Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The present Office Action is in response to the Request for Continued Examination dated 26 March 2026.
Request for Continued Examination
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 26 March 2026 has been entered.
DETAILED ACTION
In the RCE filed 26 March 2026:
Claims 21-22 are new
Claim 20 is cancelled
Claims 1-2,4-6,9,11,19 are amended
Claims 1-6,8-13,16-19,21-22 are pending
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 1-6,8-13,16-19,21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
The claim recites a system and method, which are within a statutory category.
Step 2A1
The limitations of:
Claims 1 and 11 (Claim 1 being representative)
receiving patient remote blood pressure data;
transmitting the patient remote blood pressure data;
receiving, at regular intervals, a quality-of-life survey;
transmitting, at regular intervals, a completed quality-of-life survey;
monitors the patient based on received completed quality-of-life surveys and received patient remote blood pressure data;
determines via the received completed quality-of-life surveys and received patient remote blood pressure data that the patient is suitable for a denervation procedure;
and displays an indication of suitability for a denervation procedure for review by a medical professional, receives post-procedure patient remote blood pressure data and transmits the post-procedure patient remote blood pressure data after performance of the denervation procedure,
as drafted, is a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers certain methods of organizing human activity (i.e., managing personal behavior including following rules or instructions) but for recitation of generic computer components. The claims encompass a series of rules or instructions for a person or persons to follow, with or without the aid of a computer, to track suitability and effectiveness of denervation procedure in the manner described in the identified abstract idea, supra. The rules or instructions are the claimed steps of “receiving, transmitting, monitoring, determining, displaying” as indicated supra.
Other than reciting generic computer components (discussed infra), i.e., a system implemented by a data processor (computer), the claimed invention amounts to managing personal behavior or interaction between people. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or interactions between people but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A2
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of a smartphone including memory, processor, and patient application and a computing device including memory, processor, medical professional’s application and a user interface that implements the identified abstract idea. The smartphone including memory, processor, and patient application and a computing device including memory, processor, medical professional’s application and a user interface is not described by the applicant and is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., a generic computer performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claims further recite the additional element of a blood pressure monitor. The blood pressure monitor merely generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) indicates that generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide a practical application. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The Examiner notes that Claim 11 is directed to a method. Therefore, the additional element of the medical professional application is not being performed by a particular device and is thus differentiated from the medical professional application is Claim 1.
Step 2B
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a smartphone including memory, processor, and patient application and a computing device including memory, processor, medical professional’s application and a user interface to perform the noted steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”).
Also, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of a blood pressure monitor was determined to generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. This has been re-evaluated under the “significantly more” analysis and has also been found insufficient to provide significantly more. MPEP 2106.05(A) indicates that generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide significantly more. As such the claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 2-6,8-10,12-13,16-19,21-22 are similarly rejected because they either further define/narrow the abstract idea and/or do not further limit the claim to a practical application or provide as inventive concept such that the claims are subject matter eligible even when considered individually or as an ordered combination.
Claim(s) 2-3 merely describe(s) receiving data to an application, which further defines the abstract idea.
Claim(s) 2, 3 also includes the additional element of “a third-party application” which is analyzed the same as the “a (Claim 11) medical professional’s application” and does not provide a practical application or significantly more for the same reasons.
Claim(s) 4 merely describe(s) receiving and displaying information, which further defines the abstract idea.
Claim(s) 5 merely describe(s) transmitting data, which further defines the abstract idea.
Claim(s) 6 merely describe(s) displaying data, which further defines the abstract idea.
Claim(s) 8 merely describe(s) what the application does, which further defines the abstract idea.
Claim(s) 9 merely describe(s) analyzing data, which further defines the abstract idea.
Claim(s) 10 merely describe(s) referring patients, which further defines the abstract idea.
Claim(s) 12 merely repeats(s) Claims 4-5, which further defines the abstract idea.
Claim(s) 13 merely describe(s) presenting data, which further defines the abstract idea.
Claim(s) 13 also includes the additional element of “a screen” which is analyzed the same as the “a user-interface” and does not provide a practical application or significantly more for the same reasons.
Claim(s) 16 merely describe(s) determining suitability based on review from a medical professional, which further defines the abstract idea.
Claim(s) 17 merely describe(s) referring patients, which further defines the abstract idea.
Claim(s) 18 merely describe(s) determining suitability based on an algorithm, which further defines the abstract idea.
