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
Response to Amendment
In the Amendment dated 25 February 2026, the following occurred:
Claims 1, 8, and 15 were amended;
Claims 1-6, 8-13, and 15-20 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) submitted on 16 January 2026 and 03 March 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, 6, 8-11, 13, 15-18, and 20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4, 7, 10-13, 16, 19-22, and 25 of co-pending Application No. 18/348,597. 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.
Claims 1-3, 8-10, and 15-17 are provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 7-9, 14-16, and 21 of co-pending Application No. 18/348,997. 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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 8, 9, 11, 15, 16, and 18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 5, 8, 9, 12, 15, 16, and 19 of co-pending Application No. 18/348,608. 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 5, 12, and 19 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. 18/348,597 in view of Sampath et al. (U.S. 2018/0174680). The reference patent claims do not describe all the details pertaining to providing information concerning the quantity of authentic alarms identified and inauthentic alarms avoided. Sampath teaches aspects pertaining to providing information concerning the quantity of authentic alarms identified and inauthentic alarms avoided (See [0390] determining which of the alarm conditions detected were false positive alarms and which were alarms that represented true indications of medical duress, and analyzing and presenting this information in a report) which would be obvious to incorporate with the motivation of improving hospital operations (see Sampath at Para. 0181).
Claims 4, 6, 11, 13, 18, and 20 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 indicating information concerning the one or more alarms, and where the alarms originated. Crawford teaches aspects pertaining to graphically indicating information concerning the one or more alarms, and where the alarms originated (See Para. 0017: displaying and graphing all past readings, Para. 0022: analog bar graphs, Para. 0055: an alarms database; 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) 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 5, 12, and 19 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 providing information concerning the quantity of authentic alarms identified and inauthentic alarms avoided. Sampath teaches aspects pertaining to providing information concerning the quantity of authentic alarms identified and inauthentic alarms avoided (See [0390] determining which of the alarm conditions detected were false positive alarms and which were alarms that represented true indications of medical duress, and analyzing and presenting this information in a report) which would be obvious to incorporate with the motivation of improving hospital operations (see Sampath at Para. 0181).
Claims 3, 6, 10, 13, 17, and 20 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, and where the alarms originated. Crawford teaches aspects pertaining to the gathered information, and where the alarms originated (See Para. 0055: an alarms database containing room number, nature of alarm, date, time, and all sign values; 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) 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 5, 12, and 19 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 Sampath et al. (U.S. 2018/0174680). The reference patent claims do not describe all the details pertaining to providing information concerning the quantity of authentic alarms identified and inauthentic alarms avoided. Sampath teaches aspects pertaining to providing information concerning the quantity of authentic alarms identified and inauthentic alarms avoided (See Para. 0390: determining which of the alarm conditions detected were false positive alarms and which were alarms that represented true indications of medical duress, and analyzing and presenting this information in a report) which would be obvious to incorporate with the motivation of improving hospital operations (see Sampath at Para. 0181).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
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 1-6, 8-13, and 15-20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 recite “defining bespoke thresholds for the one or more device an alarm of the one or more alarms are determined to be non-authentic.” There appears to be a word missing in the claim. It is also be unclear as to whether there are one or multiple bespoke thresholds for one alarm. The claim can be read either way. Spec. Para. 00135, 00259 implies one threshold for one alarm. For the purposes of examination, the Examiner interprets the claim as “defining one or more bespoke thresholds for the one or more devices when an alarm of the one or more alarms is determined to be non-authentic.”
By virtue of their dependence from Claim 1, 8 or 15, this basis of rejection also applies to dependent Claims 2-6, 9-13, and 16-20.
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 1-6, 8-13, and 15-20 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, 8, and 15 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.
