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 08/15/2025, the following occurred: Claims 1, 11 and 20 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
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, 11 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites a method and a device for vital sign monitoring and communication.
Regarding claims 1, 11 and 20, the limitation of (claim 1 being representative) determine a current location of the device; automatically select an operating mode from a plurality of operating modes based on the current location, each of the plurality of operating modes being associated with a predetermined measurement frequency; measure one or more vital sign values of the subject at the predetermined frequency associated with the selected operating mode; receive a communication message from the subject; tag the communication message with a timestamp; and transmit the communication message and the one or more vital sign values measured proximate the timestamp to a healthcare provider and regarding claim 20- the limitation the operating mode being selected from a pre- surgical mode, a medical-surgical ward mode, a post-surgical mode, or a home mode, wherein the first communication message is an audio message; determining whether the first communication message includes a preset keyword; upon determining that the first communication message does not include the preset keyword, tagging the first communication message with a first timestamp; receiving a second communication message from the healthcare provider, wherein the second communication message includes an audio message responding to the first communication message; and interfacing and causing playback of the second communication message as crafted, is are processes 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 device, one or more processors and memory (in claim 1) or a method (claims 11 and 20), the claimed invention amounts to managing personal behavior or interaction between people (i.e., rules or instructions). For example, but for the device, one or more processors and memory, the claims encompass determining location, selecting operation mode, measuring vital sign values, receive communication messages, tag communication messages with a timestamp, and transmit the communication message and the vital sign values 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.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claims 11 and 20 are not tied to any particular technological environment that implements the identified abstract idea. Claim 1 recites the additional elements of a device, one or more processors and memory. These additional elements are not exclusively defined by the applicant and are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., a generic computer components for enabling access to medical information or for performing generic computer functions, see Spec. Para. 30, 97 and 102) such that they amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. As set forth in MPEP 2106.04(d) “merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer” is an example of when an abstract idea has not been integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do 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.
Claim 1 further recite the additional elements of one or more sensors, a computing device associated with the healthcare provider. Claim 11 recites the additional element of a computing device associated with a healthcare provider and a monitoring device. Claim 20 recites the additional elements of a monitoring device, a computing device associated with the healthcare provider and a speaker associated with the monitoring device. These additional element are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. a general means to output/receive/transmit data) and amount to extra solution activity. MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) indicates that extra-solution data gathering activity cannot provide a practical application. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claims do 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 elements of the device, one or more processors and 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”). Moreover, using generic computer components to perform abstract ideas does not provide a necessary inventive concept. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 (“mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention”). Therefore, whether considered alone or in combination, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Also as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of the computing device and the monitoring device were considered extra-solution activity. This has been re-evaluated under “significantly more” analysis and determined to be well-understood, routine and conventional activity in the field. MPEP 2016.05(d)(II) indicates that receiving and/or transmitting data over a network has been held by the courts to be well-understood, routine and conventional activity (citing Symantec, TLI Communications, OIP Techs., and buySAFE). The additional element of the one or more sensors was also considered extra-solution activity. The prior art of record indicates that sensors used to measure vital signs are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (see Mazar (US 2015/0302538) and Handler (US 2017/0043089))). Well-understood, routine and conventional activity cannot provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”). Therefore when considering the additional elements alone, and in combination, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus the claim is not patent eligible.
The examiner notes that: A well-known, general-purpose computer has been determined by the courts to be a well-understood, routine and conventional element (see, e.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank; see also MPEP 2106.05(d));
Claims 2-12 and 14-20 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, 5, 12 and 14 further merely describe(s) receiving and presenting a second communication message. Claim(s) 3 and 13 further merely describe(s) the communication messages re audio messages. Claim(s) 4 further merely describe(s) what the device comprises and includes the additional element of “a battery, an antenna, a microphone, a speaker, and a timer” which are interpreted to be part of the device and do not provide practical application or significantly more. Claim(s) 6 further merely describe(s) what the one or more sensors include and includes the additional element of “one or more of a respiration rate monitor, a heart rate monitor, a motion detector, a thermometer, and a blood pressure monitor” which are interpreted to be part of the device and do not provide practical application or significantly more. Claim(s) 7 and 16 further merely describe(s) the one or more vital sign values. Claim(s) 8 and 17 further merely describe(s) determining whether at least one vital sign value of the one or more vital sign values is outside an expected range and changing the predetermined frequency. Claim(s) 9 and 18 further merely describe(s) changing the predetermined frequency. Claim(s) 10 and 19 further merely describe(s) determining whether the communication message includes a preset keyword, transmitting and receiving communication messages and causing playback. Claim(s) 15 further merely describe(s) the monitoring device comprises and includes the additional element of “a microphone and a speaker” which are interpreted to be part of the monitoring device and do not provide practical application or significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mazar (US 2015/0302538).
