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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on March 27, 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, and has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "wherein the consistent variability in vital sign over time indicates the severity of the associated health complication" in line. However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. See MPEP § 2173.05(e). The terms “consistent variability” and “severity” were not previously recited in claim 3, nor were they previously recited in claim 1 (which claim 3 depends on). Examiner suggests that Applicant amend the phrase “wherein the consistent variability in vital sign over time indicates the severity of the associated health complication” in lines 4 and 5 of claim 3 to “wherein a consistent variability in vital sign over time indicates a severity of the associated health complication”, or make some other appropriate correction of course. For examination purposes and in the interest of compact prosecution, the phrase “wherein the consistent variability in vital sign over time indicates the severity of the associated health complication” in lines 4 and 5 of claim 3 will be interpreted and read the same as “wherein a consistent variability in vital sign over time indicates a severity of the associated health complication” in lines 4 and 5 of claim 3
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the method of claim 1" in line 1 of claim 5. However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. See MPEP § 2173.05(e). Claim 1 is not directed to a method, rather it is directed to a device and non-transitory computer readable medium. Therefore, it is not clear what method Applicant is referring to in claim 1. Since claim 4 is directed to a method, Examiner suggests that Applicant amend claim 5 to have it depend on the method of claim 4, or make some other appropriate correction of course. For examination purposes, the preamble of claim 5 will be interpreted and read the same as “A method of claim 4, […]” (i.e., claim 5 will be interpreted as depending on claim 4 rather than its current recitation of depending on claim 1). Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. See MPEP § 2106 (hereinafter referred to as the “2019 Revised PEG”).
Step 1 of the 2019 Revised PEG
Following Step 1 of the 2019 Revised PEG, claims 1-3 are directed to a device and non-transitory computer readable medium storing program instructions that are executable to monitor, track, and store vital signs, which is within one of the four statutory categories (i.e., a machine or apparatus). See MPEP § 2106.03. Claims 4 and 5 are directed to a method of monitoring, tracking, and storing vitals data, which is also within one of the four statutory categories (i.e., a process). See id.
Step 2A of the 2019 Revised PEG - Prong One
Following Prong One of Step 2A of the 2019 PEG, the claim limitations are to be analyzed to determine whether they “recite” a judicial exception or in other words whether a judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claims. See MPEP §2106.04. An “abstract idea” judicial exception is subject matter that falls within at least one of the following groupings: (1) Mathematical Concepts; (2) Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, and (3) Mental Processes. See MPEP § 2106.04(a).
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101, because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Representative independent claims 1 and 4 include limitations that recite an abstract idea. Note that independent claim 1 is directed to a device and non-transitory computer readable medium, while claim 4 covers a similar method claim. Specifically, independent claim 1 recites the following limitations:
A device and non-transitory computer readable medium storing program instructions that are executable to monitor, track, and store vital signs, comprising:
an input screen on a mobile dashboard or web platform to enter a minimum value and a maximum values for vital signs;
a vitals sensor that reads vital sign data at regular intervals;
a ring in which the vitals sensor is placed;
a connective cable that sends the vital sign data from the sensor,
a motherboard that receives the vital sign data from the sensor through the connective cable:
and a wristband in which the motherboard is placed;
wherein the motherboard contains a coding algorithm that calculates and compares the vital sign data to the inputted minimum value and the inputted maximum values for vital signs;
wherein the motherboard sends the vital sign data to the mobile dashboard or web platform through a communication network;
wherein the mobile dashboard or web platform processes and displays the vital sign data;
and wherein the mobile dashboard or web platform displays an alert when the vital sign data is outside of the inputted minimum value and the inputted maximum values for the vital signs.
Similarly, claim 4 recites the following limitations:
A method of monitoring, tracking, and storing vitals data, comprising:
reading vitals data with a vitals sensor at regular intervals;
sending vitals data from the vitals sensor to a motherboard through a connective cable;
calculating and comparing vitals data through a coding algorithm within the motherboard;
sending the vitals data to a mobile dashboard or web platform through a communication network;
and displaying the vitals data on the mobile dashboard or web platform.
However, the Examiner submits that the foregoing underlined limitations constitute a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. See 2019 Revised PEG. The Mental Processes category covers concepts which are capable of being performed in the human mind or encompasses a human performing the step(s) mentally with the aid of a pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion) (i.e., (i) a method for monitoring and tracking vital signs, comprising: entering a minimum value and a maximum values for vital signs; reading vital sign data at regular intervals; receiving the vital sign data; and calculating and comparing the vital sign data to the inputted minimum value and the inputted maximum values for vital signs; and similarly (ii) a method for monitoring and tracking vital signs, comprising: reading vitals data at regular intervals; and calculating and comparing vitals data). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). That is, other than reciting some computer components and functions (the foregoing limitations in claims 1 and 4 which are not underlined), the context of claims 1 and 4 encompass concepts that are capable of being performed in the human mind or encompasses a human performing the step(s) mentally with the aid of a pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion) (i.e., (i) a method for monitoring and tracking vital signs, comprising: entering a minimum value and a maximum values for vital signs; reading vital sign data at regular intervals; receiving the vital sign data; and calculating and comparing the vital sign data to the inputted minimum value and the inputted maximum values for vital signs; and similarly (ii) a method for monitoring and tracking vital signs, comprising: reading vitals data at regular intervals; and calculating and comparing vitals data).
