DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The action is in response to the application filed on 12/11/2023.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 5 and 11 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 07/06/2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 6 and 12 in the reply filed on 07/06/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-4, 6-10, 12-19 are pending and examined below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7, 9-10, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20150097701 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Al-Ali”) in view of US 20020186243 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Ellis”), US 20140275819 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Kassem”)
Regarding claims 1 and 9, Al-Ali teaches an electronic device for monitoring a subject's health/ Non-transitory computer-readable media including computer-executable instructions (“The auxiliary device 2040 can be a computing device having physical computer hardware, a display, and the like.”; paragraph [0136]; Figure 24), the electronic device/ Non-transitory computer-readable media comprising:
a hardware processor (paragraph [0138]-[0139]; Figures 24 and 39) configured to:
access physiological data originating from a remote monitoring system comprising one or more of a hub, a wearable device, or a camera (paragraph [0136]-[0137]), the physiological data comprising one or more physiological parameters of a subject being monitored by the monitoring system (paragraph [0136]-[0137]), the one or more physiological parameters indicating one or more of an oxygen saturation, a pulse rate, a respiration rate, or a body temperature (paragraphs [0137]-[0139], [0148]);
generate user interface data to render a user interface (paragraphs [0145]-[0147]; Figures 26-30) comprising:
a physiological portion comprising one or more trend lines associated with the one or more parameter values (paragraphs [0137], [0147], [0152]; Figures 27-31, 39), the one or more trend lines indicating historical parameter values (paragraph [0152]; Figure 39).
Al-Ali does not explicitly teach access image data originating from the remote monitoring system, the image data being associated with the subject; an image portion comprising an image of the subject based on at least the image data; the one or more trend lines being aligned with a common horizontal axis representing time, wherein the physiological portion is positioned under the image portion within the user interface; and responsive to a user selection of a time: display a historical image in the image portion corresponding to the selected time; and display historical physiological parameters in the physiological portion corresponding to the selected time.
Ellis teaches access image data originating from the remote monitoring system, the image data being associated with the subject (paragraphs [0016], [0034]; Figures 1A, 5); and an image portion comprising an image of the subject based on at least the image data (paragraphs [0016], [0034]; Figures 1A, 5). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Al-Ali, to access image data, as taught by Elis, because doing so would allow the patient to be observed while simultaneously viewing physiological data of the patient.
Kassem teaches the one or more trend lines being aligned with a common horizontal axis representing time (as shown in Figure 3), responsive to a user selection of a time (as shown in Figure 3): and display a historical image in the image portion corresponding to the selected time (as shown in Figure 3). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Al-Ali, in view of Ellis, to display multiple data points over time, as taught by Kassem, because doing so provides user to ability to correlate physiological data over a period of time.
Burn teaches responsive to a user selection of a time display a historical image in the image portion corresponding to the selected time (paragraphs [0291], [0301]-[0302]; Figures 12B and G). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Al-Ali, in view of Ellis and Kassem, to a user to be able to display a historical image in the image portion corresponding to the selected time; as taught by Burns, because doing so allows a user for to choose specific desired data.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention effectively filed to have wherein the physiological portion is positioned under the image portion within the user interface, since it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167.
Regarding claim 2, Al-Ali, in view of Ellis, Kassem, and Burns, teaches wherein the electronic device is a mobile phone (paragraph [0136]; as taught by Al-Ali).
Regarding claim 3, Al-Ali, in view of Ellis, Kassem, and Burns, teaches further comprising a display screen, wherein the hardware processor is further configured to render the user interface on the display screen (paragraphs [0136]-[0138]; as taught by Al-Ali).
Regarding claim 4, Al-Ali, in view of Ellis, Kassem, and Burns, teaches wherein the hardware processor is further configured to update the user interface data to modify an appearance of the one or more gauges based on at least the physiological data exceeding one or more thresholds (paragraphs [0123]-[0124]; Figures 22A-B).
Regarding claim 7, Al-Ali, in view of Ellis, Kassem, and Burns, teaches wherein the hardware processor is further configured to generate an alert based on at least the one or more physiological parameters (paragraphs [0124], [0135]; Figures 22A-22B, 32).
Regarding claim 10, Al-Ali, in view of Ellis, Kassem, and Burns, teaches further cause the computing system to perform operations comprising: further cause the computing system to perform operations comprising generating an alert based on at least the one or more physiological parameters.
updating the user interface data to modify an appearance of the one or more gauges based on at least the physiological data exceeding one or more thresholds (paragraphs [0123]-[0124]; as taught by Al-Ali).
Regarding claim 13, Al-Ali, in view of Ellis, Kassem, and Burns, teaches further cause the computing system to perform operations comprising generating an alert based on at least the one or more physiological parameters. (paragraphs [0124], [0135]; Figures 22A-22B, 32).
Claim(s) 6 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Al-Ali, in view of Ellis, Kassem, and Burns as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of US 20100241018 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Vogel”).
Regarding claims 6 and 12, Al-Ali, in view of Ellis, Kassem, and Burns does not explicitly teach wherein the hardware processor is further configured to access environmental data from the monitoring system and generate an alert based on at least the environment data and the physiological data, the environmental data comprising one or more of humidity data, temperature data, image data, and/or audio data.
Vogel teaches wherein the hardware processor is further configured to access environmental data from the monitoring system and generate an alert based on at least the environment data and the physiological data, the environmental data comprising one or more of humidity data, temperature data, image data, and/or audio data (paragraphs [0016]-[0019]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Al-Ali, in view of Ellis, Kassem, and Burns, to have the system access environmental data, as taught by Vogel, because doing so allows the system to determine whether to generate an alert based on this data.
Claim(s) 8 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over , Al-Ali, in view of Ellis, Kassem, and Burns as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of US 20130106684 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Weast”).
Regarding claims 8 and 14, Al-Ali, in view of Ellis, Kassem, and Burns teaches displaying an image; but does not explicitly teach responsive to a user input, reduce a size of the image portion while maintaining an aspect ratio of the image of the subject; and rotate the image within the image portion.
However, Weast teaches displaying an image; but does not explicitly teach responsive to a user input, reduce a size of the image portion while maintaining an aspect ratio of the image of the subject (paragraph [0362]); and rotate the image within the image portion (paragraph [0362]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Al-Ali, in view of Ellis, Kassem, and Burns, to be able to edit the image, as taught by Weast, because doing so allows the user to display the image in a desired fashion.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20140163336 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Horseman”) in view of Al-Ali and Ellis.
Regarding claim 15, Horseman teaches an electronic device for monitoring a subject's health (paragraphs [0312]-[0317]; Figure 17), the electronic device comprising:
a hardware processor (paragraphs [0312]-[0317]; Figure 17) configured to:
generate user interface data to render a user interface comprising a monitoring widget positioned within a portion of a home screen adjacent to icons representing application programs (paragraphs [0312]-[0317]; Figure 17), the monitoring widget comprising:
a physiological portion comprising one or more physiological icons representing the one or more parameter values and configured to change appearance based on the one or more physiological parameter values (paragraphs [0312]-[0317]; Figure 17).
Horseman does not explicitly teach access physiological data originating from a remote monitoring system, the physiological data comprising one or more physiological parameters of a subject being monitored by the monitoring system, the one or more physiological parameters indicating one or more of an oxygen saturation, a pulse rate, a respiration rate, or a body temperature;
access image data originating from the remote monitoring system, the image data being associated with the subject;
an image portion comprising an image of the subject based on at least the image data; and wherein the physiological portion is smaller than the image portion and is positioned under the image portion within the monitoring widget
Al-Ali teaches access physiological data originating from a remote monitoring system, the physiological data comprising one or more physiological parameters of a subject being monitored by the monitoring system, the one or more physiological parameters indicating one or more of an oxygen saturation, a pulse rate, a respiration rate, or a body temperature (paragraphs [0136]-[0139], [0148]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Horseman, to be able to access physiological data from a remote monitoring system, as taught by Al-Ali, because doing so would allow the home-screen widget to provide current remotely monitored physiological state.
Ellis teaches access image data originating from the remote monitoring system, the image data being associated with the subject (paragraphs [0016], [0034]; Figures 1A, 5); and an image portion comprising an image of the subject based on at least the image data (paragraphs [0016], [0034]; Figures 1A, 5). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Horseman, in view of Al-Ali, to access and display image data, as taught by Ellis, because doing so would allow the patient to be observed while simultaneously viewing physiological data of the patient.
Additionally, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have wherein the physiological portion is smaller than the image portion, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention effectively filed to have wherein the physiological portion is positioned under the image portion within the user interface, since it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167.
Regarding claim 16, Horseman, in view of Al-Ali and Ellis, teaches wherein the hardware processor is further configured to generate an alert based on at least the one or more physiological parameters (paragraph [0312]; Figure 17).
Regarding claim 17, Horseman, in view of Al-Ali and Ellis, does not explicitly teach wherein the physiological portion has a same width as the image portion and a smaller height than the image portion.
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have wherein the physiological portion has a same width as the image portion and a smaller height than the image portion., since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Claim(s) 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horseman, in view of Al-Ali and Ellis as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of US 20080168367 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Chaudhri”).
Regarding claim 18, Horseman, in view of Al-Ali and Ellis, does not explicitly teach wherein the hardware processor is further configured to increase a size of the monitoring widget responsive to a user input.
However, Chaudhri teaches wherein the hardware processor is further configured to increase a size of the monitoring widget responsive to a user input (paragraph [0079]-[0080]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Horseman, in view of Al-Ali and Ellis, to be able to adjust widget size, as taught by Chaudri because doing so enlarge widgets to desired sizes for the user.
Regarding claim 19, Horseman, in view of Al-Ali and Ellis, does not explicitly teach wherein the hardware processor is further configured to update a position of the monitoring widget within the home screen responsive to a user input (paragraph [0032]; Figures 1A-1F). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Horseman, in view of Al-Ali and Ellis, to be able to update widget position, as taught by Chaudri, because doing so permits the user to organize the home-screen display to their preference.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABID A MUSTANSIR whose telephone number is (408)918-7647. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10 am to 6 pm Pacific Time.
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, Jason Sims can be reached at 571-272-7540. 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.
/ABID A MUSTANSIR/ Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights