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 .
Response to Arguments
I. Drawing Objections
Applicant has submitted replacement versions of FIGS. 2-4 and states that they have been amended to comply with line and shading requirements. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. These figures retain all of the same issues found in the previous version. They are screenshots of an actual user interface with various black (or nearly black, dark grey etc.) backgrounds with poorly reproduced lines and poor text quality. To comply with the requirements, these figures must be presented in a legible and reproducible format (e.g. by being drafted as opposed to merely a screenshot of an actual UI). An example was given in the objection of what compliant figures might look like: FIGS. 3-17 of the Oura ‘999 reference. Note how those figures in Oura ‘999 (1) do not have dark shading or backgrounds, and (2) have clear lines and clear text, in stark contrast to the backgrounds and line and text quality seen in FIGS. 2-4 in this application.
II. Prior Art Rejections
Applicant’s remarks concerning the prior art rejections under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant’s first argument is that the claims now require a “plurality of target objects” (which Applicant equates to a plurality of patients) whereas Oura ‘999 only monitors a single target object (which Applicant equates to a single patient). The Examiner respectfully disagrees. It is noted that claim 20 previously recited limitations to this effect, but in greater detail (e.g. further specifying a selection of a particular “target object”). That greater detail necessitated the use of another reference (Pfeiffer). However, claim 1 even as amended does not require all those details, as explained below.
First, the terms “object” and “patient” are not necessarily synonymous, and it is not commonplace in the art to refer to human patients as “objects.” As such, claim 1 does not necessarily require a plurality of patients in the manner argued by Applicant. The plurality of target objects could be, for example, different body parts or body systems of the same human patient.
Second, even if the term “object” were equated with “patient,” the claims would still not have the scope argued by Applicant here because claim 1 merely refers to the existence of a “plurality of target objects” without ever requiring the system to monitor all of them simultaneously. Claim 1 as amended still only requires acquiring vital sign information “of a target object” and ultrasonic information of “said target object.” Claim 1 clarifies that a target object is “a target object of a plurality of target objects,” but other than referring to the existence of that larger group, the claim doesn’t require that the larger group actually be simultaneously measured by the system. Claim 1 also requires that the display device be configured to display information “of the plurality of target objects,” but again there is no requirement that this be done simultaneously for multiple target objects based on the current claim language.
Third, even if the claim was interpreted as requiring a plurality of patients simultaneously, the recitation of “a plurality of target objects” in the context of claim 1 as a system claim amounts to only a statement of intended use, since the system merely gathers and displays data from the recited monitoring devise and ultrasonic device(s), and could do so whether those devices were all attached to the same patient or divided among multiple patients. There is nothing recited in the claim to require that the system be actually programmed or otherwise specifically configured to monitor and display data for multiple patients. So, looking at Oura ‘999, the system gathers and displays the data from the various measuring/sensing devices, and could continue doing so whether they were all attached to the same “target object” or placed on different “target objects” (regardless of how “target object” is interpreted).
Applicant next argues that for the menus m1-m5 or the icons i1-i4 of Oura ‘999, “there is no vital sign information on the menu/icon itself.” This argument is considered moot as the claims do not require such a limitation. Menus m1-m5 and/or icons i1-i4 were equated to the claimed “selection instruction” (which correspond to different “display areas”).
Applicant lastly reiterates the remarks about claim 1 allegedly requiring multiple patients. These remarks remain unpersuasive for the same reasons explained above. The claim refers to the existence of this larger group of the “plurality of target objects” but otherwise recites steps only connected to a single object and fails to require simultaneously evaluating all the target objects in the manner implied by Applicant’s remarks.
Concerning claim 5, Applicant argues that Oura ’999 fails to teach the new limitation of “wherein the ultrasonic examination indication is used to indicate a type of examined portion of one of the plurality of target objects during the corresponding ultrasonic examination.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. At a minimum, the ultrasonic images/thumbnails themselves meet this limitation. For instance, looking at FIG. 11 of Oura ‘999, a list of 9 different thumbnails/images and corresponding timestamps are shown. The thumbnails/images are themselves indications of a type of examined portion, since they visually show the examined portion.
