DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 15, 16, 17, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 15 line 2 “sex or mobility” should be corrected to “sex, or mobility”.
Claim 16 line 3-4 “pollen index or altitude” should be corrected to “pollen index, or altitude”.
Claim 17 line 4-5 “minute or alarm codes” should be corrected to “minute, or alarm codes”.
Claim 20 line 3 “patient data and the flow data” should be corrected to “patient data, and the flow data”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
Claims 1- 4, 7-9, 11, 12, and 14- 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hickle (US 20030079746) in view of Oleynik (US 20150339442) and Schneider et al. (2011/0247622).
Regarding claim 1, Hickle discloses an integrated system for monitoring conditions of a patient (integrated care system for monitoring patient health; [0029]), the integrated system comprising: a central processor (electronic controller 14 is microprocessor based; [0067]), the central processor including a sleep database including baseline sleep information (electronic controller 14 includes a stored safety data set 14a (sleep database) that has a safe range information (baseline sleep information) for monitored physiological conditions which includes a level of consciousness; [0071], [0074]); an oxygen concentrator configured to provide a flow of concentrated oxygen to the patient (oxygen source system 144 provides a flow of oxygen from a tank, which is concentrated to the patient; Fig. 7b, [0082], [0084]), the oxygen concentrator in communication with the central processor (oxygen source system 144 is in communication with the electronic controller through pressure sensor 106; Fig. 7A, [0084]); a level of consciousness monitor configured to collect data regarding the patient's state of wakefulness, awareness and alertness, the level of consciousness monitor in communication with the central processor (patient interface system 12 is a level of consciousness monitor which monitors the level of the patient’s consciousness and collects feedback signals (data) representing the patient’s physiological conditions, including levels of consciousness (levels of consciousness reads on the patient’s state of wakefulness, awareness, and alertness); patient interface system 12 is in communication with the electronic controller 14; [0074]; Fig. 5); and a device in communication with the central processor (electronic controller 14 receives signals from external communication device 18; [0076]), the central processor collecting data from the oxygen concentrator (electronic controller 14 receives signals (collects data) reflecting a measure of pressure from the pressure sensors 106 in the patient interface system 12; [0074]), the level of consciousness monitor (electronic controller 14 receives signals from the patient interface system 12; [0074]) and the communication device (electronic controller 14 receives signals from the external communication device 18; [0076]) and adjusting the oxygen concentrator including oxygen volume based on comparisons of the baseline sleep information and the collected data regarding the patient's state of wakefulness, awareness and alertness (the flow of oxygen and thus volume from the oxygen source system 144 is adjusted by the electronic controller 14 via flow controller 133 based on indications of unsafe conditions from comparisons of the safe range information and the feedback signals representing the patient’s physiological conditions; [0090]-[0091]).
Hickle fails to disclose baseline sleep information for a generic patient having a similar medical history to the patient. However, Oleynik discloses information for a generic patient having a similar medical history to the patient (stored data (information), used as a baseline, for other patients with a similar medical history, symptoms, and diseases to the patient; [0059]) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the baseline sleep information of Hickle so that the baseline sleep information is for a generic patient having a similar medical history to the patient as taught by Oleynik in order to gain the advantages of comparing the patient’s data to other patients’ data with similar symptoms or diseases or profile to determine an appropriate treatment ([0007]). Hickle fails to disclose the central processor adjusting the oxygen concentrator based on comparisons of the baseline sleep information (for a generic patient having a similar medical history to the patient). After the modification to the baseline sleep information of Hickle, the central processor would be configured to adjust the oxygen concentrator based on comparisons of the baseline sleep information for a generic patient having a similar medical history to the patient in order to determine unsafe conditions, as the baseline sleep information (safe range information) has been modified above to be for a generic patient having a similar medical history to the patient [0090]-[0091].
Hickle fails to disclose a mobile communication device configured for transport by the patient. However, Oleynik disclose a mobile communication device configured for transport by the patient (a portable medical monitoring device 150 configured for transport by the patient; Fig. 6, [0121]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the communication device of Hickle so that the communication device is mobile for transport by the patient as taught by Oleynik in order to gain the advantages of displaying and collecting real time data as the patient moves ([0138]).