Step 2A1
The limitations of (Claim 15 being representative) gathering information… concerning one or more alarms within one or more medical institutions, thus defining gathered information, wherein the one or more alarms are based, at least in part, upon one or more thresholds…; 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, including depicting a level at which the one or more thresholds… are currently being exceeded; defining bespoke thresholds for the one or more device an alarm of the one or more alarms are determined to be non-authentic; enabling a user to adjust the one or more thresholds, and receiving one or more adjusted thresholds from the user, the one or more adjusted thresholds including the bespoke thresholds; and depicting a simulation of a level at which adjusted thresholds would be exceeded, 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 a computing device/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 element of a computing device that implements the identified abstract idea. The computing device is not exclusively described by the applicant and is 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, this additional element does 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 claim further recites the additional elements of one or more devices and a data source. The one or more devices and data source 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 computer to perform the noted steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer 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 one or more devices and a data source 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 2-6, 9-13, and 16-20 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, 9, and 16 merely describe the plurality of available viewing lenses, which further defines the abstract idea.
Claims 3, 10, and 17 merely describe the gathered information, which further defines the abstract idea.
Claims 4, 5, 11, 12, 18, and 19 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 6, 13, and 20 merely describe the one or more alarms, 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 1-6, 8-13, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crawford, Jr. (U.S. 5331549) in view of Sampath et al. (U.S. 2018/0174680), referred to hereinafter as Crawford and Sampath, respectively.
REGARDING CLAIM 1
Crawford teaches the claimed computer-implemented method, executed on a computing device, comprising:
gathering information from a data source concerning one or more alarms within one or more medical institutions, thus defining gathered information, wherein the one or more alarms are based, at least in part, upon one or more thresholds of one or more devices within the one or more medical institutions; [Claim 1 teaches a medical monitoring system. Col. 2, Line 31 teaches gathering data. Col. 9, Line 57 teaches an alarms database. Col. 7, Line 45 teaches thresholds for vital signs. Col. 4, Line 29-32 teaches one or more devices indicating vital signs.]
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, including… [Col. 3, Line 40-42 teaches a screen display providing the selected information.]
…depicting a level at which the one or more thresholds of the one or more devices are currently being exceeded; [Col. 6, Line 51-54 teaches using green, yellow, and red to depict levels of emergency conditions, determined by vital sign limits applied to the measuring devices.]
enabling a user to adjust the one or more thresholds, and receiving one or more adjusted thresholds from the user, the one or more adjusted thresholds [encompassing other potential] thresholds; and [Col. 8, Line 34-35 teaches allowing a user to tailor the vital sign limits (thresholds).]
depicting a simulation of a level at which adjusted thresholds would be exceeded. [As best understood by the Examiner, the Examiner assumes the adjusted threshold (which is not positively claimed) is below the current threshold and thus Fig. 5 depicts a simulation of level at which lower, adjusted thresholds would also be exceeded.]
Crawford may not explicitly teach
defining bespoke thresholds for the one or more device an alarm of the one or more alarms are determined to be non-authentic;
receiving one or more adjusted thresholds from the user, the one or more adjusted thresholds including the bespoke thresholds;
However, Sampath teaches the following:
defining bespoke thresholds for the one or more device an alarm of the one or more alarms are determined to be non-authentic; [Para. 0390 teaches determining which, if any, of the alarm criteria resulted in false positive alarms (interpreted as non-authentic alarms, there being no claimed description as to what “non-authentic” entails) and changing the criteria accordingly. Claim 2 teaches that changed alarm criteria are determined and implemented.]
receiving one or more adjusted thresholds from the user, the one or more adjusted thresholds including the bespoke thresholds; [Para. 0390 teaches that changes to the alarm criteria are made. The bespoke thresholds are interpreted to be the same or within those of Crawford and thus the adjusted thresholds of Crawford “include” the changed alarm criteria of Sampath. The Examiner notes that the claim does not state what the adjusted thresholds are or what the bespoke thresholds are (or how either are determined) and thus given the broadest reasonable interpretation, the bespoke thresholds are interpreted to be within or the same as the adjusted thresholds.]
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 determine alarm criteria changes based on determined false alarms as taught by Sampath, with the motivation of improving hospital operations (see Sampath at Para. 0181).
REGARDING CLAIM 2
Crawford in view of Sampath 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 34-35 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 Sampath teaches the claimed computer-implemented method of claim 1.
Crawford further teaches
wherein the gathered information concerns, at least in part, one or more alarms 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 Sampath 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 indicating information concerning the one or more alarms within one or more medical institutions. [Col. 2, Line 67-68 teaches a system able to display and graph all past readings. Col. 6, Line 57-58 teaches analog bar graphs. Col. 9, Line 57 teaches an alarms database.]
