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 .
DETAILED ACTION
In the Amendment dated 02 January 2026, the following occurred:
Claims 1, 10, and 19 were amended.
Claims 1-27 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) submitted on 21 November 2025 and 16 January 2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and have been fully considered by the Examiner.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Anticipation
Claims 1-4, 7, 10-13, 16, 19-22, and 25 are provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4, 6, 8-11, 13, 15-18, and 20 of co-pending Application No. 18/348,614. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims of the instant application is anticipated by of the reference patent because they claim patentably indistinct variations of the same subject matter.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Obviousness
Claims 9, 18, and 27 are provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 8, and 15 of co-pending Application No. 18/348,614 in view of Sampath et al. (U.S. 2018/0174680). The reference patent claims do not describe all the details pertaining to enabling a user to adjust the one or more thresholds. Sampath teaches aspects pertaining to enabling a user to adjust the one or more thresholds (See Para. 0371: hospital administrators or other responsible personnel authorizing any changes to an alarm threshold value) which would be obvious to incorporate with the motivation of improving hospital operations (see Sampath at Para. 0181).
Claims 4, 5, 7, 13, 14, 16, 22, 23, and 25 are provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 8, and 15 of co-pending Application No. 18/348,997 in view of Crawford, Jr. (U.S. 5331549). The reference patent claims do not describe all the details pertaining to graphically locating at least a portion of the one or more incidents, where the alarms originated, and reviewable incidents. Crawford teaches aspects pertaining to graphically locating at least a portion of the one or more incidents, and where the alarms originated, and reviewable incidents (See Para. 0024: an overview screen that provides a geographic presentation of where an emergency is, Para. 0013: illustrating a location of the emergency by highlighting the proper room on the facility map; Para. 0002: vital sign monitors coupled to a central server, central server consisting of a CPU, an audible alarm responding to the CPU finding an input vital sign signal is out of limits; Para. 0014: selecting an individual bed or site screen which provides more detailed information) which would be obvious to incorporate with the motivation of increasing the likelihood of having an immediate response to conditions which require immediate response (See Crawford at Para. 0008).
Claims 9, 18, and 27 are provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 8, and 15 of co-pending Application No. 18/348,997 in view of Sampath et al. (U.S. 2018/0174680). The reference patent claims do not describe all the details pertaining to enabling a user to adjust the one or more thresholds. Sampath teaches aspects pertaining to enabling a user to adjust the one or more thresholds (See Para. 0371: hospital administrators or other responsible personnel authorizing any changes to an alarm threshold value) which would be obvious to incorporate with the motivation of improving hospital operations (see Sampath at Para. 0181).
Claims 3, 6-8, 12, 15-17, 21, and 24-26 are provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 8, and 15 of co-pending Application No. 18/348,608 in view of Crawford, Jr. (U.S. 5331549). The reference patent claims do not describe all the details pertaining to the gathered information, how the incidents are defined, where the alarms originated, and basing the alarms on one or more thresholds. Crawford teaches aspects pertaining to the gathered information, how the incidents are defined, where the alarms originated, and basing the alarms on one or more thresholds (See Para. 0055: an alarms database containing room number, nature of alarm, date, time, and all sign values; Para. 0017: emergency situations being accompanied by an audible siren and a pop-up alarm window; Para. 0002: vital sign monitors coupled to a central server, central server consisting of a CPU, an audible alarm responding to the CPU finding an input vital sign signal is out of limits; Para. 0030: an alarm system based on a vital sign having passed a threshold wherein two separate thresholds are used to distinguish between a warning alarm and a critical alarm) which would be obvious to incorporate with the motivation of increasing the likelihood of having an immediate response to conditions which require immediate response (See Crawford at Para. 0008).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 10, and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1, 10, and 19 recite "wherein the plurality of devices includes at least a first vendor device and a second vendor device." The claims are objected to because the claim can be read two ways: (1) that there are two devices from the same vendor or (2) that they are different devices from different vendors. The Specification indicates that the Applicant intends this to be option (2). The Examiner suggests reciting "wherein the plurality of devices includes at least a first device from a first vendor and a second device from a second vendor." The first/second vendor would also need to be carried through to in the remainder of the claim(s) for consistency.