Claim(s) 19 merely describe(s) data the algorithm uses, which further defines the abstract idea.
Claim(s) 8-9,18-19 also includes the additional element of “an algorithm, neural network or an artificial intelligence” which is analyzed the same as the “a (Claim 11) medical professional’s application” and does not provide a practical application or significantly more for the same reasons.
Claim(s) 21-22 merely describe(s) displaying graphs, which further defines the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The Examiner notes that the rejection will reference the translated documents (attached) corresponding to any foreign documents recited in the rejection.
Claims 1-3,6,8-9,11,13,16,18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Petterson et al (US Publication No. 20200273567) in view of HADDAD (Foreign Publication WO-2022173675-A1) in view of Dubhashi et al (US Publication No. 20190328302) in view of Sverdlik et al (US Publication No. 20140012133).
Regarding Claim 1
Petterson teaches a system for remote monitoring a patient comprising:
a smartphone including a memory and a processor, the memory storing therein a patient application that when executed by the processor performs steps of [Petterson at Para. 0030 teaches FIG. 1 shows an exemplary embodiment of a platform as described herein comprising a digital processing device 101. The digital processing device 101 includes either a patient application or a physician application as described herein. The device 101 is configured to run the application. The digital processing device 101 includes a central processing unit (CPU, also “processor” and “computer processor” herein) 105, which is either a single core or multi-core processor, or a plurality of processors for parallel processing. The digital processing device 101 also includes either memory or a memory location 110 (e.g., random-access memory, read-only memory, flash memory), electronic storage unit 115 (e.g., hard disk), power source 125, and communication interface 120 (e.g., network adapter) for communicating with one or more other systems, and peripheral devices 135; Petterson at Para. 0034 teaches in some embodiments, a remote device 135 is configured to communicate with the digital processing device 101, and comprises any mobile computing device, non-limiting examples of which include a tablet computer, laptop computer, smartphone, or smartwatch. In some embodiments, a remote device 135 comprises a physiologic sensor]:
receiving patient remote blood pressure data from a remote blood pressure monitor [Petterson at Para. 0064 teaches a sensing device, in some embodiments, comprises a blood pressure monitor comprising an electronic sphygmomanometer configured to sense a patient blood pressure and transmit the sensed blood pressure to the patient application];
transmitting the patient remote blood pressure data to a medical professional's application [Petterson at Para. 0050 teaches Sensed data is transmitted to an application of the platform (e.g. patient application, healthcare provider application, monitoring application) either through a wired connection wireless connection via, for example, a WiFi transmitter, a Bluetooth transmitter, an audio or ultrasound acoustic transmitter];
a computing device including a memory and a processor, the memory storing therein the medical professional's application that when executed by the processor [Petterson at Para. 0027 teaches That is, a device as described herein, in some embodiments, is configured to run an application of a platform using a built-in processor, and in some embodiments, a platform is utilized by a system comprising one or more computing devices that interact with or run one or more applications of the platform; Petterson at Para. 0030 teaches the CPU 105 is configured to execute machine-readable instructions embodied in a software application or module. The instructions may be stored in a memory location, such as the memory 110]:
monitors the patient based on received completed quality-of-life surveys and received patient remote blood pressure data [Petterson at Para. 0069 teaches the patient care plan, for example, is transmitted to a patient application and, for example, is configured to monitor, record, and/or track multiple health metrics in a patient such as ECG, blood pressure, weight, physical activity levels, BMI, and medication compliance (interpret to combine with surveys of Dubhashi)];
[ … ] … and transmits the post-procedure patient remote blood pressure data to the medical professional's application after performance of the denervation procedure [Petterson at Para. 0050 (interpret to transmit with post-procedure blood pressure data of Sverdlik)].
Petterson does not teach receiving, at regular intervals, a quality-of-life survey from the medical professional's application;
transmitting, at regular intervals, a completed quality-of-life survey to the medical professional's application;
determines via the received completed quality-of-life surveys and received patient remote blood pressure data that the patient is suitable for a denervation procedure;
and displays in a user-interface associated with the computing device an indication of suitability for a denervation procedure for review by a medical professional,
wherein the patient application when executed by the processor receives post-procedure patient remote blood pressure data … [ … ]
HADDAD teaches receiving, at regular intervals, a quality-of-life survey from the medical professional's application [HADDAD at Para. 0005 teaches regularly scheduled patient surveys are designed to help clinical investigators understand the impact of clinical events in patients];
transmitting, at regular intervals, a completed quality-of-life survey to the medical professional's application [HADDAD at Para. 0121 teaches in some examples, a patient is requested to take a health survey every month, since the survey’s clinical utility is maximized when taken at fixed intervals. By sending a reminder message on health monitor 96, and also confirming that the activity (e.g., survey) was completed and submitted to a healthcare provider, greater compliance is achieved];
It would have been prima facie obvious skill in the art, at the time of effective filing, to combine blood pressure of Petterson with the survey of HADDAD with the motivation to improve patient compliance.
Petterson/HADDAD do not teach determines via the received completed quality-of-life surveys and received patient remote blood pressure data that the patient is suitable for a denervation procedure;
and displays in a user-interface associated with the computing device an indication of suitability for a denervation procedure for review by a medical professional,
wherein the patient application when executed by the processor receives post-procedure patient remote blood pressure data … [ … ]
Dubhashi teaches determines via the received completed quality-of-life surveys and received patient remote blood pressure data that the patient is suitable for a denervation procedure [Dubhashi at Para. 0020 teaches the patient evaluation device may display the score to a clinician to aid in determining whether or not the patient should receive renal denervation therapy (interpret to combine with surveys and blood pressure data of Petterson)];
and displays in a user-interface associated with the computing device an indication of suitability for a denervation procedure for review by a medical professional [Dubhashi at Para. 0020 teaches the patient evaluation device may display the score to a clinician to aid in determining whether or not the patient should receive renal denervation therapy],
It would have been prima facie obvious skill in the art, at the time of effective filing, to combine the references of Petterson/HADDAD with the denervation score of Dubhashi with the motivation to improve survival in patients with heart failure.
Petterson/HADDAD/Dubhashi do not teach wherein the patient application when executed by the processor receives post-procedure patient remote blood pressure data … [ … ]
Sverdlik teaches wherein the patient application when executed by the processor receives post-procedure patient remote blood pressure data [Sverdlik at Para. 0063 teaches examples for the post-treatment measurements include measuring the blood flow rate, blood pressure, blood flow velocity, and/or a diameter of the renal artery]… [ … ]
It would have been prima facie obvious skill in the art, at the time of effective filing, to combine the references of Petterson, HADDAD, Dubhashi with the post-prcedure data of Sverdlik with the motivation to better track renal denervation effectiveness.
Regarding Claim 2
Petterson/HADDAD/Dubhashi/Sverdlik teach the system of claim 1,
Petterson/HADDAD/Dubhashi/Sverdlik further teach wherein the patient application when executed by the processor receives vital sign data of the patient from a third-party application [Petterson at Para. 0029 teaches In some embodiments, a platform comprises an additional monitoring application (i.e. in addition to the patient and healthcare provider application) that is located on a computing device at a remote monitoring location. For example, a third party, in some embodiments, has a monitoring application that allows the third party to monitor and/or interact with one or more applications of one or more platforms. For example, a monitoring service that monitors patient data would utilize a monitoring application (monitoring application interpreted as third-party application)].
Regarding Claim 3
Petterson/HADDAD/Dubhashi/Sverdlik teach the system of claim 2,
Petterson/HADDAD/Dubhashi/Sverdlik further teach wherein the third-party application is a healthkit application configured to receive vital sign information from one or more connected devices [Petterson at Para. 0040 teaches a sensing device, in some embodiments, comprises a stand-alone device configured to transmit data to a patient application and/or a healthcare provider application. Non-limiting examples of sensing devices configured to operate with the platform described herein include thermometers, heart-rate sensors, activity sensors (e.g. an accelerometer, a gyroscope), location sensors (including position sensors), blood pressure sensors, oxygen saturation sensors, weight sensors (e.g. a scale), sweat sensors (e.g. a capacitive sensor), respiration sensors, EEG sensors, and ECG sensors; Petterson at Para. 0050 (see Claim 1 for explanation)].
Regarding Claim 6
Petterson/HADDAD/Dubhashi/Sverdlik teach the system of claim 1,
Petterson/HADDAD/Dubhashi/Sverdlik further teach wherein the patient application when executed by the processor presents the received blood pressure data in a user interface on the smartphone [Petterson at Para. 0012 teaches FIG. 4B shows an exemplary screenshot of a patient interface showing recorded blood pressure measurements over a period of time].
Regarding Claim 8
Petterson/HADDAD/Dubhashi/Sverdlik teach the system of claim 1,
Petterson/HADDAD/Dubhashi/Sverdlik further teach wherein the medical professional's application when executed by the processor monitors the patient at least in part by using one or more of an algorithm, a neural network, or an artificial intelligence (Al), a patient's suitability for a denervation procedure [Dubhashi at Para 0019 (see Claim 1 for explanation)].
Regarding Claim 9
Petterson/HADDAD/Dubhashi/Sverdlik teach the system of claim 8,
Petterson/HADDAD/Dubhashi/Sverdlik further teach wherein the medical professional's application when executed by the processor employs one or more of an algorithm, neural network, or Al analyze the received completed quality-of-life surveys, the received patient remote blood pressure data, and an electronic medical record of the patient to determine the suitability for the denervation procedure [Dubhashi at Para. 0019 (see Claim 1 for explanation; interpret to combine with blood pressure and medical records of Peterson and surveys of HADDAD)].
Regarding Claim 11
Petterson teaches a method for remote monitoring of a hypertension patient comprising:
receiving by the remote patient monitoring application patient remote blood pressure data from a remote blood pressure monitor [Petterson at Para. 0064 (see Claim 1 for explanation)];
transmitting via the remote patient monitoring application the patient remote blood pressure data to a medical professional's application [Petterson at Para. 0050 (see Claim 1 for explanation)];
monitoring the patient based on received completed quality-of-life surveys and received patient remote blood pressure data [Petterson at Para. 0069 (see Claim 1 for explanation)];
and transmitting via the remote patient monitoring application the post-procedure patient remote blood pressure data to the medical professional's application after performance of the denervation procedure [Petterson at Para. 0050 (see Claim 1 for explanation)].
Petterson does not teach enrolling a hypertension patient in a remote patient monitoring application configured for a smartphone of the patient;
receiving via the remote patient monitoring application, at regular intervals, a quality-of-life survey from the medical professional's application;
transmitting, at regular intervals, a completed quality-of-life survey via the remote patient monitoring application to the medical professional's application;
determining via the received completed quality-of-life surveys and received patient remote blood pressure data that the patient is suitable for a denervation procedure;
displaying, in a user-interface associated with the medical professional's application an indication of suitability for a denervation procedure for review by a medical professional;
receiving via the remote patient monitoring application post-procedure patient remote blood pressure data after performance of the denervation procedure;
HADDAD teaches receiving via the remote patient monitoring application, at regular intervals, a quality-of-life survey from the medical professional's application [HADDAD at Para. 0005 (see Claim 1 for explanation)];
transmitting, at regular intervals, a completed quality-of-life survey via the remote patient monitoring application to the medical professional's application [HADDAD at Para. 0121 (see Claim 1 for explanation)];
It would have been prima facie obvious skill in the art, at the time of effective filing, to combine blood pressure of Petterson with the survey of HADDAD with the motivation to improve patient compliance.
Petterson/HADDAD do no teach enrolling a hypertension patient in a remote patient monitoring application configured for a smartphone of the patient;
determining via the received completed quality-of-life surveys and received patient remote blood pressure data that the patient is suitable for a denervation procedure;
displaying, in a user-interface associated with the medical professional's application an indication of suitability for a denervation procedure for review by a medical professional;
receiving via the remote patient monitoring application post-procedure patient remote blood pressure data after performance of the denervation procedure;
Dubhashi teaches enrolling a hypertension patient in a remote patient monitoring application configured for a smartphone of the patient [Dubhashi at Para. 0022 teaches FIG. 1 is a conceptual illustration of an example system 10 including a pulse monitoring device 16, sensors 18A and 18B (collectively “sensors 18”), and a patient evaluation device 22. Each of sensors 18 may be configured to detect blood pressure pulses from respective wrists 14A and 14B (collectively “wrists 14”) of patient 12. Using pulse information generated by sensors 18, patient evaluation device 22 may be configured to generate a score indicative of the predicted efficacy of renal denervation in reducing blood pressure as a treatment for hypertension of patient 12 (patient;
determining via the received completed quality-of-life surveys and received patient remote blood pressure data that the patient is suitable for a denervation procedure [Dubhashi at Para. 0019 (see Claim 1 for explanation)];
displaying, in a user-interface associated with the medical professional's application an indication of suitability for a denervation procedure for review by a medical professional [Dubhashi at Para. 0020 (see Claim 1 for explanation)];
It would have been prima facie obvious skill in the art, at the time of effective filing, to combine the references of Petterson/HADDAD with the denervation score of Dubhashi with the motivation to improve survival in patients with heart failure.
Petterson/HADDAD/Dubhashi do no teach receiving via the remote patient monitoring application post-procedure patient remote blood pressure data after performance of the denervation procedure;
Sverdlik teaches receiving via the remote patient monitoring application post-procedure patient remote blood pressure data after performance of the denervation procedure [Sverdlik at Para. 0063 (see Claim 1 for explanation)];
It would have been prima facie obvious skill in the art, at the time of effective filing, to combine the references of Petterson, HADDAD, Dubhashi with the post-prcedure data of Sverdlik with the motivation to better track renal denervation effectiveness.
Regarding Claim 13
Petterson/HADDAD/Dubhashi/Sverdlik teach the method of claim 11,
Petterson/HADDAD/Dubhashi/Sverdlik further teach further comprising presenting a graph of the patient's blood pressure data on a screen in the remote patient monitoring application [Petterson at Para. 0012 teaches FIG. 4B shows an exemplary screenshot of a patient interface showing recorded blood pressure measurements over a period of time].
Regarding Claim 16
Petterson/HADDAD/Dubhashi/Sverdlik teach the method of claim 11,
Petterson/HADDAD/Dubhashi/Sverdlik further teach wherein the determining of suitability of the patient for a denervation procedure is reviewed by hypertension clinic (HTN Clinic) personnel [Dubhashi at Para. 0048 teach in this manner, the score may provide guidance to a clinician as to whether or not renal denervation may reduce hypertensive blood pressures for patient 12 and a likelihood of how much of a reduction in blood pressure patient 12 could expect to achieve].
Regarding Claim 18
Petterson/HADDAD/Dubhashi/Sverdlik teach the method of claim 11,
Petterson/HADDAD/Dubhashi/Sverdlik further teach wherein the determining of suitability of the patient is for the denervation procedure is performed at least in part by one or more of an algorithm, a neural network, or an artificial intelligence (Al) [Dubhashi at Para. 0019 (see Claim 1 for explanation)].
Regarding Claim 19
Petterson/HADDAD/Dubhashi/Sverdlik teach the method of claim 18,
Petterson/HADDAD/Dubhashi/Sverdlik further teach wherein the one or more of an algorithm, neural network, Al analyze the received results of the completed quality-of-life surveys, the received patient remote blood pressure data, and an electronic medical record of the patient [Dubhashi at Para. 0019 (see Claim 1 for explanation)].
Claims 4-5,12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Petterson, HADDAD, Dubhashi, Sverdlik as applied to claim 1, 11 above, and further in view of AWDEH et al (US Publication No. 20130073310).
Regarding Claim 4
Petterson/HADDAD/Dubhashi/Sverdlik teach the system of claim 1,
Petterson/HADDAD/Dubhashi/Sverdlik do not teach wherein the patient application when executed by the processor receives and presents educational materials for the patient in a user interface on the smartphone.
AWDEH teaches wherein the patient application when executed by the processor receives and presents educational materials for the patient in a user interface on the smartphone [AWDEH at Para. 0007 teaches the interface may be made available offline or online, for example, and may be accessed through any desktop or mobile device such as an iPad or smartphone; AWDEH at Para. 0008 teaches the interface may educate patients about these services and the known risks, and enable patients to compare competing products and select the treatment(s) that make them most comfortable].
It would have been prima facie obvious skill in the art, at the time of effective filing, to combine application of Petterson, HADDAD, Dubhashi, Sverdlik with the educational material of AWDEH with the motivation to better select, prepare for, and manage the products and procedures patients need to get well.
Regarding Claim 5
Petterson/HADDAD/Dubhashi/Sverdlik/AWDEH teach the system of claim 4,
Petterson/HADDAD/Dubhashi/Sverdlik/AWDEH further teach wherein the patient application when executed by the processor transmits an indication of review of the educational materials to the medical professional's application [AWDEH at Para. 0038 teaches the question module 632 allows the patient 300 to pose questions regarding the information contained the selected education data elements 132 to a medical professional 200 treating the patient 300; AWDEH at Para. 0040 teaches an additional aspect of the education and informed consent module 630 is the tracking of the patient's 300 progress and the development of informed consent. For example, the module may track which educational materials have been viewed and for how long so that a medical professional 200 can determine if a patient 300 is obtaining information critical to giving informed consent 137].
Regarding Claim 12
Petterson/HADDAD/Dubhashi/Sverdlik teach the method of claim 11,
Petterson/HADDAD/Dubhashi/Sverdlik do not teach further comprising receiving via the remote patient monitoring application educational materials;
and transmitting to the medical professional's application and indicator that the educational materials have been reviewed.
AWDEH teaches further comprising receiving via the remote patient monitoring application educational materials [AWDEH at Para. 0007, 0008 (see Claim 4 for explanation)];
and transmitting to the medical professional's application and indicator that the educational materials have been reviewed [AWDEH at Para. 0007, 0008 (see Claim 4 for explanation)].
It would have been prima facie obvious skill in the art, at the time of effective filing, to combine application of Petterson, HADDAD, Dubhashi, Sverdlik with the educational material of AWDEH with the motivation to better select, prepare for, and manage the products and procedures patients need to get well.
Claims 10, 17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Petterson, HADDAD, Dubhashi, Sverdlik as applied to claim 1, 11 above, and further in view of Börve et al (US Publication No. 20180108442).
Regarding Claim 10
Petterson/HADDAD/Dubhashi/Sverdlik teach the system of claim 8,
Petterson/HADDAD/Dubhashi/Sverdlik do not teach wherein the medical professional's application when executed by the processor generates a referral of the patient to an interventional cardiologist (IC) for assessment of the patient for the denervation procedure.
Börve teaches wherein the medical professional's application when executed by the processor generates a referral of the patient to an interventional cardiologist (IC) for assessment of the patient for the denervation procedure [Börve at Para. 0036 teaches FIGS. 9-12 depict interfaces to generate a patient self-referral based on information received from the platform. FIG. 9 depicts an interface to generate a self-referral for the patient. The self-referral may be based on the information received from the medical professional using the platform. In certain cases, the patient self-referral interfaces may be displayed to a user only when a medical professional recommends that the patient see a specialist regarding their condition (interpret to combine with denervation procedure of Dubhashi)].
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the noted features of interventional cardiologist with teaching of Duhashi since the combination of the two references is merely combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (KSR rational A). It can be seen that each element claimed is present in Dubhashi. The interventional cardiologist does not change or affect the referral of Dubhashi. Referring patients would be performed the same way even with the addition of the interventional cardiologist. Since the functionalities of the elements do not interfere with each other, the results of the combination would be predictable.
Regarding Claim 17
Claim(s) 17 is/are analogous to Claim(s) 10, thus Claim(s) 17 is/are similarly analyzed and rejected in a manner consistent with the rejection of Claim(s) 10.
Claim 21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Petterson, HADDAD, Dubhashi, Sverdlik as applied to claim 1, 11 above, and further in view of O'Brien et al (US Publication No. 20090131805).
Regarding Claim 21
Petterson/HADDAD/Dubhashi/Sverdlik teach the method of claim 13,
Petterson/HADDAD/Dubhashi/Sverdlik do not teach wherein the graph further depicts a target blood pressure line.
O'Brien teaches wherein the graph further depicts a target blood pressure line [O'Brien at Para. 0068 teaches thus, for example each individual is likely to have a different heart rate and/or blood pressure parameter and it is desired that the intervention returns the subject to the pre-monitoring level, whatever that level may be. The target zone may take any suitable form to facilitate determination of whether the parameter is within an acceptable range at any given time point during monitoring of the subject. In certain embodiments, the target zone takes the form of a shaded band so that the carer can readily visualize, at a glance, whether the current reading is in, moving towards or away from, a target value or range of values. The shaded band is preferably of a lighter colour than the plot of the parameter against time such that the plot can readily be distinguished from the target zone. A preferred colour is green, to provide a positive indication of the target, although any appropriate colour may be utilised. An alternative target zone may be a bordered box. Audible as well as visual signals may be utilised as appropriate. Where the target zone is a single parameter value or a small range of values, the target zone may be presented as a single line (of appropriate thickness) to readily show when the parameter is approaching or has reached the desired value or values; O'Brien at Para. 0122 teaches the display means incorporates a second panel (24) including an image of the raw analogue blood pressure signal (25). This signal is useful as an indication of the quality of the right heart signal. An indication of current systolic (26) and diastolic (27) blood pressure is also presented].
It would have been prima facie obvious skill in the art, at the time of effective filing, to combine the references of Petterson, HADDAD, Dubhashi, Sverdlik with the graph of O'Brien with the motivation to improve the hydration level and/or hemodynamic status of the subject during a period or periods of hemodynamic instability.
Claim 22 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Petterson, HADDAD, Dubhashi, Sverdlik as applied to claim 1, 11 above, and further in view of Chu et al (US Publication NO. 20160026773).
Regarding Claim 22
Petterson/HADDAD/Dubhashi/Sverdlik teach the method of claim 13,
Petterson/HADDAD/Dubhashi/Sverdlik do not teach further comprising presenting a second graph of the patient's medication adherence.
Chu teaches further comprising presenting a second graph of the patient's medication adherence [Chu at Para. 0202 teaches the Behavior section 90 displays absolute adherence and non-adherence percentages in a graph. In one embodiment, the information is presented in a ring graph, although various other types of visual graphs may be used such as a bar graph].
It would have been prima facie obvious skill in the art, at the time of effective filing, to combine the references of Petterson, HADDAD, Dubhashi, Sverdlik with the adherence graph of Chu with the motivation to improve medication adherence performance.
Response to Arguments
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101
Regarding the rejection of Claims 1-6,8-13,16-19,21-22, the Examiner has considered the Applicant’s arguments; however the arguments are not persuasive. Any arguments inadvertently not addressed are unpersuasive for at least the following reasons. Applicant argues:
The use of remotely captured data (e.g., survey and blood pressure data) via a smartphone, the transmission of that data pre- and post-procedurally to a medical professional's computing device where a separate application can undertake an initial review of that data, make a determination based on the data that a patient is a candidate for a denervation procedure, the display of that determination for review by a medical professional, and then the post-procedure on-going review of post-procedure remote data, cannot be considered anything less than a practical application. In no small part the practical application is that the remote data collection enables medical professionals to monitor vastly more patients, and to utilize the data collected by these larger numbers of patients to identify those who could benefit from a denervation procedure. This simply could not be efficiently achieved without these integrated systems and the methodology of the pending claims.
In addition, similar to Claim 1 of Example 42 of the USPTO Subject Matter Eligibility Examples, the presently claimed combination of retrieving and transmitting remotely captured data information both pre- and post-procedurally to multiple users provides an improvement over the cited prior art and integrates the claims as whole into a practical application.
Regarding (a), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner respectfully points to the Final Rejection Office Action posted 26 January 2026, where this argument was previously addressed. The Examiner notes that “enable[ing] medical professionals to monitor vastly more patients, and to utilize the data collected by these larger numbers of patients to identify those who could benefit from a denervation procedure” is not claimed and is thus immaterial.
Regarding (b), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. MPEP 2106.04(d) sates that one way in which a claimed abstract idea may be subject matter eligible under prong 2A2 is if the claimed invention solves a described technological problem. Example 42 is an illustration of this. The Specification of Example 42 describes a technical problem (i.e., a problem caused by the technology): the technological implementation of software formats made it difficult to share updated health information. The claimed invention then solved this problem (a technical solution) by providing a message and access to updated real-time data that has been converted to a standardized format, thus integrating the abstract idea into a practical application. Unlike Example 42 and/or the technical solution to a technical problem inquiry, Applicant has not identified nor can the Examiner locate any technical problem that the claimed invention is solving. Determining the suitability of patients for a medical procedure is not a problem started by the computer or the technological environment. Therefore, this problem argued is not a technical problem. At best, the problem(s) described in the as-filed disclosure are medical problems.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102/103
Regarding the rejection of Claims 1-6,8-13,16-19,21-22, the Examiner has considered the Applicant’s arguments; however, these arguments are moot given the new grounds of rejection as afforded by the present RCE.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon in the present basis of rejection are noted in the attached PTO 892 and include:
SCHMICH et al (Foreign Publication WO-2020234388-A1) discloses a method for assessing the suitability of patient data for accurately determining the efficacy, effectiveness and/or safety of a medical treatment.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN C EDOUARD whose telephone number is (571)270-0107. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 730 - 430.
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, Robert Morgan can be reached on (571) 272 - 6773. 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.
/JONATHAN C EDOUARD/Examiner, Art Unit 3683
/JASON S TIEDEMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3683
Prosecution Insights