DETAILED ACTION
This office action is responsive to the Request for Reconsideration-After Non-Final filed 6/22/2026. The application contains claims 1, 3-9, 11-17, 19-23, all examined and rejected.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 3-9, 11-17, 19-23 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 disclose “the data collection system lacks direct management control over the unmanaged devices”. The specification disclose that the patient’s device is not managed by the health care provider IT system ¶119, ¶123. However, the amendments require a specific actor “the data collection system” lacking “direct management control”. That is not disclosed in the specification, on the contrary the specification disclose direct instructions with the unmanaged devices as capability test that specify action (¶63, ¶134, ¶73, ¶¶76-77, ¶125, “capability test may be provided to the unmanaged device”, ¶¶126-127).
Claim 1 further recite “the data collection system … having the direct management control over the managed devices” which is a specific control relationship between the system and device. Being inside the same provider system does not establish such a relation.
Claim 1 further recite “qualified sensed data lack the medical diagnostic data” without a support for that negative limitation. The specification describe non-use “(the other qualified sensed data may not be used as the diagnostic data)” ¶212, not the absence of medical diagnostic data. The specification even describe the discarded or unhelpful data as diagnostic data See ¶83, ¶103, ¶80, “discriminate diagnostic data that is likely useful for diagnostic purposes from diagnostic data that is unlikely to be useful for diagnostic purposes”. Claim 1 further recite “only contained within a first portion of the qualified sensed data”. The specification contradict that as ¶102 disclose “each portion of diagnostic data may be relevant for a variety of different uses“, ¶213, “rate the respective portions for various diagnostic purposes” which show that a portion not rated for one purpose may still be rated for another, so diagnostic data not “only” in one portion.
Claims 22 recites “lacks the direct management control over an amount of the sensed data” no support for that negative limitation. The specifications disclose the possibility of obtaining large amount of data but doesn’t establish who control the amount.
Claim 23 recites “lacks the direct management control over a content and a quality of the sensed data”. The specification disclose that “using unmanaged devices which may not be subject to similar levels of quality control, upkeep, and maintenance applied to managed devices” See ¶23. This is relative device management observation and does not support the claim limitation.
With regard to Claim 9,
Claim 9 is similar in scope to claim 1 therefore it is rejected under similar rationale.
With regard to Claim 17,
Claim 17 is similar in scope to claim 1 therefore it is rejected under similar rationale.
Dependent claims inherit the deficiency of the independent claims.
Examiner Notes
There is no art rejection for the claims. Upon review of the evidence at hand, it is hereby concluded that the evidence obtained and made of record, alone or in combination, neither anticipates, reasonably teaches, nor renders obvious the below noted features of applicant's invention as the noted features amount to more than a predictable use of elements in the prior art. The allowable features include “a method for managing electronic collection of medical diagnostic data collection for individuals using managed devices and unmanaged devices configured for the electronic collection of the medical diagnostic data, the method being performed by a data processing system configured as a data collection system, and the method comprising: obtaining a request for the data collection system to obtain the medical diagnostic data of a first individual of the individuals from an unmanaged device of the unmanaged devices, the data collection system lacks direct management control over the unmanaged devices while having the direct management control over the managed devices, the unmanaged device being a personal electronic device that is directly managed by the first individual and that is used by the first individual to collect the medical diagnostic data of the first individual; identifying, based on the request, a qualification for the medical diagnostic data; processing sensed data obtained by provided by the unmanaged device to obtain qualified sensed data from the sensed data, the sensed data being processed using a first inference model based on the qualification and the sensed data being collected by the unmanaged device based on the request and comprises non-qualified sensed data and the qualified sensed data, and only the qualified sensed data is obtained via the processing of the sensed data; processing the qualified sensed data to obtain the medical diagnostic data, the qualified sensed data being processed using a second inference model that discriminates for diagnostic purposes, [[and]] the medical diagnostic data being rated for at least one of the diagnostic purposes and is only contained within a first portion of the qualified sensed data while remaining portions of the qualified sensed data lack the medical diagnostic data; storing only the medical diagnostic data obtained from the first portion of the qualified sensed data in a data management system while discarding the remaining portions of the qualified sensed data that lack the medical diagnostic data; and servicing data access requests for the at least one of the diagnostic purposes using the medical diagnostic data.”