Appropriate corrections are required.
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 1-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1, 10, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
The claims recite information systems and methods that enable a plurality of devices to communicate and/or be managed, and therefore meet step 1 or are assumed to be within a statutory class for subject matter eligibility analysis purposes.
Step 2A1
The limitations of (Claim 10 being representative) monitoring… to detect the occurrence of alarms, including receiving data signals…; normalizing data signals… to generate a plurality of homogenized signals so that the data signals… can work together; defining one or more incidents as having occurred when a plurality of detected alarms includes a plurality of required alarms for the one or more incidents; predicting the occurrence of an incident of the one or more incidents when a defined portion of the required alarms for the incident has occurred in a defined sequence; gathering information… concerning one or more incidents within one or more medical institutions, thus defining gathered information; enabling a user to select a viewing lens from a plurality of available viewing lenses through which to display the gathered information, thus defining a selected viewing lens; and rendering at least a portion of the gathered information based, at least in part, upon the selected viewing lens, as drafted, is a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, falls in the grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity (i.e., managing personal behavior including following rules or instructions).
That is, other than reciting a method, apparatus, or system implemented by a computer readable medium and processor (a general-purpose computing device), the claimed invention amounts to managing personal behavior or interaction between people. The Examiner notes that certain “method[s] of organizing human activity” includes a person’s interaction with a computer (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or interactions between people but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A2
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of a data source (claims 1, 10, and 19), a computing device/processor (claims 1, 10, and 19), and a computer readable medium (claim 10) that implement the identified abstract idea. The computing elements are not exclusively described by the applicant and are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., a general-purpose computing device, see, e.g., Para. 0061) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Further, gathering information is considered insignificant extra solution activity such as pre-solution activity e.g., data gathering (performed by receiving/transmitting/etc.) See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The claims recite the additional elements of a data source and a plurality of devices including at least a first vendor device and a second vendor device. The data source and the plurality of devices merely generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) indicates that generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide a practical application. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a general-purpose CPU to perform the noted steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic CPU component cannot provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”).
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of a data source and a plurality of devices were considered to generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. This has been re-evaluated under the “significantly more” analysis and determined to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. See Affinity v DirecTV - "The court rejected the argument that the computer components recited in the claims constituted an “inventive concept.” It held that the claims added “only generic computer components such as an ‘interface,’ ‘network,’ and ‘database,’” and that “recitation of generic computer limitations does not make an otherwise ineligible claim patent-eligible.” Id. at 1324-25 (citations omitted). The court noted that nothing in the asserted claims purported to improve the functioning of the computer itself or “effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field.” Mortgage Grader, 811 F.3d at 1325 (quoting Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359)." Well-understood, routine, conventional activity cannot provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”). As such, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 2-9, 11-18, and 20-27 are similarly rejected because they either further define/narrow the abstract idea and/or do not further limit the claim to a practical application or provide an inventive concept such that the claims are subject matter eligible even when considered individually or as an ordered combination. Claims 2, 11, and 20 merely describe the plurality of available viewing lenses, which further defines the abstract idea. Claims 3, 12, and 21 merely describe the gathered information, which further defines the abstract idea. Claims 4, 13, and 22 merely describe rendering at least a portion of the gathered information based, at least in part, upon the selected viewing lens, which further defines the abstract idea. Claims 5, 6, 14, 15, 23, and 24 merely describe the one or more incidents, which further defines the abstract idea. Claims 7, 8, 16, 17, 25, and 26 merely describe the one or more alarms, which further defines the abstract idea. Claims 9, 18, and 27 merely describe the one or more thresholds, which further defines the abstract idea.
