DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the previous action does not provide citations from Stump or Li to address the limitations from “access(ing) said wireless configuration…” to the end of Claims 1, 12, and 19. This is unpersuasive. The language is cited to Stump in view of Li’s addition of the RFID system below the 103 language, in the first 3 full paragraphs of Pg. 4 of the Non-Final Rejection dated 01/14/2026.
Applicant’s amendments filed 04/14/2026 have likewise been fully considered but they are not persuasive as they are taught by Stump and Li, and are cited to below in the U.S.C. 103 section.
Further, the amendments to the claims require rejections under 112(b) for antecedent basis issues.
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 1-19 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1-2, 4, 8, 12-13, 15, and 19 recites the limitation "physiological monitoring”. The first instance in Claims 1, 12, and 19 are proper, but all other usages of “physiological monitoring” should be “the physiological monitoring” or otherwise defined as new forms of physiological monitoring if they should not be antecedent to the first usage. The Examiner is interpreting that all additional instances of “physiological monitoring” are referring to these first usages.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stump (2021/0000347) in view of Li et al (US 2019/0373471).
Regarding claims 1, 12 and 19, Stump discloses a computing system, method, and instructions to facilitate continuously monitoring a patient having a wireless wearable device 500 while changing from a first monitoring hub to a second mobile monitoring hub, the computing system, method, and instructions comprising:
an in-room display device 537 configured to electronically monitor a patient, see paragraph [0142], the in-room display device including display indicia responsive to physiological data of the patient originating from a wearable device 140 on the patient, see paragraph [0196] and FIGS. 12A and 12B,
wherein the wearable device comprises a wireless wearable device (i.e. using Bluetooth, [0086]),
wherein the wireless wearable device includes wireless configuration data governing wireless transmission of said physiological data from the wearable device (i.e. using Bluetooth, [0086]);
one or more hardware computer processors 580 configured to execute computer executable instructions to cause the computing system to:
receive, via the in-room display device 575, a request to transfer physiological monitoring of the patient with the in-room display device to physiological monitoring of the patient with a mobile monitoring hub 502, the request comprising identification data associated with a user requesting to transfer the wireless monitoring, see paragraphs [0133] and [0142].
Stump does not disclose determining whether the user has permission to transfer the physiological monitoring of the patient from the in-room display device to the mobile monitoring hub based on at least the identification data.
Li teaches determining whether the user has permission to transfer the wireless monitoring based on at least the identification data, see paragraphs [0009], [0026] and [0039].
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to combine an entitlement server, as taught by Li with the RFID Data module 543 in Stump to determine whether the user has permission to transfer the wireless monitoring based on at least the identification data because the entitlement server provides an increased level of security for sensitive transactions without additional user input.
The combination of the entitlement server as taught by Li with the RFID Data module 543 in Stump renders the system responsive to determining that the user has permission to transfer the physiological monitoring: access said wireless configuration data associated with the wireless wearable device on the patient, said wireless configuration data received from the in-room display device 537; and
wirelessly transmit said wireless configuration data associated with the wireless wearable device on the patient to the mobile monitoring hub 502 to cause the mobile monitoring hub 502 to establish a wireless communication between the mobile monitoring hub and the wearable device 500.
Regarding claims 2, 13, and 20, Li teaches using the entitlement server 130 for processing a swap account request, see paragraph [0041]. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to configure the one or more hardware computer processors to execute the computer executable instructions to cause the computing system to:
receive, via the mobile monitoring hub, second identification data; and
determine an approval status of the request to transfer the physiological monitoring based on at least comparing the identification data with the second identification data because the second identification data has a similar process as that to effect the account swap in Li.
Regarding claims 3 and 14, Stump discloses the one or more hardware computer processors is configured to execute the computer executable instructions to cause the computing system to receive said identification data via the in-room display device via radio frequency identification (RFID) 136.
Regarding claims 4 and 15, Stump discloses RFID subsystem 136 broadcasts its unique identification string for registration purposes with a mobile communication and display device, the one or more hardware computer processors is configured to execute the computer executable instructions to cause the computing system to receive said request to transfer physiological monitoring comprising said identification data via a non-contact user input via the in-room display device 537, see paragraphs [0133] and [0142].
Regarding claims 5, 6 and 16, Stump teaches a subject biometric can be used to register and assign monitoring devices, see paragraph [0036], and Li teaches a profile can be identified by a unique number, see paragraph [0004]. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to configure the identification data as a serial number, or a biological marker because these represent equivalent identifiable marks for the equivalent purpose of creating unique marks.
Regarding claim 7, Stump teaches: received electronic signals include respective location data for a subject, program code executable by the processor will determine a distance between the respective subject and the user of the mobile communication and display device, and generate respective machine readable values indicative of location for the respective subject using the received electronic signals at block 834, see paragraph [0173].
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to configure the one or more hardware computer processors to execute the computer executable instructions to cause the computing system to:
determine a proximity of the wearable device to the mobile monitoring hub based on at least determining a signal strength associated with the wearable device; and
establish said wireless communication between the mobile monitoring hub and the wearable device based on at least determining that the wearable device is within a threshold proximity of the mobile monitoring hub because too great of a distance between the respective subject and the user of the mobile communication and display device would render the system inoperative due to wireless communication network not working.
Regarding claim 8, Stump discloses the one or more hardware computer processors is configured to execute the computer executable instructions to cause the computing system to, responsive to determining that the user has permission to transfer the physiological monitoring:
wirelessly transmit historical physiological data to the mobile monitoring hub, the historical physiological data previously collected by the wearable device and communicated to the in-room display device from the wearable device, see paragraph [0117].
Regarding claim 9, Stump discloses the wireless configuration data comprises a device address associated with the wearable device and one or more link keys associated with establishing wireless communication with the wearable device, see paragraph [0142].
Regarding claim 10, Stump discloses the one or more hardware computer processors is configured to execute the computer executable instructions to cause the computing system to, responsive to an indication that the mobile monitoring hub is in a transfer mode, terminate a wireless communication connection between the in-room display device and the wearable device, see paragraph [0142].
Regarding claim 11, Stump discloses the one or more hardware computer processors is configured to execute the computer executable instructions to cause the computing system to receive said wireless configuration data from the in-room display device, see paragraphs [0117], [0139] and [0141].
Regarding claim 17, Stump discloses monitoring the patient with the wearable device comprises monitoring the patient with a watch, see paragraph [0131].
Regarding claim 18, Stump discloses monitoring the patient with the wearable device comprises monitoring the patient with a wearable hub in communication with one or more of an ECG sensor, SpO2 sensor, a blood pressure sensor, see paragraphs [0056] and [0064].
Conclusion
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 Jess Mullins whose telephone number is (571)-272-8977. The examiner can normally be reached between the hours of 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. PST M-F.
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, Unsu Jung, can be reached at (571)-272-8506. The fax number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571)-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866)-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call (800)-786-9199 (In USA or Canada) or (571)-272-1000.
/JLM/
Examiner, Art Unit 3792
/UNSU JUNG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3792
Prosecution Insights