A remarkable art in this area, US 2022/0059216 A1, hereinafter Lewis, discloses “a method for managing electronic collection of medical diagnostic data collection for individuals using managed devices and unmanaged devices configured for the electronic collection of the medical diagnostic data, the method being performed by a data processing system configured as a data collection system, and the method comprising: obtaining a request for the data collection system to obtain the medical diagnostic data of a first individual of the individuals” by disclosing a healthcare system that allow user to subscribe to, or pulls, sensor data from patients devices in response to provider’s request. Lewis further teach “while having the direct management control over the managed devices” by disclosing that the management console configure the data collector, authenticate devices, and control its device database and unmanaged device being personal devices as user’s tablets, smartphones, wearable trackers. However, Lewis does not disclose “the data collection system lacks direct management control over the unmanaged devices” because the console also register and reprogram the patient devices. Nor does it teach inference model or storing only the medical diagnostic data obtained from the first portion of the qualified sensed data in a data management system while discarding the remaining portions of the qualified sensed data that lack the medical diagnostic data.
Another remarkable art in this area, “Machine Learning-Based Time-Series Data Analysis in Edge-Cloud-Assisted Oil Industrial loT System”, hereinafter D1, D1 discloses “processing sensed data .. first inference model” as it disclose running algorithms on the edge gateway. D1 also teach that the sensed data comprise non-qualified sensed data (normal instances with anomaly score) and that only qualified sensed data is obtained via the processing as only the anomaly data is uploaded to the cloud. However D1 does not teach “electronic collection of medical diagnostic data for individuals using managed devices and unmanaged devices configured for the electronic collection of the medical diagnostic data, the method being performed by a data processing system configured as a data collection system, and the method comprising: obtaining a request for the data collection system to obtain the medical diagnostic data of a first individual of the individuals from an unmanaged device of the unmanaged devices, the data collection system lacks direct management control over the unmanaged devices while having the direct management control over the managed devices, the unmanaged device being a personal electronic device that is directly managed by the first individual and that is used by the first individual to collect the medical diagnostic data of the first individual; identifying, based on the request, a qualification for the medical diagnostic data” or the medical diagnostic data being rated for at least one of the diagnostic purposes and is only contained within a first portion of the qualified sensed data while remaining portions of the qualified sensed data lack the medical diagnostic data; storing only the medical diagnostic data obtained from the first portion of the qualified sensed data in a data management system while discarding the remaining portions of the qualified sensed data that lack the medical diagnostic data; and servicing data access requests for the at least one of the diagnostic purposes using the medical diagnostic data.
Another remarkable art in this area, US 6330610 B1, Docter et al. hereinafter Docter, Docter discloses a two stage selection in which data passing a first filter is processed again under a different second criteria which is equivalent to “processing the qualified sensed data” where the remaining portions of the qualified sensed data lack content and are rejected at second stage. It also teach storing only data while discarding the remaining data. However, Docter does not teach “a first inference model”, “second inference model” because its filters are simply matching of attributes. It also does not disclose “sensed data”, “medical data”, managed or unmanaged devices.
In addition to the above, the Examiner emphasizes the interrelation of the above distinguishing elements with the remainder of each respective claim element, and further notes that it is the interrelation that truly distinguishes Applicant's invention from the evidence at hand. Moreover, none of the evidence at hand teaches or suggests the combination of features claimed, nor does there exist an appropriate rationale for further modification of the evidence at hand. It is hereby asserted by the Examiner that, in light of the above and in further deliberation over all of the evidence at hand, that the claims are allowable as the evidence at hand does not anticipate the claims and does not render obvious any further modification of the references to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Examiner notes the existence of 35 USC 112(a) rejection due to the fact that claims contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Therefore, further consideration/search will be provided based on the applicant’s response.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see 8-10, filed 6/22/2026, with respect to 35 U.S.C 101 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims has been withdrawn. The provided amendments recite a practical application and is an improvement to technology.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 6/22/2026, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Detailed reasons for withdrawing the rejection is provided under examiner notes. However, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure.
“Hybrid cloud-Edge Collaborative Data Anomaly Detection in Industrial Sensor Networks” that disclose first edge side model to filter sensor data and second cloud side model to perform analysis See at least Abstract, “mainly consists of a sensor data detection model deployed at individual edges and a sensor data analysis model deployed in the cloud”.
Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior arts of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and Figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire references as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior arts or disclosed by the examiner. It is noted that any citation to specific pages, columns, figures, or lines in the prior art references any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331-33, 216 USPQ 1038-39 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)).
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MOHAMED ABOU EL SEOUD whose telephone number is (303)297-4285. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9:00am-6:00pm MT.
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, Michelle Bechtold can be reached at (571) 431-0762. 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.
/MOHAMED ABOU EL SEOUD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2148
Prosecution Insights