REGARDING CLAIM 1
Mazar discloses a device for monitoring a subject, the device comprising: one or more sensors; and a computing device communicatively coupled to the one or more sensors, the computing device including: one or more processors; and memory storing instructions, which when executed by the one or more processors cause the one or more processors to (Mazar at Fig. 1, [0012] and [0013]): determine a current location of the device ([0034] teaches GPS technology to determine location of a patient and [0048] teaches location of different devices (the Examiner interprets that using GPS technology location of a device can also be determined similar to determining location of a patient)); automatically select an operating mode for the one or more sensors from a plurality of operating modes based on the current location of the device, each of the plurality of operating modes being associated with a predetermined measurement frequency ([0010] teaches systems can allow for quicker discharge of a patient from a hospital (e.g., quicker transition to a home environment) by providing the patient with one or more sensors that can be worn by the patient outside of the hospital environment (such as at home) which can provide a necessary level of patient monitoring by transmitting vital sign and other information to caregivers located at a remote healthcare facility. [0142] teaches patients that are monitored may be located in a general ward of the hospital, or may have been discharged and are being monitored from home or another environment outside of the hospital. [0163], [0164], [0166], [0167], [0168], [0202] teaches functions that are automatically performed such as adding/removing surgeons/physical therapists/specialists/care givers, scheduling, generating alerts, collecting vital sign information. [0208] and [0209] teach the system to automatically take one or more steps with regard to the patient and information associated with the patient, automatically change room number and bed number information in the patient 602's patient profile to reflect the new location of the patient, automatically adding the caregiver 654 to the patient 602's care group, automatically identify the caregiver and automatically update information for the patient (interpreted by examiner as means to automatically select an operating mode for the one or more sensors from a plurality of operating modes based on the current location of the device, each of the plurality of operating modes being associated with a predetermined measurement frequency)); use the one or more sensors to measure one or more vital sign values of the subject at a predetermined measured frequency associated with the selected operating mode for the one or more sensors (Mazar at [0009] teaches various components of the system can be used to monitor patients (interpreted by examiner as the subject); measure, record, and track vital signs; and coordinate patient care among numerous different healthcare professionals and caregivers. Frequent vital sign monitoring can be provided with one or more body worn vital sign sensors (interpreted by examiner as use the one or more sensors to measure one or more vital sign values of the subject at a predetermined measured frequency associated with the selected operating mode for the one or more sensors)); receive a communication message from the subject (Mazar at [0037] teaches buttons or other input devices of the chest sensor can allow the patient 104 to initiate a patient distress call and the chest sensor can transmit a distress signal to a computer located at a nursing station. The nursing station can then indicate to a caregiver that the patient has initiated a distress call. Additionally, information related to the distress call can be recorded and stored along with an indication of a time when the distress call was made, and vital sign and other information for the patient at the time of the distress call (interpreted by examiner as receive a communication message from the subject)); tag the communication message with a timestamp (Mazar at [0038] teaches a microphone included in the chest sensor, the microphone can allow the patient to make an audio recording to, for example, indicate symptoms currently being experienced, or recently experienced by the patient. The audio recording can be recorded along with a time stamp of when the recording was made and stored in computer memory of the chest sensor and/or another computing device in communication with the chest sensor (interpreted by examiner as tag the communication message with a timestamp)); and transmit the communication message and the one or more vital sign values measured proximate the timestamp to a computing device associated with a healthcare provider (Mazar at [0010] teaches transmitting vital sign and other information to caregivers located at a remote healthcare facility and [0037] teaches transmit a distress signal to a computer located at a nursing station and information related to the distress call can be recorded and stored along with an indication of a time when the distress call was made, and vital sign and other information for the patient at the time of the distress call (interpreted by examiner as transmit the communication message and the one or more vital sign values measured proximate the timestamp to a computing device associated with a healthcare provider)).
REGARDING CLAIM 2
Mazar disclose the limitation of claim 1.