The modified Hickle substantially teaches the claimed invention except for the processor adjusting oxygen purity based on the data collected. However, Schneider teaches adjusting oxygen purity based on the data collected ([0389] last 10 lines, [0023]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the controller of Hickle to be able to adjust oxygen purity as taught by Schneider to provide the advantage of enhanced adaptability to meet a user’s needs.
Regarding claim 2, modified Hickle discloses all the limitations of the system of claim 1. Hickle fails to disclose wherein the oxygen concentrator is comprised of at least one of a portable oxygen concentrator and a continuous positive airway pressure machine. Claim language states “at least one of” so examiner is interpreting the claim to require either “a portable oxygen concentrator” or “a continuous positive airway pressure machine”. However, Schneider discloses wherein the oxygen concentrator is comprised of at least one of a portable oxygen concentrator and a continuous positive airway pressure machine (oxygen concentrator system 100 is a portable oxygen concentrator system; [0258]-[0259], [0492]-[0493]). Hickle, Oleynik, and Schneider are analogous art as they pertain to gas delivery devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the oxygen concentrator of Hickle so that it is a portable oxygen concentrator as taught by Schneider in order to increase portability of the integrated system (Hickle [0180]) allowing the integrated system to be easily moved around (Schneider [0493]).
Regarding claim 3, modified Hickle teaches the limitations of claim 1. Hickle fails to disclose wherein the mobile communication device is comprised of a tablet. However, Oleynik discloses wherein the mobile communication device is comprised of a tablet (a portable medical monitoring device 150 is a tablet; [0121]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Hickle to have the mobile communication device comprise of a tablet as taught by Oleynik to gain the advantages of using a commonly found mobile device, being easily portable, and utilizing a user-friendly device.
Regarding claim 4, modified Hickle teaches the limitations of claim 1. Hickle fails to disclose wherein the mobile communication device is comprised of a mobile phone. However, Oleynik discloses wherein the mobile communication device is comprised of a mobile phone (portable medical monitoring device 150 is a smartphone; Fig. 6; [0121]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Hickle to have the mobile communication device comprise of a mobile phone as taught by Oleynik to gain the advantages of using a commonly found mobile device, being easily portable, and utilizing a user-friendly device.
Regarding claim 7, modified Hickle teaches the limitations of claim 1. Modified Hickle discloses further comprising: a medication device in communication with the central processor (a drug delivery system 40 in communication with the electronic controller 14 via a drug delivery controller 2a; Fig. 4a-b, [0066], [0071]), the medication device configured to administer medication to the patient (the drug delivery system 40 delivers medication to a patient; [0066]).
Regarding claim 8, modified Hickle teaches the limitations of claim 1. Modified Hickle discloses further comprising: an oximeter in communication with the central processor (patient health monitors 12a, which include a pulse oximeter, are electronically coupled to (in communication with) the electronic controller 14; [0070]).
Regarding claim 9, modified Hickle teaches the limitations of claim 1. Modified Hickle discloses wherein the central processor is configured to transmit an alert (electronic controller 14 alerts a user if pressures fail out of the norm; [0089]). In a first embodiment, Hickle fails to disclose transmitting an alert to a caregiver based on comparison of the collected data from the level of consciousness monitor and the baseline sleep information. However, in a second embodiment, Hickle discloses transmitting an alert to a caregiver based on comparison of the collected data from the level of consciousness monitor and the baseline sleep information (a non anesthetist (caregiver) is alerted based on comparison of monitored level of consciousness (collected data) from an automated consciousness query system 256 (level of consciousness monitor) and a normal range related to the level of consciousness (baseline sleep information); [0114]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the central processor of Hickle to transmit an alert to a caregiver in order to increase the safety of the patient by alerting someone who can aid the patient.
