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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 05/13/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under 35 USC 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The applicant argues that the Ahmed reference does not disclose the locking indicator as require. This argument is fully considered and is persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of US Pat Pub no. 20210000431 to Ahmed et al. (previously presented) in view of US 20130172710A1 to Mears et al. See detailed rejection below.
The applicant further argues that the claim recites “upon receipt of an input, cause the measured value of the one or more physiological parameters to be displayed in one of the first sub-area and the second sub-area” which Ahmed does not disclose. In arguendo, even if applicant’s arguments are correct, Mears teaches the graphical user interface can be used to input selection of data to be presented.
Remarks
This action is being provided as a second non-final rejection since the Mears reference was not previously presented to the applicant.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat Pub no. 20210000431 to Ahmed et al. (hereinafter “Ahmed”) in view of US20130172710A1 to Mears et al (hereinafter “Mears”).
Regarding claims 1 and 11. (Original) Ahmed discloses an electronic device and method capable of executing a customizable configuration for displaying one or more physiological parameters of a patient (para 0005, 0061, 0062, 0271 etc. “clinician device 104”) comprising: a display configured to display the one or more physiological parameters of the patient (para 0169, figs 20-48, specifically see fig. 33); and one or more processors configured to: provide a graphical user interface (GUI) on the display (para 0052, 0061, 0104 “smartphone”, “tablet”, “cell phone”, “touchscreen”, etc. claim 33, fig. 1 and 33, etc.), the GUI including: a first sub-area configured to display a measured value of the one or more physiological parameters (para 0130, 0169, fig. 16 and 33 “patient data 1620”), and a visual indicator of the first sub-area (fig. 33), and a second sub-area configured to display a measured value of at least two of the one or more physiological parameters (para 0130, 0132, 0169-0170 “grid 1630”), and a visual indicator indicating a scrollable status of the second sub-area (para 0130-0131, 0170 “scroll bar 3390”, fig. 33), and upon receipt of an input, cause the measured value of the one or more physiological parameters to be displayed in one of the first sub-area and the second sub-area (fig. 33, para 0053, 0169, etc., “obtain patient data”) but fails to explicitly disclose indicating a locking status.
Mears, from a similar field of endeavor, shows that it is known to provide a lock icon on the screen (para 0057, figs 7B-C) indicating that the corresponding data cannot be changed (claim 7, 20, para 0057) Mears further teaches that selections can be inputted in the graphical user interface using a menu screen to display various data to display (para 0009-0011, 0060). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the disclosure of Ahmed with the known teachings of Mears to provide a locking indication to provide the predictable result of indicating that the corresponding data cannot be changed.
Regarding claims 2 and 12. (Original) Ahmed as modified by Mears renders obvious the electronic device of claim 1 and method of claim 11, wherein the one or more physiological parameters of the patient comprises electrocardiogram, non-invasive peripheral oxygen saturation, non-invasive blood pressure, arterial blood pressure, invasive blood pressure, heart rate, respiratory rate, temperature, ST segment, tidal carbon dioxide, neuromuscular transmission, cardiac output and apnea (para 0059 “measure parameters such as oxygen saturation or SpO2, respiratory rate, blood pressure, heart rate or pulse rate perfusion, other blood gas parameters, brain activity, brain oxygen saturation, any of the other parameters described herein, and the like”, para 0132).
Regarding claims 3 and 13. (Original) Ahmed as modified by Mears renders obvious the electronic device of claim 1 and method of claim 11, wherein the measured value of the one or more physiological parameters is displayed at least in a form of: a waveform indicating a plurality of measured values over a pre-determined time period corresponding to the one or more physiological parameters; or a numerical value of the one or more physiological parameters (fig. 33).
Regarding claims 4 and 14. (Original) Ahmed as modified by Mears renders obvious the electronic device of claim 1 and method of claim 11, wherein: upon the receipt of the input, the one or more processors are configured to: move the measured value of the one or more physiological parameters displayed in the first sub-area to the second sub-area; or move the measured value of the one or more physiological displayed in the second sub- area to the first sub-area (para 0271 “clinician device 104 can use user-specified customization to dynamically output a user interface, such as the type of notifications to view in a user interface, the layout of the notifications, or any other type of customization.”).
Regarding claims 5 and 15. (Original) Ahmed as modified by Mears renders obvious the electronic device of claim 1 and method of claim 11 wherein: the input is provided via a user's gesture control (para 0131 “rows 1620 can be panned or zoomed, for example, using finger gestures like taps”).
Regarding claims 6 and 16. (Original) Ahmed as modified by Mears renders obvious the electronic device of claim 5 and method of claim 15, wherein: the gesture control is in a form of tap, drag-and-drop, touchdown-and-drag, touchdown- and-hold, flick, pinch, spread, swipe, or a combination thereof (para 0131 “rows 1620 can be panned or zoomed, for example, using finger gestures like taps, finger drags, and pinch zooms”).
Regarding claims 7 and 17. (Original) Ahmed as modified by Mears renders obvious the electronic device of claim 1 and method of claim 11, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to provide at least one of: a default configuration automatically provided by the electronic device; a user-determined configuration saved in the electronic device or transmitted via a communication interface of the electronic device, wherein the communication interface is configured to be connected to a communication network; or an automatically adjusted configuration based on a real-time change in the measured value of the one or more physiological parameters (para 0189, figs 49-53 and 103 and para 0250; it is noted that only one of the above is being required).
Regarding claims 8 and 18. (Original) Ahmed as modified by Mears renders obvious the electronic device of claim 1 and method of claim 11, wherein the electronic device is a physiological patient monitor (para 0053, 0059).
Regarding claims 9 and 19. (Original) Ahmed as modified by Mears renders obvious the electronic device of claim 1 and method of claim 11electronic device of claim 1, wherein the electronic device is a multimodality patient-care device (para 0053, 0059).
Regarding claims 10 and 20. (Original) Ahmed as modified by Mears renders obvious the electronic device of claim 1 and method of claim 11, wherein the electronic device is a remote patient watch device (para 0053, 0059).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20160206252 A9 to McKeown et al.; US 20190239825 A1 to Kumar et al.; US 20140275819 to Kassem et al.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANA SAHAND whose telephone number is (571)272-6842. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:30 am -5:30 pm; F 9 am-3 pm.
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, Jennifer S McDonald can be reached at (571) 270- 3061. 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.
/SANA SAHAND/Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights