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 .
Status of Claims
In the amendment filed 04/22/2026 the following occurred: Claims 1, 3-6, 8-13, and 19 were amended; and Claims 2 and 7 were canceled. Claims 1, 3-6, and 8-19 are presented for examination.
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 1, 3-6, and 8-11 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
As per claim 1, the claim teaches a “system”, but does not include any system elements. What are the elements of the system that make this invention a system?
Claims 3-6 and 8-11 depend from and incorporate the specifically rejected claims above while failing to remedy the limitations shown as indefinite; therefore, they are rejected here for similar reasons.
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) 1, 3-6, 8-11 and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2023/0091743 to Engman in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0335403 to Mabotuwana further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0406423 to Stinnett.
As per claim 1, Engman teaches a system for improving the quality and speed of review and interaction with data, comprising:
a) a first user portal, the first user portal configured to (see: Engman, Fig. 1, ele. 110, 112; and paragraph 50, 57, 68, 70-71, and 125, is met by assistant device 110 including an assistant interface 112, where a mobile assistant device of the patient that runs a monitoring application enables access to a website and enables logging into a portal):
a. receive data from one or more third-party applications or devices (see: Engman, Fig. 1, ele. 104; and paragraph 57, 60, 67, 70-71, and 74, is met by assistant device 110 configured to serve as intermediary device to transfer health data collected from medical monitoring device 104 worn by a patient 102);
b. receive data through manual user input (see: Engman, Fig. 5A-5B; and paragraph 20, 73, and 125-130, is met by supplemental information entered by the user such as symptoms, where the patient is requested to input symptoms into a mobile assistant device of the patient that runs a monitoring application, enables access to a website form, enables logging into a portal, to input the symptomatic information, where a user interface allows the patient to touch or click on a list of symptoms);
c. share data with a second user (see: Engman, Fig. 1, ele. 120; Fig. 8, ele. 844, 846; and paragraph 57, 73, 120, and 169-170, is met by assistant device 110 configured to serve as intermediary device to transfer data to a data management module 122 of a remote computing device 120, where the data includes the health data collected from medical monitoring device 104 worn by a patient 102 and supplemental information entered by the user such as symptoms);
d. receive from the second user (see: Engman, Fig. 1, ele. 110, 120; Fig. 8, ele. 844, 846; paragraph 169-171, is met by user 846 may include a person and/or computing system, such as the assistant device 110 of FIG. 1 and/or the data management device 120 of FIG. 1, where the user 846 may include the patient or a local bystander, and/or the user 846 may be a remote entity, such as the assistant device of a remote person or a medical server device, where the user 846 may be a health support entity such as a doctor, caregiver, other health care provider, an authorized person, where the user interface 844 may be configured to send and receive data and information); and
e. receive automatically generated insights (see: Engman, paragraph 110, is met by an audio message delivered to the patient by the medical monitoring system); and
b) a second user portal, the second user portal configured to (see: Engman, Fig. 1, ele. 120, 122, 124; Fig. 4A-4C; and paragraph 57, 74, 102, and 120, is met by data presentations are displayed on a user interface, where data management module 122 can be configured to receive data acquired by the medical monitoring device 104 along with supplemental information entered by the user to provide a reviewer with a data presentation on a visual display via a display module 124, where a reviewer can be a clinical reviewer, a physician, a caregiver, the patient, a researcher, and the organized displayed of data in the data presentation can provide the reviewer with information):
a. receive data from a first user (see: Engman, Fig. 1, ele. 120; Fig. 8, ele. 844, 846; and paragraph 57, 73, 120, and 169-170, is met by assistant device 110 configured to serve as intermediary device to transfer data to a data management module 122 of a remote computing device 120, where the data includes the health data collected from medical monitoring device 104 worn by a patient 102 and supplemental information entered by the user such as symptoms);
b. view said data on a single review screen (see: Engman, Fig. 1, ele. 120, 122, 124; Fig. 4A-4C; and paragraph 57, 74, and 102-124, is met by data presentations are displayed on a user interface, where a reviewer can be provided a data presentation on a visual display via a display module 124, where a reviewer can be a clinical reviewer, a physician, a caregiver, the patient, a researcher, and the organized displayed of data in the data presentation can provide the reviewer with information)
d. share with the first user (see: Engman, Fig. 1, ele. 110, 120; Fig. 8, ele. 844, 846; paragraph 169-171, is met by user 846 may include a person and/or computing system, such as the assistant device 110 of FIG. 1 and/or the data management device 120 of FIG. 1, where the user 846 may include the patient or a local bystander, and/or the user 846 may be a remote entity, such as the assistant device of a remote person or a medical server device, where the user 846 may be a health support entity such as a doctor, caregiver, other health care provider, an authorized person, where the user interface 844 may be configured to send and receive data and information); and
Engman fails to specifically teach that the received data and information at the assistant device is a personalized report and that the data and information shared by the data management device is the personalized report; however, Mabotuwana teaches combined term annotations and/or recommended annotations inserted directly into a report as cited:
wherein said single review screen comprises one or more classification buttons (see: Mabotuwana, Fig. 2-5; and paragraph 37-38, is met by a user interface to enable the user to annotate various types of clinical documents, such as by providing a pop-up list of annotations where the user can select from the list);
c. associate one or more of the one or more classification buttons with the data wherein said association is configured to automatically generate a report (see: Mabotuwana, Fig. 2-5 and 8; and paragraph 37-38, is met by a user interface to enable the user to annotate various types of clinical documents, the user selecting a suitable combination of multiple term options to create a description or recommended annotations as the most ideal annotation based on the clinical context, where the user interface supports inserting the annotations directly into a report, and all annotations for a patient are stored);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the data presentations as taught by Engman to include combined term annotations and/or recommended annotations to various types of clinical documents which can be stored and inserted directly into a report as taught by Mabotuwana with the motivation of subsequently using the annotations by a graphical user interface for user-friendly rendering (see: Mabotuwana, paragraph 36) and/or with the motivation of improving clinical workflow and patient care (see: Mabotuwana, paragraph 13-14).
