CTNF 18/497,051 CTNF 99963 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 1-15 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. Each of Claims 1-15 has been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions. Step 2A, Prong 1 Each of Claims 1-15 recites at least one step or instruction for generating an asynchrony dashboard by identifying asynchrony occurrences, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG or a certain method of organizing human activity under the 2019 PEG. Accordingly, each of Claims 1-15 recites an abstract idea. Specifically, Claim 1 recites A system for generating a patient-ventilator asynchrony dashboard comprising: a processor receiving ventilation data from a medical ventilator (additional element) and outputting a data dashboard (insignificant extra-solution activity) on a display screen (additional element) ; wherein the data dashboard displays a detection of first and second different types of patient-ventilator asynchrony events in the ventilation data ( observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG); and wherein the data dashboard comprises time-scaled asynchrony metrics organized into tiles for each of the first and second asynchrony events ( observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG ) . Specifically, Claim 8 recites a ventilator-implemented method for generating an asynchrony dashboard, the method comprising: receiving ventilation data during ventilation of a patient (pre-solution insignificant extra-solutional activity) ; based on the ventilation data, identifying asynchrony occurrences (observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG); generating an asynchrony signal based on the identified asynchrony occurrences (insignificant extra-solutional activity) , wherein the asynchrony signal represents a number of asynchrony occurrences per time frame (observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG); based on the asynchrony signal exceeding a threshold, detecting an asynchrony event, the asynchrony event having a duration and magnitude ( observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG) ; and generating an asynchrony dashboard including at least one of tile or asynchrony clock including an indicator based on the detected asynchrony event ( insignificant extra-solutional activity ), wherein the indicator indicates at least one of the duration or the magnitude of the detected asynchrony event (observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG). Accordingly, as indicated above, each of the above-identified claims recites an abstract idea. Further, dependent Claims 2-7 and 9-15 are merely include limitations that either further define the abstract idea (and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract) or amount to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they’re merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the process steps are performed. Step 2A, Prong 2 The above-identified abstract idea in each of independent Claims 1 and 8 (and their respective dependent Claims 2-7 and 9-15) is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the additional elements (identified above in independent Claims 1 and 8), either alone or in combination, generally link the use of the above-identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. More specifically, the additional elements of: a processor and a display screen as recited in independent Claim 1 and its dependent claims; are generically recited computer elements in independent Claim 1 (and its respective dependent claims) which do not improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field. Nor do these above-identified additional elements serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine, effect a transformation or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Furthermore, the above-identified additional elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. For at least these reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claim 1 (and their respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG. Moreover, the above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the claimed method and system merely implements the above-identified abstract idea (e.g., mental process and certain method of organizing human activity) using rules (e.g., computer instructions) executed by a computer (processor as claimed). In other words, these claims are merely directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements which do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. Additionally, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. That is, like Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution. Thus, for these additional reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claims 1 and 8 (and their respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG. Accordingly, independent Claims 1 and 8 (and their respective dependent claims) are each directed to an abstract idea under 2019 PEG. Step 2B None of Claims 1 and 8 include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for at least the following reasons. These claims require the additional elements of: a processor and display screen as recited in independent Claim 1 and its dependent claims. The above-identified additional elements are generically claimed computer components which enable the above-identified abstract idea(s) to be conducted by performing the basic functions of automating mental tasks. The courts have recognized such computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am. , Inc. , 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and OIP Techs. , 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93. Per Applicant’s specification, for example, the ventilator and/or remote device may include a processor and memory where the memory store instructions that are executed by the processor to perform operations [0079]. Accordingly, in light of Applicant’s specification, the claimed term ‘a processor’ is