85 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schindhelm (WO 2013177621 A1 - Cited by Applicant) in view of Palin (US 20170372600 A1).
In regard to claims 1 & 85, Schindhelm discloses a method and system for determining one or more conditions from data, the data being collected by and stored in a memory of one or more processing devices local to a user, the method comprising:
analyzing the data collected by the one or more processing devices local to the user to make an initial determination of one or more potential conditions; Schindhelm discloses that a processor (FIG. 7a, component 7006) executes processes to monitor a user’s cardiopulmonary health using data collected by one or more sensors (FIG. 7a, component 1200; Paragraph [86]). The collected data is analyzed to make an initial determination or prediction about the occurrence of a clinical event or potential condition (FIG. 7b, component 7110).
and executing one or more of the received assessment modules to analyze the data to verify the initial determination of the one or more potential conditions. Schindhelm discloses that when one or more potential conditions or clinical events are determined, the processor (FIG. 7a, component 7006) triggers the generation of one or more queries to evaluate a potential cause of the clinical event, such as by displaying them on display device (FIG. 7a, component 7015), and/or on another processing device, such as a tablet computer, mobile phone, or other computing device in direct or indirect communication with the processor (FIG. 7a, component 7006). The provided instructions may include sending an alert (FIG. 7b, component 7180) or delaying the alert and instead issuing further instructions to a device, such as a positive airway pressure (PAP) device, to adjust a treatment where the system further determines whether the instructed or controlled adjustments resolved the potential condition based on further analysis of collected sensor data (FIG. 7b, components 7140, 7150, 7160, 7170; Paragraph [99]) Schindhelm further discloses that the instructions or modules for processing operations are stored on a computer-readable storage medium where the processing may be carried out in batches where the signals are stored in the memory of an external computing device (FIG. 7a, component 7005; Paragraph [84]) such as a remote server (Paragraph [61]).
While Schindhelm discloses that the sensor unit (FIG. 7a, component 1200) includes communication circuitry (FIG. 7a, component 7004) to transfer data to an external computing device (FIG. 7a, component 7005) such as a remote server through a wired or wireless connection (FIG. 7a, component 7008; Paragraph [61]), where the processing may be carried out in batches where the signals are stored in the memory of an external computing device (FIG. 7a, component 7005; Paragraph [84]) such as a remote server (Paragraph [61]) and additionally discloses that their method and system includes commands for analyzing data to further assess an initially determined potential condition by deploying different modules or queries to a user (FIG. 7b, component 7130) and further analyzing sensor data (FIG. 7b, component 7160), they do not specify that in response to determining the one or more potential conditions, the method further includes:
transmitting a command for receipt by a remote server to provide one or more assessment modules including instructions for analyzing the data to further assess the initially determined one or more identified potential conditions
in response to the one or more assessment modules being provided by the remote server, receiving on the one or more processing devices local to the user the one or more assessment modules; and
updating the one or more processing devices local to the user to store the one or more assessment modules as executable instructions;
However, Palin teaches a method and system for wireless control of devices through an intermediate server (paragraph [0002]; FIG. 1) where an apparatus communicates with a remote server and sends a request for to a remote server for a module, or user interface, to be performed by the apparatus (FIG. 17A, component 700, step 704). The server receives the request and sends the module based on the request from the apparatus enabling control and monitoring of a device associated with the apparatus (FIG. 17A, component 700, step 706) which the apparatus receives and stores (paragraph [0449]). The apparatus then uses the module to enable a user to perform the requested user function of at least one of a monitoring and controlling the device. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the method and system taught by Palin would allow for the request and transfer of multiple types of data or modules, such as the queries and further data analysis commands issued by the system disclosed by Schindhelm (FIG. 7b, components 7130 & 7160) between a local device, such as a medical device, and a remote server, such as the one disclosed by Schindhelm (paragraph [61])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the method and system for determining a diagnosis and prognosis of a cardio-pulmonary disorder (Paragraphs [21] & [22]) disclosed by Schindhelm with the teaching of Palin that wireless communication can be used to control a wireless system comprising an apparatus and device, such as a medical device system (paragraph [0098]), through a remote server because Schindhelm already discloses that their method and system includes communication circuitry (FIG. 7a, component 7004) to transfer data to an external computing device (FIG. 7a, component 7005) such as a remote server; including an intermediary for controlling a medical device, such as the contactless sensor unit (FIG. 7a, component 1200) disclosed by Schindhelm, using a remote server would be considered combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of controlling the medical device to perform a function such as analyzing data.
Schindhelm as modified additionally discloses:
a control system including one or more processors (FIG. 7a, component 7006)
a memory having stored thereon machine readable instructions (FIG. 7a, component 7002)
wherein the one or more processors execute the machine readable instructions to collect and store data (paragraph [61]) and further carry out the method of claim 1 as disclosed above.