Engman and Mabotuwana fail to specifically teach the following limitations met by Stinnett as cited:
e. receive automatically generated insights (see: Stinnett, paragraph 2, 30-34, 37, 49, and 52-53, is met by automatically recommends relevant videos or content generated by the medical provider, as well as relevant content from third-parties, that may be included in a report for the patient, where the report may be provided to the patient though a portal), wherein the second user portal further comprises one or more non-opaque task buttons (see: Mabotuwana, Fig. 2-5; and paragraph 37-38, is met by a user interface to enable the user to annotate various types of clinical documents, such as by providing a pop-up list of annotations where the user can select from the list) wherein each task button automatically triggers one or more tasks when selected (see: Mabotuwana, Fig. 2-5; and paragraph 37-38, is met by capturing actionable information from annotations which could subsequently be picked up by a management system that then creates an entry that is linked to the clinical document on which the annotation was made, or indicate an issue needs to be monitored, or that a clinical document is to be used as a teaching file).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the portals and data presentation devices, as taught by Engman and Mabotuwana, to receive automatically recommended relevant videos or content generated by the medical provider, as well as relevant content from third-parties, that may be included in a report for the patient, where the report may be provided to the patient though a portal, enable the user to annotate various types of clinical documents by providing a pop-up list of annotations, and enable capturing actionable information from annotations which could subsequently be picked up by a management system that then creates an entry that is linked to the clinical document on which the annotation was made, or indicate an issue needs to be monitored, or that a clinical document is to be used as a teaching file, as taught by Stinnett, with the motivation of improving both in-person health services and telehealth services, improving clinical workflow and patient care, and/or providing an overview of actionable items and improving workflow efficiency (see: Stinnett, paragraph 2, 5, and 13-14).
As per claim 3, Engman, Mabotuwana, and Stinnett teach the invention as claimed, see discussion of claim 1, and further teach:
wherein the data comprises bioelectrical data (see: Engman, Fig. 1, ele. 104; and paragraph 57-58, 83, 107, 132-133, and 156-160, is met health data collected from medical monitoring device 104 worn by a patient 102, where the medical monitoring device includes sensors and may detect a heart arrhythmia and acquire data representing different health parameters such as electrodes may obtain ECG data and also obtain respiratory data, such as impedance or DC signals, and data from a cardiac monitoring device and data from an spO2 device can be acquired).
As per claim 4, Engman, Mabotuwana, and Stinnett teach the invention as claimed, see discussion of claim 1, and further teach:
wherein the data comprises bioelectrical data (see: Engman, Fig. 1, ele. 104; and paragraph 57-58, 83, 107, 132-133, and 156-160, is met health data collected from medical monitoring device 104 worn by a patient 102, where the medical monitoring device includes sensors and may detect a heart arrhythmia and acquire data representing different health parameters such as electrodes may obtain ECG data and also obtain respiratory data, such as impedance or DC signals, and data from a cardiac monitoring device and data from an spO2 device can be acquired) and symptom information (see: Engman, Fig. 5A-5B; and paragraph 20, 73, and 125-130, is met by supplemental information entered by the user such as symptoms, where the patient is requested to input symptoms into a mobile assistant device of the patient that runs a monitoring application, enables access to a website form, enables logging into a portal, to input the symptomatic information, where a user interface allows the patient to touch or click on a list of symptoms).