reasonably construed as a generic computing device. Like SAP America vs Investpic, LLC (Federal Circuit 2018), it is clear, from the claims themselves and the specification, that these limitations require no improved computer resources, just already available computers, with their already available basic functions, to use as tools in executing the claimed process. Furthermore, Applicant’s specification does not describe any special programming or algorithms required for the processor. This lack of disclosure is acceptable under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) since this hardware performs non-specialized functions known by those of ordinary skill in the computer arts. By omitting any specialized programming or algorithms, Applicant's specification essentially admits that this hardware is conventional and performs well understood, routine and conventional activities in the computer industry or arts. In other words, Applicant’s specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the above-identified additional elements because it describes these additional elements in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) (see Berkheimer memo from April 19, 2018, (III)(A)(1) on page 3). Adding hardware that performs “ ‘well understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry” will not make claims patent-eligible ( TLI Communications ). The recitation of the above-identified additional limitations in Claims 1-15 amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Simply using a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV , 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); and TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto , LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Moreover, implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not add significantly more, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer. A claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc. , 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp. , 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). However, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification for any assertion that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. Here, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. Instead, as in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC 838 F.3d 1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08 (Fed. Cir. 2016) , the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution. For at least the above reasons, the system and method of Claims 1-15 are directed to applying an abstract idea (e.g., mental process or certain method of organizing human activity) on a general purpose computer without (i) improving the performance of the computer itself (as in McRO, Bascom and Enfish), or (ii) providing a technical solution to a problem in a technical field (as in DDR). In other words, none of Claims 1-15 provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that these claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements do not provide significantly more. Specifically, when viewed individually, the above-identified additional elements in independent Claims 1-15 (and their dependent claims) do not add significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. That is, neither the general computer elements nor any other additional element adds meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because these additional elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity. When viewed as a combination, these above-identified additional elements simply instruct the practitioner to implement the claimed functions with well-understood, routine and conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment. As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. As such, the above-identified additional elements, when viewed as whole, do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Thus, Claims 1-15 merely apply an abstract idea to a computer and do not (i) improve the performance of the computer itself (as in Bascom and Enfish), or (ii) provide a technical solution to a problem in a technical field (as in DDR). Therefore, none of the Claims 1-15 amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, Claims 1-15 are not patent eligible and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to abstract ideas implemented on a generic computer in view of the Supreme Court Decision in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. and 2019 PEG. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-12-aia AIA (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1-3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Gholami (US 20200261674) . Regarding claim 1, Gholami discloses a system for generating a patient-ventilator asynchrony dashboard (figs. 1-2 and 23; system for detecting and displaying patient-ventilator asynchrony and trends; abstract and [0119]) comprising: a processor receiving ventilation data from a medical ventilator (fig. 1; communication modules collect ventilation data and waveforms and processing module analyzes data and waveforms; [0046]) and outputting a data dashboard on a display screen (see fig. 23 showing a dashboard displaying asynchrony data and tiles on a graphical user interface; [0117] and [0119]) ; wherein the data dashboard displays a detection of first and second different types of patient-ventilator asynchrony events in the ventilation data (see fig. 23 which shows displayed asynchronies including ineffective efforts and double triggering events; [0036] and [0119]) ; and wherein the data dashboard comprises time-scaled asynchrony metrics organized into tiles for each of the first and second asynchrony events (see fig. 23 which display has tile elements for communicating detected patient-ventilator asynchronies; [0119]) . Regarding claim 2, Gholami further discloses the system (system for detecting and displaying patient-ventilator asynchrony) of claim 1, wherein the first type of patient-ventilator