Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Regarding Double Patenting.
Applicant argues:
Claims 17-34 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as allegedly unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. 12,026,811. Applicant has presently refrained from filing a terminal disclaimer in view of the amendments and remarks herein. Should, after consideration of the amendments and remarks herein, the double patenting rejection be maintained, Applicant reserves the right to file a terminal disclaimer to obviate the double patenting rejection.
Examiner replies that:
Rejection withdrawn based on amendments.
Regarding 35 USC § 102/103.
Applicant argues:
At the outset, Applicant notes that each of claims 17, 23, and 29, as previously presented, is patentable over Raj and Tallman, taken as a whole. More particularly, each of claims 17, 23, and 29, as previously presented, recites inter alia "displaying, by a display of the computing device, the plurality of waveforms, wherein the plurality of waveforms are displayed in respective trace windows, at least one of a first trace window and a second trace window displaying a waveform segment in multiple layers comprising a primary layer, one or more past secondary layers, and one or more future secondary layers." Raj and Tallman, taken as a whole, fail to teach at least the above-recited features of each of claims 17, 23, and 29, as previously presented.
For example, Raj is directed to "displaying ECG waveforms ... in which heartbeat waveforms contained in stored ECG data are displayed superimposed over one another." Raj, 1:12-15. In relevant part, Raj discusses that a "[d]isplay screen 10 includes a first display 12 and a second display or scan window 14," where "[t]he continuous ECG waveform is displayed on rows 16, 18, 20, 22 on screen 12." Raj, 3:34-36, FIG. 1. Raj further discusses that "[t]he waveform on screen 12 is displayed in chronological order with the right-most end of row 16 continuing at the left-most end of row 18 and the right-most end of row 18 continuing on row 20, and so forth," where "[t]he waveform on display 12 is stationary in the present mode of operation of the system." Raj, 3:36-41. Also in relevant part, Raj discusses that:
[…]
Raj, however, fails to teach "displaying, by a display of the computing device, the plurality of waveforms, wherein the plurality of waveforms are displayed in respective trace windows, at least one of a first trace window and a second trace window displaying a waveform segment in multiple layers comprising a primary layer, one or more past secondary layers, and one or more future secondary layers," as recited in each of claims, 17, 23, and 29, as previously presented. Instead, and as discussed above, Raj discusses that "[t]he continuous ECG waveform is displayed on rows 16, 18, 20, 22 on screen 12" and that a "[d]isplay screen 14 includes 5 consecutive heartbeat waveforms, taken from the stored ECG data."
Examiner replies that:
Applicants arguments are not found persuasive. Applicant has reiterated the Office Action citations and claim limitations and indicated Raj fails to teach the limitations despite the Office Action indicating the contrary. No explanations or arguments have been provided by Applicant. The claim recites a trace window with past, primary and future layers and Raj teaches a window with past, primary and future layers. The claim recites a first and second window, where Examiner has indicated a duplication of parts. Therefore the rejection is maintained.
Applicant argues:
Notwithstanding the foregoing, and solely in a genuine effort to advance prosecution of the instant application, each of claims 17, 23, and 29 is amended herein to recite inter alia "in response to user input comprising a swipe action to the display of the computing device, determining a direction of the swipe action and scrolling layers of the waveform segment in one or forward in time and backward in time depending on the direction." Support for the amendments are provided in the application as originally filed (see, e.g., Spec., [0109]). For at least the same reasons discussed above with respect to each of claims 17, 23, and 29, as previously presented, each of claims 17, 23, and 29, as amended herein, is patentable over Raj and Tallman, taken as a whole. Therefore, reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejection are respectfully requested.
Examiner replies that:
Applicant has amended the claims to change the scope since the previous action. The amendment(s) necessitate new ground(s) of rejection and are rejected in detail under the § 102/103 headings below.
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.
