DETAILED ACTION
The following is a Final Office Action in response to communications filed February 10, 2026. Claims 1, 8, and 15 are amended. Currently, claims 1–5, 7–12, 14–19, and 21 are pending.
Response to Amendment/Argument
Applicant’s Response is sufficient to overcome the previous objection to claims 1, 8, and 15 for informalities. Accordingly, the previous objection to claims 1, 8, and 15 is withdrawn.
With respect to the previous rejection of claims 1–5, 7–12, 14–19, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter, Applicant’s remarks have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant primarily asserts that the amended claim elements integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two because the elements embody an improvement in the functioning of the computer or an improvement in another technology or technical field. More particularly, Applicant asserts that the amended elements present a technical solution by addressing technical problems associated with communication between disparate devices. Examiner disagrees.
Although paragraphs 52 and 204 of Applicant’s Specification disclose a technical problem associated with communication limitations between devices produced by different vendors, the claims and Specification do not disclose a technical solution to the identified problem. Instead, the claims and Specification address the identified technical problem with an abstract, mathematical solution. For example, paragraphs 81–84 of the Specification indicate that the process for “normalizing” data signals may be performed using min-max normalization, Z-score normalization, or decimal scaling, which are mathematical processes. As a result, under a broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 1 in view of Applicant’s Specification, the claimed step for “normalizing” recites an abstract idea (mathematical concept) under Step 2A Prong One and, therefore, does not embody a technical improvement. As noted in MPEP 2106.04(I), even “novel judicial exceptions are still exceptions.” Further, the amended elements for “interfacing” do no more than generally link the use of the recited abstract idea to a particular technological environment because the elements embody generic data communications/transmission (See, e.g., Spec ¶ 154).
Accordingly, Applicant’s remarks are not persuasive, and the previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 is maintained below.
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, 7–12, 14–19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Specifically, claims 1–5, 7–12, 14–19, and 21 are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea.
With respect to Step 2A Prong One of the framework, claim 1 recites an abstract idea. Claim 1 includes elements for “normalizing the first data signals and the second data signals to provide data signals that can work together”; “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”; “rendering at least a portion of the gathered information based, at least in part, upon the selected viewing lens …”; “acoustically monitoring a medical environment”; “processing the acoustic signal to identify one or more audible alarms within the medical environment”; “categorizing the one or more audible alarms based on one or more of alarm type, alarms severity, alarm duration, alarm magnitude, and alarm frequency”; “enabling one or more of the one or more alarm thresholds to be adjusted …”; “rendering a simulation of the one or more adjusted alarm thresholds within the at least a portion of the medical institution …”; “monitoring at least a portion of the one or more bedside monitoring devices, wherein the data are indicative of a respective physiological characteristic associated with a particular patient”; “processing the data signals of the at least a portion of the one or more bedside monitoring devices over a defined period of time”; and “automatically defining one or more signal norms for the at least a portion of the one or more bedside monitoring devices, the one or more signal norms defining norms for the respective physiological characteristic associated with the particular patient.”
The limitations above recite an abstract idea. More particularly, the elements above recite certain methods of organizing human activity related to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people because the elements describe a process for selecting and viewing organizational information and monitoring a patient condition. Further, the elements above recite mental processes because the elements describe observations or evaluations that could be practically performed in the mind or by a human using pen and paper. Finally, the element for “normalizing” recites mathematical concepts because, when considered in view of paragraphs 81–84 of Applicant’s Specification, the element recites mathematical calculations. As a result, claim 1 recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One.
Claims 8 and 15 include substantially similar limitations to those included with respect to claim 1. As a result, claims 8 and 15 recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 1.
Claims 2–5, 7, 9–12, 14, 16–19, and 21 further describe the process for selecting and viewing organizational information and further recite certain methods of organizing human activity and/ mental processes for the same reasons as stated above. As a result, claims 2–5, 7, 9–12, 14, 16–19, and 21 recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two of the framework, claim 1 does not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 1 includes additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements include a computing device, one or more of an application installed on a handheld electronic device and a dedicated network device, and steps for “gathering information”, “interfacing”, “interfacing”, “graphically locating”, “to generate an acoustic signal”, “processing a massive data set using machine learning”, and “to receive data signals”. When considered in view of the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional computing elements are generic computing components that are used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea; the steps for “interfacing”, “interfacing”, “graphically locating”, “to generate an acoustic signal”, and “processing a massive data set … using machine learning” do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment; and the steps for “gathering information” and “to receive data signals” are insignificant extrasolution activities to the recited abstract idea. As a result, claim 1 does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
As noted above, claims 8 and 15 include substantially similar limitations to those included with respect to claim 1. Although claim 8 further includes a computer program product residing on a computer readable medium and a processor, and claim 15 further includes a processor and memory, the additional element, when considered in view of the claim as a whole, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements amount to no more than general computing components that are used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. As a result, claims 8 and 15 do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
Claims 2–5, 7, 9–12, 14, 16–19, and 21 do not include any additional elements beyond those included with respect to the claims from which claims 2–5, 7, 9–12, 14, 16–19, and 21 depend. As a result, claims 2–5, 7, 9–12, 14, 16–19, and 21 do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two for the same reasons as stated above.
With respect to Step 2B of the framework, claim 1 does not include additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. As noted above, claim 1 includes additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements include a computing device, one or more of an application installed on a handheld electronic device and a dedicated network device, and steps for “gathering information”, “interfacing”, “interfacing”, “graphically locating”, “to generate an acoustic signal”, “processing a massive data set using machine learning”, and “to receive data signals”. The additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because the additional computing elements are generic computing components that are used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea; the steps for “interfacing”, “interfacing”, “graphically locating”, “to generate an acoustic signal”, and “processing a massive data set … using machine learning” do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment; and the steps for “gathering information” and “to receive data signals” are well-understood, routine, and conventional computer functions in view of MPEP 2105.06(d)(II). Further, looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when considering the additional elements individually. As a result, claim 1 does not include any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea under Step 2B.
As noted above, claims 8 and 15 include substantially similar limitations to those included with respect to claim 1. Although claim 8 further includes a computer program product residing on a computer readable medium and a processor, and claim 15 further includes a processor and memory, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because the additional elements amount to no more than general computing components that are used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. Further, looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when considering the additional elements individually. As a result, claims 8 and 15 do not include any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea under Step 2B.
Claims 2–5, 7, 9–12, 14, 16–19, and 21 do not include any additional elements beyond those included with respect to the claims from which claims 2–5, 7, 9–12, 14, 16–19, and 21 depend. As a result, claims 2–5, 7, 9–12, 14, 16–19, and 21 do not include any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea under Step 2B for the same reasons as stated above.
Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 1–5, 7–12, 14–19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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 WILLIAM S BROCKINGTON III whose telephone number is (571)270-3400. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8am-5pm, 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, Rutao Wu can be reached on 571-272-6045. 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.
/WILLIAM S BROCKINGTON III/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623