The aforementioned claim limitations described in claims 1 and 4 are analogous to claim limitations directed toward concepts which are capable of being performed in the human mind or encompasses a human performing the step(s) mentally with the aid of a pen and paper, because they merely recite limitations which encompass a person mentally and/or manually: (1) monitoring and tracking vital signs (i.e., a type of observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion where a person could mentally review vital sign data); (2) entering a minimum value and a maximum values for vital signs (i.e., a type of observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion where a person could manually enter minimum and maximum vales for vital signs); (3) reading vital sign data at regular intervals (i.e., a type of observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion where a person, such as a medical professional, could mentally read vital sign data a regular interval of time); (4) receiving the vital sign data (i.e., a type of observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion where a person, such as a medical professional, could mentally and/or manually receive the vital sign data); and (5) calculating and comparing the vital sign data to the inputted minimum value and the inputted maximum values for vital signs (i.e., a type of observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion where a person, such as a medical professional, could analyze medical data and compare the data with the entered minimum and maximum threshold values).
Further, Applicant’s claims are similar to claims which have been held to recite an abstract mental process. For example, the Federal Circuit held the a claim directed to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis”, where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality amounted to steps that could practically be performed in the human mind. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A) (citing Electric Power Group g. Alstom, S.A.). Similarly, Applicant’s claims recite steps for collecting information (e.g., in this case, reading and receiving the vital sign data); analyzing the data (e.g., in this case, calculating and comparing the vital sign data to the inputted minimum value and the inputted maximum values for vital signs); and displaying certain results about the collection and analysis (i.e., in this case, sending and displaying the vitals data on the mobile dashboard or web platform), at a high level of generality. Therefore, the aforementioned underlined claim limitations may reasonably be interpreted as mental/manual observations, evaluations, judgments, and/or opinions made by a person, such as a healthcare professional. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers concepts which are capable of being performed in the human mind or encompasses a human performing the step(s) mentally with the aid of a pen and paper, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. See 2019 Revised PEG. Accordingly, claims 1 and 4 recite an abstract idea that falls within the Mental Processes category.
Furthermore, Examiner notes that dependent claims 2, 3, and 5 further define the at least one abstract idea (and thus fail to make the abstract idea any less abstract) as set forth below. Examiner notes that dependent claims 2, 3, and 5 include limitations that are deemed to be additional elements, and require further analysis under Prong Two of Step 2A.
Step 2A of the 2019 Revised PEG - Prong Two
Regarding Prong Two of Step 2A of the 2019 Revised PEG, it must be determined whether the claim as a whole integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 Revised PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claims are indicative of integrating the abstract idea into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.” See MPEP § 2106.05 (f), (g), and (h).
In the present case, for independent claims 1, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted at least one abstract idea are as follows (where the bolded portions are the “additional limitations” while the underlined portions continue to represent the at least one “abstract idea”):
A device and non-transitory computer readable medium storing program instructions that are executable (the Examiner submits that this additional element amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) to monitor, track, and store (the Examiner submits that this additional element amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(g); and the Examiner further submits that such steps are not unconventional as they merely consist of storing and retrieving information in memory, as evidenced by the Versata Dev. Group Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. case, as noted below in the Step 2B Analysis Section, see MPEP § 2106.05(d)) vital signs, comprising:
an input screen on a mobile dashboard or web platform (the Examiner submits that this additional element amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) to enter a minimum value and a maximum values for vital signs;
a vitals sensor (the Examiner submits that this additional element amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) that reads vital sign data at regular intervals;
a ring in which the vitals sensor is placed (the Examiner submits that this additional element amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP § 2106.05(f));
a connective cable that sends the vital sign data from the sensor (the Examiner submits that this additional element amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(g); and the Examiner further submits that such steps are not unconventional as they merely consist of receiving data over a network, as evidenced by the Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec case, as noted below in the Step 2B Analysis Section, see MPEP § 2106.05(d)),
a motherboard (the Examiner submits that this additional element amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) that receives the vital sign data from the sensor through the connective cable:
and a wristband in which the motherboard is placed (the Examiner submits that this additional element amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP § 2106.05(f));
wherein the motherboard contains a coding algorithm (the Examiner submits that this additional element amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP § 2106.05(f); and the Examiner further submits that this additional element amounts to generally linking the abstract idea to a particular field of use or technological environment as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) that calculates and compares the vital sign data to the inputted minimum value and the inputted maximum values for vital signs;
wherein the motherboard sends the vital sign data to the mobile dashboard or web platform through a communication network (the Examiner submits that this additional element amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(g); and the Examiner further submits that such steps are not unconventional as they merely consist of receiving data over a network, as evidenced by the Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec case, as noted below in the Step 2B Analysis Section, see MPEP § 2106.05(d));
wherein the mobile dashboard or web platform processes and displays the vital sign data (the Examiner submits that this additional element amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(g); and the Examiner further submits that such steps are not unconventional as they merely consist of receiving data over a network, as evidenced by the Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec case, as noted below in the Step 2B Analysis Section, see MPEP § 2106.05(d));
and wherein the mobile dashboard or web platform displays an alert when the vital sign data is outside of the inputted minimum value and the inputted maximum values for the vital signs (the Examiner submits that this additional element amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(g); and the Examiner further submits that such steps are not unconventional as they merely consist of receiving data over a network, as evidenced by the Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec case, as noted below in the Step 2B Analysis Section, see MPEP § 2106.05(d)).
