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 .
The current application has the effective filing date of 11/07/2022 according to the priority chain on the record.
Claim Status
As per preliminary claim amendment received on 01/19/2024; claims 1-3, 5, 8, 10-11, 13, 15-24, 26 and 29 are pending; and claims 4, 6-7, 9, 12, 14, 25, 27-28 and 30-45 have been cancelled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 8, 10, 11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding claims 8, 10, 11 and 15, these claims individually depend from claim 1 and recite limitations pertaining only to “the first patient monitoring device” and/or “the second patient monitoring device.” Each of claims 8, 10, 11 and 15 fail to further limit the “auxiliary monitor” recited in base claim 1, because “the first patient monitoring device” and/or “the second patient monitoring device” are not positively recited in the base claim. “The first patient monitoring device” and/or “the second patient monitoring device” are physically separate and distinct from the “auxiliary monitor”; and recited in the preamble as a functional feature of the “auxiliary monitor.”
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 1-3, 5, 8, 10-11, 13, 15-24, 26 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter of abstract ideas under the mental processes and mathematical concepts groupings, without significantly more.
The framework for establishing a prima facie case of lack of subject matter eligibility requires that the Examiner determine: (1) Does the claim fall within the four categories of patent eligible subject matter; (2a) prong 1: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon and (2a) prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application; and (2b) Does the claim recite additional elements that amount of significantly more than the judicial exception.
Under Step (1): Independent claims 1, 21 and 29 are directed to an auxiliary monitor , a patient monitoring system and a method, and thus, the claims all fall under one of the four patent eligible categories.
To Step 2(a) prong 1:
Independent claim 1 recites:
An auxiliary monitor for a patient monitoring system, the patient monitoring system including a first patient monitoring device and a second patient monitoring device, the auxiliary monitor comprising:
a communication interface configured to receive first data from the first patient monitoring device and second data from the second patient monitoring device; and
at least one computer processor programmed to:
display in a first portion of a user interface, an indication of the first data; and
display in a second portion of the user interface, an indication of the second data.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the italicized limitations above is directed to receiving data, and then displaying data on a first and second portion of a user interface/display device. A person can receive data by visually observing a patient and making mental judgement; the person can then output the received data by verbally speaking the data and/or using pen and paper to write out the data. Accordingly, these italicized limitations is directed to one or more abstract ideas under the mental processes grouping.
Independent claim 29 recites:
A method of monitoring a first cardiac support device and a second cardiac support device using an auxiliary monitor, the method comprising:
receiving, from the first cardiac support device, first data associated with operation of the first cardiac support device;
receiving, from the second cardiac support device,
second data associated with operation of the second cardiac support device; displaying, on a first portion of a user interface of the auxiliary monitor, an indication of the first data; and
displaying, on a second portion of the user interface, an indication of the second data.
Similar to claim 1 discussed above, claim 29 is also directed to one or more abstract ideas under the mental processes grouping. The italicized limitations are directed to receiving data, and then displaying data on a first and second portion of a user interface/display device.
Claims 1 and 29 further recite “auxiliary monitor”, “first/second cardiac support device”, “communication interface”, “computer processor” and “user interface”, these elements will be addressed in Step 2(a) prong 2.
As for independent claim 21, this claim recites various structures, (i.e. “first/second cardiac support device”, “connectivity gateway”, and “auxiliary monitor”) and a step for communicatively coupling these structures. Although this claim recites various structures, the step of connecting various components remains an abstract idea in the mental processes bucket.
Dependent claims 2-3, 5, 8-11, 13, 15-20, 22-23 and 26 disclose additional steps for requesting and receiving different types of data, analyzing data and providing output based on the analyzed results; these limitations all fall under abstract ideas within the mental processes buckets. A person would be able to perform all of said receiving data, analyzing data, and providing outputs via mental judgement and determination.
Under Step 2(a) prong 2: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. MPEP 2106.04(d).
Claims 1, 21 and 29 recite the elements (i.e. bolded limitations): “auxiliary monitor”, “first/second cardiac support device”, “communication interface”, “computer processor” and “user interface/display”, these limitations alone and in combination, fail to practically integrate the recited judicial exception the respective claims because these limitations are directed to one or more insignificant data gathering steps.
The limitations “first/second cardiac support device” is used in the data acquisition/receiving step; thus, it is tied to as insignificant pre-solution activity.