Regarding claim 11, Hickle discloses an integrated system for monitoring conditions of a patient (integrated care system for monitoring patient health; [0029]), the integrated system comprising: a central processor (electronic controller 14 is microprocessor based; [0067]); an oxygen concentrator configured to provide a flow of concentrated oxygen to the patient (oxygen source system 144 provides a flow of oxygen from a tank, which is concentrated to the patient; Fig. 7b, [0082], [0084]), the oxygen concentrator in communication with the central processor (oxygen source system 144 is in communication with the electronic controller through pressure sensor 106; Fig. 7A, [0084]), the oxygen concentrator configured to sense flow data based on the flow of concentrated oxygen during use (oxygen source system 144 has pressure sensor 106 that senses flow data (oxygen pressure) based on the flow of concentrated oxygen [0084]); a biometric sensor configured to sense a biometric data point of the patient during use (patient interface system 12 is biometric sensor which monitors the level of the patient’s consciousness and collects feedback signals (biometric data) representing the patient’s physiological conditions, including levels of consciousness (state of wakefulness, awareness, and alertness)); the device in communication with the central processor (electronic controller 14 receives signals from external communication device 18; [0076]), the central processor configured to acquire data from the oxygen concentrator (electronic controller 14 receives signals (collects data) reflecting a measure of pressure from the pressure sensors 106 in the patient interface system 12; [0074]), the biometric sensor (electronic controller 14 receives signals from the patient interface system 12; [0074]) and the device (electronic controller 14 receives signals from the external communication device 18; [0076]) and adjust the oxygen concentrator based on comparisons of the biometric data point and the volumetric flow data (the flow of oxygen from the oxygen source system 144 is adjusted by the electronic controller 14 via flow controller 133 based on indications of unsafe conditions from comparisons of the flow data from pressure sensor 106 and the feedback signals representing the patient’s physiological conditions; [0090]-[0091]).
Hickle fails to disclose a mobile device configured for transport by the patient, the mobile device configured to sense patient data during use, the central processor configured to adjust the oxygen concentrator based on comparisons of the patient data. However, Oleynik discloses a mobile device configured for transport by the patient (a portable medical monitoring device 150 configured for transport by the patient; Fig. 6, [0121]), the mobile device configured to sense patient data during use (150 senses patient data such as patient’s blood pressure, heart rate, and other medical data; [0121]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Hickle so that the device is a mobile communication device for transport by the patient and configured to sense patient data during use as taught by Oleynik in order to gain the advantages of displaying and collecting real time data as the patient moves ([0138]) and ensuring the oxygen concentrator is adjusted appropriately for the patient. Once modified, the central processor of Hickle would be configured to adjust the oxygen concentrator based on comparisons of the patient data in addition to the disclosed biometric data and flow data as the central processor (electronic controller 14) compares data received from the communication device (monitored patient data) with the baseline (safe range) information in order to manage the oxygen flow ([0090]-[0091]).
The modified Hickle substantially teaches the claimed invention except for the processor adjusting oxygen purity based on the data collected. However, Schneider teaches adjusting oxygen purity based on the data collected ([0389] last 10 lines, [0023]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the controller of Hickle to be able to adjust oxygen purity as taught by Schneider to provide the advantage of enhanced adaptability to meet a user’s needs.
Regarding claim 12, modified Hickle discloses all the limitations of the system of claim 11. Hickle discloses wherein the biometric sensor is comprised of a pulse oximeter (patient interface system 12 is biometric sensor and includes one or more patient health monitors such as known pulse oximeters [0074]).
Regarding claim 14, modified Hickle discloses all the limitations of the system of claim 11. Hickle discloses wherein the biometric sensor is comprised of a consciousness sensor associated with a level of consciousness monitor, the biometric data point including electrical activity in the patient's brain (patient interface system 12 comprises of a level of consciousness monitor which monitors the level of the patient’s consciousness and collects feedback signals (biometric data point) representing the patient’s physiological conditions, including levels of consciousness (state of wakefulness, awareness, and alertness); [0074]; an EEG which measures electrical activity in a patient’s brain may be included in patient interface system 12; [0070], [0115]).
Regarding claim 15, modified Hickle discloses all the limitations of the system of claim 11. Since claim language uses “or”, examiner is interpreting the claim as requiring one of the listed options. Oleynik discloses wherein the patient data includes pulse/heart rate (portable medical monitoring device 150 senses patient data such as patient’s blood pressure, heart rate, and other medical data; [0121]).
Regarding claim 16, modified Hickle discloses all the limitations of the system of claim 11. Hickle discloses wherein the oxygen concentrator is configured to sense and record concentrator variables associated with the oxygen concentrator (oxygen source system 144 has pressure sensor 106 that senses flow data (oxygen pressure) based on the flow of concentrated oxygen [0084])). Hickle fails to disclose the concentrator variables including time, duration, location, temperature, movement, humidity, pollution index, pollen index, or altitude. Since claim language uses “or” not “and”, examiner is interpreting the claim as requiring one of the listed options. Schneider discloses a gas delivery system that comprises of an oxygen delivery system comprising a temperature sensor that senses the environmental temperature ([0490]). Hickle, Oleynik, and Schneider are analogous art as they pertain to gas delivery devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the system of Hickle so that the oxygen concentrator incorporates a temperature sensor as taught by Schneider in order to monitor the system environment for optimal operating conditions [0490].
Regarding claim 17, modified Hickle discloses all the limitations of the system of claim 11. Hickle fails to disclose wherein the oxygen concentrator includes a battery, the patient data including oxygen concentrator data associated with the oxygen concentrator, the oxygen concentrator data including oxygen purity, oxygen bolus size, battery power, remaining battery power, battery power consumption, patient breathing rate, compressor revolutions per minute, or alarm codes. However, Schneider discloses wherein the oxygen concentrator includes a battery (battery 104 [0020]), the patient data including oxygen concentrator data associated with the oxygen concentrator, the oxygen concentrator data including oxygen purity (purity sensor 131 [0267). Since claim language uses “or”, examiner is interpreting the claim as requiring one of the listed options. Hickle, Oleynik, and Schneider are analogous art as they pertain to gas delivery devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Hickle so that the oxygen concentrator includes a battery in order to allow for increased portability of the device. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Hickle to incorporate a purity sensor to provide oxygen purity data to allow the controller to more effectively control the flow of oxygen to a patient.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hickle in view of Oleynik and Schneider, and further in view of Pande et al. (US 2006/0038719).
Regarding claim 5, modified Hickle teaches the limitations of claim 4. Hickle fails to disclose wherein the mobile phone is configured to transmit movement data to the central processor based on global positioning system protocol. However, Pande discloses wherein the mobile phone is configured to transmit movement data to the central processor based on global positioning system protocol (an aided location communication device which is a cellular telephone, transmits measured position data (movement data) from a position-determination section 202 using a global position system receiver 204 to a host processor (central processor); Fig. 2, [0062], [0074], [0160]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the mobile communication device of Hickle to include wherein the mobile phone is configured to transmit movement data to the central processor based on global positioning system protocol as taught by Pande in order to collect location data for a monitored patient which will allow for both quickly locating a patient in the event of an emergency and relating movement data to monitored physiological conditions.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hickle in view of Oleynik and Shneider, and further in view of Wallace et al. (US 2007/0017515).
Regarding claim 6, modified Hickle teaches the limitations of claim 1. Hickle fails to disclose wherein the central processor is in communication with a ventilator. However, Wallace discloses wherein the central processor is in communication with a ventilator (a graphic user interface 20, with processor 30, is in communication with a respirator 22 (ventilator); Fig. 2; [0039]- [0040]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of modified Hickle to include wherein the central processor is in communication with a ventilator as taught by Wallace in order to gain advantages of monitoring a patient’s breathing characteristics (Wallace [0006], increasing patient’s safety when their breathing is impaired (Wallace [0004]), and customizing treatments for patients (Wallace [0015]).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hickle in view of Oleynik and Schneider, and further in view of Burton (US2007/0032733).
Regarding claim 10, modified Hickle teaches the limitations of claim 1. Hickle fails to disclose wherein the central processor is configured to predict potential medical issues of the patient by applying artificial intelligence to review acquired data from the oxygen concentrator and the level of consciousness monitor. Burton discloses wherein the central processor is configured to predict potential medical issues of the patient by applying artificial intelligence to review acquired data from the oxygen concentrator and the level of consciousness monitor (a processing system implements a neural network (applies artificial intelligence) to calculate risk (predict) of mild to severe cardiac and SDB risk (potential medical issues) by reviewing the sleep disordered breathing, which includes data of an oxygen concentration device, and monitoring electro-cardiology signals including whether the patient is sleeping, awake, or under anesthesia (levels of consciousness); [0313], [0389], [0446], [0534]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of modified Hickle to include wherein the central processor is configured to predict potential medical issues of the patient by applying artificial intelligence to review acquired data from the oxygen concentrator and the level of consciousness monitor, as taught by Burton, in order to increase patient’s safety and the efficacy of the system by detecting cardiac risks and providing accurate information analysis by using well known and reliable neural networks.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hickle in view of Oleynik and Schneider and further in view of Acker et al. (US 20140000596 A1).