Mazar further discloses:
The device of claim 1, wherein the instructions when executed by the one or more processors further cause the one or more processors to: receive a second communication message from the computing device associated with the healthcare provider, wherein the second communication message is in response to the communication message from the subject; and present the second communication message to the subject (Mazar at [0039] teaches a two-way audio communication between the patient and a caregiver located at a different location where the patient can initiate a two-way audio communication session with a caregiver located at a computing device at a different physical location than the patient. For example, the chest sensor can include a speaker to emit audio transmitted by the nursing station to allow the nurse to provide instructions or comfort to the patient. [0050] teaches alerting an appropriate caregiver to respond to a situation. [0072] teaches a caregiver associated with the patient can use a computing device to communicate with the central server and access information for the patient and [0073] teaches the caregiver can review notes left by an anesthesiologist at a different bedside monitor for the patient regarding specific vital signs or other behavior for the patient to observe during a specified post-surgical procedure time period for the patient (interpreted by examiner as receive a second communication message from the computing device associated with the healthcare provider, wherein the second communication message is in response to the communication message from the subject and present the second communication message to the subject)).
REGARDING CLAIM 3
Mazar disclose the limitation of claim 1.
Mazar further discloses:
The device of claim 2, wherein the communication message and the second communication message are audio messages (Mazar at [0039] teaches two-way audio communication. For example, the chest sensor can include a speaker to emit audio transmitted by the nursing station to allow the nurse to provide instructions or comfort to the patient (interpreted by examiner as the communication message and the second communication message are audio messages)).
REGARDING CLAIM 4
Mazar disclose the limitation of claim 1.
Mazar further discloses:
The device of claim 1, further comprising one or more of a battery, an antenna, a microphone, a speaker, and a timer (Mazar at [0035] teaches other components that can be included as part of the chest sensor include a power supply (interpreted by examiner as battery), buttons or other input mechanisms for receiving user input, one or more audible alarms or speakers and [0038] teaches one or more input devices of the chest sensor can initiate microphone functionality where the patient can select a button on the chest sensor to activate a microphone included in the chest sensor (interpreted by examiner as the further comprising a microphone and a speaker)).
REGARDING CLAIM 5
Mazar disclose the limitation of claim 1.
Mazar further discloses:
The device of claim 4, wherein presenting the second communication message includes interfacing with the speaker and causing playback of the second communication message (Mazar at [0039] teaches the chest sensor can include a speaker to emit audio transmitted by the nursing station to allow the nurse to provide instructions or comfort to the patient (interpreted by examiner as wherein presenting the second communication message includes interfacing with the speaker and causing playback of the second communication message) [[0191] teaches the user interface includes a control to facilitate posting of audio messages to the patient's profile. For example, rather than leaving a text note using the control, the user can record an audio message for one or more other caregivers regarding status or treatment of the patient and post the audio message for the other caregivers to view).
REGARDING CLAIM 6
Mazar disclose the limitation of claim 1.
Mazar further discloses:
The device of claim 1, wherein the one or more sensors include one or more of a respiration rate monitor, a heart rate monitor, a motion detector, a thermometer, and a blood pressure monitor (Mazar at [0004] teaches a bedside ECG display that utilizes sensors connected to a patient and that patient vital signs that are collected can include: blood pressure, body temperature, respiratory rate, blood oxygenation, heart rhythm (via ECG), and heart rate (interpreted by examiner to mean that the device can be a blood pressure monitor, a respiration rate monitor, a heart rate monitor and a thermometer)).
REGARDING CLAIM 7
Mazar disclose the limitation of claim 1.
Mazar further discloses:
The device of claim 1, wherein the one or more vital sign values of the subject include at least one of a respiration rate, a quality of respiration, a depth of respiration, a uniformity of breath, a heart rate, an irregularity of heartbeat ambulation index, an agitation index, a body temperature, an ambient noise level of an environment of the subject, or a blood pressure (Mazar at [0030] teaches vital signs that can be monitored can include heart rate, blood pressure, body temperature, respiratory rate, blood oxygenation, blood glucose level, hydration levels and perspiration.).
REGARDING CLAIM 8
Mazar disclose the limitation of claim 1.
Mazar further discloses:
The device of claim 1, wherein the instructions when executed by the one or more processors further cause the one or more processors to: determine whether at least one vital sign value of the one or more vital sign values is outside an expected range for the at least one vital sign value; and upon determining that the at least one vital sign value is outside the expected range for the at least one vital sign, change the predetermined frequency at which the at least one vital sign value is measured (Mazar at [0046] teaches comparing one or more vital signs collected for the patient 104 to threshold values (interpreted by examiner as the expected range) [0041] teaches the bedside monitor can be used to change settings for the chest sensor, such as acceptable ranges for heart rate, respiratory rate, blood oxygenation, or other vital signs monitored by the chest sensor and/or other patient worn sensors. As another example, the bedside monitor can be used to change a frequency at which particular vital signs for the patient are captured and transmitted by the chest sensor and/or wrist sensor (interpreted by examiner as determine whether at least one vital sign value of the one or more vital sign values is outside an expected range for the at least one vital sign value and change the predetermined frequency at which the at least one vital sign value is measured)).