Similarly, for independent claim 4, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted at least one abstract idea are as follows (where the bolded portions are the “additional limitations” while the underlined portions continue to represent the at least one “abstract idea”):
A method of monitoring, tracking, and storing (the Examiner submits that this additional element amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(g); and the Examiner further submits that such steps are not unconventional as they merely consist of storing and retrieving information in memory, as evidenced by the Versata Dev. Group Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. case, as noted below in the Step 2B Analysis Section, see MPEP § 2106.05(d)) vitals data, comprising:
reading vitals data with a vitals sensor (the Examiner submits that this additional element amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) at regular intervals;
sending vitals data from the vitals sensor to a motherboard through a connective cable (the Examiner submits that this additional element amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(g); and the Examiner further submits that such steps are not unconventional as they merely consist of receiving data over a network, as evidenced by the Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec case, as noted below in the Step 2B Analysis Section, see MPEP § 2106.05(d));
calculating and comparing vitals data through a coding algorithm within the motherboard (the Examiner submits that this additional element amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP § 2106.05(f); and the Examiner further submits that this additional element amounts to generally linking the abstract idea to a particular field of use or technological environment as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(h));
sending the vitals data to a mobile dashboard or web platform through a communication network (the Examiner submits that this additional element amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(g); and the Examiner further submits that such steps are not unconventional as they merely consist of receiving data over a network, as evidenced by the Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec case, as noted below in the Step 2B Analysis Section, see MPEP § 2106.05(d));
and displaying the vitals data on the mobile dashboard or web platform (the Examiner submits that this additional element amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(g); and the Examiner further submits that such steps are not unconventional as they merely consist of receiving data over a network, as evidenced by the Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec case, as noted below in the Step 2B Analysis Section, see MPEP § 2106.05(d)).
However, the recitation of these generic computer components and functions in claim 1 are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., using generic computer devices to perform the abstract ideas of: (i) a method for monitoring and tracking vital signs, comprising: entering a minimum value and a maximum values for vital signs; reading vital sign data at regular intervals; receiving the vital sign data; and calculating and comparing the vital sign data to the inputted minimum value and the inputted maximum values for vital signs; and similarly (ii) a method for monitoring and tracking vital signs, comprising: reading vitals data at regular intervals; and calculating and comparing vitals data), such that it amounts to no more than: (1) adding the words “apply it” (or is the equivalent of) with the judicial exception; mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer; or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; (2) adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and (3) generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §§ 2106.05(f)-(h). For the following reasons, the Examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
- The following is an example of court decisions that demonstrate merely applying instructions by reciting the computer structure as a tool to implement the claimed limitations (e.g., see MPEP § 2106.05(f)):
- Invoking computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process, e.g., see Affinity Labs v. DirecTV – similarly, the device, non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions; input screen; mobile dashboard; web platform; vital sensor; ring; connective cable; motherboard; wristband; coding algorithm; and communication network, represent generic computers and other machinery that are being used in their ordinary capacity for basic tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data).
- A commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general purpose computer, e.g., see Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l – similarly, the current invention implements the commonplace medical business method of collecting and transmitting vital sign data; comparing the vital sign data to threshold values; and sending an alert when the vital sign data is outside of the threshold values using generic computing devices (i.e., the Examiner submits that the additional elements directed to the device, non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions; input screen; mobile dashboard; web platform; vital sensor; ring; connective cable; motherboard; wristband; coding algorithm; and communication network, are generic computer devices implementing a mathematical coding algorithm).
- Requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer, e.g., see Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA) – similarly, the current invention requires software components and the device (i.e., the device and non-transitory computer readable medium storing program instructions) to perform the abstract idea.
- The following is an example of an insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., see MPEP § 2106.05(g)):
- Example of Mere Data Gathering/Mere Data Outputting:
- Obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify credit card transactions, e.g., see CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc. – similarly, the steps directed to: (1) “sending the vital sign data ”; (2) “receiving the vital sign data”; (3) “sending the vital sign data to the mobile dashboard or web platform through a communication network”; (4) “processing and displaying the vital sign data”; (5) “displaying an alert when the vital sign data is outside of the inputted minimum value and the inputted maximum values for the vital signs”; (6) “sending vitals data from the vitals sensor to a motherboard through a connective cable”; (7) “sending the vitals data to a mobile dashboard or web platform through a communication network”; and (8) “displaying the vitals data on the mobile dashboard or web platform”, described in claims 1 and 4, are necessary data gathering/outputting steps (i.e., receiving and processing the vital sign data are necessary data gathering steps in order to make the comparison of the vital sign data with the entered minimum and maximum values for the vital signs; and sending and displaying the vital sign data and displaying the alert are necessary data outputting steps in order for the device to convey the results to the users).
- Consulting and updating an activity log, e.g., Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu – similarly, the steps directed to “storing the vital sign data” recited in the preambles of both claims 1 and 4, are necessary data gathering steps.
