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. Claim Status Claims 1-24 are pending for examination. Non-Statutory 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 . Claims 1-24 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting a s being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,295,857 B1 in view of sound detector of the Albert (Pub. No.: US 2021/0280310 A1) . 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. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness . Claim s 1 -24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuds (Pat. No.: US 11,295,857 B1) in view of Albert (Pub. No.: US 2021/0280310 A1) . Regarding claim 1, Yuds teaches a user feedback system for a medical device (Health system 300-700, abstract) , comprising: a gateway device configured to connect to a local network of the medical device and configured to connect to a remote network that is external to the local network ( Fig. 4, the gateway device 310 is connected to the local network 301 of the dialysis machine 302 and connected to the external network 311 ) ; at least one microphone configured to receive audio input, wherein the audio input includes voice input from a user ( Fig. 4, microphone 430 ) and machine status information from the medical device ( Fig. 4, 460 ) ; a user feedback interface communicatively coupled to the gateway device, wherein, when engaged, the user feedback interface causes activation of the at least one microphone to receive voice input from the user ( Fig, 4, feedback interface 450, Col. 9, line 52- Col. 10, line14, “ In an implementation, when the patient 50 engages the instant user feedback interface 450 , for example, by pressing an instant user feedback button on the gateway device 310, the patient 50 may be prompted by the system to provide the user feedback. ” ) ; wherein the gateway device includes a control unit ( Fig. 4 control unit 410 ) , the control unit configured to: process the voice input from the user into transmissible user feedback information; process the machine status information from the medical device into transmissible machine information; and transmit the user feedback information and the machine sound information to a remote system via the external network ( Col. 2 line 15-30, “ The gateway device includes a control unit that is configured to: process the voice input into transmissib le user feedback information; obtain status information of the medical device via the local network; and transmit the user feedback information and the status information to a remote system via the external network. ” ) . Yuds teaches the gateway device receives machine status information from the dialysis medical machine but fails to express teach the at least one microphone configured to receive sound from the medical device; and process the sound from the medical device into transmissible machine sound information . However, in the same field of medical system, Albert teaches a sound detector 40 that is configured to receive and identify the sounds generated by one or more medical devices 12, 18, 26, 28, 30 and to transmit the sound information to a remote server. See Abstract, “ A system for detecting medical audio alarms. The system includes a detector and a server. The detector further comprises a microphone that is configured to receive a sound of the alarm; a microcontroller configured to determine an alarm pattern from the sound and to compare the determined alarm pattern to a plurality of patterns stored in a memory to identify a cause of the alarm; and a network interface configured to transmit the cause of the alarm. The server is configured receive the cause of the alarm and provide notification of the cause of the alarm. ” . Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yuds’s gateway device to receive and to identify sound outputted by the dialysis medical machine as taught by Albert to improve alarm sound identification . Regarding claim 2 , Yuds in the combination teaches the user feedback system of claim 1, wherein the medical device is a dialysis machine ( Fig. 3, dialysis machine 302 ) . Regarding claim 3 , Albert in the combination teaches the user feedback system of claim 1, wherein the sound from the medical device includes one or more of an alarm of the medical device or a mechanical sound from the medical device ( Abstract and para [0032], the sound detector 40 is configured to receive and identify the alarm sounds generated by one or more medical devices 12, 18, 26, 28, 30 ) . Regarding claim 4 , Yuds in view of Albert teaches the user feedback system of claim 1, wherein the microphone is activated to receive the sound from the medical device after the user feedback interface is engaged ( Col. 9 line 5 2 – 67, “ In an implementation, when the patient 50 engages the instant user feedback interface 450 , for example, by pressing an instant user feedback button on the gateway device 310, the patient 50 may be prompted by the system to provide the user feedback. The prompts may include automated questions audibly emitted from the gateway device 310 or other component, as further described in detail elsewhere herein. The patient's responses and other feedback may be transmitted over one or more networks using the connected health system 400 to a remote computer, server and/or location. At the same time as recording and/or transmitting the user feedback from the patient, the instant user feedback interface 450 may trigger the gathering of patient treatment and/or machine status information 460 from the dialysis machine 302 and/or any peripheral components connected thereto via the connection 301. ” . Yuds in view of Alberts teaches the microphone activates after the feedback button has been pressed by the user to receive user voice input and status sound information from the medical machine ) . Regarding claim 5 , Albert in the combination teaches the user feedback system of claim 1, further comprising a detection device that is configured to detect the sound from the medical device ( Fig. 2, detector 40 ) , wherein the at least one microphone includes a microphone of the detection device ( Fig. 4, microphone 46, 54, 58 ) , and wherein, when the microphone of the detection device detects the sound from the medical device, the detection device records the sound ( para [0009], “ According to one embodiment of the present invention a system for detecting medical audio alarms includes a detector and a server. The detector further comprises a microphone that is configured to receive a sound of the alarm; a microcontroller configured to determine an alarm pattern from the sound and to compare the determined alarm pattern to a plurality of patterns store d in a memory to identify a cause of the alarm; and a network interface configured to transmit the cause of the alarm. The server is configured to receive the cause of the alarm and to provide notification of the cause of the alarm. ”. The detector receives and stores the