Drawings
New corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in this application because FIGS. 2-4 (even as amended 04/13/2026) fail to comply with line and shading requirements of 37 C.F.R. 1.84 (1 and m) and thus do not possess satisfactory reproduction characteristics as required by those sections. See MPEP 608.02.
An example of how a representation of the GUI may be illustrated with satisfactory reproduction characteristics may be seen in FIGS. 3-17 of the Oura ‘999 reference cited in the prior art rejections below.
Applicant is advised to employ the services of a competent patent draftsperson outside the Office, as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office no longer prepares new drawings. The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The requirement for corrected drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “a target object” is recited twice. The second recitation must be corrected to “the target object” or “said target object” or otherwise clarify if a different target object is recited. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1, 16 and 28 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.
Claims 1, 16 and 28 recite “the monitoring device.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claims only previously recite “a plurality of monitoring devices.” As such, it is unclear whether reference to “the” monitoring device is meant to refer to a particular one of those monitoring devices, or all of them, or something else.
Furthermore, claim 16 recites “when a plurality of monitoring devices exist.” This is indefinite because (1) claim 1 already recites “a” plurality of monitoring devices, and thus claim 16 is in improper antecedent form, and (2) since claim 1 already requires a plurality, then the condition stated in claim 16 is always met, i.e. it is now unclear why claim 16 is referring to a condition as merely a possibility when it is now always true given the amendment to claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 5, 8, 16, 28, and 30-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by US 2020/0359999 A1 to Oura et al. (hereinafter “Oura ‘999”).
Regarding Claim 1, 16 and 28, Oura ‘999 teaches a medical information display system, wherein the medical information display system is a central station (10) and comprises:
a communication interface (11), which is configured to communicatively connect with a plurality of monitoring devices (30) and at least one ultrasonic device (20), wherein each monitoring device is configured to acquire vital sign information of a target object of a plurality of target objects which is monitored by the monitoring device (see e.g. Para. 29: “The patient monitor 10 is configured to measure various vital signs based on vital sign signals sent from the various sensors 30 attached to a subject. The sensors 30 attached to the subject here serve as various sensors used for the measurement of the vital signs.” The plurality of target objects can either be various body parts/systems of the same patient, or alternatively can be interpreted as a plurality of patients, since Oura ‘999’s system is fully capable of being used with multiple patients), and each ultrasonic device is configured to perform an ultrasonic examination on a target object of the plurality of target objects and generate ultrasonic information of said target object (see e.g. Para. 30: “The ultrasonic measuring apparatus 20 is configured to acquire an ultrasonic image inside a body of a subject by placing a probe 21 in contact with (or brought close to) the body of the subject”; The plurality of target objects can either be various body parts/systems of the same patient, or alternatively can be interpreted as a plurality of patients, since Oura ‘999’s system is fully capable of being used with multiple patients);
a storage device (17), which is configured to store executable program instructions (see e.g. Para. 41: “The storage device 17 stores various programs”), as well as to store the vital sign information which is acquired by the monitoring devices (see e.g. Para. 42: “The storage device 17 stores data (first data) in which the measured data (the measured values or the measured waveforms) of the vital signs acquired from the sensors 30 are made to correspond to the measurement dates and times”) and the ultrasonic information which is generated by the at least one ultrasonic device (see e.g. Para. 42: “… and stores data (second data) in which the ultrasonic images captured by the ultrasonic measuring apparatus 20 are made to correspond to the image capture timings of the ultrasonic images (the dates and times when the ultrasonic images were measured));