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 1-8, 10-17, 19-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crawford, Jr. (U.S. 5331549), referred to hereinafter as Crawford, in view of Handler (U.S. 2019/0001059), Janssen (U.S. 2018/0315285) and Hu et al. (U.S. 2017/0046499), referred to hereinafter as Hu.
REGARDING CLAIM 1
Crawford teaches the claimed computer-implemented method, executed on a computing device, comprising:
monitoring a plurality of devices to detect the occurrence of alarms, including receiving data signals indicative of the plurality of devices… [Claim 16 teaches monitoring vital sign values (from one or more devices) to provide a set of vital sign signals (alarms). The vital sign signals are “data signals indicative of the one or more devices,” which is undefined.]
gathering information from a data source concerning the one or more incidents within one or more medical institutions, thus defining gathered information; [Claim 1 teaches a medical monitoring system. Col. 2, Line 31 teaches gathering data. Col. 9, Line 57 teaches an alarms database that defines one or more incidents.]
enabling a user to select a viewing lens from a plurality of available viewing lenses through which to display the gathered information, thus defining a selected viewing lens; [Col. 4, Line 68 - Col. 5, Line 1 teaches a user generating a particular screen display arrangement. Col. 6, Line 34-38 teaches a zoom-in screen display called up through a keyboard input of a room number or by an appropriate touch on the overview screen.]
and rendering at least a portion of the gathered information based, at least in part, upon the selected viewing lens. [Col. 3, Line 40-42 teaches a screen display providing the selected information.]
Crawford may not explicitly teach
…wherein the plurality of devices includes at least a first vendor device and a second vendor device;
normalizing data signals from at least the first vendor device and the second vendor device to generate a plurality of homogenized signals so that the data signals from at least the first vendor device and the second vendor device can work together;
However, Handler teaches the following:
…wherein the plurality of devices includes at least a first vendor device and a second vendor device; [Para. 0002 teaches hospitals use different types of medical devices from different manufacturers (vendors).]
normalizing data signals from at least the first vendor device and the second vendor device to generate a plurality of homogenized signals so that the data signals from at least the first vendor device and the second vendor device can work together; [Para. 0036 teaches normalizing data (homogenized signals) from many different devices and standards to enable multiple, different data streams to be compared, combined, integrated, or analyzed together.]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of computerized healthcare, before the effective filling date of the invention, to modify the computer-implemented method of Crawford to normalize data signals from different devices as taught by Handler, with the motivation of improving interoperability of medical devices (see Handler at Para. 0032).
Crawford in view of Handler may not explicitly teach
defining one or more incidents as having occurred when a plurality of detected alarms includes a plurality of required alarms for the one or more incidents;
However, Janssen teaches the following:
defining one or more incidents as having occurred when a plurality of detected alarms includes a plurality of required alarms for the one or more incidents; [Para. 0026 teaches defining an incident group as a plurality of alarm events that meet a predefined set of criterion and/or rules for grouping.]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of computerized healthcare, before the effective filling date of the invention, to modify the computer-implemented method of Crawford in view of Handler to define incidents as taught by Janssen, with the motivation of providing more accurate information regarding the amount of care and resources utilized (see Janssen at Para. 0014).
Crawford in view of Handler and Janssen may not explicitly teach
predicting the occurrence of an incident of the one or more incidents when a defined portion of the required alarms for the incident has occurred in a defined sequence;
However, Hu teaches the following:
predicting the occurrence of an incident of the one or more incidents when a defined portion of the required alarms for the incident has occurred in a defined sequence; [Para. 0014 teaches finding combinations of temporally occurring monitor alarms that are predictive of events, called SuperAlarm patterns. Matching SuperAlarm patterns to current conditions can trigger an alarm and are called SuperAlarm triggers. Sequences of SuperAlarm triggers are identified and included in the predictions of an event. Para. 0032 teaches generating a SuperAlarm alert when data matches any of the pre-defined SuperAlarm patterns and/or there are characteristic sequences of SuperAlarm triggers observed.]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of computerized healthcare, before the effective filling date of the invention, to modify the computer-implemented method of Crawford in view of Handler and Janssen to predict the occurrence of an event as taught by Hu, with the motivation of improving patient safety (see Hu at Para. 0078).
REGARDING CLAIM 2
Crawford in view of Handler, Janssen, and Hu teaches the claimed computer-implemented method of claim 1.
Crawford further teaches
wherein the plurality of available viewing lenses includes one or more of: a macro level viewing lens; a facility level viewing lens; a unit level viewing lens; a cohort level viewing lens; and an individual level viewing lens. [Col. 2, Line 45-46 teaches selecting an individual bed or site screen which provides more detailed information. Col. 6, Line 34-38 teaches a zoom-in screen display. Col. 10, Line 3-5 teaches a facility map can be for the entire building, or just one floor. The Examiner notes that none of these lenses are defined and thus also represent non-functional descriptive information.]
REGARDING CLAIM 3
Crawford in view of Handler, Janssen, and Hu teaches the claimed computer-implemented method of claim 1.
Crawford further teaches
wherein the gathered information concerns, at least in part, one or more incidents that occurred within the one or more medical institutions. [Col. 9, Line 54-56 teaches an alarms database containing room number, nature of alarm (warning, critical, off-line), date, time, and all sign values.]
REGARDING CLAIM 4
Crawford in view of Handler, Janssen, and Hu teaches the claimed computer-implemented method of claim 1.
Crawford further teaches
wherein rendering at least a portion of the gathered information based, at least in part, upon the selected viewing lens includes: graphically locating at least a portion of the one or more incidents within at least a portion of the one or more medical institutions. [Col. 7, Line 1-2 teaches an overview screen that provides a geographic presentation of where an emergency is. Col. 2, Line 42-43 teaches illustrating a location of the emergency by highlighting the proper room on the facility map.]
REGARDING CLAIM 5
Crawford in view of Handler, Janssen, and Hu teaches the claimed computer-implemented method of claim 1.
Crawford further teaches
wherein the incidents of a particular patient within the within one or more medical institutions is reviewable via an individual level viewing lens. [Col. 2, Line 45-46 teaches selecting an individual bed or site screen which provides more detailed information. The Examiner notes that this lens is not defined and thus also represents non-functional descriptive information.]
REGARDING CLAIM 6
Crawford in view of Handler, Janssen, and Hu teaches the claimed computer-implemented method of claim 1.
Crawford further teaches
wherein the one or more incidents are defined, at least in part, by one or more alarms occurring within the one or more medical institutions. [Col. 5, Line 52-55 teaches emergency situations being accompanied by an audible siren and a pop-up alarm window.]
REGARDING CLAIM 7
Crawford in view of Handler, Janssen, and Hu teaches the claimed computer-implemented method of claim 6.
Crawford further teaches
wherein the one or more alarms are originated, at least in part, on the one or more devices within the one or more medical institutions. [Col. 3, Line 32-48 teaches a plurality of vital sign monitors coupled to a central server. The central server consists of a central processing unit (CPU). An audible alarm responds to the CPU comparing an input vital sign signal and finding that it is out of limits.]
REGARDING CLAIM 8
Crawford in view of Handler, Janssen, and Hu teaches the claimed computer-implemented method of claim 7.
Crawford further teaches
wherein the one or more alarms are based, at least in part, upon one or more thresholds of the one or more devices within the one or more medical institutions. [Col. 7, Line 44-47 teaches an alarm system based on a vital sign having passed a threshold wherein two separate thresholds are used to distinguish between a warning alarm and a critical alarm.]
REGARDING CLAIMS 10 AND 19
Claims 10 and 19 are analogous to Claim 1, thus Claims 10 and 19 are similarly analyzed and rejected in a manner consistent with the rejection of Claim 1.
REGARDING CLAIMS 11 AND 20
Claims 11 and 20 are analogous to Claim 2, thus Claims 11 and 20 are similarly analyzed and rejected in a manner consistent with the rejection of Claim 2.