sound of the medical device. ) . Regarding claim 6 , Yuds in the combination teaches the user feedback system of claim 1, wherein the user feedback interface includes a button on a user feedback device that is remote from the gateway device and that communicates with the gateway device ( Fig. 6, feedback device 650 that is remote from the gateway device 610 ) . Regarding claim 7 , Yuds in the combination teaches the user feedback system of claim 1, wherein the user feedback interface includes two buttons that present two options to the user, wherein a first option of the two options is an identification option that indicates user identification information will be transmitted identifying the user, and wherein a second option of the two options is a non-identification option that indicates limited user identification information will be transmitted ( Fig. 5, Fig. 6, Col. 10 line 15-24, “ FIG. 5 is a schematic illustration showing another implementation of a user feedback system 500 that includes a gateway device 510, similar to the gateway device 410, but including another example of a user feedback interface 550 that includes multiple-option instant user feedback buttons 551 , 552. Specifically, in the illustrated example, the buttons 551 , 552 may include the following: a button for providing feedback with an ID (“ID” button 551 ), and a button for providing feedback anonymously, without explicit identification (“NO ID” button 552). ” ) . Regarding claim 8 , Yuds in view of Albert teaches the user feedback system of claim 7, wherein, when the identification option is engaged, the user feedback information and the machine sound information transmitted by the gateway device to the remote system includes identifying information of the user and the medical device ( Yuds , Col. 10 line 25-41, “ For the feedback with ID option, e.g. after engaging the ID button 551 , the patient 50 may provide voice feedback and information obtained in connection with the treatment for the patient 50. This information may include information provided by a fingerprint reader/patient card reader/keypad code entry/or electronic link of the dialysis machine 302 or gateway device 510 to the particular patient in the patient's medical record and may be securely transmitted along with the user feedback provided by the patient 50. ” and Albert para [0032], “ With reference still to FIG. 2, amplified sound received at the microcontroller 48 may be processed to determine a pattern of the alarm. FIG. 5 illustrates seven, exemplary and different alarms patterns that may be suitable for use with embodiments of the present invention. For example, pattern A may be associated with the IV pump 18 (FIG. 1), pattern B may be associated with low pulse ox level detection by the vital signs monitor 26 (FIG. 1), pattern C may be associated with a lower power detection of the IV pump 18 (FIG. 1), and so forth. ”. Yuds in view of Albert teaches the modified gateway device is configured to identify the user and the medical machine via the alarm sound ) . Regarding claim 9 , Yuds in the combination teaches the user feedback system of claim 1, wherein, a responsive action in response to the user feedback information and the machine sound information is determined at the remote system, and wherein the user feedback system receives information about the responsive action from the remote system ( Col. 14 line 13-20, “ At a decision step 814, it is determined whether a responsi ve action is needed. The step 814 may include processing to determine if a responsi ve action is needed, such as whether there was an emergency health or machine status situation that needs resolving. The processing may also include processing the user feedback information to determine if a responsi ve customer service action is needed to respond to the user feedback. ”. The server provides a responsive action for the user and for the machine information. ) . Regarding claim 10 , Yuds in the combination teaches the user feedback system of claim 1, further comprising a mobile computing device of the user that couples to the gateway device when brought into proximity to the gateway device and that is configured to provide an image or a video to the gateway device related to the voice input ( Fig. 7, col. 3 line 7-11, “ The system may further comprise a mobile computing device of the user that couples to the gateway device when brought into proximity to the gateway device and that is configured to provide an image or a video to the gateway device related to the voice input. ” ) . Regarding claim 11, recites a medical system that is similar to the system of claim 1. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reason. Regarding claim 1 2 , recites a medical system that is similar to the system of claim 2. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reason. Regarding claim 1 3 , recites a medical system that is similar to the system of claim 3. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reason. Regarding claim 1 4 , recites a medical system that is similar to the system of claim 4. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reason. Regarding claim 1 5 , recites a medical system that is similar to the system of claim 5. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reason. Regarding claim 1 6 , recites a medical system that is similar to the system of claim 6. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reason. Regarding claim 1 7 , recites a medical system that is similar to the system of claim 7. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reason. Regarding claim 1 8 , recites a medical system that is similar to the system of claim 8. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reason. Regarding claim 1 9 , recites a medical system that is similar to the system of claim 9. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reason. Regarding claim 20 , recites a medical system that is similar to the system of claim 10. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reason. Regarding claim 2 1, recites a method for the system of claim 1. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reason. Regarding claim 22 , recites a method for the system of claim 7. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reason. Regarding claim 23 , recites a method for the system of claim 8. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reason. Regarding claim 24 , recites a method for the system of claim 5. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reason. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT ZHEN Y WU whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-5711 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Friday, 10AM-6PM, 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Quan-Zhen Wang can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-3114 . 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. /ZHEN Y WU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2685