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 § 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 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.
In considering patentability of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
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 of this title, 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 O’Connor et al. (US 2022/0072321; hereinafter “O’Connor”).
Regarding claim 1, O’Connor discloses a device for displaying physiological parameter measurements, the device comprising: at least one processing device and at least one computer-readable data storage device storing software instructions that when executed by the at least one processing device (e.g. ¶¶ 116, 260-264, etc.), cause the at least one processing device to: display a graphical user interface including playback of a plurality of waveforms, each waveform of the plurality of waveforms representing a physiological parameter measured over a period of time (e.g. ¶¶ 163, 253, etc.), the plurality of waveforms including at least: a first waveform representing a first physiological parameter (e.g. Fig. 6A – #620a); and a second waveform representing a second physiological parameter (e.g. Fig. 6A – #624).
O’Connor discloses the ability of the device to receive a settings adjustment on the graphical user interface from the user in a plurality of different manners and adjust the playback of a selected first or second waveform (e.g. ¶¶ 156 – “In one example, the companion device display interface can provide a touch spot for each waveform that provides for playback of the respective waveform”; ¶¶ 232 – where the examiner considers the settings adjustment to be the user selecting a zoomed in vs full case view); however, it is unclear whether the adjustment as cited above to a selected second waveform would result in an adjustment where the sweep speed of the second waveform is changed such that the length differs from a length of the first waveform over the period of time.
O’Connor discloses a plurality of setting adjustment options including: a particular waveform can be played back (¶¶ 156), display format can be customized for the specific viewer with different working view layouts (¶¶ 160-161), “magnification of each data section”, “waveform sizes…may vary..” (¶¶164), individual “waveform duration” can vary (¶¶179), “snapshot data can include medical waveform data for predetermined periods of time before and after a snapshot is initiated” (¶¶202) – and further describes options for selecting different views that are customizable based on whether basic/advanced monitoring is desired (e.g. ¶¶ 184-186; Fig. 8A / Fig. 8C-1 – where the examiner further notes that the sweep speed of the graphs in the lower half is now different).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to modify the device of O’Connor to have the ability to receive an additional setting adjustment, where the playback of the second waveform relative to the first waveform is adjust to change a sweep speed such that the length of the second waveform differs from a length of the first waveform, over the period of time, in order to allow the clinician/user to access a more preferred or focused view for analyzing the patient’s data based on their specific condition.
Regarding claim 9, O’Connor teaches a method of displaying physiological parameter measurements, the method comprising: displaying a graphical user interface including playback of a plurality of waveforms, each waveform of the plurality of waveforms representing a physiological parameter measured over a period of time (e.g. ¶¶ 163, 253, etc.), the plurality of waveforms including at least: a first waveform representing a first physiological parameter (e.g. Fig. 6A – #620a); and a second waveform representing a second physiological parameter (e.g. Fig. 6A – #624).
O’Connor discloses the ability of the device to receive a settings adjustment on the graphical user interface from the user in a plurality of different manners and adjust the playback of a selected first or second waveform (e.g. ¶¶ 156 – “In one example, the companion device display interface can provide a touch spot for each waveform that provides for playback of the respective waveform”; ¶¶ 232 – where the examiner considers the settings adjustment to be the user selecting a zoomed in vs full case view); however, it is unclear whether the adjustment as cited above to a selected second waveform would result in an adjustment where the sweep speed of the second waveform is changed such that the length differs from a length of the first waveform over the period of time.
O’Connor discloses a plurality of setting adjustment options including: a particular waveform can be played back (¶¶ 156), display format can be customized for the specific viewer with different working view layouts (¶¶ 160-161), “magnification of each data section”, “waveform sizes…may vary..” (¶¶164), individual “waveform duration” can vary (¶¶179), “snapshot data can include medical waveform data for predetermined periods of time before and after a snapshot is initiated” (¶¶202) – and further describes options for selecting different views that are customizable based on whether basic/advanced monitoring is desired (e.g. ¶¶ 184-186; Fig. 8A / Fig. 8C-1 – where the examiner further notes that the sweep speed of the graphs in the lower half is now different).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to modify the device of O’Connor to have the ability to receive an additional setting adjustment, where the playback of the second waveform relative to the first waveform is adjust to change a sweep speed such that the length of the second waveform differs from a length of the first waveform, over the period of time, in order to allow the clinician/user to access a more preferred or focused view for analyzing the patient’s data based on their specific condition.