asynchrony events includes ineffective efforts (see figs. 2, 8a-8c, and fig. 23; the graphical user interface displays ineffective efforts; [0036], [0112], [0119]) . Regarding claim 3, Gholami further discloses the system (system for detecting and displaying patient-ventilator asynchrony) of claim 2, wherein the second type of patient-ventilator asynchrony events includes double triggers (see figs. 2, , and fig. 23; the graphical user interface displays ineffective efforts; [0036], [0087]-[0088], [0119]) . Regarding claim 6, Gholami further discloses the system (system for detecting and displaying patient-ventilator asynchrony) of claim 1, wherein the data dashboard further comprises an asynchrony clock including at least one indicator representing an asynchrony (see fig. 23 which shows percentage of asynchrony index over a 1 hr window in view of day and time of asynchronies, shows 12:01-16:01, i.e. 12:01pm-4:01pm on 07/31/2018; [0119]) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-103 AIA The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gholami (US 20200261674) in view of Gutierrez (US 20190371460) . Regarding claim 7, Gholami discloses the system (system for detecting and displaying patient-ventilator asynchrony) of claim 6, wherein the at least one indicator indicates a time, duration (see fig. 23 which shows percentage of asynchrony index over a 1 hr window starting at 12:01 in view of day and time of asynchronies, in other words time measuring asynchronies and duration asynchronies were measured; [0119]) , and severity of the asynchrony. Gholami does not explicitly disclose at least one indicator indicating the severity of the asynchrony. Gutierrez discloses an analogous detecting of patient-ventilator asynchrony and a dashboard (figs. 19-20, [0224]-[0225]) where the data collected for patients includes the time monitored, asynchrony time (see Tables 1 and 2E on pages 15 and 17-18 respectively; [0236]-[0237], Table 2E shows percentage of time asynchronous and time monitored in hours) and at least one indicator indicates severity of the asynchrony (figs. 17 and 20; measures the severity of each asynchrony with a color gauge and is displayed on table; Table 1 on page 15 shows the severity of distribution for each asynchrony type; [0218]-[0220], [0321]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the asynchrony detection system and graphical user interface of Gholami with the data classification algorithm according to asynchrony type, severity, and time of Gutierrez to further display the degree of respiratory variability and provide timely and actionable information on the degree of patient asynchrony which allows for careful automatic adjustment of the ventilator to correct and eliminate/reduce patient-ventilator asynchrony (Gutierrez: abstract, [0071]-[0073], and [0113]). Regarding claim 8, Gholami discloses a ventilator-implemented method for generating an asynchrony dashboard (figs. 1-2 and 23; method for detecting and displaying patient-ventilator asynchrony and trends; abstract and [0119]) , the method comprising: receiving ventilation data during ventilation of a patient (fig. 1; communication modules collect ventilation data and waveforms and processing module analyzes data and waveforms; [0046]) ; based on the ventilation data, identifying asynchrony occurrences (figs. 2 and 23; identifies different types of asynchronies such as ineffective effort and double triggering; [0036]) ; generating an asynchrony signal based on the identified asynchrony occurrences ( fig. 23; detects asynchrony events and creates labels such as a label for ineffective efforts and displays the data (it would be necessary to send signal to GUI when asynchrony is measured; [0036], [0117]-[0119]) , wherein the asynchrony signal represents a number of asynchrony occurrences per time frame (see fig. 23; the asynchrony index is the fraction of breaths (including triggered and un-triggered attempted breaths) with one or more detected asynchronies over a period of time; [0118], this would include the ineffective efforts detected; [0036]) ; based on the asynchrony signal exceeding a threshold, detecting an asynchrony event (figs. 2, 8a-c, and 23; where the ineffective effort triggering is detected when a thresholds for features are exceeded during a breath; [0076], [0111]-[0112]) , the asynchrony event having a duration and magnitude (figs. 8a-8c; detected asynchronies in a breath inherently have a duration and magnitude) ; and generating an asynchrony dashboard including at least one of tile or asynchrony clock including an indicator based on the detected asynchrony event (fig. 23; generates and displays an asynchrony index and dashboard on a GUI based on detected asynchrony events in a breath such as ineffective efforts and double triggering; [0036] and [[0117]-[0119]; includes tile elements of each asynchrony and has a clock/time and date which shows the asynchronies over a period of time) . Gholami does not explicitly disclose wherein the indicator indicates at least one of the duration or the magnitude of the detected asynchrony event. Gutierrez discloses an analogous detecting of patient-ventilator asynchrony and a dashboard (figs. 19-20, [0224]-[0225]) and wherein the indicator indicates at least one of the duration (where the data collected for patients includes the time monitored, asynchrony time (see Tables 1 and 2E on pages 15 and 17-18 respectively; [0236]-[0237], Table 2E shows percentage of time asynchronous and time monitored in hours) or the magnitude of the detected asynchrony event (figs. 17 and 20; measures the severity of each asynchrony with a color gauge and is displayed on table; Table 1 on page 15 shows the severity of distribution for each asynchrony type; [0218]-[0220], [0321]) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the asynchrony detection system and graphical user interface of Gholami with the data classification algorithm according to asynchrony type, severity, and time of Gutierrez to further display the degree of