As for the limitations “auxiliary monitor”, “communication interface”, “computer processor” and “user interface/display.” These limitations merely tie the current invention to the field of medical data, and computer technology environment. Furthermore, the when the claims, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it is still in the mental processes grouping unless the claim limitation cannot practically be performed in the mind. Likewise, performance of a claim limitation using generic computer components does not preclude the claim limitation from being in the mathematical concepts grouping or the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping.
Regarding claim 21, the recited step of using a “connectivity gateway” fails to practically integrate the abstract idea as it does not improve the current state of computer technology.
Under Step 2b: The claims also 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 judicial exception into a practical application, the additional elements: “auxiliary monitor”, “first/second cardiac support device”, “communication interface”, “computer processor” and “user interface/display”, alone and/or in combination, are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the industry as indicated in the following references:
Duckert et al. US 2005/0101844 A1 Fig.10 illustrates a plurality of patient (monitoring devices) connected to an auxiliary device, i.e. system 28, via a gateway device
Amurthur et al. US 2009/0076342 A1 Fig.10 illustrates a plurality of patient monitoring systems 12, connected to an auxiliary monitor, i.e. server 130, via gateway 128
Handler US 2017/0043089 A1 Fig. 1 illustrates a plurality of patient devices 104, 106, 102, each connected to a respective gateway device, which is further connected to an auxiliary monitor, e.g. interface 124 or medical systems 122
Accordingly, claims 1-3, 5, 8, 10-11, 13, 15-24, 26 and 29 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claims 1-3, 5, 8, 10-11, 13, 15-24, 26 and 29 are thus rejected under 35 USC 101 for reciting patent-ineligible subject matter- abstract ideas.
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.
(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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-3, 5, 10, 13, 15-21 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kayser et al. US 2019/0336085 A1 (hereinafter “Kayser”).
Regarding claim 1, Kayser discloses an auxiliary monitor ((DSN) platform 30) for a patient monitoring system (Figs. 2-3: system 10; see [0065-0066, 0093-0094]), the patient monitoring system including a first patient monitoring device (sources 12, i.e. patient bed 14; see [0121]) and a second patient monitoring device (sources 12, i.e. patient monitor 18; see [0121]), the auxiliary monitor (30) comprising:
a communication interface (router or gateway 32) configured to receive first data from the first patient monitoring device and second data from the second patient monitoring device (see Fig. 3, gateway 32 facilitates bidirectional data communication between individual sources 12, the platform 30 and to output devices 34, also see [0104, 0118]); and
at least one computer processor (analytics engine 20) programmed to:
display in a first portion of a user interface (output device 34; [0104, 0126]), an indication of the first data (exemplary data output for patient Hill, Larry are shown in Figs. 8-10 and 12-18, displays data acquired from patient bed 14, e.g. LOC-lethargic; see [0113]); and
display in a second portion of the user interface, an indication of the second data (exemplary data output for patient Hill, Larry are shown in Figs. 8-10 and 12-18, displays data acquired from vital monitor 18, e.g. NIBP, SpO2, RR, HR, TEMP; see [0113]).
Regarding claim 2, Kayser discloses the auxiliary monitor of claim 1, wherein the at least one computer processor (20) is further programmed to: process the first data (data from bed 14) and the second data (data from vital monitor 18) to generate third data ([0114-0114] risk score/data, e.g. risk score(s), are calculated based on a plurality of sensor data acquired from vital monitor 18, patient bed data 14 and other sources); and display in a third portion of the user interface, an indication of the third data. (Figs. 8-10 and 12-18, risk scores, e.g. MEWS score 432, Sepsis Risk 460, SOFA)
Regarding claim 3, Kayser discloses the auxiliary monitor of claim 2, wherein the third data (risk scores) includes a likelihood of organ failure for a patient being monitored by the patient monitoring system. (See [0071, 0179] risk score, i.e. Sepsis-Related Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA), exemplary as shown in Fig. 8, or Fig. 20)
Regarding claim 5, Kayser discloses the auxiliary monitor of claim 1, wherein the at least one computer processor (analytics engine 20) is further programmed to: display, in a third portion of the user interface, an alert (see Figs. 12-18: alert box 458), the alert determined based on the first data and/or the second data. ([0114] “the analytics engine 20 initiates an alert to one or more caregivers assigned to the patient…”; also see [0116, 0147, 0231-0233] with regard to other types of alerts or notifications from the patient; see Figs. 12-18: alert box 458)
Regarding claim 10, Kayser discloses the auxiliary monitor of claim 8, wherein the second patient monitoring device (patient vital monitor 18) comprises a patient monitor, and the second data includes vital signs measured by the patient monitor. (see [0097] “Vital signs monitors 18 include, for example, electrocardiographs (ECG's or EKG's)), electroencephalographs (EEG's), heart rate monitors, respiration rate monitors, temperature monitors, pulse oximeters, blood pressure monitors, and the like.”)
