DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. This office action is responsive to the Applicant’s amendment filed on 12/23/2025. Claims 1-18 and 29 are pending and will be considered for examination.
3. The drawings submitted on 12/23/2025 have been approved, and the objections to the Drawing are withdrawn.
4. The claim 29 is still presumed to invoke claim interpretation, 35 U.S.C. 112 (f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
5. Claims 1-3, 6, 9 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Subramaniam et al. (US 2020/0204631 A1) in view of Tizhoosh et al. (US 2017/0091281 A1).
As in Claim 1, Subramaniam teaches a method, the method comprising:
receiving, by the medical device, real-time data corresponding to operation of the medical device (pars. 110, 128, 142, the system receives real-time data from medical devices associated with both the patient and the operation of the medical devices themselves);
displaying the real-time data on a first portion of a graphical user interface associated with the medical device (FIGS. 7A-7B, 7D, pars. 141-142, 158-159, the system displays the real-time data in a user interface associated with the medical devices (e.g., numerical data 716, graphical data 717 in FIG. 7A, and elements 792b-792g in FIG. 7D, including heart rate, blood oxygenation, blood pressure, and vital sign waveforms)).
Subramaniam does not appear to explicitly teach a method of encoding data from a medical device in a visual identifier, the method comprising: encoding at least some of the real-time data in a visual identifier; and displaying on a second portion of the graphical user interface, the visual identifier having the at least some of the real-time data encoded therein, wherein the visual identifier is configured to be scanned by a scanning device.
However, in the same filed of the invention, Tizhoosh teaches a method of encoding data from a medical device in a visual identifier (see at least FIGS. 14-15, 17-21, pars. 57, 99-100, 103-106, 114-115, an imaging device 20 including a medical imaging device such as X-ray, CT, Ultrasound, and MRI machines), the method comprising:
encoding at least some of the real-time data in a visual identifier (pars. 80-81, 128, medical imaging device encodes a portion of the image, known as the region of interest (ROI), into a barcode); and
displaying on a second portion of the graphical user interface, the visual identifier having the at least some of the real-time data encoded therein, wherein the visual identifier is configured to be scanned by a scanning device (FIGS. 14-15, pars. 98-101, the generated barcode for a ROI 1004 on a medical image 1002 can be displayed on the user interface, at the bottom of the image as shown in FIG. 15; further see pars. 16-22), the visual identifier is configured to be scanned by a scanning device (pars. 63, 98, the barcodes can be used with scanning machines).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system and method for displaying the real-time data in the user interface, as taught by Subramaniam, and to generating and displaying the real-time data into the barcode, as taught by Tizhoosh. The motivation is to securely encode data and quickly transfer them to the client.
As in Claim 2, Subramaniam-Tizhoosh teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Subramaniam-Tizhoosh further teaches that the visual identifier is a two- dimensional visual identifier (Tizhoosh, see FIGS. 10-16).
As in Claim 3, Subramaniam-Tizhoosh teaches all the limitations of Claim 2. Subramaniam-Tizhoosh further teaches that the two-dimensional visual identifier comprises a barcode (Tizhoosh, see FIGS. 10-16).
As in Claim 6, Subramaniam-Tizhoosh teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Subramaniam-Tizhoosh further teaches encoding at least some of the real-time data in a visual identifier is performed during operation of the medical device (Tizhoosh, FIGS. 14-15, pars. 80-81, 98-101, 128, the device can encode and generate portions of the real-time medical image (e.g., ROIs) during operation of the device).
As in Claim 9, Subramaniam-Tizhoosh teaches all the limitations of Claim 6. Subramaniam-Tizhoosh further teaches receiving, via the graphical user interface, a request to generate an updated visual identifier, wherein encoding at least some of the real-time data in a visual identifier is performed in response to receiving the request (Tizhoosh, FIGS. 15 and 19-21, pars. 100-106, based on the user’s selection of a region of interest (ROI), the system can generate or update the barcode specially for that chosen ROI).
Claim 29 is substantially similar to Claim 1 and rejected under the same rationale.
6. Claims 4, 7-8, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Subramaniam et al. (US 2020/0204631 A1) in view of Tizhoosh et al. (US 2017/0091281 A1) and further in view of Turgeman et al. (US 2023/0230085 A1).
