DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
This action is in reply to the filed on 3/2/2026.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1, 3, 5 and 12-13 have been amended.
Claims 6 have been cancelled.
Claim 1-5 and 7-13 currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Amendments
The Applicant’s amendments, and cancellation, of the claims as currently submitted have been noted by the Examiner. Said amendments, and cancellation(s), are not sufficient to overcome the rejection previously set forth under 35 U.S.C. §101. As such, said rejection is herein maintained for reasons set forth below.
The Applicant’s amendments of the claims as currently submitted have been noted by the Examiner. With the amendment of claims 1, 3, 5 and 12-13, Applicant has successfully overcome the Examiner’s claim objections previously set forth under 35 U.S.C. §132(a), and Examiner withdraws his claim objections.
With the amendment of claims 1, 3, 5 and 12-13, and the cancellation of claims 6, applicant has successfully overcome the Examiner’s 35 USC 103 rejection and Examiner withdraws his 35 USC 103 rejection. Al-Ali et al. and Gonzalez Pijuan et al. do not teach “wherein the storing of at least one of the sensor data or anaesthesia data or patient (P) data in the memory of the control unit enables the electronic device to be re-used with the same patient and another monitoring device,” etc.
Subject Matter Free of Prior Art
Al-Ali et al. (US 2021/0045641) and Gonzalez Pijuan et al. (US 2022/0344045) teach AAA. Al-Ali et al. and Gonzalez Pijuan et al. do not teach “wherein the storing of at least one of the sensor data or anaesthesia data or patient (P) data in the memory of the control unit enables the electronic device to be re-used with the same patient and another monitoring device...,” etc. Therefore, the Applicant has successfully overcome the Examiner’s 35 USC 103 rejection and Examiner withdraws his 35 USC 103 rejection.
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.
Human Interactions Organized
Applicant discloses (Applicant’s Specification, [0002]) that monitoring patients is desirable in various situations related to medical treatments/operation. So a need exists to organize these human interactions by/through processing patient sensor data using the steps of “providing authentication data, acquiring sensor data, providing sensor data, providing expiry data,” etc. Applicant’s system/method/apparatus is therefore a certain method of organizing the human activities as described and disclosed by Applicant.
Rejection
Claim(s) 1-5 and 7-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim(s) 1, 9 and 12 is/are directed to the abstract idea of “processing patient sensor data,” etc. (Applicant’s Specification, Abstract, paragraph(s) [0001]), etc., as explained in detail below, and thus grouped as a certain method of organizing human interactions. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional computer elements, which are recited at a high level of generality, provide conventional computer functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 1-5 and 7-13 recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 1 – The Judicial Exception
The claim(s) recite(s) in part, system/method/apparatus for performing the steps of “providing authentication data, acquiring sensor data, providing sensor data, providing expiry data,” etc., that is “processing patient sensor data,” etc. which is a method of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (social activities, teaching, following rules, instructions) and thus grouped as a certain method of organizing human interactions. Accordingly, claims 1-5 and 7-13 recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2 – Integration of the Judicial Exception into a Practical Application
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the generically recited additional computer elements (i.e. infusion devices, lines, ventilation device, mouthpiece, monitoring device, cable, electronic device, sensing devices, control unit, control device, display, communication interface (Applicant’s Specification [0094]-[0123]), etc.) to perform steps of “providing authentication data, acquiring sensor data, providing sensor data, providing expiry data,” etc. do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer and this is nothing more than an attempt to generally link the product of nature to a particular technological environment. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limit on practicing the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Insignificant extra-solution activity
Claim(s) 1-5 and 7-13 recites storing data steps, retrieving data steps, providing data steps, output steps (Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 610-12 (2010), Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Can., 771 F.Supp.2d 1054, 1066 (E.D. Mo. 2011), aff’d, 687 F.3d at 1266), and/or transmitting data step (buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014), Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1299, 1241-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016)) that is/are insignificant extra-solution activity. Extra-solution activity limitations are insufficient to transform judicially excepted subject matter into a patent-eligible application (MPEP §2106.05(g)).
Step 2B – Search for an Inventive Concept/Significantly More
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above with respect to integration into a practical application, the additional elements (i.e. infusion devices, lines, ventilation device, mouthpiece, monitoring device, cable, electronic device, sensing devices, control unit, control device, display, communication interface, etc.) are recited at a high level of generality, and the written description indicates that these elements are generic computer components. Using generic computer components to perform abstract ideas does not provide a necessary inventive concept (Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 (“mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”)). Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible.
Individually and in Combination
The additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The additional elements amount to no more than generic computer components that serve to merely link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e. infusion devices, lines, ventilation device, mouthpiece, monitoring device, cable, electronic device, sensing devices, control unit, control device, display, communication interface, etc.). At paragraph(s) [0094]-[0123], Applicant’s specification describes generic computer hardware for implementing the above described functions including “infusion devices, lines, ventilation device, mouthpiece, monitoring device, cable, electronic device, sensing devices, control unit, control device, display, communication interface,” etc. to perform the functions of “providing authentication data, acquiring sensor data, providing sensor data, providing expiry data,” etc. The recited “infusion devices, lines, ventilation device, mouthpiece, monitoring device, cable, electronic device, sensing devices, control unit, control device, display, communication interface,” etc. does/do not add meaningful limitations to the idea of beyond generally linking the system to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via computers. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer, or improves any other technology, or improves a technical field, or provides a technical improvement to a technical problem. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Therefore, claims 1-5 and 7-13 do not amount to significantly more than the underlying abstract idea of “an idea of itself” (Alice).