Regarding claim 17, O’Connor discloses a non-transitory computer-readable media storing data instructions, which when executed by one or more processing devices, cause the one or more processing devices to: display a graphical user interface including playback of a plurality of waveforms, each waveform of the plurality of waveforms representing a physiological parameter measured over a period of time (e.g. ¶¶ 163, 253, etc.), the plurality of waveforms including at least: a first waveform representing a first physiological parameter (e.g. Fig. 6A – #620a); and a second waveform representing a second physiological parameter (e.g. Fig. 6A – #624).
O’Connor discloses the ability of the device to receive a settings adjustment on the graphical user interface from the user in a plurality of different manners and adjust the playback of a selected first or second waveform (e.g. ¶¶ 156 – “In one example, the companion device display interface can provide a touch spot for each waveform that provides for playback of the respective waveform”; ¶¶ 232 – where the examiner considers the settings adjustment to be the user selecting a zoomed in vs full case view); however, it is unclear whether the adjustment as cited above to a selected second waveform would result in an adjustment where the sweep speed of the second waveform is changed such that the length differs from a length of the first waveform over the period of time.
O’Connor discloses a plurality of setting adjustment options including: a particular waveform can be played back (¶¶ 156), display format can be customized for the specific viewer with different working view layouts (¶¶ 160-161), “magnification of each data section”, “waveform sizes…may vary..” (¶¶164), individual “waveform duration” can vary (¶¶179), “snapshot data can include medical waveform data for predetermined periods of time before and after a snapshot is initiated” (¶¶202) – and further describes options for selecting different views that are customizable based on whether basic/advanced monitoring is desired (e.g. ¶¶ 184-186; Fig. 8A / Fig. 8C-1 – where the examiner further notes that the sweep speed of the graphs in the lower half is now different).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to modify the device of O’Connor to have the ability to receive an additional setting adjustment, where the playback of the second waveform relative to the first waveform is adjust to change a sweep speed such that the length of the second waveform differs from a length of the first waveform, over the period of time, in order to allow the clinician/user to access a more preferred or focused view for analyzing the patient’s data based on their specific condition.
Regarding claims 2 and 10, O’Connor discloses the first physiological parameter is an electrocardiogram signal (e.g. Fig. 6A – #620a; e.g. ¶¶ 163) and the second physiological parameter is respiration rate (e.g. Fig. 6A – #624 – CO2; e.g. ¶¶ 253 – “…respiration sensors 940 …include … carbon dioxide sensors”).
Regarding claims 3 and 11, O’Connor discloses the graphical user interface further includes a third waveform representing a third physiological parameter (e.g. Fig. 6A – 622; ¶¶ 253).
O’Connor fails to expressly disclose causing the at least one processing device to: adjust the playback of the second waveform relative to the third waveform based on the settings adjustment such that the length of the second waveform differs from a length of the third waveform over the period of time.
As noted above, O’Connor discloses a plurality of setting adjustment options including: a particular waveform can be played back (¶¶ 156), display format can be customized for the specific viewer with different working view layouts (¶¶ 160-161), “magnification of each data section”, “waveform sizes…may vary..” (¶¶164), individual “waveform duration” can vary (¶¶179), “snapshot data can include medical waveform data for predetermined periods of time before and after a snapshot is initiated” (¶¶202) – and further describes options for selecting different views that are customizable based on whether basic/advanced monitoring is desired (e.g. ¶¶ 184-186; Fig. 8A / Fig. 8C-1 – where the examiner further notes that the sweep speed of the graphs in the lower half is now different).
Accordingly, the examiner believes it would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to modify the device of O’Connor to have the ability to receive an additional setting adjustment, where the playback of the second waveform relative to the third waveform is adjust to change a sweep speed such that the length of the second waveform differs from a length of the third waveform, over the period of time, in order to allow the clinician/user to access a more preferred or focused view for analyzing the patient’s data based on their specific condition.