respiratory variability and provide timely and actionable information on the degree of patient asynchrony which allows for careful automatic adjustment of the ventilator to correct and eliminate/reduce patient-ventilator asynchrony (Gutierrez: abstract, [0071]-[0073], and [0113]). Regarding claim 9, Gholami further discloses the ventilator-implemented method (method for detecting and displaying patient-ventilator asynchrony and trends) of claim 8, wherein the asynchrony signal is an ineffective effort signal (fig. 23; creates labels such as a label for ineffective efforts and displays the data (it would be necessary to send signal to GUI when asynchrony is measured; [0005], [0036], [0111]-[0113], and [0116]-[0119]) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 4, 5, and 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gholami (US 20200261674) in view of Gutierrez (US 20190371460) and further in view of Fergus (Article: Oura Ring Review: The Best Sleep and Health Wearable on the Marker) Regarding claim 4, Gholami discloses the system (system for detecting and displaying patient-ventilator asynchrony) of claim 1, wherein at least one of the tiles indicates a number out a set time period that the first type of patient-ventilator asynchrony events exceeded a threshold (see fig. 23, asynchrony index display shows a fraction of breaths (including triggered and un-triggered attempted breaths) with one or more detected asynchronies over a period of time, [0117]-[0119]; where the ineffective effort triggering is detected when thresholds for features are exceeded; [0111]-[0112]) . Gholami does not explicitly disclose a number of minutes out a set time period of the first type of patient-ventilator asynchrony events. Gutierrez discloses an analogous detecting of patient-ventilator asynchrony and a dashboard (figs. 19-20, [0224]-[0225]) where the data collected for patients include The asynchrony percentage of time out a set time period (see Tables 1 and 2E on pages 15 and 17-18 respectively; [0236]-[0237], Table 2E shows percentage of time asynchronous and time monitored in hours). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the asynchrony detection system and graphical user interface of Gholami with the data classification algorithm according to asynchrony type, severity, and time of Gutierrez to further display the degree of respiratory variability and provide timely and actionable information on the degree of patient asynchrony which allows for careful automatic adjustment of the ventilator to correct and eliminate/reduce patient-ventilator asynchrony (Gutierrez: abstract, [0071]-[0073], and [0113]). However, the modified device of Gholami does not explicitly disclose displaying said asynchrony time for each event as a number of minutes. Fergus discloses displaying user metrics for Oura ring where the app is able to show user metrics of each metric in a number of minutes out a set time period (see screenshots on pages 19-22, where a clock with an overall sleep score (page 20) is broken down into the different sleep staging metrics showing the total sleep time as well as the individual time in minutes and in percentage (pages 21 and 22); pages 19-22) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the graphical user interface and data dashboard of the modified device of Gholami with the organized display setup for data as disclosed in Fergus to quickly breakdown and show large information/feedback about what is going well and not going well in regards to the user information allowing the user to adapt and improve (Fergus: page 19, paragraph 4, page 21, and page 22, paragraph 1). Regarding claim 10, the modified device of Gholami discloses the ventilator-implemented method (Gholami: method for detecting and displaying patient-ventilator asynchrony and trends; Gutierrez: measures time monitored, duration, and severity of asynchronies) of claim 8, wherein the asynchrony dashboard includes an asynchrony score (Gholami: fig. 23; asynchrony index score, see fig. 23 example of 79%; [0116]-[0119]) and at least one of duration or the magnitude of the asynchrony event (Gutierrez: where the data collected for patients includes the time monitored, asynchrony time (see Tables 1 and 2E on pages 15 and 17-18 respectively; [0236]-[0237], Table 2E shows percentage of time asynchronous and time monitored in hours); figs. 17 and 20; measures the severity of each asynchrony with a color gauge and is displayed on table; Table 1 on page 15 shows the severity of distribution for each asynchrony type; [0218]-[0220], [0321]). However, the modified method of Gholami does not explicitly disclose score based on at least one of duration or the magnitude of the event. Fergus discloses user metrics for Oura ring where the app is able to show user metrics of each metric in a score based on at least one of duration or the magnitude of the event (see screenshots on pages 19-22, where a clock/tile with an overall sleep score (page 20) is broken down into the different sleep staging metrics showing the total sleep time as well as the individual times for each metric in minutes and in percentage (pages 21 and 22); pages 19-22) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the graphical user interface and data dashboard of the modified method of Gholami with the score/organized display setup for data as disclosed in Fergus to quickly breakdown and show large information/feedback about what is going well and not going well in regards to the user information allowing the user to adapt and improve (Fergus: page 19, paragraph 4, page 21, and page 22, paragraph 1). Regarding claim 11, Gholami further discloses the ventilator-implemented method (method for detecting and displaying patient-ventilator asynchrony and trends) of claim 10, wherein the asynchrony score is based on a power of the asynchrony event (fig. 23; shows the power/percentage of the asynchrony index which is the fraction of breaths (including triggered and un-triggered attempted breaths) with one or more detected