Dependent Claims
Dependent claim(s) 2-5, 7-8, 10-11 and 13 include(s) all the limitations of the parent claims and are directed to the same abstract idea as discussed above and incorporated herein.
Although dependent claims 2-5, 7-8, 10-11 and 13 add additional limitations, they only serve to further limit the abstract idea by reciting limitations on what the information is and how it is received and used. Dependent claims 2-5, 7-8, 10-11 and 13 merely describe physical structures to implement the abstract idea. These information and physical characteristics do not change the fundamental analogy to the abstract idea grouping of certain method of organizing human interactions, and when viewed individually or as a whole, they do not add anything substantial beyond the abstract idea. Furthermore, the combination of elements does not indicate a significant improvement to the functioning of a computer or any other technology. Therefore, the claims when taken as a whole are ineligible for the same reasons as independent claims 1, 9 and 12.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 3/2/2026 with respect to claims 1-5 and 7-13 have been fully considered and they are partially persuasive. Applicant’s arguments will be addressed herein below in the order in which they appear in the response filed 3/2/2026.
Applicant’s arguments filed on 3/2/2026 with respect to claims 1-5 and 7-13 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Applicant argues that (A) Al-Ali et al. and Gonzalez Pijuan et al. do not render obvious the present invention because Al-Ali et al. and Gonzalez Pijuan et al. do not disclose “wherein the storing of at least one of the sensor data or anaesthesia data or patient (P) data in the memory of the control unit enables the electronic device to be re-used with the same patient and another monitoring device,” etc. in the previously presented and/or presently amended claims, (B) the Applicant’s claimed invention is directed to statutory matter.
103 Responses
In response to Applicant’s argument (A), Applicant’s arguments with regard to the application of Al-Ali et al. and Gonzalez Pijuan et al. to the amended limitations have been found persuasive. Al-Ali et al. and Gonzalez Pijuan et al. do not teach “wherein the storing of at least one of the sensor data or anaesthesia data or patient (P) data in the memory of the control unit enables the electronic device to be re-used with the same patient and another monitoring device.” Applicant has successfully overcome the Examiner’s 35 USC 103 rejection and Examiner withdraws his 35 USC 103 rejection.
101 Responses
As per Applicant’s argument (B), Applicant’s remarks with regard to the statutory nature of Applicant’s claimed invention are addressed above in the Office Action.
Applicant’s Amendments
Applicant amended claims recite “wherein the control unit comprises a memory for storing data, the memory stores expiry data to at least one of indicate or calculate,” “wherein the control unit is configured to store at least one of the sensor data or anaesthesia data or patient (P) data in the memory of the control unit and adapted to provide the expiry data via the one or more communication interfaces,” “wherein the storing of at least one of the sensor data or anaesthesia data or patient (P) data in the memory of the control unit enables the electronic device to be re-used with the same patient and another monitoring device.” These are information processing steps that are part of Applicant’s abstract idea and do not move Applicant’s invention into eligible subject matter. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Data Processing Step
Applicant’s amended steps of “wherein the control unit comprises a memory for storing data, the memory stores expiry data to at least one of indicate or calculate,” “wherein the control unit is configured to store at least one of the sensor data or anaesthesia data or patient (P) data in the memory of the control unit and adapted to provide the expiry data via the one or more communication interfaces,” “wherein the storing of at least one of the sensor data or anaesthesia data or patient (P) data in the memory of the control unit enables the electronic device to be re-used with the same patient and another monitoring device,” are abstract compurational steps that are part of Applicant’s abstract idea. In Electric Power Group the collection, manipulation and display of data has been found to be an abstract process. When claims, such as Applicant’s claims, are “directed to an abstract idea” and “merely requir[e] generic computer implementation,” they “do[] not move into [§] 101 eligibility territory.” buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Further, analysis of information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, is essentially a mental processes within the abstract-idea category (Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d at 1354). Further, Applicant appears to be claiming generic computer implementation of a certain method of organsing human interaction. Therefore, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Integration into a Practical Application
Integration into a practical application requires additional elements or a combination of additional elements in the claims to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (e.g. Enfish, McRO and Vanda) (2019 PEG).
Applicant’s “infusion devices, lines, ventilation device, mouthpiece, monitoring device, cable, electronic device, sensing devices, control unit, control device, display, communication interface” is/are not an additional element(s) that reflects in the an improvement in the functioning of a computer, is/are not an additional element(s) that applies or uses the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis, is/are not an additional element(s) that effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or things, and is/are not an additional element(s) that applies or uses the judicial exception beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment for the reasons explained in the 101 rejection above. Applicant’s “infusion devices, lines, ventilation device, mouthpiece, monitoring device, cable, electronic device, sensing devices, control unit, control device, display, communication interface” is/are merely tools used by Applicant to implement data processing. Data processing is an abstract idea. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) for 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 for 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 free 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 CHARLES P. COLEMAN whose telephone number is (571) 270-7788. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Thursday 7:30a - 5:00p.
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 W. 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.
/C. P. C./
Examiner, Art Unit 3683
/ROBERT W MORGAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3683