Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
2. This is a Final Rejection in response to the “Amendment” and “Remarks” filed on September 9, 2025. Claims 1-15 are pending and have been examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, 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.
4. 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.
5. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
6. Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramesh et al. (Pub. No.: US 2019/0046037 Al, Pub. Date: Feb. 14, 2019, hereinafter Ramesh), in view of Sethi et al. (Pub. No.: US 2022/0237061 Al, Pub. Date: Jul. 28, 2022, hereinafter Sethi) and in further view of US Patent Application Publication 2008/0285496 to Fuchs.
As per claim 1, Ramesh discloses method for prioritizing transmission of physiological data, comprising:
providing a mobile physiological data telemetry system (Fig. 2), comprising a sensor configured to receive physiological data from a patient (Fig. 2, Body-attachable sensors 301), and further comprising a communication interface configured to connect to a communications network (Fig. 2 First mobile Computing device 303 and [0064] In one embodiment, the first mobile computing device 303 is configured to transmit the sensor data through a GSM, 2G, 3G, 4G, LTE, Wi-Fi network or an Ad-hoc network created with neighboring wireless terminals or devices 306.), wherein the mobile physiological data telemetry system comprises a set of prioritization rules for the patient ([0072] “…the system includes prioritizing the communication-based on a mechanism 600…”);
receiving, from the sensor, physiological data from the patient ([0061] “The sensor unit 301 may include at least one of a BP sensor that could measure the blood pressure level of the patient, a glucose sensor to sense the concentration of glucose in blood, a Sp02 sensor to measure the oxygen saturation level in a patient's hemoglobin, an ECG sensor that records the electrical activity of the heart…” [0065] “the data aggregation and transmission unit 302 is interfaced with sensor unit 301 to receive the sensor data.”);
determining, by the mobile physiological data telemetry system, that a first portion of the received physiological data is identified for transmission via the communication interface ([0074] “based on the result of local analytics, if the vital measurement shows variations from normal level, it is tagged as critical. In another embodiment, if the data does not show any significant variations, it is stored in the mobile computing device or data aggregation and transmission unit cache and transmitted at a later time over a non-time critical path.”);
determining, by the mobile physiological data telemetry system, that a second portion of the received physiological data is identified for transmission via the communication interface ([0074] “based on the result of local analytics, if the vital measurement shows variations from normal level, it is tagged as critical. In another embodiment, if the data does not show any significant variations, it is stored in the mobile computing device or data aggregation and transmission unit cache and transmitted at a later time over a non-time critical path.”);
prioritizing, using the set of prioritization rules, transmission of the first portion before the second portion of the received physiological data, or vice versa (Figures 5A-5C, where critical data takes priority vs routine data. See also Table 1); and
transmitting, when the mobile physiological data telemetry system is connected to the communications network, the first portion and the second portion of the received physiological data in the prioritized transmission order (Figures 5A-5C, where critical data takes priority vs routine data and both are transmitted via a network. See also Table 1).
Ramesh does not explicitly disclose that the prioritizing occurs when the mobile physiological data telemetry system is not connected to the communications network. As shown above, Ramesh discloses prioritizing data, albeit without specifying that this occurs when the mobile physiological data telemetry system is or is not connected to the communications network. In addition, Ramesh teaches the mobile physiological data telemetry system connected to the communications network when available (e.g., “#where available” Table 1 and Figures 5A-5C), thus reasonably teaching that there are instances when the mobile physiological data telemetry system is not connected to the communications network. Further, Sethi, directed to systems and methods for telemetry data collection, teaches function occurring when its data telemetry system is not connected to a communications network ([0127] when PDCA is “offline”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform the prioritizing function of Ramesh offline as taught by Sethi, in order to use any offline time effectively and ensure critical data is transmitted timely, and since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
The combined teachings of Ramesh in view of Sethi do not teach that the prioritization rules include a rule that indicates a predetermined battery level threshold, however, this is taught by Fuchs. Fuchs is directed towards an invention in the field of data downloads in wireless networks (Fuchs: Title and Abstract).