- The following are examples of generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (e.g., see MPEP § 2106.05(h)):
- (1) Specifying that the abstract idea of monitoring audit log data relates to transactions or activities that are executed in a computer environment, because this requirement merely limits the claims to the computer field, i.e., to execution on a generic computer, FairWarning v. Iatric Sys.; (2) Specifying that the abstract idea of using advertising as currency is used on the Internet, because this narrowing limitation is merely an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu; and (3) Requiring that the abstract idea of creating a contractual relationship that guarantees performance of a transaction (a) be performed using a computer that receives and sends information over a network, or (b) be limited to guaranteeing online transactions, because these limitations simply attempted to limit the use of the abstract idea to computer environments, buySAFE Inc. v. Google, Inc. - similarly, the limitations directed to: “wherein the motherboard contains a coding algorithm” and “a coding algorithm within the motherboard”, amounts to limiting the abstract idea to the field of coding algorithm technologies and devices with a motherboard. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Thus, the additional elements in independent claims 1 and 4 are not indicative of integrating the judicial exception into a practical application. Examiner notes that dependent claims 2, 3, and 5 recite the following additional elements identified in bold font below (with limitations deemed to be part of the above identified abstract idea identified in underlined font):
storing additional program instructions that are executable to: display historical trends of vitals data in a chart, graph, or timeline (the Examiner submits that this additional element amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(g); and the Examiner further submits that such steps are not unconventional as they merely consist of receiving data over a network, as evidenced by the Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec case, as noted below in the Step 2B Analysis Section, see MPEP § 2106.05(d)) (as described in claim 2);
storing additional program instructions that are executable to: determine when vital signs have been increasing or decreasing over time; wherein the consistent variability in vital sign over time indicates the severity of the associated health complication; and send an alert or notification immediately, in two minutes, or in thirty minutes depending on the severity of the associated health complication (the Examiner submits that this additional element amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(g); and the Examiner further submits that such steps are not unconventional as they merely consist of receiving data over a network, as evidenced by the Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec case, as noted below in the Step 2B Analysis Section, see MPEP § 2106.05(d)) (as described in claim 3); and
inputting a minimum value and a maximum value associated with the vital sign; and sending an alert or notification when the vitals data is out of the range determined by the input minimum value and the input maximum value (the Examiner submits that this additional element amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(g); and the Examiner further submits that such steps are not unconventional as they merely consist of receiving data over a network, as evidenced by the Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec case, as noted below in the Step 2B Analysis Section, see MPEP § 2106.05(d)) (as described in claim 5).
As such, the additional elements in claims 1-5 are not indicative of integrating the judicial exception into a practical application. Looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, unlike the claims that have been held as a whole to be directed to an improvement or otherwise directed to something more than the abstract idea, claims 1-5: (1) are not directed to improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field similar to the Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp. case (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)); (2) do not apply or use a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (see MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2)); (3) do not apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP § 2106.05(b)); (4) do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP § 2106.05(c)); nor do they (5) apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(e) and MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2)). For these reasons, claims 1-5 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B of the 2019 Revised PEG
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 Revised PEG, claims 1-5 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 abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of claims 1-5 amount to no more than: (1) adding the words “apply it” (or is the equivalent of) with the judicial exception; mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer; or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; (2) adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and (3) generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §§ 2106.05(f)-(h). Further the additional elements, other than the abstract idea per se, when considered both individually and as an ordered combination, amount to no more than limitations consistent with what the courts recognize, or those having ordinary skill in the art would recognize, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional computer components. See MPEP § 2106.05 (d).
Specifically, the Examiner submits that the additional elements of claims 1-5, as recited, the device; non-transitory computer readable medium storing program instructions; input screen; mobile dashboard; web platform; vital sensor; ring; connective cable; motherboard; wristband; coding algorithm; and communication network; and the steps of: “storing vital signs”; “a connective cable that sends the vital sign data from the sensor”; “wherein the motherboard sends the vital sign data to the mobile dashboard or web platform through a communication network”; “wherein the mobile dashboard or web platform processes and displays the vital sign data”; “and wherein the mobile dashboard or web platform displays an alert when the vital sign data is outside of the inputted minimum value and the inputted maximum values for the vital signs”; “storing vitals data”; “sending vitals data from the vitals sensor to a motherboard through a connective cable”; “sending the vitals data to a mobile dashboard or web platform through a communication network”; “displaying the vitals data on the mobile dashboard or web platform”; “display historical trends of vitals data in a chart, graph, or timeline”; “send an alert or notification immediately, in two minutes, or in thirty minutes depending on the severity of the associated health complication”; and “sending an alert or notification when the vitals data is out of the range determined by the input minimum value and the input maximum value”, are well-understood, routine, and conventional functions. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II).
- In regard to the device; non-transitory computer readable medium storing program instructions; input screen; mobile dashboard; web platform; vital sensor; ring; connective cable; motherboard; wristband; coding algorithm; and communication network, these additional elements or combination of elements in the claims, other than the abstract idea per se, amount to no more than well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry, because:
- Applicant’s disclosure supports this assertion. For example, Applicant discloses that: (1) the device may be any one of devices 100 (e.g., see FIG. 1A), 1100 (e.g., see FIGS. 11A and 11B), or 1200 (e.g., see FIGS. 12A and 12B) to monitor their vitals on-demand (see Applicant’s original specification, as filed on February 20, 2024, paragraph [0036]); (2) the apparatus can include a vitals sensor 150, a ring 140, a cable 130, a motherboard 120, and a wristband 110 (see Applicant’s original specification, as filed on February 20, 2024, paragraph [0023]); and (3) the coding algorithm within motherboard 120 then compares the average of the collected vitals data with entered minimum value 450 and maximum value 460, as shown in box 340 (see Applicant’s original specification, as filed on February 20, 2024, paragraph [0025]). These specification describes these additional elements as basic computer components and functions, such as sending and receiving data. Therefore, the Examiner submits that these devices and computer components represent well-understood, routine, and conventional computer devices which are known in the medical industry.