a display device (16), which is configured to display the vital sign information and the ultrasonic information of the plurality of target objects (see e.g. Para. 39: “The display section 16 is configured to display measured waveforms or measured values of the various vital signs, ultrasonic images, etc. in accordance with control of the controller 14”);
one or more processors (14), which are configured to execute the program instructions which are stored in the storage device (see e.g. Para. 41: “The controller 14 properly reads the programs or the data from the storage device 17”) to enable the one or more processors to perform following steps:
obtaining the vital sign information which is acquired by the plurality of monitoring devices and the ultrasonic information which is generated by the at least one ultrasonic device through the communication interface (see e.g. Para. 43: “The controller 14 preforms action control of the patient monitor 10 (control of measurement through the sensors 30, reflection of various settings, import of an ultrasonic image, recording of measured values of vital signs, display control on the display section 16, etc.).”);
controlling the storage device to store the vital sign information and the ultrasonic information according to a timestamp (see e.g. Para. 44: “The controller 14 writes, into the storage device 17, the measured values of the various vital signs (blood pressure, a pulse count, body temperature, arterial oxygen saturation, a respiration rate, a respiration waveform, etc.) acquired through the sensors 30 in association with the measurement dates and times. The thing that the controller 14 continuously writes the measured values into the storage device 17 in association with the measurement dates and times is equivalent to the thing that the controller 14 stores the measured waveforms in association with the measurement dates and times. In addition, the controller 14 writes the ultrasonic images acquired by the ultrasonic measuring apparatus 20 into the storage device 17 in association with the image capture timings (the dates and times at which the images were taken or measured). The measurement dates and times are acquired with reference to data of the not-shown internal clock etc.”));
controlling the display device to provide a display observation interface, which comprises a plurality of display areas, wherein each display area correspondingly displays at least part of the vital sign information of one target object of the plurality of target objects, which information is acquired by a corresponding one of the plurality of monitoring devices, and the at least part of the vital sign information of said one target object, which is displayed in said display area, comprises a waveform and a numerical value of one or more vital sign parameters (see e.g. Para. 44: “The controller 14 displays, on the display section 16, a screen based on the data (the measured values of the vital signs and the ultrasonic images) stored in the storage device 17. Details of the display control will be described later with reference to FIG. 3 etc”; see e.g. FIG. 3);
when obtaining a selection instruction for one display area of the plurality of display areas, controlling the display device to display a detail interface of an interested target object, which corresponds to the selected display area, wherein the detail interface is set with a review hotkey (see generally m1-m5 and/or i1-i4, e.g. in FIGS. 3-10); and
when obtaining a review instruction for the review hotkey, controlling the display device to display a review interface for the interested target object on the detail interface, wherein the review interface is configured to display review information of the interested target object, and the review information comprises at least part of the vital sign information and at least part of the ultrasonic information of the interested target object; wherein, said ultrasonic information is displayed with the timestamp, or said vital sign information and said ultrasonic information are correlatively displayed based on the timestamp (see e.g. Para. 61: “the controller 14 may display the ultrasonic image and display together the measured values and/or the measured waveforms of the various vital signs acquired at the image capture timing of the ultrasonic image. Such a display example will be illustrated in FIG. 5. As illustrated in FIG. 5, the controller 14 displays a window d2 of the ultrasonic image, that includes not only the ultrasonic image corresponding to the selected image capture timing but also measured values (v4) of the various vital signs and an image capture timing (tm1). The measured values (v4) indicate measured values of the vital signs (e.g., measured values of the vital signs between 14:32:00 to 14:33:00) at the image capture timing (tm1)”).
Regarding Claim 2, see e.g. Paras. 54 and 57 and FIGS. 8-9.
Regarding Claim 5, see e.g. FIGS. 11 and 14.
Regarding Claim 8, see e.g. FIGS. 8-9.
Regarding Claim 30, see e.g. FIG. 8 and Para. 68.
Regarding Claims 31-33, see e.g. FIG. 5; also see all of FIGS. 3-17 which show a variety of different GUI configurations for displaying the 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oura ‘999 in view of WO 2020/031756 A1 to Oura et al. (hereinafter “Oura ‘756”).
Regarding Claims 10-12 and 15, Oura ‘999 teaches the system of claim 1 as discussed above, but fails to further teach obtaining and displaying timestamped historical video information and/or real-time video information. However, Oura ‘756 teaches an extremely similar analogous invention in which either timestamped historical and/or real time video can be displayed along with the other data (see “moving image” throughout Oura ‘756, e.g.: “With respect to the second image file, the same or similar process is performed. That is, the control unit 14 may store a moving image containing an ultrasonic image for a predetermined time period before the image recording timing, as the second image file, or store a moving image containing an ultrasonic image for a predetermined time period before and after the image recording timing, as the second image file; also see “real time” throughout Oura ‘756, e.g.: “the control unit 14 may generate a screen captured image of a screen on which information of vital signs (measurement waveforms or measurement values) and ultrasonic image that are displayed in real time, as a combined image file”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of Applicant's effective filing date to modify Oura ‘999 to provide for the collection and display of historical and/or real-time video data (using similar types of GUI interactions and presentations seen in either reference), as seen in Oura ‘756, because doing so would advantageously increase the total amount of useful diagnostic information collected and presented for display.
Regarding Claim 13, further see e.g. Paras. 49-50 of Oura ‘999 (in addition to the combination above for claims 10-12).
Regarding Claim 14, further see e.g. FIGS. 5D and 10C of Oura ‘756 as well as FIGS. 13-14 of Oura ‘999 (in addition to the combination above for claims 10-12).
Claims 3, 6, 18 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oura ‘999 in view of US 2015/0113422 A1 to Pfeiffer et al. (hereinafter “Pfeiffer”).
Regarding Claims 3 and 18, Oura ‘999 teaches the system of claim 1 but fails to specifically teach that the review information comprises an alarm event of the target object; an alarm event indication is provided at a time point of the time market, which time point corresponds to the alarm event of the interested target object, wherein the ultrasonic examination indication and the alarm event indication are displayed in different ways. Another reference, Pfeiffer, teaches an analogous patient vitals display in which medical information of multiple target objects/patients is displayed (see e.g. FIG. 6) including a comprehensive overview of patient information, vital sign data, any alarm/alerts, and multiple numbers/codes associated with the patient (see e.g. FIGS. 3, 7 and Paras. 17, 34, 66). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of Applicant's effective filing date to modify Oura ‘999 to provide the additional information seen in the GUI of Pfeiffer, including the alarm event and corresponding time information, because it would increase the total amount of useful information being displayed.
Regarding Claims 6 and 34, Oura ‘999 teaches displaying ultrasonic information in a chronological list as discussed above. Pfeiffer, teaches an analogous patient vitals display in which medical information of multiple target objects/patients is displayed (see e.g. FIG. 6) including a comprehensive overview of patient information, vital sign data, any alarm/alerts, and multiple numbers/codes associated with the patient (see e.g. FIGS. 3, 7 and Paras. 17, 34, 66). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of Applicant's effective filing date to modify Oura ‘999 to provide the additional information seen in the GUI of Pfeiffer, including the alarm event and corresponding time information, because it would increase the total amount of useful information being displayed. Concerning the display of the alarm events in a “same” list in chronological order, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of Applicant's effective filing date to modify Oura ‘999 to provide the alarm event information in this format since Oura ‘999 already demonstrates that a chronological list is a known suitable format for showing a time series of diagnostic events. Furthermore, such a selection would involve a merely unpatentable aesthetic design choice of one particular display format over another.
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 JOHN R DOWNEY whose telephone number is (571)270-7247. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-5:00pm ET.
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, NIKETA PATEL can be reached at (571)-272-4156. 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.
/JOHN R DOWNEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3792
Prosecution Insights