DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 9, 12, 13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 9, the monitor should be ‘configured to be worn’ to clearly set forth the structure.
In claim 12 line 6, claim 13, and claim 20, it is unclear which patient stress level is being referred to as there are previously two stress levels introduced in claim 12.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hernandez et al (US Pub 2015/0297140 -cited by applicant) in view of Schmidt et al (US Pub 2021/0038148 -cited by applicant).
Re claims 1, 12: Hernandez discloses a system comprising:
a machine including a control unit storing a treatment prescription that provides at least one parameter for performing a treatment using the machine [0008, 0011, figure 1; see the computing device 102 that stores instructions and output parameters to perform treatment];
a first and second sensor having a first and second output indicative of a patient stress level [0012; see the one or more image sensors, cameras, microphones]; and
logic configured to determine the patient stress level based on the outputs, the patient stress level used for at least one of (i) comparing against a non-stressed patient baseline, (ii) developing a patient stress level trend, (iii) updating the non-stressed patient baseline, or (iv) determining if the treatment prescription needs updating [0014-0016, 0018; see the assessment whether the patient is stressed and comparison baselines].
Hernandez discloses all features except that the monitor is implemented in a PD system with a PD machine. However, Schmidt teaches of a PD machine with sensors [0007, figures 1, 3]. It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan to modify the system to be used for a PD machine as taught by Schmidt, in order to improve patient treatment for a dialysis patient which has well known stessors.
Re claims 2, 14: Hernandez discloses a cloud/mobile network in operable communication with the control unit, and wherein the logic is implemented at the cloud/mobile network [0031; see the logic machine and cloud computing].
Re claim 3: Hernandez discloses logic is implemented at the control unit of the machine [0008, 0028; see the smartphone as the computing control unit].
Re claims 4, 5, 16, 17: Hernandez discloses the sensor includes a camera provided by the machine, and wherein the logic analyzes the output from the camera for at least one of facial expression, eye movement, head motion, or mouth movement for at least one of (i) to (iv) [0012; see the camera to analyze facial features].
Re claims 6, 7, 18: Hernandez discloses the sensor includes a microphone provided by the machine, and wherein the logic analyzes the output from the microphone for at least one of patient voice pitch or patient voice loudness for at least one of (i) to (iv) [0012; see the microphone to analyze voice input].
Re claims 8, 9, 19: Hernandez discloses the sensor includes at least one of a blood pressure monitor or a heart rate monitor that is wireless and worn by the patient, and wherein the logic analyzes the output level from the at least one blood pressure monitor or heart rate monitor for at least one of (i) to (iv) [0008, 0012, 0040; see the blood flow or heart rate captured by a thermal camera, wherein the monitor is provided by a machine with wireless capability].
Re claims 10, 13, 15, 20: Hernandez discloses the patient stress level includes a patient stress index relative to the non-stressed patient baseline, the logic forming the patient stress index based on outputs from at least two sensors selected from the group including: a camera, a microphone, a blood pressure monitor and a heart rate monitor [0012, 0014-0016; see the camera or microphone and the stress level is relative to a baseline].
Re claim 11: Hernandez discloses all features except that the logic is further configured to analyze at least one of a fluid/caloric intake of the PD patient or a sleep pattern of the PD patient. However, Schmidt teaches at least one of a fluid/caloric intake of the PD patient or a sleep pattern of the PD patient is analyzed [0006; see the sleep state readings].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL T ROZANSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-1648. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00-4:00.
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, Christopher Koharski can be reached at 571-272-7230. 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.
/MICHAEL T ROZANSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797