- The Examiner submits that these limitations amount to merely using a computer or other machinery as tools for performing their typical functionality in conjunction with performing the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f) and analysis of these limitations under Step 2A, Prong Two above).
- The Examiner submits that these limitations generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – for example, the limitations directed to: “wherein the motherboard contains a coding algorithm” and “a coding algorithm within the motherboard”, amounts to limiting the abstract idea to the field of coding algorithm technologies and devices with a motherboard (see MPEP § 2106.05(h) and analysis of these limitations under Step 2A, Prong Two above).
Therefore, these limitations are also deemed to be well-understood, routine, and conventional under Step 2B for similar reasons since they are claimed in a generic manner.
- Regarding the steps and features directed to: “storing vital signs”; “a connective cable that sends the vital sign data from the sensor”; “wherein the motherboard sends the vital sign data to the mobile dashboard or web platform through a communication network”; “wherein the mobile dashboard or web platform processes and displays the vital sign data”; “and wherein the mobile dashboard or web platform displays an alert when the vital sign data is outside of the inputted minimum value and the inputted maximum values for the vital signs”; “storing vitals data”; “sending vitals data from the vitals sensor to a motherboard through a connective cable”; “sending the vitals data to a mobile dashboard or web platform through a communication network”; “displaying the vitals data on the mobile dashboard or web platform”; “display historical trends of vitals data in a chart, graph, or timeline”; “send an alert or notification immediately, in two minutes, or in thirty minutes depending on the severity of the associated health complication”; and “sending an alert or notification when the vitals data is out of the range determined by the input minimum value and the input maximum value” - The following represents examples that courts have identified to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activities (e.g., see MPEP § 2106.05(d)):
- Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., see Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec – similarly the limitations directed to: “a connective cable that sends the vital sign data from the sensor”; “wherein the motherboard sends the vital sign data to the mobile dashboard or web platform through a communication network”; “wherein the mobile dashboard or web platform processes and displays the vital sign data”; “and wherein the mobile dashboard or web platform displays an alert when the vital sign data is outside of the inputted minimum value and the inputted maximum values for the vital signs”; “sending vitals data from the vitals sensor to a motherboard through a connective cable”; “sending the vitals data to a mobile dashboard or web platform through a communication network”; “displaying the vitals data on the mobile dashboard or web platform”; “display historical trends of vitals data in a chart, graph, or timeline”; “send an alert or notification immediately, in two minutes, or in thirty minutes depending on the severity of the associated health complication”; and “sending an alert or notification when the vitals data is out of the range determined by the input minimum value and the input maximum value”, are similarly deemed to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the medical field, because they also represent mere collection and transmission of data over a network (i.e., sending, receiving, processing, and displaying the vital sign data and sending/displaying the alert, are each the equivalent of receiving and transmitting data over a network).
- Storing and retrieving information in memory, e.g., see Versata Dev. Group Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. – similarly the limitations directed to: “storing vital sing data” and “storing vitals data” are similarly deemed to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the medical field, because they represent the storage of common medical data.
Therefore, the additional elements described in claims 1-5 are deemed to be additional elements which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements of claims 1-5 do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Furthermore, looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functionality of a computer or improves any other technology, and their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Therefore, whether taken individually or as an ordered combination, claims 1-5 are nonetheless rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (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 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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by:
- Moon et al. (Pub. No. US 2022/0015704).
Regarding claim 4,
- Moon et al. (Pub. No. US 2022/0015704) discloses:
- a method of monitoring, tracking, and storing vitals data (Moon, paragraph 0018]; Paragraph [0018] discloses a method for monitoring a patient including the steps of: (a) associating a first set of vital sign information measured from the patient with a first transceiver that includes a first motion sensor (i.e., monitoring and tracking vitals data); and (b) storing the first set of vital sign information in a computer memory (i.e., storing vitals data).), comprising:
- reading vitals data with a vitals sensor at regular intervals (Moon, paragraph [0016]; Paragraph [0016] discloses that the body-worn monitor features a series of sensors (i.e., the device includes one or more vital sensors) that attach to the patient to measure time-dependent PPG, ECG, ACC, oscillometric (OSC) (i.e., the vital sensor reads vitals data at regular intervals since this disclosure teaches that the measure data can be “time-dependent”), and impedance pneumography (IP) waveforms.);
- sending vitals data from the vitals sensor to a motherboard through a connective cable (Moon, paragraph [0063]; Paragraph [0063] discloses that the transceiver that is attached to the patient’s wrist connects through a first flexible cable (i.e., a connective cable) to a thumb-worn optical sensor 94 (i.e., the connective cable sends the vitals data from the sensor). Further, paragraph [0063] discloses that the transceiver displays the vital signs and physiological parameters collected by the thumb-worn optical sensor (i.e., sending the vitals data from the vital sensor to a motherboard through a connective cable).);
- calculating and comparing vitals data through a coding algorithm within the motherboard (Moon, paragraph [0078]; Paragraph [0078] discloses that the PDS 60 receives the patient’s vital signs and compares these parameters to preprogrammed threshold values (i.e., a coding algorithm that calculates and compares the vitals data to threshold values for the vitals data).);
- sending the vitals data to a mobile dashboard or web platform through a communication network (Moon, paragraph [0070]; Paragraph [0070] discloses that the body-worn monitor 100 used to measure vital signs form a patient and render the different GUIs sends along with a wireless system over which the transceiver 72 [which contains the motherboard] sends information through a hospital network 60 (i.e., the motherboard sends the vitals data to the web platform through the mobile dashboards).); and
- displaying the vitals data on the mobile dashboard or web platform (Moon, paragraphs [0013], [0015], and [0026]; Paragraph [0013] discloses that the monitor associated with the clinician features a display wherein the user can select to display information (e.g. vital signs, location, and alarms) (i.e., the mobile dashboard/web platform displays an alert). Paragraph [0015] discloses that the body-worn monitor can include a software framework that generates alarms/alerts based on threshold values that are either preset or determined in real time (i.e., displaying an alert that is based on threshold values for the vitals data). Paragraph [0026] generally discloses that the alarming system activates the alarm if the parameters calculated therefrom exceed the pre-determined threshold (i.e., the alert is displayed when the vitals data is outside of the threshold values for the vitals data).).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claims 1, 2, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
- Moon et al. (Pub. No. US 2022/0015704), in view of:
- Tran (Pub. No. US 2015/0125832).
Regarding claim 1,
- Moon et al. (Pub. No. US 2022/0015704) teaches:
- a device and non-transitory computer readable medium storing program instructions that are executable (Moon, paragraph [0080]; Paragraph [0080] generally teaches that the system includes a computer memory that stores a software program (i.e., a non-transitory computer readable medium storing program instructions).) to monitor, track, and store vital signs (Moon, paragraphs [0009] and [0019]; Paragraph [0009] teaches that the invention includes a body-worn monitor that continuously measures all vital signs from a patient (i.e., the device monitors and tracks vital signs). Paragraph [0019] generally teaches that the vital sign information that is measured by the first and second transceivers is stored in a computer memory (e.g., a database).), comprising:
…
- a vital sensor that reads vital sign data at regular intervals (Moon, paragraph [0016]; Paragraph [0016] teaches that the body-worn monitor features a series of sensors (i.e., the device includes one or more vital sensors) that attach to the patient to measure time-dependent PPG, ECG, ACC, oscillometric (OSC) (i.e., the vital sensor reads vital sign data at regular intervals since this disclosure teaches that the measure data can be “time-dependent”), and impedance pneumography (IP) waveforms.);
- a ring in which the vital sensor is placed (Moon, paragraph [0137]; Paragraph [0137] teaches that the optical sensors with finger-ring configurations can be worn on fingers (i.e., at least one vital sensor is placed in a ring).);
- a connective cable that sends the vital sign data from the sensor (Moon, paragraph [0063]; Paragraph [0063] teaches that the transceiver that is attached to the patient’s wrist connects through a first flexible cable (i.e., a connective cable) to a thumb-worn optical sensor 94 (i.e., the connective cable sends the vital sign data from the sensor). Further, paragraph [0063] teaches that the transceiver displays the vital signs and physiological parameters collected by the thumb-worn optical sensor (i.e., sending the vitals data from the vital sensor to a motherboard through a connective cable).);
- a motherboard that receives the vital sign data from the sensor through the connective cable (Moon, paragraph [0022]; Paragraph [0022] teaches that the body-worn monitor includes a processing component (i.e., a motherboard) that interfaces with the sensors and processes signals from them to calculate the vital sign values (i.e., the motherboard receives the vital sign data from the sensors).);
- a wristband in which the motherboard is placed (Moon, paragraph [0028]; Paragraph [0028] teaches that the wrist-worn transceiver (i.e., a wristband) includes the processing component within the transceiver (i.e., the motherboard is placed in the wristband).);
- wherein the motherboard contains a coding algorithm that calculates and compares the vital sign data to the [threshold values] for the vital signs (similar to the limitation described in claim 1) (Moon, paragraph [0078]; Paragraph [0078] teaches that the PDS 60 receives the patient’s vital signs and compares these parameters to preprogrammed threshold values (i.e., a coding algorithm that calculates and compares the vital sign data to threshold values for the vital signs).);
- wherein the motherboard sends the vital sign data to the mobile dashboard or web platform through a communication network (Moon, paragraph [0070]; Paragraph [0070] teaches that the body-worn monitor 100 used to measure vital signs form a patient and render the different GUIs sends along with a wireless system over which the transceiver 72 [which contains the motherboard] sends information through a hospital network 60 (i.e., the motherboard sends the vital signs to the web platform through the mobile dashboards).);
- wherein the mobile dashboard or web platform processes and displays the vital sign data (Moon, paragraph [0013]; Paragraph [0013] teaches that the monitor associated with the clinician features a display wherein the user can select to display information (e.g. vital signs, location, and alarms) (i.e., the mobile dashboard/web platform processes and displays the vital sign data) corresponding to a particular patient.); and
- wherein the mobile dashboard or web platform displays an alert when the vital sign data is outside of the [threshold values] for the vital signs (similar to the limitation described in claim 1) (Moon, paragraphs [0013], [0015], and [0026]; Paragraph [0013] teaches that the monitor associated with the clinician features a display wherein the user can select to display information (e.g. vital signs, location, and alarms) (i.e., the mobile dashboard/web platform displays an alert). Paragraph [0015] teaches that the body-worn monitor can include a software framework that generates alarms/alerts based on threshold values that are either preset or determined in real time (i.e., displaying an alert that is based on threshold values for the vital signs). Paragraph [0026] generally teaches that the alarming system activates the alarm if the parameters calculated therefrom exceed the pre-determined threshold (i.e., the alert is displayed when the vital sign is outside of the threshold values for the vital signs).).