REGARDING CLAIMS 12 AND 21
Claims 12 and 21 are analogous to Claim 3, thus Claims 12 and 21 are similarly analyzed and rejected in a manner consistent with the rejection of Claim 3.
REGARDING CLAIMS 13 AND 22
Claims 13 and 22 are analogous to Claim 4, thus Claims 13 and 22 are similarly analyzed and rejected in a manner consistent with the rejection of Claim 4.
REGARDING CLAIMS 14 AND 23
Claims 14 and 23 are analogous to Claim 5, thus Claims 14 and 23 are similarly analyzed and rejected in a manner consistent with the rejection of Claim 5.
REGARDING CLAIMS 15 AND 24
Claims 15 and 24 are analogous to Claim 6, thus Claims 15 and 24 are similarly analyzed and rejected in a manner consistent with the rejection of Claim 6.
REGARDING CLAIMS 16 AND 25
Claims 16 and 25 are analogous to Claim 7, thus Claims 16 and 25 are similarly analyzed and rejected in a manner consistent with the rejection of Claim 7.
REGARDING CLAIMS 17 AND 26
Claims 17 and 26 are analogous to Claim 8, thus Claims 17 and 26 are similarly analyzed and rejected in a manner consistent with the rejection of Claim 8.
Claims 9, 18, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crawford in view of Handler, Janssen, Hu, and Sampath et al. (U.S. 2018/0174680), referred to hereinafter as Sampath.
REGARDING CLAIM 9
Crawford in view of Handler, Janssen, and Hu teaches the claimed computer-implemented method of claim 8.
Crawford in view of Handler, Janssen, and Hu may not explicitly teach
further comprising: enabling a user to adjust the one or more thresholds of the one or more devices within the one or more medical institutions.
However, Sampath teaches the following:
further comprising: enabling a user to adjust the one or more thresholds of the one or more devices within the one or more medical institutions. [Para. 0371 teaches hospital administrators or other responsible personnel authorizing any changes to an alarm threshold value (enabling adjustment).]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of computerized healthcare, before the effective filling date of the invention, to modify the computer-implemented method of Crawford in view of Handler, Janssen, and Hu to enable a user to adjust one or more alarm threshold values as taught by Sampath, with the motivation of improving hospital operations (see Sampath at Para. 0181).
REGARDING CLAIMS 18 AND 27
Claims 18 and 27 are analogous to Claim 9, thus Claims 18 and 27 are similarly analyzed and rejected in a manner consistent with the rejection of Claim 9.
Response to Arguments
Double Patenting
Regarding the double patenting rejection, the Examiner has considered the Applicant’s request for the rejection to be held in abeyance; however, the argument is not persuasive. The double patenting rejection is not held in abeyance and therefore the rejection is maintained.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101
Regarding the rejection of Claims 1-27, the Examiner has considered the Applicant’s arguments; however, the arguments are not persuasive. Applicant argues:
As such, the amended independent claims are not believed to be directed toward an abstract idea. Additionally to any extent that the amended independent claims could be considered to include an abstract idea, Applicant respectfully submits that any such abstract idea is integrated into a practical application thereof.
Regarding (a), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. See rejection.
Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. §103
Regarding the rejection of Claims 1-27, the Examiner has considered Applicant’s arguments; however, the arguments are moot given the new grounds of rejection as necessitated by amendment.
Conclusion
Prior art made of record though not relied upon in the present basis of rejection are noted in the attached PTO 892 and include:
Al-Ali (U.S. 2011/0213212) which discloses an adaptive alert system.
Amarasingham et al. (U.S. 2015/0213202) which discloses a holistic hospital patient care and management system and method for patient and family engagement.
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 CAMRYN B LEWIS whose telephone number is (703)756-1807. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 11:00 am - 8:00 pm 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, Robert Morgan can be reached on 571-272-6773. 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.
/CAMRYN B LEWIS/
Examiner, Art Unit 3683
/JASON S TIEDEMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3683