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 .
DETAILED ACTION
In the amendment submitted 28 October 2025:
Claims 7, 14-15 are cancelled
Claims 1,8-9,11,16-20 are amended
Claims 1-6,8-13,16-20 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 1-6,8-13,16-20 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. The claims recite a system and method, which are within a statutory category. The limitations of:
Claims 1,11 (Claim 1 being representative)
receiving patient blood pressure data;
transmitting the patient blood pressure data to a medical professional's application;
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;
monitors the patient based on received completed quality-of-life surveys and received patient blood pressure data:
determines that the patient is suitable for a denervation procedure;
and display an indication of suitability for a denervation procedure for review by a medical professional.
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. That is, other than reciting a smartphone including memory and processor, and a computing device including memory and processor, the claimed invention amounts to managing personal behavior or interaction between people. For example, but for the Smartphone including memory and processor, and a computing device including memory and processor, the claims encompass receiving and processing data to determining suitability for denervation procedure in the manner described in the identified abstract idea, supra. 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 claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of a smartphone including memory and processor, and a computing device including memory and processor that implements the identified abstract idea. The smartphone including memory and processor, and a computing device including memory and processor is not described by the applicant and is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., a generic server 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 claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims further recite the additional elements of a blood pressure monitor, user interface and (Claim 11) medical professional’s application. The blood pressure monitor, user interface and (Claim 11) medical professional’s application 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, this additional element does 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.
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 element of using a smartphone including memory and processor, and a computing device including memory and processor to perform the noted steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. 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 elements of a blood pressure monitor, user interface and (Claim 11) medical professional’s application 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. Accordingly, even in combination, this additional element does not provide significantly more. As such the claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 2-6,8-10,12-13,16-20 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) 7 merely describe(s) monitoring the patient, 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) 20 merely describe(s) transmitting data, 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).
Regarding Claim 1
Pettersson teaches a system for remote monitoring a patient comprising:
a smartphone including a memory and a processor, the memory storing therein an 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 blood pressure data from a 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 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 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)]:
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 that the patient is suitable for a denervation procedure;
and display in a user-interface associated with the computing device an indication of suitability for a denervation procedure for review by a medical professional.
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 that the patient is suitable for a denervation procedure;
and display in a user-interface associated with the computing device an indication of suitability for a denervation procedure for review by a medical professional.
Dubhashi teaches determines that the patient is suitable for a denervation procedure [Dubhashi at Para. 0019 teaches a patient evaluation device may utilize machine learning, such as a deep learning algorithm or model (e.g., a neural network or deep belief network), to generate a score indicative of renal denervation efficacy in reducing hypertension for the patient];
and display 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.
Regarding Claim 2
Petterson/HADDAD/Dubhashi teach the system of claim 1,
Petterson/HADDAD/Dubhashi further teach wherein the 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 teach the system of claim 2,
Petterson/HADDAD/Dubhashi 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 teach the system of claim 1,
Petterson/HADDAD/Dubhashi further teach wherein the 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 teach the system of claim 1,
Petterson/HADDAD/Dubhashi 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 (AI), a patient's suitability for a denervation procedure [Dubhashi at Para 0019 (see Claim 1 for explanation)].
Regarding Claim 9
Petterson/HADDAD/Dubhashi teach the system of claim 8,
Petterson/HADDAD/Dubhashi further teach wherein the medical professional's application when executed by the processor employs one or more of an algorithm, neural network, or AI analyze the received completed quality-of-life surveys, the received blood pressure data, and an electronic medical record of the patient to determine suitability for a 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 blood pressure data from a blood pressure monitor [Petterson at Para. 0064 (see Claim 1 for explanation)];
transmitting via the remote patient monitoring application the patient 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 blood pressure data [Petterson at Para. 0069 (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 that the patient is suitable for a denervation procedure;
and 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.
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 not teach enrolling a hypertension patient in a remote patient monitoring application configured for a smartphone of the patient;
determining that the patient is suitable for a denervation procedure;
and 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 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 interpreted as hypertension patient)];
determining that the patient is suitable for a denervation procedure [Dubhashi at Para. 0019 (see Claim 1 for explanation)];
and 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.
Regarding Claim 13
Petterson/HADDAD/Dubhashi teach the method of claim 11,
Petterson/HADDAD/Dubhashi 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 teach the method of claim 11,
Petterson/HADDAD/Dubhashi 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].
