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
Response to Amendment
In the amendment dated 09 September 2025, the following occurred: Claims 1, 5, 10, and 19 have been amended; Claims 3, 4, 6, 12, 13, 15, and 20 have been cancelled.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 7-11, 15, and 16-19 are pending.
Priority
This application claims priority to Indian Patent Application No. IN2022410510078 dated 07 September 2022.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1, 10, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
The claim recites a method, Computer-readable medium (“CRM”), and device for presenting selected information to a patient based on a healthcare plan, which are within a statutory category.
Step 2A1
The limitations of (Claim 1 being representative) receiving, […] from a […location…], a healthcare plan assigned to a patient, wherein the healthcare plan includes an event configuration specifying healthcare data indicative of an event, and identifies the medical information as corresponding to the event; and while disconnected from the […location…]: monitoring […] the patient by acquiring healthcare data of the patient corresponding to the healthcare data specified in the event configuration; in response to the monitoring, determining, based on the healthcare data of the patient. whether the event occurred; upon determining that the event occurred, determining to provide the medical information to the patient; and presenting the medical information to the patient, as drafted, is a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers certain methods of organizing human activity (i.e., managing personal behavior including following rules or instructions) but for recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a system implemented by a computer, CRM/processor, or processor/memory, the claimed invention amounts to managing personal behavior or interaction between people. For example, but for the computer, CRM/processor, or processor/memory, the claims encompass rules for a person or persons to follow to monitor a patient based on received event definition and patient data and determining whether the data is indicative of an event in the manner described in the identified abstract idea, supra. The Examiner notes that certain “method[s] of organizing human activity” includes a person’s interaction with a computer (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or interactions between people but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A2
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional element of a computer, CRM/processor, or processor/memory that implements the identified abstract idea. These items are described by the applicant at a high-level of generality as generic computers (see, e.g., Spec. Para. 0017 describing the patient device as “a tablet computer, a laptop computer, a smartphone, a smartwatch, and/or the like.”) such that it amounts 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 claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim further recites the additional elements of (1) a provider-side side remote patient monitoring (RPM) platform and (2) one or more monitoring devices. The RPM platform and monitoring devices merely generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) indicates that generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide a practical application. Accordingly, even in combination, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer, CRM/processor, or processor/memory to perform the noted steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”).
Also, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of (1) a provider-side side remote patient monitoring (RPM) platform and (2) one or more monitoring devices were determined to generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. This has been re-evaluated under the “significantly more” analysis and has also been found insufficient to provide significantly more. MPEP 2106.05(A) indicates that generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide significantly more. Accordingly, even in combination, this additional element does not provide significantly more. As such the claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 2, 5, 7-9, 11, 14, 16-18, and 20 are similarly rejected because they either further define/narrow the abstract idea and/or do not further limit the claim to a practical application or provide as inventive concept such that the claims are subject matter eligible even when considered individually or as an ordered combination.
Claim(s) 2, 11 merely describe(s) collecting data in response to a plan, which further defines the abstract idea.
Claim(s) 5, 14 merely describe(s) presenting, receiving, identifying, and presenting data, which further defines the abstract idea.
Claim(s) 7, 16 merely describe(s) logging data, which further defines the abstract idea.
Claim(s) 8, 17 merely describe(s) synchronizing data, which further defines the abstract idea.
Claim(s) 8, 17 also include(s) the additional element of “the provider-side RPM platform” which is analyzed the same as the “the provider-side RPM platform” in the independent claims and does not provide a practical application or significantly more for the same reasons.
Claim(s) 9 merely describe(s) receiving additional data, which further defines the abstract idea.
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 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 of this title, 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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 7, 8, 10, 11, 16, 17, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,416,471) in view of Hatlestad et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Patent Publication No. 2004/0122484).
REGARDING CLAIM 1
Kumar teaches the claimed computer-implemented method for providing medical information, the method comprising:
receiving, by a patient device from a provider-side remote patient monitoring (RPM platform), a healthcare plan assigned to a patient, [Col. 8, Lns. 6-16 teaches a base station unit (a patient device) in communication with a remote monitoring station (a provider-side remote patient monitoring (RPM) platform). Col. 13, Lns. 11-18 teaches that the base station contains software that identifies whether received patient monitoring data violates pre-determined thresholds defining an event. Col. 13, Lns. 36-39, 46-51, Col. 14, Lns. 42-43, Col. 26, Lns. 41-45, Col. 36, Lns. 28-30 teaches that the remote monitoring station programs the base station (interpreted as a healthcare plan assigned to a patient), which includes setting alarm thresholds.]
