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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-10 and 12-18 in the reply filed on 2/11/26 is acknowledged.
Claim 11 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 2/11/26.
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 1-10, 12 and 18 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the processor" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-10 and 12 are rejected for inheriting the same deficiencies as claim 1.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "a computer" in lines 1-2. This is vague as it is unclear if this is the same or different limitation as the “a computer” from claim 13 from which claim 18 depends.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "a physiological information processing method" in line 2. This is vague as it is unclear if this is the same or different limitations as the “a physiological information processing method” from claim 13 from which claim 18 depends.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-9 and 12-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Inagaki (U.S. Pub. 2016/0220133).
Regarding claims 1 and 13, Inagaki discloses a physiological information processing apparatus and method, comprising: one or more processors (e.g. 200; ¶76); and one or more memories configured to store a computer readable instruction (e.g. ¶82), wherein when the computer readable instruction is executed by the processor, the physiological information processing apparatus (e.g. ¶76) is configured to: cause a plurality of physiological sensors to intermittently operate such that an operation time and a standby time are alternately repeated (e.g. S201), obtain a plurality of pieces of physiological information on a patient from the plurality of physiological sensors during the operation time (e.g. S202), and change an operation mode of the plurality of physiological sensors that intermittently operate in accordance with a condition related to at least a part of the plurality of pieces of physiological information or a condition related to at least a part of the plurality of physiological sensors (e.g. see Fig. 8).
Regarding claims 2 and 14, Inagaki further discloses wherein the physiological information processing apparatus is configured to: determine whether first physiological information among the plurality of pieces of physiological information satisfies a predetermined condition associated with the first physiological information (e.g. S303), when the first physiological information does not satisfy the predetermined condition, cause the plurality of physiological sensors to stand by during the standby time and after the standby time finished, cause the plurality of physiological sensors to operate (e.g. S304), and when the first physiological information satisfies the predetermined condition, cause the plurality of physiological sensors to operate again without causing the plurality of physiological sensors to stand by (e.g. S301).
Regarding claim 3, Inagaki further discloses wherein the first physiological information includes electrocardiogram data, pulse wave data, or body motion data of the patient (e.g. ¶74).
Regarding claims 4 and 15, Inagaki further discloses wherein the physiological information processing apparatus is configured to: determine whether first physiological information among the plurality of pieces of physiological information satisfies a predetermined condition associated with the first physiological information (e.g. S202), set the operation time to a first time when the first physiological information does not satisfy the predetermined condition (e.g. S203), and set the operation time to a second time longer than the first time when the first physiological information satisfies the predetermined condition (e.g. S205).
Regarding claim 5, Inagaki further discloses wherein the first physiological information includes pulse wave data or electrocardiogram data of the patient (e.g. ¶74).
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Inagaki further discloses wherein the physiological information processing apparatus is configured to: calculate a symptom severity score (e.g. “regularity”) indicating a symptom severity of the patient based on the plurality of pieces of physiological information (e.g. S204), determine whether the symptom severity score satisfies a predetermined condition associated with the symptom severity score (e.g. ¶129; “regularity”), set the standby time to a first time when the symptom severity score does not satisfy the predetermined condition (e.g. S205), and set the standby time to a second time shorter than the first time when the symptom severity score satisfies the predetermined condition (e.g. S206).
Regarding claims 7 and 17, Inagaki further discloses wherein the physiological information processing apparatus is configured to: determine whether the symptom severity score is larger than a predetermined threshold value (e.g. S204), set the standby time to the first time when the symptom severity score is equal to or less than the predetermined threshold value (e.g. S206), and set the standby time to the second time when the symptom severity score is larger than the predetermined threshold value (e.g. S205).
Regarding claim 8, Inagaki further discloses wherein the physiological information processing apparatus is configured to: estimate a symptom severity score to be calculated next based on a currently calculated symptom severity score and at least one previously calculated symptom severity score (e.g. S202), determine whether the estimated symptom severity score is larger than a predetermined threshold value (e.g. S204), set the standby time to the first time when the estimated symptom severity score is equal to or less than the predetermined threshold value (e.g. S206), and set the standby time to the second time when the estimated symptom severity score is larger than the predetermined threshold value (e.g. S205).
Regarding claim 9, Inagaki further discloses wherein the physiological information processing apparatus is configured to: determine whether at least a part of the operation time overlaps a predetermined living time period of the patient (e.g. S204), set the standby time to a first time when at least a part of the operation time does not overlap the predetermined living time period (e.g. S206), and set the standby time to a second time longer than the first time when at least a part of the operation time overlaps the predetermined living time period (e.g. S205).
Regarding claim 12, Inagaki further discloses wherein the physiological information processing apparatus is attached to the patient (e.g. see Fig. 3), and the physiological information processing apparatus further comprises a wireless communication module configured to wirelessly communicate with an external device (e.g. 250).
Regarding claim 18, Inagaki further discloses a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing a program for causing a computer to execute a physiological information processing method according to claim 13 (e.g. see Fig. 14; ¶76).
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.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inagaki as applied to claims 1-9 and 12-18 above, and further in view of Battista, Jr. (U.S. Pat. 9,380,982 hereinafter “Battista”).
Regarding claim 10, Inagaki discloses the claimed invention but fails to explicitly disclose that the device has a sensor removal alarm. However, Battista teaches that it is known to use the physiological signal as set forth in Colum 1, ll. 49-67 to provide a means for discriminating between a disconnected sensor that is removed from the skin and a medical condition to provide for an adaptive alarm that removes false flag alarms and allows for alerting the patient and caregiver to a sensing issue. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the system as taught by Inagaki, with the sensor disconnected alarm as taught by Battista, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of providing a means for discriminating between a disconnected sensor and a medical condition to provide for an adaptive alarm that removes false flag alarms and allows for alerting the patient and caregiver to a sensing issue.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REX R HOLMES whose telephone number is (571)272-8827. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00AM-5:30PM.
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, Jennifer McDonald can be reached at (571) 270-3061. 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.
/REX R HOLMES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796