- Moon does not explicitly teach, however, in analogous art of systems and methods for monitoring a wearer’s vital signs, Tran (Pub. No. US 2015/0125832) teaches a device, comprising:
- an input screen on a mobile dashboard or web platform to enter a minimum value and a maximum values for vital signs (Tran, paragraph [0194]; Paragraph [0194] teaches that users may set up alerts or reminders that are triggered when one or more readings meet a certain set of conditions, depending on parameters defined by the user (i.e., the user is able to enter the values for the vital signs that will trigger the alerts). The user chooses the condition that they would like to be alerted to and by providing the parameters (e.g. threshold value for the reading) for alert generation (i.e., entering the threshold values naturally requires the user to enter the minimum value for the threshold and the maximum value for the threshold. Therefore, this disclosure is interpreted as teaching an input screen for entering a minimum value and a maximum value for the vital signs.). Each alert may have an interval which may be the number of data points (i.e., further showing that the threshold includes at least two data points, which would be the minimum value and the maximum value of the threshold).);
- calculating and comparing the vital sign data to the inputted minimum value and the inputted maximum values for the vital signs; and displaying an alert when the vital sign data is outside of the inputted minimum value and the inputted maximum values for the vital signs (Tran, paragraphs [0026] and [0199]; Paragraph [0199] teaches that an alert message can be sent out after analyzing one or more data parameters using any type of algorithm. These algorithms range from the relatively simple (e.g., comparing blood pressure to a recommended value) (i.e., comparing the vital sing to the input minimum value and input maximum value for the vital sign) to the complex (e.g., predictive medical diagnoses using ‘data mining’ techniques). (i.e., alerts are displayed when the vital sign is outside of the input minimum and maximum values for the vital signs). Paragraph [0026] teaches that these features are beneficial for helping to capture adverse events sooner, reducing hospital admissions, and improving the overall quality of care.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of systems and methods for monitoring a wearer’s vital signs at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the body-worn monitoring system taught by Moon, to incorporate steps and features directed to: (i) including the ability to enter a minimum value and a maximum value for a vital sign; (ii) comparing the vital sign to the input minimum value and the input maximum value for the vital signs; and (iii) displaying an alert when the vital sign is outside of the input minimum value and the input maximum value for the vital sign, as taught by Tran, in order to help capture adverse events sooner, reduce hospital admissions; and improve the overall quality of care. See Tran, paragraph [0026]; see also MPEP § 2143 G.
Regarding claim 2,
- The combination of: Moon, as modified in view of Tran, teaches the limitations of claim 1 (which claim 2 depends on), as described above.
- Tran further teaches a device and non-transitory computer readable medium, storing additional program instructions that are executable to:
- display historical trends of vitals data in a chart, graph, or timeline (Tran, paragraphs [0182] and [0185]; Paragraph [0182] teaches that the system allows for real-time monitoring of a patient’s vital parameters and this information can be viewed simply by viewing a display on the monitor (i.e., displaying the vital sign data). Further, paragraph [0182] teaches that the data is measured several times each day to provide a relatively comprehensive data set compared to that measured during medical appointments separated by several weeks or even months, which allows patients and medical professionals to observe trends in the data (i.e., the displayed data is compared to and displayed with historical trends of the vital sign data). Paragraph [0185] teaches that that programs prove a report that displays the trend data in a graphical format (i.e., the displaying the historical trends of the vital sign data in a graph).).
The motivation and rationale for modifying the systems and methods for monitoring a wearer’s vital signs taught by Moon, in view of Tran, described in the analysis of the obviousness rejection of claim 1 similarly apply to this obviousness rejection, and are incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding claim 5,
- Moon discloses the limitations of claim 4 (which claim 5 is interpreted as depending on - see the analysis in the indefinite rejection of claim 5 above under the Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b) Section), as described above.