Regarding claim 13, Kayser discloses the auxiliary monitor of claim 2, wherein the third data (risk scores) includes a likelihood of heart failure for a patient being monitored by the patient monitoring system. (see [0044, 0159, 0164] engine 20 utilizes a plurality of patient source data to calculate a risk score, i.e. risk of heart failure, also see Table 1: heart failure or congestive heart disease)
Regarding claim 15, Kayser discloses the auxiliary monitor of claim 1, wherein the first patient monitoring device (sources 12: first patient bed 14) is associated with a first patient (e.g. Fig. 7: 2160 Hill, Larry), and the second patient monitoring device (sources 12: second patient bed 14) is associated with a second patient (e.g. Fig. 7: 2156 Hunter, Charlie). (This is implicitly taught in [0014-0015] “…the plurality of equipment may include at least three of the patient support apparatus.” See rejection to claim 1, incoming sources 12, which are interpreted to encompass “first and second monitoring device” in the claim, can be associated with a first and a second patients, this is explicitly illustrated in an exemplary nurse’s screen shown in Fig.7: 2060, 2156, 2157, 2158 each represents data coming from a different patient beds 14, [0172-0173])
Regarding claim 16, Kayser discloses the auxiliary monitor of claim 1, wherein the at least one computer processor is further programmed to: issue a request via the communication interface (32) to the first patient monitoring device and/or the second patient monitoring device (sources 12), the request including a request for the first data and/or the second data (data from sources 12, e.g. 14, 18 etc.), wherein the communication interface (30) is configured to receive the first data and/or the second data in response to the request. ([0064, 0093] real time bi-directional transmission)
Regarding claim 17, Kayser discloses the auxiliary monitor of claim 1, wherein the at least one computer processor is further programmed to: issue a request via the communication interface (30) to at least one network-connected processor (data repository 204 and risk engine 206), the request including a request to process the first data and/or the second data (data from source 12) to generate processed data ([0114-0114] risk score/data, e.g. risk score(s), are calculated based on a plurality of sensor data acquired from vital monitor 18, patient bed data 14 and other sources), wherein the communication interface (30) is configured to receive the processed data in response to the request, and wherein the at least one computer processor (20) is further programmed to display in a third portion of the user interface (Figs. 8-10 and 12-18, various types of risk scores), an indication of the processed data. (see [0156] and Table 1, the calculation of risk scores includes using data from various sources 12, including from bed 14 and monitor 18, and also additional sources listed in Table 1, as noted in [0156] these additional sources are requested from clinical data repository 204 and risk engine 206, currently taken to encompass “network-connected processor” in this claim)
Regarding claim 18, Kayser discloses the auxiliary monitor of claim 1, wherein the communication interface (32) is configured to be connected to a connectivity gateway (router or gateway 32), the connectivity gateway communicatively coupling the communication interface (32) to the first patient monitoring device and the second patient monitoring device. (see Fig. 3, gateway 32 facilitates bidirectional data communication between individual sources 12, the platform 30 and to output devices 34, also see [0104, 0118])
Regarding claim 19, Kayser discloses the auxiliary monitor of claim 1, further comprising: at least one storage device (EMR/HIS 62) configured to store one or more of the first data, the second data, or data derived from the first data and/or the second data. (See Fig. 3 and [0129] “electronic medical records (EMR) or health information systems (HIS) server 62 is also communicatively coupled to the analytics engine 20… server 62 is also a source 12 of data for analytics engine 20 to use in connection with determining the risk scores of the various patients…”)
Regarding claim 20, Kayser discloses the auxiliary monitor of claim 17, wherein the processed data (e.g. risk scores) derived from the first data and/or the second data (data from source 12) includes historical data associated with the first patient monitoring device and/or the second patient monitoring device. ([0054] “… include receiving historical data of the patient.”, also see [0167: last sentence] analytics engine 20 receives historical data of the patient, in consideration for calculating risks scores; also see [0247])
Regarding claim 21, Kayser discloses a patient monitoring system (Figs.2-3: system 10; [0065-0066, 0093-0094]), comprising:
a first patient monitoring device (sources 12 associated with a first patient, e.g. first patient bed 14 or first patient monitor 18; see [0121]);
a second patient monitoring device (sources 12 associated with a second patient, e.g. second patient bed 14 or second patient monitor 18; see [0121]);
an auxiliary monitor ((DSN) platform 30; [0104]) comprising at least one computer processor (analytics engine 20) and a display (output device 34); and
a connectivity gateway (router or gateway 32) configured to communicatively couple the first patient monitoring device (12) and the second patient monitoring device (12) to the auxiliary monitor (30). (See Fig. 3, gateway 32 facilitates bidirectional data communication between individual sources 12, the platform 30 and to output devices 34, also see [0104, 0118].)