asynchronies over a period of time; [0116]-[0119], also shows tile percentage of different asynchrony types; [0036]) . Regarding claim 12, Gholami further discloses the ventilator-implemented method (method for detecting and displaying patient-ventilator asynchrony and trends) of claim 11, wherein the power indicates a number of asynchrony occurrences that occurred during the asynchrony event (fig. 23; the asynchrony index is the fraction of breaths (including triggered and un-triggered attempted breaths) with one or more detected asynchronies over a period of time; [0116]-[0119]; additionally a label is created whenever the ineffective effort occurs when feature thresholds are exceeded; [0111]-[0113] and a breath may include multiple labels, [0076]) . Regarding claim 13, the modified method of Gholami further discloses the ventilator-implemented method (method for detecting and displaying patient-ventilator asynchrony and trends) of claim 10, wherein the dashboard includes the asynchrony clock (Gholami: see fig. 23 which shows percentage of asynchrony index over a 1 hr window in view of day and time of asynchronies, shows 12:01-16:01, i.e. 12:01pm-4:01pm on 07/31/2018; [0119]; Fergus: clock showing sleep time (screenshots on page 20) and each individual time (second screenshot on page 21)) . Regarding claim 14, the modified method of Gholami further discloses the ventilator-implemented method (Gholami: method for detecting and displaying patient-ventilator asynchrony and trends; Gutierrez: measures time monitored, duration, and severity of asynchronies; Fergus: clock/tile display of time) of claim 13, wherein the indicator indicates the magnitude (Gutierrez: fig. 23: figs. 17 and 20; measures the severity of each asynchrony with a color gauge and is displayed on table; Table 1 on page 15 shows the severity of distribution for each asynchrony type; [0218]-[0220], [0321]) , duration, and time of the asynchrony (Gutierrez: where the data collected for patients includes the time monitored, asynchrony time (see Tables 1 and 2E on pages 15 and 17-18 respectively; [0236]-[0237], Table 2E shows percentage of time asynchronous and time monitored in hours) event (Gholami: fig. 23, clock/tiles that shows occurrences of asynchronies over a set time period: Fergus: see screenshots on pages 19-22, uses clock/tiles (page 20) to break down the metrics such as time/duration (pages 21 and 22); pages 19-22) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gholami (US 20200261674) in view of Gutierrez (US 20190371460) and further in view of Mulqueeny (US 20120037159) . Regarding claim 15, the modified method of Gholami discloses the ventilator-implemented method (method for detecting and displaying patient-ventilator asynchrony and trends; Gutierrez: measures time monitored, duration, and severity of asynchronies) of claim 8, The modified method of Gholami does not explicitly disclose wherein the asynchrony clock further includes at least one additional indicator corresponding to a manually entered event. Mulqueeny discloses an analogous detection and displaying of asynchrony events wherein the asynchrony further includes at least one additional indicator corresponding to a manually entered event (fig. 13; user interface has manual classification for the asynchrony events; [0039], [0100]-[0101], [0116]-[0117]; user input regarding the categorization of the breaths with checkboxes. More than one category may be checked at a time such as ineffective efforts and double triggering, [0125], [0134-[0138] and [0148]) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the graphical user interface and organization of the modified method of Gholami with the display which includes an asynchrony classes panel of Mulqueeny to further optimize/customize the display by showing one or multiple asynchrony categories at one time (Mulqueeny: [0100]-[0101] and [0124]-[0158]) . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Verhoeven (US 20210022642) – a method for breath analysis which shows an analogous display for showing detected asynchronies Medium (Article: Sleep Tracking UI/UX) – shows a sleep tracking interface which display sleep data similar to a clock with percentage score and color coded with darker color for deeper sleep Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYDNEY REYES RUSSELL whose telephone number is (703)756-4567. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 930am -6pm. 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, Brandy Lee can be reached at (571) 270-7410. 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. /S.R.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3785 /VICTORIA MURPHY/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785 Application/Control Number: 18/497,051 Page 2 Art Unit: 3785 Application/Control Number: 18/497,051 Page 3 Art Unit: 3785 Application/Control Number: 18/497,051 Page 4 Art Unit: 3785 Application/Control Number: 18/497,051 Page 5 Art Unit: 3785 Application/Control Number: 18/497,051 Page 6 Art Unit: 3785 Application/Control Number: 18/497,051 Page 7 Art Unit: 3785 Application/Control Number: 18/497,051 Page 8 Art Unit: 3785 Application/Control Number: 18/497,051 Page 9 Art Unit: 3785 Application/Control Number: 18/497,051 Page 10 Art Unit: 3785 Application/Control Number: 18/497,051 Page 11 Art Unit: 3785 Application/Control Number: 18/497,051 Page 12 Art Unit: 3785 Application/Control Number: 18/497,051 Page 13 Art Unit: 3785 Application/Control Number: 18/497,051 Page 14 Art Unit: 3785 Application/Control Number: 18/497,051 Page 15 Art Unit: 3785 Application/Control Number: 18/497,051 Page 16 Art Unit: 3785 Application/Control Number: 18/497,051 Page 17 Art Unit: 3785 Application/Control Number: 18/497,051 Page 18 Art Unit: 3785 Application/Control Number: 18/497,051 Page 19 Art Unit: 3785 Application/Control Number: 18/497,051 Page 20 Art Unit: 3785 Application/Control Number: 18/497,051 Page 21 Art Unit: 3785 Application/Control Number: 18/497,051 Page 22 Art Unit: 3785
Prosecution Insights