As in Claim 4, Subramaniam-Tizhoosh teaches all the limitations of Claim 3. Subramaniam-Tizhoosh does not teach that the barcode comprises a quick response (QR) code.
However, in the same field of the invention, Turgeman teaches that that the barcode comprises a quick response (QR) code (pars. 119, 182, visual representations such as barcode or QR code).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system and method for displaying the real-time data in the user interface, as taught by Subramaniam, in view of Tizhoosh’s teachings, in and to provide the visual identifier including the QR code, as taught by Turgeman. The motivation is to securely encode data and quickly transfer them to the client.
As in Claim 7, Subramaniam-Tizhoosh teaches all the limitations of Claim 6. Subramaniam-Tizhoosh does not teach that wherein encoding at least some of the real-time data in a visual identifier is performed at a predetermined time interval.
However, in the same filed of the invention, Turgeman teaches that wherein encoding at least some of the real-time data in a visual identifier is performed at a predetermined time interval (pars. 182, 119, 122, 127-131, the system periodically generates and updats a QR code or barcode at predetermined time intervals; further see pars. 39, 43-44).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system and method for displaying the real-time data in the user interface, as taught by Subramaniam, in view of Tizhoosh’s teachings, and to periodically generate the QR code at predetermined time intervals, as taught by Turgeman. The motivation is to ensure that the QR code always reflects the most up-to-date data, enabling the server to verify the user’s actions.
As in Claim 8, Subramaniam-Tizhoosh-Turgeman teaches all the limitations of Claim 7. Subramaniam-Tizhoosh-Turgeman further teaches that the predetermined time interval is between 1 second and 5 seconds (Turgeman, pars. 182, 119, 122, 127-131, the predetermined time intervals (e.g., every 1 second, every 2 seconds, every T milli-seconds), the reference to ‘T milli-seconds’ implies that the interval is a configurable system parameter-set or adjusted by the system).
As in Claim 14, Subramaniam-Tizhoosh teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Subramaniam-Tizhoosh does not teach storing, a plurality of frames of the graphical user interface as a video, wherein encoding at least some of the real-time data in a visual identifier is performed based, at least in part, on one or more of the plurality of frames of the stored video.
However, in the same filed of the invention, Turgeman teaches storing, a plurality of frames of the graphical user interface as a video, wherein encoding at least some of the real-time data in a visual identifier is performed based, at least in part, on one or more of the plurality of frames of the stored video (pars. 24, 26, 32, 34, 45, 49, 52, the system records and stores frames o the video feed captured by the user’s device during the transaction process. Within some of these video frames, transition data and biometric information can be encoded, such as barcodes or QR codes displayed on the device’s GUI ; further see pars. 78-80).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system and method for displaying the real-time data in the user interface, as taught by Subramaniam, in view of Tizhoosh’s teachings, and to encode the video frame into the visual identifier (e.g., barcode, QR code), as taught by Turgeman. The motivation is to securely link the user’s data and transaction information within video frames, enhancing authentication and fraud prevention.
7. Claims 5 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Subramaniam et al. (US 2020/0204631 A1) in view of Tizhoosh et al. (US 2017/0091281 A1) and further in view of Yeatts, Dale J.( US 2017/0136164 A1).
As in Claim 5, Subramaniam-Tizhoosh teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Subramaniam-Tizhoosh does not teach that the real-time data includes a plurality of hemodynamic parameters.
However, in the same filed of the invention, Yeatts teaches that the real-time data includes a plurality of hemodynamic parameters (at least pars. 53-55, the system obtains real-time data related to hemodynamic parameters, including instantaneous blood flow, systemic arterial pressure, left ventricular pressure, and left ventricular volume).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system and method for displaying the real-time data in the user interface, as taught by Subramaniam, in view of Tizhoosh’s teachings, and to incorporate the real-time data including hemodynamic parameters, as taught by Yeatts. The motivation is to enable continuous monitoring of cardiovascular status, allowing timely detection of abnormalities.
As in Claim 17, Subramaniam-Tizhoosh teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Subramaniam-Tizhoosh does not teach that the medical device is a heart pump.