wherein the healthcare plan:
includes an event configuration specifying healthcare data indicative of an event, and [Col. 13, Lns. 11-27, Col. 27, Lns. 46-52 teaches that the base station receives pre-determined thresholds (alarm thresholds) for various vital signs as part of the programming/configuration, violation of which defines an event.]
identifies the medical information as corresponding to the event, and [Col. 13, Lns. 11-18, Col. 31, Lns. 1-20 teaches that the event detection is based on pre-programmed thresholds for certain physiological variables.]
while disconnected from the provider-side RPM platform: [Col. 15, Lns. 3-8, Col. 31, Lns. 1-20 teaches that when event detection occurs, the base station and remote monitoring station are not connected.]
monitoring, by the patient device, the patient by acquiring, from one or more monitoring devices, healthcare data of the patient corresponding to the healthcare data specified in the event configuration; [Col. 8, Lns. 19-30, Col. 26, Lns. 50-56, Col. 31, Lns. 1-20 teaches that the patient is monitored for various data provided in the programming/configuration that define events such as ECG, temperature, blood oxygenation, respiration, weight, blood pressure, etc..]
[…].
Kumar may not explicitly teach
in response to the monitoring, determining whether to provide the medical information to the patient; and
presenting the medical information to the patient,
wherein the medical information is based on the healthcare plan and the monitoring.
Hatlestad at Fig. 14, 15, Para. 0040, 0052, 0071, 0074, 0120, 0129 teaches that it was known in the art of computerized healthcare, at the time of filing, to display defined events on a wellness monitoring device of the patient
in response to the monitoring, determining whether to provide the medical information to the patient; and [Hatlestad at Para. 0040, 0052, 0071, 0074 teaches determining that predetermined event(s) (the event(s) of Kumar) has occurred and that identified events are displayed on a wellness monitoring device of the patient (such as a PDA or smartphone, see Para. 0051), this represents a determination to provide the medical information to the patient.]
presenting the medical information to the patient, [Hatlestad at Fig. 14, 15, Para. 0074, 0120 teaches that the event(s) are displayed to the patient.]
wherein the medical information is based on the healthcare plan and the monitoring. [Hatlestad at Para. 0040, 0052, 0071, 0074, 0120, 0129 teaches that the displayed data is based on the WMD programming (healthcare plan, the base station programming of Kumar) and the event detected from monitored data.]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of computerized healthcare, at the time of filing, to modify the patient monitoring and event detection system of Kumar to display defined events on a wellness monitoring device of the patient as taught by Hatlestad, with the motivation of improving patient awareness of potential health issues.
REGARDING CLAIM 2
Kumar/Hatlestad teaches the claimed computer-implemented method of Claim 1. Kumar/Hatlestad further teaches
in response to receiving the healthcare plan, downloading the medical information identified in the healthcare plan. [Kumar at Col. 13, Lns. 36-39, 46-51, Col. 14, Lns. 42-43, Col. 26, Lns. 41-56, Col. 36, Lns. 1-30 teaches that the information identified in the pre-determined thresholds is received (i.e., downloaded, see Col. 15, Ln. 31) from the sensor band.]
REGARDING CLAIM 7
Kumar/Hatlestad teaches the claimed computer-implemented method of Claim 1. Kumar/Hatlestad further teaches
wherein monitoring the patient based on the healthcare plan comprises logging healthcare data of the patient in memory while disconnected from the provider-side RPM platform. [Kumar at Col. 12, Lns. 46-50, Col. 31, Lns. 18-20 teaches that the events and all data received from the sensor band are stored by the base station memory until downloaded to the remote monitoring unit.]
REGARDING CLAIM 8
Kumar/Hatlestad teaches the claimed computer-implemented method of Claims 1 and 7. Kumar/Hatlestad further teaches
in response to determining that a connection with the provider-side RPM platform is restored, synchronizing the logged healthcare data to the provider-side RPM platform. [Kumar at Col. 12, Lns. 46-50, Col. 31, Lns. 18-20 teaches that the events and all data received from the sensor band are stored by the base station memory until downloaded to the remote monitoring unit (interpreted as “synchronizing”). This cannot occur until a connection between the base station and remote monitoring unit occurs, i.e., is restored.]
REGARDING CLAIM(S) 10
Claim(s) 10 is/are analogous to Claim(s) 1, thus Claim(s) 10 is/are similarly analyzed and rejected in a manner consistent with the rejection of Claim(s) 1.
Kumar further teaches that its functionality is performed on a base station unit having a processor and memory, which is interpreted as a CRM. See citations, supra.
REGARDING CLAIM(S) 11, 16, AND 17
Claim(s) 11, 16, and 17 is/are analogous to Claim(s) 2, 7, and 8, respectively, thus Claim(s) 11, 16, and 17 is/are similarly analyzed and rejected in a manner consistent with the rejection of Claim(s) 2, 7, and 8.
REGARDING CLAIM(S) 19
Claim(s) 19 is/are analogous to Claim(s) 1, thus Claim(s) 19 is/are similarly analyzed and rejected in a manner consistent with the rejection of Claim(s) 1.
Kumar further teaches that its functionality is performed on a base station unit having a processor and memory, which is interpreted as a CRM. See citations, supra.
Claim(s) 5 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,416,471) in view of Hatlestad et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Patent Publication No. 2004/0122484) in view of Mitjans et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Patent Publication No. 2020/0229713).
REGARDING CLAIM 5
Kumar/Hatlestad teaches the claimed computer-implemented method of Claim 1. Kumar/Hatlestad may not explicitly teach
wherein the healthcare plan comprises a questionnaire, and the method further comprises:
presenting one or more questions of the questionnaire to the patient;
receiving one or more answers to the one or more questions from the patient;
identifying additional medical information based on the one or more answers; and
presenting the additional medical information to the patient.
Mitjans at Abstract, Para. 0007, 0010, 0063 teaches the it was known in the art of computerized healthcare, at the time of filing, to provide a recommendation to a patient based on answers to a questionnaire
wherein the healthcare plan comprises a questionnaire, and the method further comprises:
presenting one or more questions of the questionnaire to the patient; [Mitjans at Para. 0038, 0040 teaches that a questionnaire is generated and presented to a patient. The QRP is interpreted to be part of the mobile application of Dubey.]
receiving one or more answers to the one or more questions from the patient; [Mitjans at Para. 0040 teaches that a repies are received from the patient.]
identifying additional medical information based on the one or more answers; and [Mitjans at Para. 0040 teaches that recommendations (additional medical information, which is undefined) are generated (identified).]
presenting the additional medical information to the patient. [Mitjans at Para. 0040, 0041 teaches that the recommendations are displayed to the patient.]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of computerized healthcare, at the time of filing, to modify the patient monitoring and event detection system of Kumar having the display of defined events on a wellness monitoring device of the patient of Hatlestad to provide a recommendation to a patient based on answers to a questionnaire as taught by Mitjans, with the motivation of reducing latency, reducing computing resources and improving patient compliance (see Mitjans at Para. 0030).
REGARDING CLAIM(S) 14
Claim(s) 14 is/are analogous to Claim(s) 5, thus Claim(s) 14 is/are similarly analyzed and rejected in a manner consistent with the rejection of Claim(s) 5.
Claim(s) 9 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,416,471) in view of Hatlestad et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Patent Publication No. 2004/0122484) in view of Lillie et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Patent Publication No. 2019/0132389).
REGARDING CLAIM 9
Kumar/Hatlestad teaches the claimed computer-implemented method of Claim 1. Kumar/Hatlestad may not explicitly teach
in response to determining that a connection to the provider-side RPM platform is restored, receiving an updated healthcare plan assigned to the patient.
VanKirk-Smith at Abstract, Para. 0007, 0010, 0063 teaches the it was known in the art of computerized healthcare, at the time of filing, to update a healthcare plan for a patient when a remote terminal connects to a server
in response to determining that a connection to the provider-side RPM platform is restored, receiving an updated healthcare plan assigned to the patient. [VanKirk-Smith at Abstract, Para. 0007, 0010, 0063 teaches updates to a plan of care (the base station program(s) of Kumar) are sent to a remote terminal (the base station of Kumar) upon connection of the remote terminal to the server (the remote monitoring station of Kumar).]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of computerized healthcare, at the time of filing, to modify the patient monitoring and event detection system of Kumar having the display of defined events on a wellness monitoring device of the patient of Hatlestad to update a healthcare plan for a patient when a remote terminal connects to a server as taught by VanKirk-Smith, with the motivation of improving information flow between patients and providers (see VanKirk-Smith at Para. 0044).
REGARDING CLAIM(S) 18
Claim(s) 18 is/are analogous to Claim(s) 9, thus Claim(s) 18 is/are similarly analyzed and rejected in a manner consistent with the rejection of Claim(s) 9.