Regarding claim 13, modified Hickle discloses all the limitations of the system of claim 11. Hickle does not explicitly disclose wherein biometric sensor is comprised of a negative pressure sensor. However, Hickle discloses an inspiratory pressure relief valve (INPRV) status sensor 156 (which may be of a known pressure type) that monitors the extent of open/close status of INPRV 154 and generates a signal which is converted to an appropriate electronic (digital) signal and communicates the status of INPRV 154 to electronic controller 14. Acker discloses a breathing apparatus system with a patient trigger sensor 109 (biometric sensor) that can detect negative pressure caused by the patient’s breathing effort [0035]. Hickle and Acker are analogous art as they pertain to gas delivery systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have modified the biometric sensor of Hickle to incorporate a negative pressure sensor such as the one taught by Acker in order to detect when a patient begins inspiration or expiration and provide that information to the processor to help determine the oxygen flow adjustments.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hickle in view of Oleynik and Schneider, and further in view of Whiting (20170014587).
Regarding claim 18, modified Hickle discloses all the limitations of the system of claim 11. Oleynik discloses portable medical monitoring device 150 senses patient data such as patient’s blood pressure, heart rate, and other medical data; [0121]). Hickle in view of Oleynik fails to disclose wherein the patient data includes a level of consciousness of the patient, patient body temperature, patient blood oxygen saturation, patient tidal volume, and patient lung volume. However, Oleynik discloses an electronic device on a patient’s garment that monitors a patient’s body temperature ([0138]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the mobile device of modified Hickle to incorporate a sensor to gather patient data including body temperature as taught by Oleynik in order to better monitor the patient’s condition so the processor can effectively control the flow of oxygen.
Whiting discloses a gas delivery system comprising of sensors wherein the patient data includes a level of consciousness of the patient, patient blood oxygen saturation, patient tidal volume, and patient lung volume (EEG gathers level of consciousness data [0096], [0120]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the mobile device of modified Hickle to incorporate sensors to gather patient data including a level of consciousness of the patient, patient blood oxygen saturation, patient tidal volume, and patient lung volume as taught by Whiting in order to better monitor the patient’s condition so the processor can effectively control the flow of oxygen.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hickle in view of Oleynik and Schneider, and further in view of Stahmann (20050115561).
Regarding claim 19, modified Hickle discloses all the limitations of the system of claim 11. Oleynik discloses portable medical monitoring device 150 senses patient data such as patient’s blood pressure, heart rate, and other medical data; [0121]. Modified Hickle fails to disclose wherein the patient data includes age, sex, weight, patient disease indication, patient oxygen prescription, SpO2 saturation target, height, or race.
Since claim language uses “or”, examiner is interpreting the claim as requiring one of the listed options. Stahmann discloses a respiratory therapy system 200 ([0191]) that comprises of patient data including age ([0194]; table 1). Hickle, Oleynik, and Stahmann are analogous art as they pertain to gas delivery systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of modified Hickle to include age in the patient data so the controller can take into account the patient’s medical background in order to effectively deliver oxygen to the patient.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hickle in view of Oleynik and Schneider, and further in view of Burton.
Regarding claim 20, modified Hickle discloses all the limitations of the system of claim 11. Hickle fails to disclose wherein the central processor adjusts the oxygen concentrator based on predictions developed by artificial intelligence of the central processor associated with the comparisons of the biometric data point, the patient data and the flow data. Burton discloses wherein the central processor adjusts the oxygen concentrator based on predictions developed by artificial intelligence of the central processor (a processing system implements a neural network (applies artificial intelligence) to calculate risk (predict) of mild to severe cardiac and SDB risk (potential medical issues) by reviewing the sleep disordered breathing, which includes data of an oxygen concentration device (flow data), and monitoring electro-cardiology signals including whether the patient is sleeping, awake, or under anesthesia (levels of consciousness; biometric data) and patient data (heart rate); [0313], [0389], [0446], [0534]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the system of Hickle to include wherein the central processor adjusts the oxygen concentrator based on predictions developed by artificial intelligence of the central processor associated with the comparisons of the biometric data point, the patient data and the flow data, as taught by Burton, in order to increase patient’s safety and the efficacy of the system by detecting cardiac risks and providing accurate information analysis by using well known and reliable neural networks.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LATOYA M LOUIS whose telephone number is (571)270-5337. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 1 pm - 6:30 pm 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, Kendra Carter can be reached at 571-272-9034. 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.
/LaToya M Louis/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Prosecution Insights