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 .
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 1-18, specifically independent claims 1, 8 & 15, are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Please see the below analysis providing the details as to why the invention is directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1:
Claim 1 is directed to a method, a statutory category of invention.
Claim 8 is directed to a monitor, a product, i.e. a statutory category of invention.
Claim 15 is directed to a non-statutory computer readable medium, a product, i.e. a statutory category of invention.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
Claim 1 recites the method steps of:
“…calculating an alarm generation time…”
“…notifying an abnormality of physiological information and a technical alarm…generated during a predetermined time period…”
“…outputting the calculated alarm generation time or calculated ratio…wherein a workload…to the vital alarm or technical alarm is quantitatively grasped.”
Claim 8 recites the method steps of (via a calculation unit):
“…calculate an alarm generation time…which is a tool time ”
“…notifying an abnormality of physiological information and a technical alarm…during a predetermined time period…to calculate a ration of the alarm generation time to the predetermined time period…”
“…output the calculated alarm generation time or calculated ratio, wherein a workload of a medical worker responding to the vital alarm or technical alarm is quantitatively grasped.
Claim 15 recites the method steps of (via a program for causing a computer to execute):
“…calculate an alarm generation time…which is a total time…”
“…notifying an abnormality of physiological information and a technical alarm…is generated during a predetermined time period…or to calculate a ratio of the alarm…to the predetermined time period…”
“…output the calculated alarm generation time or calculated ratio, wherein a workload of a medical worker responding to the vital alarm of technical alarm is quatitatively grasped.
These limitations, under the broadest interpretation, fall within the mathematical concepts (i.e. calculating mental processes (i.e. notifying, outputting, calculating, quantitatively-grasped) groupings of an abstract idea. It would be practical to perform the steps in a human’s mind, or with a pen and paper, to utilize the claimed signals.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
The claims as a whole fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claims 8 & 15 recites the following additional elements, which for the reasons set forth below, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
“…a calculation unit…” which is directed to mere instructions to apply an exception, see MPEP 2106.05(f) [Claim 8]
“…a sensor…” which is directed to data gathering, see MPEP 2106.05(g). [Claims 8 & 15].
“…an output unit…” which is directed to data output, see MPEP 2106.05(f). [Claim 8]
Step 2B:
The claims as a whole fails to recite an inventive concept. The additional elements, when considered individually and in combination, do not recite significantly more than the abstract idea for the reasons as set forth above in Step 2A, Prong 2. Upon re-evaluating the limitation that was previously identified as insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, Prong 2, the following evidence to show that the limitation is well-understood, routine and conventional:
real-time discrete data obtained from a medical device/data previously collected from a medical device (i.e. body surface/unipolar electrodes) Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
producing at said computer processor a human-readable output (i.e. processor) of the analysis of the gathered data, this is also WURC, as evidenced by Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830F.3d 1350, 119 USPQ2d 1739 (Fed.Cir. 2016), which discusses “conventional computer, network, and display technology” and states that “nothing in the patent contains any suggestion that the displays needed for that purpose are anything but readily available. We have repeatedly held that such invocations of computers and networks that are not even arguably inventive are “insufficient to pass the test of an inventive concept in the application” of an abstract idea”.” Similarly, there is nothing in Applicant’s specification that indicates that the device that is “producing at said computer processor a human-readable output indicating” the findings of the analysis is anything but readily available.
Therefore, the claims fail to recite significantly more than the abstract idea and claims 1, 8 & 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 101.
The examiner also notes that limitations of the dependent claims 2-7, 9-14 & 16-20 further define the steps of calculating, outputting and notifying, which further limits the claim limitations already indicated above as being directed to an abstract idea. Therefore, claims 2-7, 9-14 & 16-20 are also directed to patient-ineligible subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 8, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues the following points in which the examiner provides a reason(s) as to why the arguments are not persuasive:
The applicant has amended the claims to recite “calculating an alarm generation time, which is a total time in which at least one of a vital alarm notifying an abnormality of physiological information and a technical alarm is generated during a predetermined time period…wherein a work load of a medical worker responding to the vital alarm or technical alarm is quantitatively grasped, in which the amendments are directed to a practical application that addresses a technical problem in medical treatment, and therefore the claims are patent eligible.
Based on the broadest reasonable interpretation the examiner disagrees and further points out that the claim amendments do not alter the abstract nature of the invention. Even with the claim amendments the claims remain directed to evaluating and quantifying the time a medical worker spends responding to alarms, which constitutes collecting information, analyzing it and using the results to assess workload, i.e. a form of organizing human activity and data analysis.
In addition, the claim limitation the additional claim limitations, added per the claim amendments, represent routine and conventional data evaluation steps and therefore do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Accordingly, the claims remain ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Applicant’s arguments, filed December 8, 2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive and have been withdrawn. The examiner notes that there are no current prior art rejections on the pending claims, 1-18. However, the claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. Please see the above the action.
Conclusion
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 NICOLE F JOHNSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5040. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-5:00pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, David Hamaoui can be reached at 571-270-5625. 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.
/NICOLE F JOHNSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796