As per claim 5, Engman, Mabotuwana, and Stinnett teach the invention as claimed, see discussion of claim 1, and further teach:
wherein the second user portal is configured to share data with non-users (see: Engman, Fig. 1, ele. 110, 120; Fig. 8, ele. 844, 846; paragraph 169-171, is met by user 846 may include a person and/or computing system, such as the assistant device 110 of FIG. 1 and/or the data management device 120 of FIG. 1, where the user 846 may include the patient or a local bystander, and/or the user 846 may be a remote entity, such as the assistant device of a remote person or a medical server device, where the user 846 may be a health support entity such as a doctor, caregiver, other health care provider, an authorized person, where the user interface 844 may be configured to send and receive data and information).
As per claim 6, Engman, Mabotuwana, and Stinnett teach the invention as claimed, see discussion of claim 1, and further teach:
wherein the second user portal is configured to share with the first user (see: Engman, Fig. 1, ele. 110, 120; Fig. 8, ele. 844, 846; paragraph 169-171, is met by user 846 may include a person and/or computing system, such as the assistant device 110 of FIG. 1 and/or the data management device 120 of FIG. 1, where the user 846 may include the patient or a local bystander, and/or the user 846 may be a remote entity, such as the assistant device of a remote person or a medical server device, where the user 846 may be a health support entity such as a doctor, caregiver, other health care provider, an authorized person, where the user interface 844 may be configured to send and receive data and information).
Engman, Mabotuwana, and Stinnett fail to specifically teach the following limitations met by Stinnett as cited:
automatically generated insight (see: Stinnett, paragraph 2, 30-34, 37, 49, and 52-53, is met by automatically recommends relevant videos or content generated by the medical provider, as well as relevant content from third-parties, that may be included in a report for the patient, where the report may be provided to the patient though a portal).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the portals and data presentation devices as taught by Engman, Mabotuwana, and Stinnett to receive automatically recommended relevant videos or content generated by the medical provider, as well as relevant content from third-parties, that may be included in a report for the patient, where the report may be provided to the patient though a portal, as taught by Stinnett, with the motivation of improving both in-person health services and telehealth services (see: Stinnett, paragraph 2).
As per claim 8, Engman, Mabotuwana, and Stinnett teach the invention as claimed, see discussion of claim 1, and further teach:
wherein the personalized report is editable (see: Mabotuwana, Fig. 2-5 and 8; and paragraph 29 and 37-38, is met by a user interface within which to manually enter the information items and to enable the user to annotate various types of clinical documents, the user selecting a suitable combination of multiple term options to create a description or recommended annotations as the most ideal annotation based on the clinical context, where the user interface supports inserting the annotations directly into a report).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the data presentations as taught by Engman, Mabotuwana, and Stinnett to include be a user interface within which to manually enter the information items and to enable the user to annotate various types of clinical documents by inserting the annotations directly into a report as taught by Mabotuwana with the motivation of subsequently using the annotations by a graphical user interface for user-friendly rendering (see: Mabotuwana, paragraph 36) and/or with the motivation of improving clinical workflow and patient care (see: Mabotuwana, paragraph 13-14).
As per claim 9, Engman, Mabotuwana, and Stinnett teach the invention as claimed, see discussion of claim 1, and further teach:
wherein the personalized report comprises text (see: Mabotuwana, Fig. 2-5 and 8; and paragraph 37-38, is met by a user interface to enable the user to annotate various types of clinical documents, the user selecting a suitable combination of multiple term options to create a description or recommended annotations as the most ideal annotation based on the clinical context, where the user interface supports inserting the annotations directly into a report, and all annotations for a patient are stored);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the data presentations as taught by Engman, Mabotuwana, and Stinnett to include combined term annotations and/or recommended annotations to various types of clinical documents which can be stored and inserted directly into a report as taught by Mabotuwana with the motivation of subsequently using the annotations by a graphical user interface for user-friendly rendering (see: Mabotuwana, paragraph 36) and/or with the motivation of improving clinical workflow and patient care (see: Mabotuwana, paragraph 13-14).
Engman, Mabotuwana, and Stinnett fail to specifically teach the following limitations met by Stinnett as cited:
and audiovisual content (see: Stinnett, paragraph 2, 30-34, 36-37, 49, and 52-53, is met by automatically recommends relevant videos or content generated by the medical provider, as well as relevant content from third-parties, that may be included in a report for the patient, where the report video may include speaking, where the report may be provided to the patient though a portal).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the portals and data presentation devices as taught by Engman, Mabotuwana, and Stinnett to receive automatically recommended relevant videos or content generated by the medical provider, as well as relevant content from third-parties, that may be included in a report for the patient, where the report video may include speaking, where the report may be provided to the patient though a portal, as taught by Stinnett, with the motivation of improving both in-person health services and telehealth services (see: Stinnett, paragraph 2).