Claim(s) 17-20, 22-26, 28-32, 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raj U.S. Patent/PG Publication 5956013 in view of Tallman U.S. Patent/PG Publication 4766425 and Losvik U.S. Patent/PG Publication 20150033102.
Regarding claim 17 (independent):
A computer-implemented method executed using one or more processors, the computer-implemented method comprising: (Raj C2 L50-60 Turning now to FIG. 1, indicated generally at 10, is a display formed on a CRT screen incorporated into a system constructed in accordance with the present invention. The present embodiment of the invention comprises a personal computer having an Intel.TM. 386 processor, a keyboard, a color VGA monitor, a mouse, and a Microsoft Windows.TM. graphical user interface. The computer is programmed, in a manner which is described in more detail hereinafter, to operate in accordance with the following description of the preferred embodiment.).
receiving, by a computing device and from a data management system, data retrieved by the data management system, the data being formatted for display based on a type of the computing device (Raj C3 L25-35 Indicating generally at 10 in FIG. 1 is a CRT display screen upon which stored ECG waveforms are represented in accordance with the present invention. The waveforms on screen 10 were generated by a patient as described above. The collected data along with the information generated by the preliminary analysis performed by the Holter monitor is transferred to the system in which screen 10 is incorporated.).
processing the data to generate a graphical representation of the data, the data comprising a plurality of simultaneously recorded signals, the graphical representation comprising a plurality of waveforms, each waveform corresponding to one of the plurality of simultaneously recorded signals (Raj C1 L15-30 Sometimes several leads are connected to the patient so that two or more such waveforms are recorded. It is not unusual for such a monitor to be worn for many hours thereby generating thousands of periodic heartbeat waveforms which are stored for later review to assist in diagnosis and treatment of the patient. Sometimes such waveforms are displayed by superimposing a predetermined number of heartbeats on a screen in rapid succession.)
displaying, by a display of the computing device, the plurality of waveforms, (Raj C3 L25-35 Indicating generally at 10 in FIG. 1 is a CRT display screen upon which stored ECG waveforms are represented in accordance with the present invention.)
wherein the plurality of waveforms are displayed in respective trace windows, (Raj C3 L30-45 Display screen 10 includes a first display 12 and a second display or scan window 14. The continuous ECG waveform is displayed on rows 16, 18, 20, 22 on screen 12. The waveform on screen 12 is displayed in chronological order with the right-most end of row 16 continuing at the left-most end of row 18 and the right-most end of row 18 continuing on row 20, and so forth. The waveform on display 12 is stationary in the present mode of operation of the system.)
at least one of a first trace window and a second trace window displaying a waveform segment in multiple layers comprising a primary layer, one or more past secondary layers, and one or more future secondary layers, (Raj C5 L40-55 A settings button 46 causes a panel 48 (in FIG. 2) to appear as shown in FIG. 2 when button 46 is actuated. The panel includes data-entry boxes 50, 52 each of which may receive an integer from one to five for the purpose of controlling the manner in which display 14 scans when any of buttons 38, 40, 42, 44 are actuated. The number in box 50 determines how many beats at one time appear on display 14 when forward button 38 is selected. For example, if the keyboard is used to enter 2 in box 50, beats 24, 26 are simultaneously displayed and in the next refresh cycle beat 24 is removed and beat 28 is added, thereby displaying beats 26, 28. In the next refresh cycle beat 26 is removed and beat 30 added and so forth. The number in box 50 also determines the number of displayed beats when single-beat forward button 40 and single-beat reverse button 42 are actuated.). The claim recites a first and second trace window, where is a prima facie case of obviousness since the limitation is directed to common practices which the court has held normally require only ordinary skill in the art and hence are considered routine expedients are discussed below. See MPEP 2144.04. Duplication of Parts “the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.” The motivation to modify is to display more information to a user, and the rationale to modify is that it combines prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, since Raj has a plurality of data being recording, and displays a window with the data, and displaying additional data in an additional window would function in the same way, just with more data being displayed.