REGARDING CLAIM 5
Crawford in view of Sampath teaches the claimed computer-implemented method of claim 1.
Sampath further teaches
rendering at least a portion of the gathered information based, at least in part, upon the selected viewing lens includes: providing information concerning the quantity of authentic alarms identified and inauthentic alarms avoided. [Para. 0390 teaches determining which of the alarm conditions detected were false positive alarms and which were alarms that represented true indications of medical duress. This information is analyzed and presented in a report (the displayed data of Crawford).]
REGARDING CLAIM 6
Crawford in view of Sampath teaches the claimed computer-implemented method of claim 1.
Crawford further teaches
wherein the one or more alarms are originated, at least in part, on one or more devices within the one or more medical institutions. [Col. 3, Line 32-36 teaches a plurality of vital sign monitors coupled to a central server. The central server consists of a central processing unit (CPU). Line 47-49 teaches an audible alarm responds to the CPU comparing an input vital sign signal and finding that it is out of limits.]
REGARDING CLAIMS 8 AND 15
Claims 8 and 15 are analogous to Claim 1, thus Claims 8 and 15 are similarly analyzed and rejected in a manner consistent with the rejection of Claim 1.
REGARDING CLAIMS 9 AND 16
Claims 9 and 16 are analogous to Claim 2, thus Claims 9 and 16 are similarly analyzed and rejected in a manner consistent with the rejection of Claim 2.
REGARDING CLAIMS 10 AND 17
Claims 10 and 17 are analogous to Claim 3, thus Claims 10 and 17 are similarly analyzed and rejected in a manner consistent with the rejection of Claim 3.
REGARDING CLAIMS 11 AND 18
Claims 11 and 18 are analogous to Claim 4, thus Claims 11 and 18 are similarly analyzed and rejected in a manner consistent with the rejection of Claim 4.
REGARDING CLAIMS 12 AND 19
Claims 12 and 19 are analogous to Claim 5, thus Claims 12 and 19 are similarly analyzed and rejected in a manner consistent with the rejection of Claim 5.
REGARDING CLAIMS 13 AND 20
Claims 13 and 20 are analogous to Claim 6, thus Claims 13 and 20 are similarly analyzed and rejected in a manner consistent with the rejection of Claim 6.
Response to Arguments
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112
Regarding the indefiniteness rejection of Claim 1, the Applicant has amended the claims such that a rejection is no longer required.
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 1-6, 8-13, and 15-20, the Examiner has considered the Applicant’s arguments; however, the arguments are not persuasive. Applicant argues:
…the independent claims are not directed toward a method of organizing human activity, such as managing person behavior or following rules or instructions.
Regarding (a), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. MPEP 2106. 04(a)(2)(II) states that a claimed invention is directed to certain methods of organizing human activity if the identified claim elements contain limitations that encompass fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). The Examiner submits that the identified claim elements represent a series of rules or instructions that a person or persons, with or without the aid of a computer, would follow to manage alarms on medical devices. The Examiner notes that Applicant’s Background describes assessing the urgency and priority of each alarm (see Spec. Para. 0003) as a healthcare provider task. Furthermore, the Examiner submits that healthcare itself inherently represents the organization of human activity. Because the claim elements fall under a series of rules or instructions that a person or persons would follow to manage alarms on medical devices, the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea.
…the claims are believed to incorporate such abstract idea into a practical application…
Regarding (b), the Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that no specific arguments have been presented. See basis of rejection.
Rejections Under 35 U.S. C. §102 and 35 U.S. C. §103
Regarding the rejection of Claims 1-4, 6-11, 13-18, and 20, the Examiner has considered Applicant’s arguments; however, these arguments are moot given the new grounds of rejection as necessitated by amendment and/or afforded by the present RCE.
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:
Sorenson et al. (U.S. 2024/0374136) which discloses a system and method for automatic detection of clinical deterioration events.
Arnao (U.S. 2024/0221487) which discloses a device for triggering an action in response to determining that an audio signal corresponds to an audio alarm signal.
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 W 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
Prosecution Insights