In regard to claim 62, Schindhelm as modified discloses the invention as set forth for claim 1, wherein:
the data is health data associated with the user using a respiratory system; Schindhelm discloses that the data analyzed by the system can include sensor data from motion sensors (paragraph [60]) and other non-contact sensors such as pulse oximeters (paragraph [80]) and information provided by the user in response to queries when a potential condition is detected (paragraph [93]; FIG. 7b, component 7130)
the one or more conditions are one or more health conditions associated with the user; Schindhelm discloses that their method includes assessing one or more health conditions or more specifically cardio-pulmonary disorders (paragraph [20]).
the one or more potential conditions are one or more potential health conditions associated with the user; Schindhelm discloses that their method includes predicting a potential health condition, or clinical event (FIG. 7b, component 7110).
the one or more identified potential conditions are one or more identified potential health conditions associated with the user; Schindhelm discloses that their method includes identifying a potential health condition, or clinical event (FIG. 7b, component 7110)
and the one or more assessment modules are one or more health assessment modules. Schindhelm discloses a method that includes determining a potential condition and triggering additional instructions or modules to make a health assessment (FIG. 7b, components 7130, 7140, 7150, 7160, 7170, & 7180).
In regard to claim 63, Schindhelm as modified discloses the invention as set forth for claim 62, wherein the one or more health conditions include chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (paragraph [93]).
In regard to claim 64, Schindhelm as modified discloses the invention as set forth for claim 62, wherein the health data of the user includes information received from the user and user sensor data. Schindhelm specifically discloses that the method includes analyzing sensor data related to cardiopulmonary health and additionally generates a query for user input for display to a user in response to the prediction of a clinical event (FIG. 7b, paragraphs [24] & [93]).
In regard to claim 68, Schindhelm as modified discloses the invention as set forth for claim 1, wherein the initial determination of one or more potential conditions includes determining if there is likely adverse effects therefrom. Schindhelm further discloses that their method includes the monitoring of sensor data including respiratory parameters such as breathing rate, sleep-disordered breathing severity indicators, inspiratory and expiratory waveform shapes, and tidal volume (paragraph [104]; FIG. 7c). The method includes assessing how respiratory parameters have changed over the course of a period of time due to a condition determined to be present, such as COPD or heart failure (paragraphs [102] - [104]). Examiner notes that the limitation of an adverse effect is broad and can comprise anything from a physiological baseline to the onset of another condition.
In regard to claim 69, Schindhelm as modified discloses the invention as set forth for claim 1, wherein the analysis of the data by the one or more received assessment modules includes assessing if the one or more conditions are present. Schindhelm discloses that their method includes an assessment module where once a predicted clinical event is detected based on the monitoring and analysis of sensor data (FIG. 7b, component 7110), further assessment and analysis of the predicted clinical event occurs where a query is sent to the user based on the detected abnormality or pattern (paragraph [96]; FIG. 7b) until it is confirmed that the predicted clinical event or condition is present and an alert is issued (FIG. 7b, component 7180).
In regard to claim 70, Schindhelm as modified discloses the invention as set forth for claim 69, wherein the analysis of the data by the one or more received assessment modules includes assessing if the user is likely experiencing adverse effects from the one or more conditions determined to be present. Schindhelm further discloses that their method includes the monitoring of sensor data including respiratory parameters such as breathing rate, sleep-disordered breathing severity indicators, inspiratory and expiratory waveform shapes, and tidal volume (paragraph [104]; FIG. 7c). The method includes assessing how respiratory parameters have changed over the course of a period of time due to a condition determined to be present, such as COPD or heart failure (paragraphs [102] - [104]). Examiner notes that the limitation of an adverse effect is broad and can comprise anything from a physiological baseline to the onset of another condition.
In regard to claims 71 & 72, Schindhelm as modified discloses the invention as set forth for claim 1, wherein the transmitted command to provide one or more assessment modules includes an instruction to provide at least one additional module to obscure a specific assessment module associated with a determined potential condition and wherein the received one or more assessment modules includes at least one additional module to obscure a specific assessment module associated with a determined potential condition. Schindhelm discloses that their method includes sending different assessment modules, or queries (FIG. 7b, component 7130) where a first assessment module is sent to a user when a specific pattern or event is identified and an additional module can be sent if the pattern is detected again during observation (FIG. 7b, component 7175; paragraph [97]). While the claim includes the language, “to obscure a specific assessment module associated with a determined potential condition,” as written, “obscuring a specific assessment module” is intended use and does not impose meaningful limitations on the scope of the claim. Palin further teaches that modules and commands can be transmitted between a remote server and medical device.