REGARDING CLAIM 9
Mazar disclose the limitation of claim 1.
Mazar further discloses:
The device of claim 8, wherein changing the predetermined frequency at which the at least one vital sign value is measured includes increasing the predetermined frequency (Mazar at [0041] teaches the bedside monitor can be used to change settings for the chest sensor, such as acceptable ranges for heart rate, respiratory rate, blood oxygenation, or other vital signs monitored by the chest sensor and/or other patient worn sensors. As another example, the bedside monitor can be used to change a frequency at which particular vital signs for the patient are captured and transmitted by the chest sensor and/or wrist sensor (interpreted by examiner as means for increasing the predetermined frequency)).
REGARDING CLAIM 10
Mazar disclose the limitation of claim 1.
Mazar further discloses:
The device of claim 1, wherein the instructions when executed by the one or more processors further cause the one or more processors to: determine whether the communication message includes a preset keyword; upon determining that the communication message includes the preset keyword, transmit the communication message to a voice assistant application; receive a third communication message from the voice assistant application responding to the communication message, wherein the third communication message is an audio message; and cause playback of the third communication message (Mazar at [0039] teaches the chest sensor can include a speaker to emit audio transmitted by the nursing station to allow the nurse to provide instructions or comfort to the patient. [0191] teaches the user interface includes a control to facilitate posting of audio messages to the patient's profile. For example, rather than leaving a text note using the control, the user can record an audio message for one or more other caregivers regarding status or treatment of the patient and post the audio message for the other caregivers to view. [0113] teaches the patient worn sensor can wirelessly communicate with the bedside monitor through a wireless connection using a wireless communication protocol such as, for example, Bluetooth, WiFi, or a cellular protocol. The patient worn sensor can transmit vital sign information for the patient to the bedside monitor through the wireless connection. In some implementations the patient worn sensor can perform processing on the collected vital sign information prior to transmission of the information to the bedside monitor, while in some implementations, the patient worn sensor can transmit raw vital sign information to the bedside monitor instead of or in addition to processed information. In some implementations, the bedside monitor can receiving input from a keyboard, mouse, input buttons, or one or more devices capable of recognizing voice commands (interpreted by examiner as determine whether the communication message includes a preset keyword, transmit the communication message to a voice assistant application, receive a third communication message from the voice assistant application responding to the communication message, wherein the third communication message is an audio message and cause playback of the third communication message)).
REGARDING CLAIMS 11-20
Claims 11-20 are analogous to Claims 1-10 thus Claims 11-20 are similarly analyzed and rejected in a manner consistent with the rejection of Claims 1-10.
Moreover, regarding claim 20, Mazar teaches the operating mode being selected from a pre- surgical mode, a medical-surgical ward mode, a post-surgical mode, or a home mode (([0010] teaches systems can allow for quicker discharge of a patient from a hospital (e.g., quicker transition to a home environment) by providing the patient with one or more sensors that can be worn by the patient outside of the hospital environment (such as at home) which can provide a necessary level of patient monitoring by transmitting vital sign and other information to caregivers located at a remote healthcare facility (interpreted by examiner as the operating mode being selected from a home mode)).
Response to Arguments
Claim Objections
Regarding the claim objection(s) of claim 20, the Applicant has amended the claim to overcome the basis/bases of objection.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101
Regarding the rejection of claims 1-20, the Examiner has considered the Applicant’s arguments, but does not find them persuasive. Applicant argues:
Amended claim 1 integrates the alleged abstract idea into a practical application by providing specific improvements to patient monitoring technology. The claim recites a particular solution to the technological problem of efficiently monitoring patients while reducing the need for constant manual oversight… The specification explicitly provides that the claimed invention results in a significant technical advantage by more efficiently capturing vital sign measurements, such as respiration rate, quality and depth of respiration, uniformity of breath, heart rate, ambulation index, agitation index, temperature, and/or blood pressure, by automatically adjusting the sampling rate of the monitoring device. See paragraph 107 of the specification. Further, the claimed subject matter “facilitates remote monitoring of the patient which increases efficiency in nursing, decrease in ICU transfers, decrease in length of hospital stay and increase in patient satisfaction” and “improve the quality of patient care or patient experience by facilitating direct communication between the patient and the healthcare provider and improve workflows within the healthcare facility by providing additional context.” This demonstrates that the claimed invention provides concrete technological benefits that go beyond mere computerization of manual processes.