the waveform segment being scrollable between the primary layer and one or more of a past secondary layer and a future secondary layer to provide a graphical representation of changes to the waveform segment over time (Raj C8 L35-50 As will be recalled, with stop button 41 selected, buttons 40, 42 may be actuated to scan in forward or reverse chronological order one beat at a time. When so doing, box 70 remains around the most recently-displayed beat in window 14. For example, with reference to FIG. 13, reverse button 42 has been actuated five times to move box 70 to heartbeat waveform 72.)(Raj C3 L50-55 A scroll bar 29 enables a user to display different portions of the stored continuous ECG waveforms on display 12 by scrolling through the data in a known manner. ) since the user can move forward/back in the timeline, which effectively changes and scrolls between the layers.
in response to user input comprising a (Raj C4 L55-C5 L5 Similarly, a single-beat reverse button 42 permits an operator to reverse the direction of scanning. In other words, when button 42 is first actuated, the heartbeat which was most recently-removed from display 14 is added back to the display and the shortest-displayed heartbeat is removed from the display. For example, assume display 14 contains heartbeats 26, 28, 30, 32, 34 superimposed. When button 41 is actuated, scanning stops. Upon actuation of button 42, heartbeat 34 disappears from the display and heartbeat 24 added. If button 42 is again actuated, heartbeat 32 disappears and the beat to the left of heartbeat 24 in display 12 is added, and so forth. Thus, when button 38 is actuated, scanning occurs automatically at a relatively rapid rate in increasing chronological order of the continuous ECG waveform. If an operator observes a pattern of interest, button 41 is actuated to stop the display. Thereafter, the display is adjusted one beat at a time, using buttons 40, 42, to locate and display the beat or beats of interest where they can be studied at length so long as button 41 remains selected.)
receiving, by the one or more processors, a time segment selection for a waveform of the plurality of waveforms (Raj C8 L35-50 As will be recalled, with stop button 41 selected, buttons 40, 42 may be actuated to scan in forward or reverse chronological order one beat at a time. When so doing, box 70 remains around the most recently-displayed beat in window 14. For example, with reference to FIG. 13, reverse button 42 has been actuated five times to move box 70 to heartbeat waveform 72.).
and generating, by the one or more processors, an updated graphical representation of the data based on the time segment selection (Raj C8 L35-50 With box 70 surrounding waveform 72, display 14 includes waveforms 72, 74, enlarged from display 12, superimposed in window 14. Box 70 therefore provides a visual signal to a user as to which beats in display 12 are superimposed in display 14 when button 41 is selected.).
Raj discloses a version of scrolling between layers as describe above. However, for the purposes of compact prosecution and for further clarity, in a related field of endeavor, Tallman teaches:
the waveform segment being scrollable between the primary layer and one or more of a (Tallman C10 L50-60 This subroutine causes the display of the waveform indicated by wave.sub.-- on to be highlighted and causes the display of any previously selected waveform to be dehighlighted in order to provide an indication to the operator as to which waveform was selected. The select waveform subroutine also reconfigures the oscilloscope operating state to ensure that oscilloscope operations carried out with respect to the "selected" waveform are subsequently carried out with respect to the waveform indicated by the wave.sub.-- on parameter.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to scroll through layers as taught by Tallman. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide visual emphasis on a specific layer, increasing visibility to the user. Further, the rationale to combine would have been that it is the use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way, where Raj has signals being displayed, where some are overlapping and Tallman has signals being displayed, where some are overlapping but also provides a visual differentiation for improved readability, where emphasizing is a known technique and would improve Raj in a similar way. Therefore it would have been obvious to combine Tallman with Raj to obtain the invention.