In regard to claim 73, Schindhelm as modified discloses the invention as set forth for claim 1, wherein the data includes historical data collected by the one or more processing devices local to the user. Schindhelm discloses that historic data, either from other patients with the same condition or from the user, can be used in the analysis of sensor data (FIG. 7c; paragraph [104]).
In regard to claim 74, Schindhelm as modified discloses the invention as set forth for claim 1, wherein the data includes real-time data collected by the one or more processing devices. Schindhelm specifically discloses that processing and monitoring of sensor data can be carried out in real time (paragraph [84]).
In regard to claim 75, Schindhelm as modified discloses the invention as set forth for claim 1, wherein the one or more processing devices local to the user include a respiratory device of the respiratory system, an electronic device associated with the respiratory system, or both. Schindhelm discloses that the processing devices include the sensor unit (FIG. 7a, component 1200) which acts as an electronic device associated with the respiratory system that is local to the user, where the processor of the sensor unit (FIG. 7a, component 7006) controls adjustment of a treatment using a respiratory system in response to the analysis of sensor data and patient queries (paragraph [100]; FIG. 7b, component 7150).
In regard to claim 76, Schindhelm as modified discloses the invention as set forth for claim 75, wherein the electronic device is a mobile device, and the mobile device and the respiratory system are wirelessly connected. Schindhelm discloses an additional electronic device associated with the respiratory system which can include a mobile phone, tablet computer, or other computing device in communication with the respiratory system for displaying queries to a user and communicating with the processor of the sensor unit (FIG. 7a, component 7006) to control adjustment of a treatment using a respiratory system in response to the analysis of sensor data and patient queries (paragraph [100]; FIG. 7b, component 7150).
In regard to claim 77, Schindhelm as modified discloses the invention as set forth for claim 1, wherein transmission of the one or more assessment modules is implemented by a respiratory device of a respiratory system, an electronic device associated with the respiratory system, or both. Schindhelm discloses that an electronic device associated with the respiratory system, in this case the sensor device (FIG. 7a, component 1200), communicates via communications circuitry (FIG. 7a, component 7004) with external computing devices to transmit data (paragraph [61]) and Palin further teaches that assessment modules can be transmitted from a remote server to a medical device (FIG. 17a; paragraph [0449]), such as the sensor device disclosed by Schindhelm.
In regard to claim 78, Schindhelm as modified discloses the invention as set forth for claim 1, wherein the one or more assessment modules is a mobile device app. Schindhelm discloses that the sensor device (FIG. 7a, component 1200) includes a display (FIG. 7a, component 7015) that displays a graphical user interface for operation of the monitoring apparatus (paragraph [63]), including the specific queries or modules sent to a user based on the detection of a potential condition (paragraph [91]).
In regard to claim 79, Schindhelm as modified discloses the invention as set forth for claim 1, wherein the executing of the one or more received assessment modules includes executing instructions to collect additional data. Schindhelm discloses that once a potential condition or clinical event is predicted, the system sends one or more assessment modules or queries to a user to collect additional data entered by the user about the potential underlaying cause of the potential condition (paragraph [91]; FIG. 7b, component 7130). Schindhelm further discloses that in addition to the data collected from user queries, additional sensor data can be collected and analyzed after the response is received (FIG. 7b, component 7140 & 7160) to see if therapeutic intervention will prevent the potential condition.
In regard to claim 84, Schindhelm as modified discloses the invention as set forth for claim 1, wherein the one or more assessment modules include a machine learning algorithm for analyzing select data. Schindhelm discloses that the sensor data is analyzed to predict a potential condition (FIG. 7j) where a variety of different computation models can be utilized including machine learning models such as quantum neural networks (paragraph [302]) or Bayesian classifiers (paragraph [303]).
Claims 80 & 81 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schindhelm (WO 2013177621 A1 - Cited by Applicant) in view of Palin (US 20170372600 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fey (US 20030187688 A1).
In regard to claim 80, Schindhelm as modified discloses the invention as set forth for claim 1, further comprising preparing a de-identified summary report based on (i) the data, (ii) the initially determined one or more potential conditions, or (iii) both (i) and (ii). While Schindhelm discloses that data and information collected by the sensor unit (FIG. 7a, component 1200) or a clinical alert based on a potential condition (FIG. 7b, component 7180) can be compiled and sent to an external database, such as a clinician-accessible apparatus such as a multi-patient monitoring system that allows a clinician to review data from remote patient data recording devices (paragraph [85]), neither Schindhelm or Palin discuss de-identifying the report.
However, Fey teaches that medical information stored in a database, such as a user report that contains personal data, can be de-identified by assigning a unique identifying number rather than a traceable identifier (paragraphs [0057] - [0059]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the method disclosed by Schindhelm as modified with the teaching that user reports can be de-identified because doing so protects the privacy of consumer’s health and information (paragraph [0125]).