Regarding claim 26, Kayser discloses the patient monitoring system (10) of claim 21, wherein the at least one computer processor (engine 20) of the auxiliary monitor is programmed to:
display in a first portion of a user interface (Figs. 8-10, 12-18) presented on the display (output device 34; [0104, 0126]) of the auxiliary monitor, an indication of first data received from the first patient monitoring device via the connectivity gateway (bidirectional data communication see Fig.3: gateway 32; also see exemplary data output for patient Hill, Larry are shown in Figs. 8-10 and 12-18, displays data acquired from patient bed 14, e.g. LOC-lethargic; see [0113]);
display in a second portion of the user interface, an indication of second data received from the second patient monitoring device via the connectivity gateway; (bidirectional data communication see Fig.3: gateway 32; exemplary data output for patient Hill, Larry are shown in Figs. 8-10 and 12-18, displays data acquired from vital monitor 18, e.g. NIBP, SpO2, RR, HR, TEMP; see [0113])
process the first data (data from bed 14) and the second data (data from vital monitor 18) to generate third data ([0114-0114] risk score/data, e.g. risk score(s), are calculated based on a plurality of sensor data acquired from vital monitor 18, patient bed data 14 and other sources); and
display in a third portion of the user interface, an indication of the third data. (Figs. 8-10 and 12-18, risk scores, e.g. MEWS score 432, Sepsis Risk 460, SOFA)
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.
Claims 8, 11 and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kayser as applied to claims 1 and 21 above, and further in view of Handler et al. US 2017/0043089 A1 (hereinafter “Handler”).
Regarding claim 8, Kayser discloses the auxiliary monitor of claim 1, wherein the communication gateway 32 is adapted to receives sensor data from a plurality of sources 12, as shown in Fig. 3, and to also receive patient medical record and lab results from a clinical data repository 204 (see [0155]). Kayser notes that the patient medical record, at least, would include data of whether the patient has implants such as pacemaker, for calculation of risk scores (see Table 11). Kayser does not explicitly disclose wherein the first patient monitoring device comprises a first controller for a first cardiac support device including a first heart pump, and the first data includes information describing operation of the first heart pump.
However, Handler, another prior art reference in the analogous art of hospital communications environment discloses a network system 118 for connecting a plurality of patient devices 102, 104, 106, gateways 112, 114, 116, HIS (hospital information system) 120, and other interfaces 122, 124; exemplary as shown in Fig. 1 and [0037]. With regard to patient devices, Handler specifically discloses medical devices adapted for providing therapy to a patient 110, e.g. infusion pump 102, a dialysis or renal failure therapy (“RFT”) machine 104, a patient monitor 106, and/or one or more physiological sensors 108 (see [0037]). At least to RFT machines, Handler teaches “a hemodialysis machine's pump typically pulls blood from the arterial side of the patient, pushes it into and through the dialyzer, and through a drip chamber that separates out air, before returning the dialyzed blood to the venous side of the patient.” ([0049]) This is taken to encompass a blood pump in the claim. Alternatively, even if “blood pump” is not explicitly disclosed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify Kayser’s incoming source 12, to include a data from a patient’s heart pump, in view of Handler; the motivation is because Kayser already discloses acquiring medical data with regard to a patient’s cardiac implants for the purpose of calculating risk scores (see [0155] and Table 11), and Handler has shown that a therapy machine can be coupled to a hospital network via a communications gateway device (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 11, Kayser discloses the auxiliary monitor of claim 8, wherein the auxiliary monitor (20) is adapted to received data from a plurality of sources 12, which are associated with different patients (see Fig.7: 2060, 2156, 2157, 2158 each represents data coming from a different patient, [0172-0173]). Kayser does not explicitly disclose wherein the second patient monitoring device comprises a second controller for a second cardiac support device including a second heart pump, and the second data includes information describing operation of the second heart pump. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to further modify Kayser’s source 12 to include a second heart pump from a second patient in view of Handler, under the same rationale as discussed to claim 8 immediate above.
