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
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/18/2025 has been entered.
Status of the Application
Claims 1-5, 7-14, 16-23, and 25-27 are currently pending in this case and have been examined and addressed below. This communication is a Non-Final Rejection in response to the Amendment to the Claims and Remarks filed on 07/22/2025.
Claims 1, 4-5, 8-10, 13-14, 17-19, 22-23, and 26-27 are currently amended.
Claims 6, 15, and 24 remain canceled and not considered at this time.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 12/22/2025, 01/20/2026, 01/26/2026, and 01/30/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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 1-5, 7-14, 16-23, and 25-27 are rejected because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1-5 and 7-9 fall within the statutory category of a process. Claims 19-23 and 25-27 fall within the statutory category of an apparatus or system. Claims 10-14 and 16-18 fall within the statutory category of an article of manufacture.
Step 2A, Prong One
As per Claims 1, 10, and 19, the limitations of obtaining patient information from a medical record associated with a patient assigned to the one or more of the first and second bedside monitoring devices, providing the patient information, adjusting monitoring criteria based upon the patient information, wherein the monitoring criteria defines an alarm threshold for one or more of the first and second bedside monitoring device and includes defined signal norms associated with the patient, wherein the defined signal norms are based upon processing data signals associated with the patient over a defined period of time to define the signal norms associated with the patient, iteratively redefining the defined signal norms associated with the patient based upon updated data, and predicting a medical incident associated with the patient based upon the occurrence of a group of alarms from a plurality of bedside monitors including determining authenticity of one or more of the group of alarms based on one of volume information, volatility information, bias information, persistence information, or stationary information for the detected group of alarms, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers certain methods of organizing human activity. The steps of obtaining patient information from a medical record, providing patient information, adjusting monitoring criteria, redefining the signal norms based on the patient data, and predicting a medical incident associated with the patient including determining authenticity of the group of alarms describe the exchanging of patient data between parties and making predictions to make decisions based on the data, which is managing personal interactions or personal behaviors. Making predictions to make decisions and based on the patient data to treat the patient is a routine activity performed by a healthcare provider. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or personal interactions, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The claims describe the volume information as including a comparison of a percentage of the data signals within a predetermined proximity of the alarm threshold during a first time period to a percentage of the data signals within the predetermined proximity of the alarm threshold ruing a second time period, wherein the second time period is longer than the first time period, which is a description of the volume data but does not change the functionality of the limitation. Similarly, the claims describe the persistence information is an integral of the difference between an average velocity of the data signals over a third time period and an average velocity of the data signals over a fourth time period, wherein the fourth time period is longer than the third time period, which is merely descriptive of the persistence information and does not provide a functional limitation that changes the claims. The determining an authenticity of the group of alarms based upon one or more of volume information, volatility information, bias information, persistence information, and stationary information is a step which is performed by a physician in the prediction of a medical incident. The claim merely recites using the information and therefore, how the volume or persistence information is determined is merely descriptive as that is not consequential in the using of the data to determine authenticity. Additionally, only one of the types of information is required for determining authenticity and therefore the volume and persistence information is not even required for the step to be carried out. The claims also recite normalizing the first data signals and the second data signals to provide data signals that can work together. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, normalization means adjusting values measured on different scales to a common scale and is considered a mathematical application. The specification supports that normalization includes mathematical calculations in [0082-0084] in which example methods of normalization of data signals is provided and includes mathematical formulas. Therefore, this falls into the abstract grouping of mathematical concepts. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements and combination of additional elements do not impose meaningful limits on the judicial exception. In particular, the claims recite the additional element – a computing device, a computer program product residing on a computer readable medium (Claim 10), interfacing with a bedside monitoring device to carry out steps of the abstract idea, and sending data to the bedside monitoring device. The computing device, computer program product, and bedside monitoring device in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality, such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. 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. The claims also recites the additional elements of the computing device interfacing with a first and second bedside monitoring device and sending information to the bedside monitoring device which is invoking computers or other machinery as a tool to perform the abstract idea. The computing device is used in its ordinary capacity for tasks including receiving or transmitting data. Therefore, this amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception, as per MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). The claims also recited receiving data signals from the first and second bedside monitor which amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity, as in MPEP 2106.05(g), because the steps of receiving first and second data signals are mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea where the limitation amounts to necessary data gathering and outputting, (i.e., all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering or data output). See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (presenting offers and gathering statistics amounted to mere data gathering). Because the additional elements do not impose meaningful limitations on the judicial exception, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As discussed above with the respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of a computing device, computer program product, and bedside monitoring device to perform the method of the invention amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computing component. The computing device, computer program product, and bedside monitoring device are recited at a high level of generality and are recited as generic computer components by reciting any computing device including a personal computer, server computer, etc. (Specification, [0035]), a computer program product in the form of hardware, software, or firmware (Specification [0311]), and a bedside monitoring device which is described as any of first or second vendor devices (Specification [0158]), which do not add meaningful limitations to the abstract idea beyond mere instructions to apply an exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims also include the additional elements of the computing device interfacing with a first and second bedside monitoring device and sending information to the bedside monitoring device which are both elements that are well-understood, routine and conventional computer functions in the field of data management because they are claimed at a high level of generality and include receiving or transmitting data. The claims also include receiving first and second data signals from the bedside monitors which is also receiving data. The receiving of data is found to be well-understood, routine and conventional computer functions by the Court (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i) 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); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of the computer or improves another technology. The claims do not amount to significantly more than the underlying abstract idea.
Dependent Claims 2-5, 7-9, 11-13, 15-18, 20-23, and 25-27 add further limitations which are also directed to an abstract idea. For example, Claims 2-5, 7, 11-14, 16, 20-23, and 25 further specify or limit the elements of the independent claims, and hence are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as independent claims. Claims 8-9, 17-18, and 26-27 include providing the patient information to the bedside monitoring device and providing the information via a third party intermediary, which, similar to the independent claims, is managing personal behavior or personal interactions and therefore falls into the grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity. Because the additional elements do not impose meaningful limitations on the judicial exception and the additional elements are well-understood, routine and conventional functionalities in the art, the claims are directed to an abstract idea and are not patent eligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 10-12, “Claim Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. §101”, filed 12/18/2025 with respect to claims 1-5, 7-14, 16-23, and 25-27 as being directed to an abstract idea have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea because the features of the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Specifically, the features of interfacing with a first bedside monitoring device to receive first data signals; interfacing with a second bedside monitoring device to receive second data signals, wherein the first bedside monitoring device includes a first vendor device, and the second bedside monitoring device includes a second vendor device; and normalizing the first data signals and the second data signals to provide data signals that work together recite an improvement to technology or another technology or technical field. Applicant asserts that the specification describes a technical improvement. However, Examiner respectfully disagrees. The specification describes a system in which an intermediary device is used to receive data from two different devices and two different vendors and normalize the data such that it can be exchanged freely. This does not provide an improvement in computer functionality. The computer is being used in its normal capacity to receive data from other devices, where the use of the computer components amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception and the receiving of the data amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity, and then applies the abstract idea of normalizing the data. The result of the abstract idea of normalizing the data is what allows the data to be exchanged and understood by other systems, not a technical improvement in computer functionality. Therefore, the improvement is realized as an improvement to the abstract idea itself and not as an integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. No matter how much of an advance in the finance field the claims recite, the advance lies entirely in the realm of abstract ideas, with no plausibly alleged innovation in the nonabstract application realm. An advance of that nature is ineligible for patenting. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 12-15, “Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. §103”, filed 12/18/2025 with respect to claims 1-5, 7-14, 16-23, and 25-27 as being rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 have been fully considered and they are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
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 Evangeline Barr whose telephone number is (571)272-0369. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 8:00 am to 4:00 pm.
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, Fonya Long can be reached at 571-270-5096. 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.
/EVANGELINE BARR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3682