Regarding 1, The Examiner respectfully submits that “facilitates remote monitoring of the patient which increases efficiency in nursing, decrease in ICU transfers, decrease in length of hospital stay and increase in patient satisfaction” and “improve the quality of patient care or patient experience by facilitating direct communication between the patient and the healthcare provider and improve workflows within the healthcare facility by providing additional context” are all administrative improvements. These improvements do not improve the functioning of a computer nor provide an improvement in a technical field and cannot provide a practical application. The claims encompass determining location, selecting operation mode, measuring vital sign values, receiving communication messages, tagging communication messages with a timestamp, and transmitting the communication message and the vital sign values, which is an abstract idea.
Furthermore, the additional elements analyzed in 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because (1) they do not effect improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05 (a)); (2) they do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or a medical condition (see the Vanda memo); (3) they do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05 (b)); (4) they do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05 (c)); (5) they do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designated to monopolize the exception (see MPEP 2106.05 (e) and the Vanda memo).
Even if the amended claims are considered to be directed to an abstract idea, the amended claims recite significantly more than the abstract idea itself through an inventive concept that transforms the nature of the claims. The ordered combination of elements in the amended claims, including device location detection, automatic mode selection from pre-formatted modes based on device location, and automatic correlation of timestamped communications with vital sign data, amounts to significantly more than conventional patient monitoring techniques. The specification explicitly provides how this automated system “improves the quality of patient care or patient experience by facilitating direct communication between the patient and the healthcare provider and improve workflows within the healthcare facility by providing additional context for consumption by the healthcare provider.” See paragraph 107 of the specification… The claimed invention thus provides “significantly more” by providing specific technological improvements that transform conventional patient monitoring into a more efficient and automated system.
Regarding 2, The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims do not provide significantly more. As mentioned above the improvements the Applicant refers to are not improvements to the functioning of a computer nor to a technical field. The additional elements of the device, one or more processors and memory 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”). Moreover, using generic computer components to perform abstract ideas does not provide a necessary inventive concept. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 (“mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention”). Also the additional elements of the computing device and the monitoring device were considered extra-solution activity. This has been re-evaluated under “significantly more” analysis and determined to be well-understood, routine and conventional activity in the field. MPEP 2016.05(d)(II) indicates that receiving and/or transmitting data over a network has been held by the courts to be well-understood, routine and conventional activity (citing Symantec, TLI Communications, OIP Techs., and buySAFE). The additional element of the one or more sensors was also considered extra-solution activity. The prior art of record indicates that sensors used to measure vital signs are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (see Mazar (US 2015/0302538) and Handler (US 2017/0043089))). Well-understood, routine and conventional activity cannot provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”). Therefore when considering the additional elements alone, and in combination, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus the claim is not patent eligible.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102
Regarding the rejection of claims 1-20, the Examiner has considered the Applicant’s arguments, but does not find them persuasive. Applicant argues:
Mazar discloses a bedside monitor 108 that can be used to change a frequency at which particular vital signs for a patient 104 are captured and transmitted by a chest sensor 102 and/or a wrist sensor 10 (see paragraph 41 of Mazar). However, Mazar lacks any disclosure of using a current location of a device to trigger a change in an operating mode, where different operating modes are associated with different measurement frequencies. In view of the foregoing, Mazar does not disclose or suggest determining a current location of the device, and automatically selecting an operating mode for the one or more sensors from a plurality of operating modes based on the current location of the device, each of the plurality of operating modes being associated with a predetermined measurement frequency, as recited in amended claim 1. Therefore, for at least the foregoing reasons, claim 1 is patentable over Mazar, and withdrawal of the rejection of the claim is respectfully requested.
Regarding 1, The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Please refer to the new rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102. Mazar teaches the operating mode such as a home mode. Given the broadest reasonable interpretation, the cited reference teaches the claimed feature.
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection presented in this Office action. 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.
The prior art made of record though not relied upon in the present basis of rejection are noted in the attached PTO 892 and include:
Handler (US 2017/0043089) teaches medical device data integration apparatus and methods.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIZA TONY KANAAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4664. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thu 9:00am-6:00pm ET.
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 on 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 the 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/docs 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.
/LIZA TONY KANAAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3683
/ROBERT W MORGAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3683