In regard to claim 81, Schindhelm as modified discloses the invention as set forth for claim 80, further comprising transmitting the de- identified summary report from the one or more processing devices local to the user for receipt by the remote server or a different server. Schindhelm discloses that the report can be transmitted from the sensing device (FIG. 7a, component 1200) to an external processing device (FIG. 7b, component 7005 & 7008) such as a database for recording patient monitoring data (paragraph [85]) or remote server (paragraph [61]).
Claim 82 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schindhelm (WO 2013177621 A1 - Cited by Applicant) in view of Palin (US 20170372600 A1) and further in view of Fey (US 20030187688 A1) as applied to claim 81 above, and further in view of Goodnow (US 20100312577 A1).
In regard to claim 82, Schindhelm as modified discloses the invention as set forth for claim 81, further comprising receiving an input from the user on the one or more processing devices local to the user, the input indicating an authorization to transmit the de-identified summary report to the remote server or the different server. While Schindhelm discloses that the sensor unit (FIG. 7a, component 1200) includes communication circuitry (FIG. 7a, component 7004) to transfer data to an external computing device (FIG. 7a, component 7005) such as a remote server or database provided to record patient monitoring data for a clinician (paragraph [85]) and Fey further teaches that data may be accessed or sent to medical practitioners or others at the discretion and direction of the consumer (paragraph [0020]), where user input may be received from the keyboard, mouse, pen, voice, touch screen, or any other means by which a human can input data into a computer, including through other programs such as application programs (paragraph [0160]), Schindhelm, Palin, and Fey do not discuss receiving an input from a user to authorize the transmission of de-identified summary report to the remote server or the different server.
However, Goodnow teaches that a user can authorize the transmission of data from a local device to an authorized user on a remote server for health care professionals (paragraph [0217]), such as a health care professional, group, or other managed care professionals (paragraph [0205]) by inputting an authorization level for the healthcare professional that controls what information the health care professional can access (paragraph [0251]; FIG. 55).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Schindhelm as modified with the teaching of Goodnow that a user input can authorize the transmission of data to a remote server of a health care professional because it would be considered combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of controlling how data may be accessed or sent to medical practitioners or others at the discretion and direction of the user as taught by Fey (paragraph [0020]).
Claim 83 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schindhelm (WO 2013177621 A1 - Cited by Applicant) in view of Palin (US 20170372600 A1) and further in view of Fey (US 20030187688 A1) as applied to claim 81 above, and further in view of Goodnow (US 20100312577 A1) and further in view of Holmes (WO 2013052318 A1).
In regard to claim 83, Schindhelm as modified discloses the invention as set forth for claim 81, further comprising receiving an input from the user on the one or more processing devices local to the user. While Schindhelm discloses that a user can input information to the one or more processing devices, they do not disclose that the input indicates an authorization to transmit the de-identified summary report to the remote server or the different server.
However, Goodnow teaches that a user can authorize the transmission of data from a local device to an authorized user on a remote server for health care professionals (paragraph [0217]), such as a health care professional, group, or other managed care professionals (paragraph [0205]) by inputting an authorization level for the healthcare professional that controls what information the health care professional can access (paragraph [0251]; FIG. 55).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Schindhelm as modified with the teaching of Goodnow that a user input can authorize the transmission of data to a remote server of a health care professional because it would be considered combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of controlling how data may be accessed or sent to medical practitioners or others at the discretion and direction of the user as taught by Fey (paragraph [0020]).
While Schindhelm as modified by Palin, Fey, and Goodnow discloses that a user input indicates an authorization to transmit the de-identified summary report to the remote server, they do not disclose that only a portion of the de-identified summary report is transmitted.
However, Holmes teaches that multiple summary reports relating to a user can be generated and provided to both the user and a health care professional, where the summary report provided to the health care professional provides less details than the one provided to the user (paragraph [01938]). Examiner notes that providing less details would be equivalent to providing a partial report.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method disclosed by Schindhelm as modified of developing a summary report and transmitting the report to a medical health professional on a remote server using communication circuitry (Schindhelm, FIG. 7a, component 7005; paragraph [85]) with the teaching that a partial report can be sent to a medical health professional because it would be considered simple substitution of one known element, in this case a summary report, for another, in this case a partial summary report, to obtain the predictable result of sending health information to a medical health professional.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Gizewski (US 20080162352 A1) discloses a health maintenance system for the prediction of abnormalities or potential conditions using historical health data and diagnostic data (paragraph [130] - [0132]; FIG. 2).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SIENNA CHRISTINE PYLE whose telephone number is (703)756-5798. The examiner can normally be reached 8 am - 5:30 pm M - T; Off first Fridays; 8 am - 4 pm second Fridays.
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, Charles Marmor, II can be reached at (571) 272-4730. 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.
/ERIC F WINAKUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/S.C.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3791