Regarding claims 22 and 23, these claims are rejected by Kayser in view of Handler under the same rationale as discussed to claims 8 and 11 above.
Regarding claim 24, Kayser modified teaches the patient monitoring system of claim 23, Kayser further comprising a third patient monitoring device (sources 12, e.g. patient vital monitor 18) communicatively coupled to the auxiliary monitor (20) via the connectivity gateway (32), wherein the third patient monitoring device (18) comprises a patient monitor configured to monitor vital signs of a patient. (See [0097] “Vital signs monitors 18 include, for example, electrocardiographs (ECG's or EKG's)
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kayser, and in view in view of Handler.
Regarding claim 29, Kayser discloses a method of monitoring a first patient support device (source 12, e.g. vital sign monitor 18 associated with first patient) and a second patient support device (source 12, e.g. vital sign monitor 18 associated with second patient) using an auxiliary monitor ((DSN) platform 30; [0104]), the method comprising:
receiving, from the first patient support device (source 12, e.g. vital sign monitor 18 associated with first patient), first data (e.g. data from monitor 18) associated with operation of the first patient support device (bidirectional data communication see Fig.3: gateway 32; exemplary data output for first patient Hill, Larry are shown in Figs. 8-10 and 12-18, displays data acquired from vital monitor 18, e.g. NIBP, SpO2, RR, HR, TEMP; see [0113]);
receiving, from the second patient support device source 12, e.g. vital sign monitor 18 associated with second patient, second data associated with operation of the second patient support device (bidirectional data communication see Fig.3: gateway 32; exemplary data output for second patient Hunter, Charlie would be analogous to those shown in Figs. 8-10 and 12-18 for first patient Hill, Larry, e.g. NIBP, SpO2, RR, HR, TEMP; see [0113]);
displaying, on a first portion of a user interface of the auxiliary monitor, an indication of the first data (see Figs. 8-10 and 12-18); and
displaying, on a second portion of the user interface, an indication of the second data (Figs. 8-10 and 12-18).
Kayser discloses the hospital network system, and wherein the communication gateway 32 is adapted to receives sensor data from a plurality of sources 12, as shown in Fig. 3, and to also receive patient medical record and lab results from a clinical data repository 204 (see [0155]). Kayser also notes that the patient medical record, at least, would include data of whether the patient has implants such as pacemaker, for calculation of risk scores (see Table 11). Kayser does not disclose wherein a first cardiac support device, and a second cardiac support device, and wherein the first data and second data are associated with operation of the first and second cardiac support device. However, Handler, another prior art reference in the analogous art of hospital communications environment discloses a network system 118 for connecting a plurality of patient devices 102, 104, 106, gateways 112, 114, 116, HIS (hospital information system) 120, and other interfaces 122, 124; exemplary as shown in Fig. 1 and [0037]. With regard to patient devices, Handler specifically discloses medical devices adapted for providing therapy to a patient 110, e.g. infusion pump 102, a dialysis or renal failure therapy (“RFT”) machine 104, a patient monitor 106, and/or one or more physiological sensors 108 (see [0037]). At least to RFT machines, Handler teaches “a hemodialysis machine's pump typically pulls blood from the arterial side of the patient, pushes it into and through the dialyzer, and through a drip chamber that separates out air, before returning the dialyzed blood to the venous side of the patient.” ([0049]) This is taken to encompass a “cardiac support” device in the claim. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify Kayser’s incoming source 12, to include a data from a first and a second patient’s heart pump, in view of Handler; the motivation is because Kayser already discloses acquiring medical data with regard to a patient’s cardiac implants for the purpose of calculating risk scores (see [0155] and Table 11), and Handler has shown that a therapy machine can be coupled to a hospital network via a communications gateway device (see Fig. 1).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHIRLEY X JIAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7374. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-4:00.
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, Benjamin Klein can be reached at 571-270-5213. 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.
/SHIRLEY X JIAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3792
December 13, 2025