However, in the same filed of the invention, Yeatts teaches that the medical device is a heart pump (FIGS. 1-2 and 6, pars. 27-29, a remote monitoring system 10 for an implantable left ventricular assist device (LVAD) 60 includes an internal heart pump 62 and an external heart pump controller 64).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system and method for displaying the real-time data in the user interface, as taught by Subramaniam, in view of Tizhoosh’s teachings, and to incorporate the heart pump device, as taught by Yeatts. The motivation is to enable real-time monitoring and effectively control of the pump’s operation based on the patient’s hemodynamic status.
8. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Subramaniam et al. (US 2020/0204631 A1) in view of Tizhoosh et al. (US 2017/0091281 A1) and further in view of Yaguchi, Hiroyuki (US 2001/0024518 A1).
As in Claim 10, Subramaniam-Tizhoosh teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Subramaniam-Tizhoosh does not teach receiving, via the graphical user interface, a first request to pause encoding of the at least some of the real-time data in the visual identifier; and pausing encoding of the at least some of the real-time data in the visual identifier in response to receiving the first request.
However, in the same filed of the invention, Yaguchi teaches receiving, via the graphical user interface, a first request to pause encoding of the at least some of the real-time data in the visual identifier (pars. 45, 49, 67, the scanning and encoding process continuses automatically until all pages are processed or until a halt request pauses the encoding. User input directly controls the initiation and interruption of scanning and processing with on-screen keys, such as stop key for halting an operation that is currently in progress, such as the operation for scanning a document image; further see pars. 106, 129); and pausing encoding of the at least some of the real-time data in the visual identifier in response to receiving the first request (pars. 45, 49, 67; further see pars. 106, 129).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system and method for displaying the real-time data in the user interface, as taught by Subramaniam, in view of Tizhoosh’s teachings, and to pause the encoding of data with the request, as taught by Yaguchi. The motivation is to allow precise user control over the scanning and encoding process.
9. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Subramaniam et al. (US 2020/0204631 A1) in view of Tizhoosh et al. (US 2017/0091281 A1) in view of Yaguchi, Hiroyuki (US 2001/0024518 A1) and further in view of Phillips, Christopher (US 2023/0330522 A1)
As in Claim 11, Subramaniam-Tizhoosh-Yaguchi teaches all the limitations of Claim 10. Subramaniam-Tizhoosh-Yaguchi does not teach receiving, via the graphical user interface, a second request to resume encoding of the at least some of the real-time data in the visual identifier; and resuming encoding of the at least some of the real-time data in the visual identifier in response to receiving the second request.
However, in the same filed of the invention, Phillips teaches receiving, via the graphical user interface, a second request to resume encoding of the at least some of the real-time data in the visual identifier (pars. 47, 56-57, 74-75, with user inputs like a skip command, the system stops encoding and streaming the supplemental content and then resumes encoding, rendering, and streaming the main interactive content to the client device; further see pars. 91-4, 99-101); and resuming encoding of the at least some of the real-time data in the visual identifier in response to receiving the second request (pars. 47, 56-57, 74-75; further see pars. 91-94, 99-101).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system and method for displaying the real-time data in the user interface, as taught by Subramaniam, in view of Tizhoosh’s and in view of Yaguchi’s teachings, and to resume the encoding of data with the request, as taught by Phillips. The motivation is to allow precise user control over the scanning and encoding process.
10. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Subramaniam et al. (US 2020/0204631 A1) in view of Tizhoosh et al. (US 2017/0091281 A1) and further in view of Narukawa et al. (US 2021/0073476 A1).
As in Claim 12, Subramaniam-Tizhoosh teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Subramaniam-Tizhoosh does not teach receiving, via the graphical user interface, a first request to hide the visual identifier on the graphical user interface; and hiding the visual identifier on the graphical user interface in response to receiving the first request.
However, in the same filed of the invention, Narukawa teaches receiving, via the graphical user interface, a first request to hide the visual identifier on the graphical user interface (FIG. 9B, par. 152, the displayed QR code 914 can be disappeared on the screen with a selection of a done button 916); and hiding the visual identifier on the graphical user interface in response to receiving the first request (FIG. 9B, par. 152).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system and method for displaying the real-time data in the user interface, as taught by Subramaniam, in view of Tizhoosh’s teachings, and to incorporate the way to hide the visual identifier with the user input, as taught by Narukawa. The motivation is to give the user control to hide the QR code from the screen for user’s convenience.
11. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Subramaniam et al. (US 2020/0204631 A1) in view of Tizhoosh et al. (US 2017/0091281 A1) in view of Narukawa et al. (US 2021/0073476 A1) and further in view of Park et al. (US 2022/0201492 A).
As in Claim 13, Subramaniam-Tizhoosh-Narukawa teaches all the limitations of Claim 12. Subramaniam-Tizhoosh-Narukawa does not teach receiving, via the graphical user interface, a second request to show the visual identifier on the graphical user interface; and showing the visual identifier on the graphical user interface in response to receiving the second request.
However, in the same filed of the invention, Park teaches receiving, via the graphical user interface, a second request to show the visual identifier on the graphical user interface (FIGS. 8A-8B, par. 129, the device can output a QT code with a selection of a code selection button 822); and showing the visual identifier on the graphical user interface in response to receiving the second request (FIGS. 8A-8B, par. 129).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system and method for displaying the real-time data in the user interface, as taught by Subramaniam, in view of Tizhoosh’s and in view of Narukawa’s teachings, and to incorporate the way to show the visual identifier with the user input, as taught by Park. The motivation is to give the user control to bring the QR code to the screen for user’s convenience.
12. Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Subramaniam et al. (US 2020/0204631 A1) in view of Tizhoosh et al. (US 2017/0091281 A1) in view of Turgeman et al. (US 2023/0230085 A1) and further in view of Hull et al. (US 2004/0181747 A1).
As in Claim 15, Subramaniam-Tizhoosh-Turgeman teaches all the limitations of Claim 14. Subramaniam-Tizhoosh-Turgeman does not teach displaying, on the graphical user interface, a representation of the video with which a user can interact; and receiving, via the graphical user interface, a selection of a frame of the plurality of frames of the video.
However, in the same filed of the invention, Hull teaches displaying, on the graphical user interface, a representation of the video with which a user can interact (FIG. 1, pars. 46, 51-53, the system displays a representation of the video and its frames, which are selectable by the user); and receiving, via the graphical user interface, a selection of a frame of the plurality of frames of the video (at least FIG. 12, pars. 104-111).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system and method for displaying the real-time data in the user interface, as taught by Subramaniam, in view of Tizhoosh’s and Turgeman’s teachings, and to display the selectable video frames, as taught by Hull. The motivation is to allow the user to select desired frames of the video for easy access and interaction.
As in Claim 16, Subramaniam-Tizhoosh-Turgeman-Hull teaches all the limitations of Claim 15. Subramaniam-Tizhoosh-Turgeman-Hull further teaches that encoding at least some of the real-time data in a visual identifier is performed in response to receiving the selection (Tizhoosh, FIGS. 15 and 19-21, pars. 100-106, based on the user’s selection of a region of interest (ROI), the system can generate or update the barcode specially for that chosen ROI).
13. Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Subramaniam et al. (US 2020/0204631 A1) in view of Tizhoosh et al. (US 2017/0091281 A1) in view of McKirdy, Sean (US 2013/0032634 A1).
As in Claim 18, Subramaniam-Tizhoosh teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Subramaniam-Tizhoosh teaches scanning the visual identifier (pars. 63, 98, the visual identifier (e.g., barcode) can be scanned by a scanning device (pars. 63, 98, the barcodes can be used with scanning machines).
Subramaniam-Tizhoosh does not appear to explicitly teach decoding the real-time data encoded in the visual identifier to produce decoded data; and storing at least some of the decoded data in an electronic health record.
However, in the same filed of the invention, McKirdy teaches decoding the real-time data encoded in the visual identifier to produce decoded data (pars. 30, 83, the system can decode encoded data, such as barcodes); and
storing at least some of the decoded data in an electronic health record (par. 32, the system can store the decoded data in health-related records or applications).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system and method for displaying the real-time data in the user interface, as taught by Subramaniam, in view of Tizhoosh’s teachings, and to decode the encoded barcode or QR code, as taught by McKirdy. The motivation is to enable efficient, secure, and accurate capture and management of personal health information for tracking, analysis, and personalized feedback.
Response to Arguments
14. Applicant's arguments with respect to the claims 1-18 and 29 have been fully considered, but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Rinna Yi whose telephone number is (571) 270-7752 and fax number is (571) 270-8752. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30am-5:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Fred Ehichioya can be reached on (571) 272-4034.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center or Private PAIR to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center or the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/RINNA YI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2179