Regarding claims 4 and 12, O’Connor discloses the third waveform is pulsatile arterial blood flow (e.g. Fig. 6A – 622; ¶¶ 253 – where the examiner notes that pulse oximetry SpO2 is the same pulsatile arterial blood flow parameter used in the present invention based on ¶¶ 47 in published app - “pulsatile arterial blood flow measured by the pulse oximetry sensor module 126”).
Regarding claims 5, 13, and 18, O’Connor discloses the graphical user interface further includes a fourth waveform representing a fourth physiological parameter (e.g. Fig. 6A – #620b).
O’Connor fails to expressly disclose causing the at least one processing device to: adjust the playback of the second waveform relative to the fourth waveform based on the settings adjustment such that the length of the second waveform differs from a length of the fourth waveform over the period of time.
As noted above, O’Connor discloses a plurality of setting adjustment options including: a particular waveform can be played back (¶¶ 156), display format can be customized for the specific viewer with different working view layouts (¶¶ 160-161), “magnification of each data section”, “waveform sizes…may vary..” (¶¶164), individual “waveform duration” can vary (¶¶179), “snapshot data can include medical waveform data for predetermined periods of time before and after a snapshot is initiated” (¶¶202) – and further describes options for selecting different views that are customizable based on whether basic/advanced monitoring is desired (e.g. ¶¶ 184-186; Fig. 8A / Fig. 8C-1 – where the examiner further notes that the sweep speed of the graphs in the lower half is now different).
Accordingly, the examiner believes it would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to modify the device of O’Connor to have the ability to receive an additional setting adjustment, where the playback of the second waveform relative to the fourth waveform is adjust to change a sweep speed such that the length of the second waveform differs from a length of the fourth waveform, over the period of time, in order to allow the clinician/user to access a more preferred or focused view for analyzing the patient’s data based on their specific condition.
Regarding claims 6 and 14, O’Connor discloses the fourth waveform is a second electrocardiogram signal (e.g. ¶¶ 163; Fig. 6A – #620b).
Regarding claims 7, 15 and 20, O’Connor discloses the instructions, when executed by the at least one processing device, further cause the at least one processing device to: receive a second settings adjustment on the graphical user interface and adjust the playback of the second waveform relative to the first, third, and fourth waveforms based on the second settings adjustment, the playback of the second waveform being adjusted to increase the sweep speed of the second waveform such that the length of the second waveform matches the lengths of the first, third, and fourth waveforms over the period of time (e.g. ¶¶ 232 – where the examiner considers the second settings adjustment to be the user selecting or reverting back to the full case view from the zoomed in view).
Regarding claims 8 and 16, O’Connor fails to expressly disclose the sweep speed of the second waveform is decreased from 25 mm/second to 6.25 mm/second. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to change the sweep speed from 25mm/sec to 6.25mm/sec, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. In this scenario, the adjustment would simply be based on the graphical interface screen and the preference in the user’s desire to zoom in for the appropriate feature in the waveform under analysis.
Regarding claim 19, O’Connor discloses the first physiological parameter is a first electrocardiogram signal (e.g. Fig. 6A – #620a; e.g. ¶¶ 163) and the second physiological parameter is respiration rate (e.g. Fig. 6A – #624 – CO2; e.g. ¶¶ 253 – “…respiration sensors 940 …include … carbon dioxide sensors”), the third waveform is pulsatile arterial blood flow (e.g. Fig. 6A – 622; ¶¶ 253 – where the examiner notes that pulse oximetry SpO2 is the same pulsatile arterial blood flow parameter used in the present invention based on ¶¶ 47 in published app - “pulsatile arterial blood flow measured by the pulse oximetry sensor module 126”), and the fourth waveform is a second electrocardiogram signal (e.g. ¶¶ 163; Fig. 6A – #620b).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael D’Abreu whose telephone number is (571) 270-3816. The examiner can normally be reached on 7AM-4PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, David Hamaoui can be reached at (571) 270-5625. 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, see http://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.
/MICHAEL J D'ABREU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights