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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 73-103 has been reviewed and are addressed below. Claims 1-72 has been canceled.
Response to Arguments/Amendments
Applicant’s amendments filed on 1-29-26 has been entered and are addressed below.
Applicant argues the applicant’s claims doe not recite mathematical concepts. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner did not use mathematical concepts as the reason for the rejection, rather certain methods of organizing human activities, the gathering of information using an obstetric patient station which according to applicant’s specifications in paragraph 76 that it is a computing device.
Applicant argues the present application assists in dynamic prioritizing care and attention between multiple obstetrics patient and amongst a set of obstetrics clinical staff therefore it improves the technology of monitoring labour progression. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim recites “one or more obstetrics patient stations” which means it does not require multiple patient monitoring, additionally, this is simply data gathering, there are no specialized tools in the claims that is used to monitor the labor progression, the vitals can be broadly interpreted as heart rates for both mother and the fetus. Additionally the MPEP recites that “the sub-groupings encompass both activity of a single person (for example, a person following a set of instructions or a person signing a contract online) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial interaction), and thus, certain activity between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping. It is noted that the number of people involved in the activity is not dispositive as to whether a claim limitation falls within this grouping. Instead, the determination should be based on whether the activity itself falls within one of the sub-groupings ” 2106.04(a)(2).
Applicant argues that the instant claim improves the technology of prioritizing and triaging multiple patients among multiple clinical staff members. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim limitations that are considered as improvement are part of the abstract idea.
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 73-103 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.
Step 1:
Claims 73-103 are drawn to a method and system, which is/are statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A Prong One:
Independent claims 73, 94, 99 recite receiving data, the received data conveying pregnancy progression information, the pregnancy progression information being associated with respective obstetrics patients in the set of obstetrics patients being monitored, the pregnancy progression information including at least maternal physiological information and fetal vital sign information associated with the respective obstetrics patients in the set of obstetrics patients being monitored; processing the data conveying the pregnancy progression information to derive respective criticality levels for the obstetrics patients in the set of obstetrics patients being monitored, the respective criticality levels being derived at least in part by processing the maternal physiological information and the fetal vital sign information; and in response to a derived specific criticality level for a specific obstetrics patient in the set of obstetrics patients exceeding a specific threshold criticality level: i) selecting a specific member of the clinical staff at least in part in dependence of the specific threshold criticality level, the clinical staff including at least two members; and ii) transmitting electronic notification data to associated with the specific member of the clinical staff, labour progression information associated with the specific obstetrics patient to draw the attention of the specific member of the clinical staff towards the specific obstetrics patient.
The recited limitations, as drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover certain methods of organizing human activity by identifying and reporting events preceding a pattern in a set of user data. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong One: YES).
Step 2A Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims are abstract but for the inclusion of the additional elements including a “computer program product, comprising one or more tangible non-transitory computer readable storage media storing computer executable instructions for concurrently monitoring a set of obstetrics patients over a data network during labour and for dynamically directing attention of clinical staff towards one or more patients in the set of obstetrics patients, the set of obstetrics patients including two or more obstetrics patients, the computer executable instructions, when executed, cause a programmable system including at least one programmable processor to perform operations, the operations comprising”, “over the data network from one or more computing devices interconnected with the programmable system over the data network”, “processor” ,”a computing device”, “the electronic notification data being configured to present to the specific member of the clinical staff at the computing device” which are additional elements that are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using generic computer components. See: MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional elements are merely incidental or token additions to the claim that do not alter or affect how the process steps or functions in the abstract idea are performed (e.g., the “processor” language is incidental to what it is “configured” to perform). Therefore, the claimed additional elements do not add meaningful limitations to the indicated claims beyond a general linking to a technological environment. See: MPEP 2106.05(h).
The claims recite the additional element of “gathered by the one or more obstetrics patient stations”, “the electronic notification data being configured to present to the specific member of the clinical staff at the computing device”, which are considered limitations directed to insignificant extra-solution activity that does not amount to an inventive concept because the limitations do not impose meaningful limits on the claim such that is it not nominally or tangentially related to the invention. In the claimed context, the claimed receiving limitations are incidental to the performance of the recited abstract idea of identifying and reporting events preceding a pattern in a set of user data. See: MPEP 2106.05(g).
The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Hence, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong Two: NO).
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, using the additional elements to perform the abstract idea amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic components cannot provide an inventive concept. See: MPEP 2106.05(f).
Further, the claimed additional elements, identified above, are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are generic components that are not integrated into the claim because they are merely incidental or token additions to the claim that do not alter or affect how the process steps or functions in the abstract idea are performed. Therefore, the claimed additional elements do not add meaningful limitations to the indicated claims beyond a general linking to a technological environment. See: MPEP 2106.05(h).
Further, the claimed additional elements, identified above, are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are generic components that are configured to perform well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry. See: MPEP 2106.05(d). Said additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and provide conventional functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea. The originally filed specification supports this conclusion at Figure 1, and
paragraph 25, where “The method is implemented by a computing device including one or more processor and a display screen and comprises receiving electronic notification data associated with a particular obstetrics patient from a clinical monitoring module, the electronic notification data being configured for causing a graphical user interface (GUI) to be displayed on the display screen of the computing device.”
Paragraph 10, that “, the computing device associated with the particular medical expert may include a smartphone, a tablet, a general purpose computer and/or any other suitable computing device and the electronic notification data may convey an e-mail message, an SMS message and/or or any other suitable electronic message”.
Paragraph 76 recite “implementation of the obstetrics patient stations 250.sub.a . . . h, of the computing devices 160.sub.a,b associated with respective medical experts, and of the clinical monitoring module 150 suitable for use with the system 100 will now be described in greater details. Example of processes that may be implemented by such devices will also be described”.
The claims recite the additional element of “the electronic notification data being configured to present at the computing device”, which are considered limitations directed to insignificant extra-solution activity that does not amount to an inventive concept because the limitations do not impose meaningful limits on the claim such that is it not nominally or tangentially related to the invention. In the claimed context, the claimed receiving limitations are incidental to the performance of the recited abstract idea of identifying and reporting events preceding a pattern in a set of user data. See: MPEP 2106.05(g).
Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination, the claims simply instruct the additional elements to implement the concept described above in the identification of abstract idea with routine, conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment.
Hence, the claims as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (Step 2B: NO).
Dependent claim(s) 74-93, 95-98, 100-103 when analyzed as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and/or as an ordered combination, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. These claims fail to remedy the deficiencies of their parent claims above, and are therefore rejected for at least the same rationale as applied to their parent claims above, and incorporated herein.
Conclusion
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 REGINALD R REYES whose telephone number is (571)270-5212. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:30 M-F.
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, Shahid R. Merchant can be reached at (571) 270-1360. 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.
REGINALD R. REYES
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3684
/REGINALD R REYES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3684