Response to Arguments
Drawings
Regarding the drawing objection(s), the Applicant has submitted replacement drawings which have alleviated the drawing issues. The drawings are accepted.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101
Regarding the rejection of Claims 1-20, Applicant has cancelled Claims 3, 4, 6, 12, 13, 15, and 20 rendering the rejection of those claims moot. Regarding the remaining claims, the Examiner has considered the Applicant’s arguments; however, the arguments are not persuasive. Any arguments inadvertently not addressed are unpersuasive for at least the following reasons. Applicant argues:
The amended claims also do not recite any limitations that can be included in one of the certain methods of organizing human activities that are categorized as abstract, such as managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
Regarding (a), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims represent a series of rules or instructions for monitoring a patient based on received event definition and patient data and determining whether the data is indicative of an event. This represents certain methods of organizing human activity. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C). The Examiner notes that Applicant has cited to both the Alice Corp. decision and MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II) in support of their assertion. The abstract idea in Alice Corp. was characterized as a fundamental economic practice, which was not asserted as the type of abstract idea in the current basis of rejection. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II) discusses how to determine if a practical application is present and has nothing to do with the identification of an abstract idea.
The amended claims can thus be distinguished from the claims in previous cases that have been deemed abstract, such as claims directed towards following rules specified for a dice game or a series of instructions of how to hedge risk.
Regarding (b), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Initially, the Applicant has not described how the claims “distinguish” from the noted previous cases and thus the Examiner has nothing to respond to. The claims represent a series of rules or instructions for a person or persons to follow with or without the aid of a computer. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C). Applicant has pointed to nothing that counters this finding.
First, the additional elements of the present claims integrate any purported abstract idea into a practical application because the claim as a whole provides a technical solution to a technical problem [described at Spec. Para. 0004].
Regarding (c), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. While the Applicant has described a problem, this problem exists independent of the technology of the claim. The problem of the inability health systems to interact with remote health monitoring devices existed well-prior to the advent of networked computers. Further, this is not a problem that is endemic to the healthcare environment. It exists in every technology where systems need to communicate information. Finally, MPEP 2106.05(a) indicates that solution to the purported technical problem needs to be unconventional. The Examiner asserts that there is nothing unconventional about storing information locally when a network connection is unavailable; the Examiner’s work computer has been doing that for the 13 years the Examiner has been with the Office.
First, consistent with USPTO guidance on subject matter eligibility, the claims recite at least one limitation that is different than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field or add one or more unconventional steps that confine the claims to a particular application. […] These limitations as a whole are not present in the prior art, indicating that the limitations are unconventional and non-routine.
Regarding (d), while this statement is correct, the Applicant failed to appreciate that the MPEP section it is taken from is entitled “A. Relevant Considerations For Evaluating Whether Additional Elements Amount To An Inventive Concept” (emphasis added). Because none of the portions of the claim asserted by the Applicant were considered to be additional elements, this is inapplicable to the current rejection. See also MPEP 2106.05(d):
“If the additional element (or combination of elements) is a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field, for instance because it is an unconventional step that confines the claim to a particular useful application of the judicial exception, then this consideration favors eligibility. If, however, the additional element (or combination of elements) is no more than well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, which is recited at a high level of generality, then this consideration does not favor eligibility.
The only additional elements in the claim are one or more monitoring devices and the computer components (patient device and RPM). The monitoring devices generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment for field of use, which is insufficient to provide a practical application or significantly more. And, both the Alice Corp. decision and MPEP 2106.04(d)(I), 2106.05(I) indicate that generic computers cannot provide a practical application and are well-understood, routine, and conventional.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Regarding the rejection of Claims 1-20, Applicant has cancelled Claims 3, 4, 6, 12, 13, 15, and 20 rendering the rejection of those claims moot. Regarding the remaining claims, the Examiner has considered the Applicant’s arguments; however, these arguments are moot given the new grounds of rejection as necessitated by amendment.
Conclusion
Prior art made of record though not relied upon in the present basis of rejection are noted in the attached PTO 892 and include:
Wang (U.S. Pre-Grant Patent Publication No. 2006/0064136) which discloses an implantable medical device system capable of generating a patient alert message for display on an external patient communicator.
Bage et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Patent Publication No. 2013/0151274) which discloses a system for monitoring and treating a patient and communicating with another party in the patient’s home where the communicating is between a patient device and a healthcare provider device.
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 JASON S TIEDEMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4594. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00am-4:00pm, off alternate Fridays.
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, Robert Morgan can be reached at 571-272-6773. 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.
/JASON S TIEDEMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3683
Prosecution Insights