Raj in view of Tallman does not teach swiping. In a related field of endeavor, Losvik teaches:
in response to user input comprising a (Losvik [0029] This allows for a persistent and intuitive navigation interface whereby a dedicated button, keyboard shortcut (for example, pressing an Enter button) or a multi-touch gesture (say, a swipe to the right as a metaphor of the next action or item) may be used to progress through the whole multi-note presentation.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use swipe as taught by Losvik. The rationale for doing so would have been that it is a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results where Raj has buttons for navigation and Losvik has swipe as an alternative input where there are predictable results since it is merely different input forms to perform the same functions. Therefore it would have been obvious to combine Losvik with Raj in view of Tallman to obtain the invention.
Regarding claim 18:
The method of claim 17, has all of its limitations taught by Raj in view of Tallman and Losvik. Raj further teaches further comprising displaying a measurement value proximate to the time segment selection (Raj C5 L25-30 The measurements displayed in the window, 266 mSec and 0.67 mV, indicate the distance between the vertical and horizontal lines in milliseconds and millivolts, respectively.).
Regarding claim 19:
The method of claim 17, has all of its limitations taught by Raj in view of Tallman and Losvik. Raj further teaches further comprising:
receiving a viewing selection for one of the plurality of waveforms (Raj C8 L35-50 As will be recalled, with stop button 41 selected, buttons 40, 42 may be actuated to scan in forward or reverse chronological order one beat at a time. When so doing, box 70 remains around the most recently-displayed beat in window 14. For example, with reference to FIG. 13, reverse button 42 has been actuated five times to move box 70 to heartbeat waveform 72. With box 70 surrounding waveform 72, display 14 includes waveforms 72, 74, enlarged from display 12, superimposed in window 14. Box 70 therefore provides a visual signal to a user as to which beats in display 12 are superimposed in display 14 when button 41 is selected.).
Regarding claim 20:
The method of claim 19, has all of its limitations taught by Raj in view of Tallman and Losvik. Raj further teaches wherein the viewing selection comprises a measurement view selection or a historical waveform segment viewer selection (Raj C8 L35-50 As will be recalled, with stop button 41 selected, buttons 40, 42 may be actuated to scan in forward or reverse chronological order one beat at a time. When so doing, box 70 remains around the most recently-displayed beat in window 14. For example, with reference to FIG. 13, reverse button 42 has been actuated five times to move box 70 to heartbeat waveform 72. With box 70 surrounding waveform 72, display 14 includes waveforms 72, 74, enlarged from display 12, superimposed in window 14. Box 70 therefore provides a visual signal to a user as to which beats in display 12 are superimposed in display 14 when button 41 is selected.) since the user can reverse chronological order, they are selecting a historical segment.
Regarding claim 22:
The method of claim 17, has all of its limitations taught by Raj in view of Tallman and Losvik. Raj further teaches further comprising:
processing a portion of the waveform within the time segment selection to calculate one or more waveform parameters (Raj C8 L1-15 First, buttons 38, 40, 41, 42, 44 remain operable to control scanning in window 14 as described above. With link button 64 selected, each time a new heartbeat is written to scan window 14, the same heartbeat is added to the ECG waveform in display 12. For example, in the view of FIG. 12, the persistence setting on panel 48, in FIG. 2, is set to two. Thus, two heartbeat waveforms 66, 68 appear superimposed in window 14. In the linked mode, the ECG waveform data in display 12 is not merely a static display of entire rows of heartbeat waveforms in chronological order as illustrated in FIG. 1. Rather, each time a heartbeat waveform is added to display 14, the same heartbeat waveform is added, in order, to the ECG waveform in display 12. Thus, none of the ECG waveform occurring after the most recently-displayed waveform in scan window 14 appears on display 12.) where time and voltage are displayed and are parameters of the current waveform. Further the waveform is displayed in window 14, and as such graphical display parameters are being used.
Regarding claim 23 (independent):
The claim is a parallel version of claim 17. As such it is rejected under the same teachings.
Regarding claim 24:
The claim is a parallel version of claim 18. As such it is rejected under the same teachings.