- Moon does not explicitly teach, however, in analogous art of systems and methods for monitoring a wearer’s vital signs, Tran (Pub. No. US 2015/0125832) teaches a method, comprising:
- inputting a minimum value and a maximum value associated with the vital sign (Tran, paragraph [0194]; Paragraph [0194] teaches that users may set up alerts or reminders that are triggered when one or more readings meet a certain set of conditions, depending on parameters defined by the user (i.e., the user is able to input the values for the vital signs that will trigger the alerts). The user chooses the condition that they would like to be alerted to and by providing the parameters (e.g. threshold value for the reading) for alert generation (i.e., entering the threshold values naturally requires the user to input the minimum value for the threshold and the maximum value for the threshold. Therefore, this disclosure is interpreted as teaching an input screen for inputting a minimum value and a maximum value for the vital signs.). Each alert may have an interval which may be the number of data points (i.e., further showing that the threshold includes at least two data points, which would be the minimum value and the maximum value of the threshold).); and
- sending an alert or notification when the vitals data is out of the range determined by the input minimum value and the input maximum value (Tran, paragraphs [0026] and [0199]; Paragraph [0199] teaches that an alert message can be sent out after analyzing one or more data parameters using any type of algorithm. These algorithms range from the relatively simple (e.g., comparing blood pressure to a recommended value) (i.e., comparing the vital sing to the input minimum value and input maximum value for the vital sign) to the complex (e.g., predictive medical diagnoses using ‘data mining’ techniques) (i.e., alerts are sent to a display when the vital sign is outside of the input minimum and maximum values for the vital signs). Paragraph [0026] teaches that these features are beneficial for helping to capture adverse events sooner, reducing hospital admissions, and improving the overall quality of care.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of systems and methods for monitoring a wearer’s vital signs at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the body-worn monitoring system taught by Moon, to incorporate steps and features directed to: (i) including the ability to input a minimum value and a maximum value for a vital sign; and (ii) sending an alert when the vital sign is outside of the input minimum value and the input maximum value for the vital sign, as taught by Tran, in order to help capture adverse events sooner, reduce hospital admissions; and improve the overall quality of care. See Tran, paragraph [0026]; see also MPEP § 2143 G.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
- The combination of: Moon et al. (Pub. No. US 2022/0015704), as modified in view of Tran (Pub. No. US 2015/0125832) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of:
- Freeseman-Freeman et al. (Pub. No. US 2020/0214648).
Regarding claim 3,
- The combination of: Moon, as modified in view of Tran, teaches the limitations of claim 1 (which claim 3 depends on), as described above.
- The combination of: Moon, as modified in view of Tran, does not explicitly teach, however, in analogous art of systems and methods for monitoring a patient’s vital signs, Freeseman-Freeman et al. (Pub. No. US 2020/0214648) teaches a device and non-transitory computer readable medium, storing additional program instructions that are executable to:
- determine when vital signs have been increasing or decreasing over time (Freeseman-Freeman, paragraph [0008]; Paragraph [0008] generally teaches that the system determines a level or risk of deterioration for a patient based on detecting subtle or early changes in a patient’s vital signs over different intervals of time (i.e., determining when vital signs have been increasing or decreasing over a time).);
- wherein the consistent variability in vital sign over time indicates the severity of the associated health complication (Freeseman-Freeman, paragraph [0008]; Paragraph [0008] teaches that the detected subtle or early changes in the patient’s vital signs relates to the severity of illness over intervals and resulting trends (i.e., the resulting trends over intervals are interpreted as the equivalent of “consistent variability in the vital sign over time” and are indicative of the severity of the associated health complication).); and
- send an alert or notification immediately, in two minutes, or in thirty minutes depending on the severity of the associated health complication (Freeseman-Freeman, paragraphs [0018] and [0024]; Paragraph [0018] teaches that the system provides early, proactive warnings to medical professionals that one or more patients’ conditions are deteriorating (i.e., sending an alert depending on the severity of the associated health complication). Paragraph [0024] teaches that the assessments of patients and the provided warnings or notifications to medical professional scan be continuous and automatic based on the level of deterioration risk (e.g., a critical level) (i.e., the alerts or notifications are sent immediately based on the severity of the associated health condition being considered at critical level). Paragraph [0018] teaches that these features are beneficial for allowing a medical professional to begin monitoring a patient at more frequent intervals, or to prepare a facility for an upgrade in care for a certain patient.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of systems and methods for monitoring a patient’s vital signs at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the body-worn monitoring system taught by Moon, as modified in view of Tran, to incorporate steps and features directed to: (i) determining when vital signs have been increasing or decreasing over time; (ii) determining that the consistent variability in a vital sign over time indicates the severity of the associated health complication; and (iii) sending an alert or notification immediately depending on the severity of the associated health complication, as taught by Freeseman-Freeman, in order to allow a medical professional to begin monitoring a patient at more frequent intervals, or to prepare a facility for an upgrade in care for a certain patient. See Freeseman-Freeman, paragraph [0018]; see also MPEP § 2143 G.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nicholas Akogyeram II whose telephone number is (571) 272-0464. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, between 8:00am - 5:00pm.
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 Dunham can be reached at (571) 272-8109. 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.
Official replies to this Office action may now be submitted electronically by registered
users of the EFS-Web system. Information on EFS-Web tools is available on the Internet at:
http://www.uspto.gov/patents/processlfi!elefslguidance/index.isp. An EFS-Web Quick-Start
Guide is available at: http://www.uspto.gov/ebc/portallefslquick-start.pdf.
Alternatively, official replies to this Office Action may still be submitted by any one of fax, mail, or hand delivery.
Faxed replies should be directed to the central fax at (571) 273-8300.
Mailed replies should be addressed to:
United States Patent and Trademark Office:
Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
Hand delivered responses should be brought to the United States Patent and Trademark Office Customer Service Window:
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314-1450
/N.A.A./Examiner, Art Unit 3686
/JONATHON A. SZUMNY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3686