Fuchs teaches a prioritization rule indicates a predetermined battery level threshold (Fuchs: Section [0029]. This section of Fuchs teaches that when the battery level is low transmission of low priority data is cancelled or deferred until the battery is recharged). Therefore, at the time the instant invention set forth in this application was filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the combined teachings of Ramesh in view of Sethi by including this rule of Fuchs wherein the transmission of low priority data is either canceled or deferred until the battery is recharged. Doing so would ensure that the battery of the mobile physiological data telemetry system in Ramesh would not be drained, as recited in Fuchs (Section [0029]).
As per claim 2, Ramesh further discloses wherein the mobile physiological data telemetry system is a wireless physiological sensor device attached to the patient ([0065] “… wearable device such as body-worn… unit”).
As per claim 3, Ramesh further discloses wherein the mobile physiological data telemetry system comprises a smartphone, the smartphone comprising the wireless communication interface ([0062] In some embodiments, the systems and other components in FIG. 2 may be computing devices, such as servers, desktop computers, laptop computers, tablet computers, personal digital assistants (PDA), smartphones, mobile phones, smart devices, appliances, sensors, or the like.”).
As per claim 4, Ramesh further discloses wherein determining that the first portion of the received E physiological CG data and the second portion of the received physiological data are identified for transmission is based on a parameter of the received physiological data ([0060] severity threshold is based on sensor data, inter-sensor correlation, etc.”).
As per claim 5, Ramesh further discloses wherein prioritization using the set of prioritization rules is based on a parameter of the received physiological data ([0060] severity threshold is based on sensor data, inter-sensor correlation, etc.”).
As per claim 6, Ramesh further discloses further comprising the step of receiving, by the mobile physiological data telemetry system, the set of prioritization rules for the patient ([0060] “severity threshold is based on patient’s historical data” [0190] “… four qualitative alert levels: Critical, high, low, and normal, which are set by physicians based on maximum bounds of time of intervention that they feel permissible.” And Figure 14 showing communications sent and received by doctors).
As per claim 7, Ramesh further discloses wherein the set of prioritization rules are specific to a particular patient ([0060] “severity threshold is based on patient’s historical data”).
As per claims 8 and 15, Ramesh further discloses further comprising the step of determining, using the set of prioritization rules, that a third portion of the received physiological data is identified for transmission via the communication interface; wherein the step of prioritizing comprises prioritizing based on the set of prioritization rules transmission of the first portion, the second portion, and the third portion in a predetermined order of priority; and wherein the step of transmitting comprises transmitting the first portion, the second portion, and the third portion in the predetermined order of priority (Table 1, showing priorities including Critical, High, Low and Normal).
As per claims 9-14, these claims recite substantially similar limitations as claims 1-5 and 7 and are therefore rejected using the same art and rationale above.
Response to Arguments
7. Applicant’s arguments filed on September 9, 2025 over the previously applied 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections set forth in the Non-Final Rejection mailed on May 19, 2025 with respect to the pending claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Moreover, the new ground of rejection over the Fuchs reference teaches the newly added limitation in independent claims 1 and 9 that the prioritization rules includes a rule that indicates a predetermined battery level threshold as has been clearly set forth, above, in the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection.
Applicant’s arguments filed on September 9, 2025 over the 35 USC 101 rejection set forth in the Non-Final Rejection mailed on May 19, 2025 are persuasive and this 35 USC 101 rejection has, therefore, been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendment filed on September 9, 2025 in response to the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection set forth on May 19, 2025 sufficiently overcomes this rejection and, therefore, it has been withdrawn.
Conclusion
8. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection over the Fuchs patent application publication presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DINO KUJUNDZIC whose telephone number (571) 270-5188. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 AM-4:00 PM.
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, VIVEK KOPPIKAR can be reached at (571) 272-5109. 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.
/VIVEK D KOPPIKAR/Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3667
March 9, 2026