Regarding claim 25:
The claim is a parallel version of claim 19. As such it is rejected under the same teachings.
Regarding claim 26:
The claim is a parallel version of claim 20. As such it is rejected under the same teachings.
Regarding claim 28:
The claim is a parallel version of claim 22. As such it is rejected under the same teachings.
Regarding claim 29 (independent):
The claim is a parallel version of claim 17. As such it is rejected under the same teachings.
Regarding claim 30:
The claim is a parallel version of claim 18. As such it is rejected under the same teachings.
Regarding claim 31:
The claim is a parallel version of claim 19. As such it is rejected under the same teachings.
Regarding claim 32:
The claim is a parallel version of claim 20. As such it is rejected under the same teachings.
Regarding claim 34:
The claim is a parallel version of claim 22. As such it is rejected under the same teachings.
Claim(s) 21, 27, 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raj U.S. Patent/PG Publication 5956013 in view of Tallman U.S. Patent/PG Publication 4766425 and Losvik U.S. Patent/PG Publication 20150033102 and Kiani U.S. Patent/PG Publication 20110001605.
Regarding claim 21:
The method of claim 17, has all of its limitations taught by Raj in view of Tallman and Losvik. Raj further teaches further comprising:
transmitting, to the data management system, data identifiers (Raj C3 L25-35 Indicating generally at 10 in FIG. 1 is a CRT display screen upon which stored ECG waveforms are represented in accordance with the present invention. The waveforms on screen 10 were generated by a patient as described above. The collected data along with the information generated by the preliminary analysis performed by the Holter monitor is transferred to the system in which screen 10 is incorporated.) and an identifier associated with a user of the computing device (Raj C3 L65-C4 L5 The various buttons surrounding display 14 control the manner in which heartbeat waveforms are displayed thereon. Each button is actuated by using a mouse (not shown) to position a cursor (also not shown) on CRT screen 10 over the button to be actuated. When the cursor is so positioned, the mouse is clicked, thus actuating the button.) where a cursor is a user input identifier.
Raj discloses an identifier describe above. However, for the purposes of compact prosecution and for further clarity, in a related field of endeavor, Kiani teaches:
transmitting, to the data management system, data identifiers (Kiani [0010] In some embodiments, a medical monitoring device or system is capable of collecting physiological parameter data from a number of patients) and an identifier associated with a user of the computing device (Kiani [0201] Patient monitoring devices, such as those described herein, may include a keyboard, touchscreen, or other input device to allow a clinician to interact with the device. Such user interface devices can be used to allow a clinician to input login information, such as, for example a username and password. In some cases, a monitoring device may require a clinician to login to the device, for example, before permitting access to one or more of the functions offered by the device, and/or before permitting access to certain information available at the device. The nurses' station, or central monitoring station, as described herein, is an example of one such monitoring device that may require a clinician to login in order to use it. Bedside patient monitors may require a clinician to login before initializing monitoring of a new patient. Even where a clinician is not required to login to a patient monitoring device before using it, the device may still require some type of interaction with an input device in order to cause it to take a particular action from amongst a set of available actions offered by the patient monitoring device.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a user login as taught by Kiani. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide security for medical information to meet HIPAA (Kiani [0112]). Therefore it would have been obvious to combine Kiani with Raj to obtain the invention.
Regarding claim 27:
The claim is a parallel version of claim 21. As such it is rejected under the same teachings.
Regarding claim 33:
The claim is a parallel version of claim 21. As such it is rejected under the same teachings.
Conclusion
For the prior art referenced and the prior art considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure but not relied upon, see PTO-892 “Notice of References Cited”.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON PRINGLE-PARKER whose telephone number is (571) 272-5690 and e-mail is jason.pringle-parker@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30am-5:00pm est Monday-Friday. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, King Poon can be reached on (571) 270-0728. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, seehttp://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JASON A PRINGLE-PARKER/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2617