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to combine the noted features of hypertension clinic personnel with teaching of Dubhashi since the combination of the two references is merely simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result (KSR rationale B). Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself—that is, in the substitution of the hypertension clinic personnel for the clinician means of the primary reference. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Regarding Claim 18
Petterson/HADDAD/Dubhashi teach the method of claim 11,
Petterson/HADDAD/Dubhashi further teach method of claim 11, 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 (AI) [Dubhashi at Para. 0019 (see Claim 1 for explanation)].
Regarding Claim 19
Petterson/HADDAD/Dubhashi teach the method of claim 18,
Petterson/HADDAD/Dubhashi further teach wherein the one or more of an algorithm, neural network, AI analyze the received results of the completed quality-of-life surveys, the received 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 as applied to claims 1,11 above, and further in view of AWDEH et al (US Publication No. 20130073310).
Regarding Claim 4
Petterson/HADDAD/Dubhashi teach the system of claim 1,
Petterson/HADDAD/Dubhashi do not teach wherein the application when executed by the processor receives and presents educational materials for the patient in a user interface on the smartphone.
AWDEH teach wherein the 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 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 teach the system of claim 4,
Petterson/HADDAD/Dubhashi/AWDEH further teach wherein the 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 teach the method of claim 11,
Petterson/HADDAD/Dubhashi 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. 0038, 0040 (see Claim 5 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 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 as applied to claims 1,11 above, and further in view of Börve et al (US Publication No. 20180108442).
Regarding Claim 10
Petterson/HADDAD/Dubhashi teach the system of claim 8,
Petterson/HADDAD/Dubhashi 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
Petterson/HADDAD/Dubhashi teach the method of claim 11,
Petterson/HADDAD/Dubhashi do not teach further comprising generating via the medical professional's application a referral of the patient to an interventional cardiologist (IC) for assessment of the patient for the denervation procedure.
Börve teaches further comprising generating via the medical professional's application a referral of the patient to an interventional cardiologist (IC) for assessment of the patient for the denervation procedure [Börve at Para. 0036 (see Claim 10 for explanation)].
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.
Claims 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Petterson, HADDAD, Dubhashi as applied to claims 1,11 above, and further in view of Roh et al (US Publication No. 20230067796).
Regarding Claim 20
Petterson/HADDAD/Dubhashi teach the method of claim 11,
Petterson/HADDAD/Dubhashi do not teach further comprising transmitting via the remote patient monitoring application blood pressure data to the medical professional's application after performance of a denervation procedure.
Roh teaches further comprising transmitting via the remote patient monitoring application blood pressure data to the medical professional's application after performance of a denervation procedure [Roh at Para. 0019 teaches at least one sensor and at least one surgical tool are used before, during, or after a surgical procedure; Roh at Para. 0036 teaches the sensors can be associated with measuring a specific parameter of the patient, such as respiratory rate, blood pressure, blood oxygen level, heart rate, etc (interpret to combine with remote patient monitoring of Petterson and denervation procedure of Dubhashi)].
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 performance of Roh with the motivation to improve surgical processes.
Response to Arguments
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101
Regarding the rejection of Claims 1-6,8-13,16-20, 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 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, and then the display of that determination for review by a medical professional, 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.
Regarding (a), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and MPEP 2106.05(a) indicates that a practical application may be present where the claimed invention provides a technical solution to a technical problem. See, e.g., DDR Holdings, LLC. v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1259 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (finding that claiming a website that retained the “look and feel” of a host webpage provided a technological solution to the problem of retention of website visitors by utilizing a website descriptor that emulated the “look and feel” of the host webpage, where the problem arose out of the internet and was thus a technical problem). Here, the Applicant’s argued problem is not a technological problem caused by the (the technological environment to which the claims are confined). The problem of medical appointments was not a problem cause by the [computer/server], is it a problem that existed and/or exists regardless of whether a computer/server is involved in the process. At best, Applicant’s identified problem is a medical problem. Because no technological problem is present, the claims do not provide a practical application.
The Examiner notes that a mobile device, such as a cell phone (i.e., a smartphone), has been held by the courts to be a generic computing component. See United Services Automobile Association v. PNC Bank, N.A., 139 F.4th 1332, 1334, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2025) (finding that claims confined to a “personal mobile device, like a cell phone” do not render eligible an otherwise ineligible claim because a “mobile device is a piece of generic hardware”).
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102/103
Regarding the rejection of Claims 1-6,8-13,16-20, the Examiner has considered the Applicant’s arguments; however, these arguments are moot given the new grounds of rejection as necessitated by amendment.
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:
Kelly et al (US Publication No. 7493264) discloses a method for eliminating redundant, repetitive surveying of patients with multiple medical conditions and identifying potentially high health care resource utilizers in a population.
Koren et al (US Publication No. 20130238354) discloses a system of providing online medical consultation services.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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