As per claim 10, Engman, Mabotuwana, and Stinnett the invention as claimed, see discussion of claim 1, and further teach:
wherein the personalized report comprises text (see: Mabotuwana, Fig. 2-5 and 8; and paragraph 37-38, is met by a user interface to enable the user to annotate various types of clinical documents, the user selecting a suitable combination of multiple term options to create a description or recommended annotations as the most ideal annotation based on the clinical context, where the user interface supports inserting the annotations directly into a report, and all annotations for a patient are stored);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the data presentations as taught by Engman, Mabotuwana, and Stinnett to include combined term annotations and/or recommended annotations to various types of clinical documents which can be stored and inserted directly into a report as taught by Mabotuwana with the motivation of subsequently using the annotations by a graphical user interface for user-friendly rendering (see: Mabotuwana, paragraph 36) and/or with the motivation of improving clinical workflow and patient care (see: Mabotuwana, paragraph 13-14).
Engman, Mabotuwana, and Stinnett fail to specifically teach the following limitations met by Stinnett as cited:
and audio content (see: Stinnett, paragraph 2, 30-34, 36-37, 49, and 52-53, is met by automatically recommends relevant videos or content generated by the medical provider, as well as relevant content from third-parties, that may be included in a report for the patient, where the report video may include speaking, where the report may be provided to the patient though a portal).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the portals and data presentation devices as taught by Engman, Mabotuwana, and Stinnett to receive automatically recommended relevant videos or content generated by the medical provider, as well as relevant content from third-parties, that may be included in a report for the patient, , where the report video may include speaking, where the report may be provided to the patient though a portal, as taught by Stinnett, with the motivation of improving both in-person health services and telehealth services (see: Stinnett, paragraph 2).
As per claim 11, Engman, Mabotuwana, and Stinnett teach the invention as claimed, see discussion of claim 3, and further teach:
wherein the symptom information is input by a user through selection from a preset symptoms list (see: Engman, Fig. 5A-5B; and paragraph 20, 73, and 125-130, is met by supplemental information entered by the user such as symptoms, where the patient is requested to input symptoms into a mobile assistant device of the patient that runs a monitoring application, enables access to a website form, enables logging into a portal, to input the symptomatic information, where a user interface allows the patient to touch or click on a list of symptoms).
As per claim 17, Engman and Mabotuwana teach the invention as claimed, see discussion of claim 13, and further teach:
wherein the report comprises text (see: Mabotuwana, Fig. 2-5 and 8; and paragraph 37-38, is met by a user interface to enable the user to annotate various types of clinical documents, the user selecting a suitable combination of multiple term options to create a description or recommended annotations as the most ideal annotation based on the clinical context, where the user interface supports inserting the annotations directly into a report, and all annotations for a patient are stored);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the data presentations as taught by Engman and Mabotuwana to include combined term annotations and/or recommended annotations to various types of clinical documents which can be stored and inserted directly into a report as taught by Mabotuwana with the motivation of subsequently using the annotations by a graphical user interface for user-friendly rendering (see: Mabotuwana, paragraph 36) and/or with the motivation of improving clinical workflow and patient care (see: Mabotuwana, paragraph 13-14)
Engman and Mabotuwana fail to specifically teach the following limitations met by Stinnett as cited:
and audiovisual content (see: Stinnett, paragraph 2, 30-34, 36-37, 49, and 52-53, is met by automatically recommends relevant videos or content generated by the medical provider, as well as relevant content from third-parties, that may be included in a report for the patient, where the report video may include speaking, where the report may be provided to the patient though a portal).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the portals and data presentation devices as taught by Engman and Mabotuwana Stinnett to receive automatically recommended relevant videos or content generated by the medical provider, as well as relevant content from third-parties, that may be included in a report for the patient, where the report video may include speaking, where the report may be provided to the patient though a portal, as taught by Stinnett, with the motivation of improving both in-person health services and telehealth services (see: Stinnett, paragraph 2).
As per claim 18, Engman and Mabotuwana teach the invention as claimed, see discussion of claim 13, and further teach:
wherein the report comprises text (see: Mabotuwana, Fig. 2-5 and 8; and paragraph 37-38, is met by a user interface to enable the user to annotate various types of clinical documents, the user selecting a suitable combination of multiple term options to create a description or recommended annotations as the most ideal annotation based on the clinical context, where the user interface supports inserting the annotations directly into a report, and all annotations for a patient are stored);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the data presentations as taught by Engman and Mabotuwana to include combined term annotations and/or recommended annotations to various types of clinical documents which can be stored and inserted directly into a report as taught by Mabotuwana with the motivation of subsequently using the annotations by a graphical user interface for user-friendly rendering (see: Mabotuwana, paragraph 36) and/or with the motivation of improving clinical workflow and patient care (see: Mabotuwana, paragraph 13-14).
Engman and Mabotuwana fail to specifically teach the following limitations met by Stinnett as cited:
and audio content (see: Stinnett, paragraph 2, 30-34, 36-37, 49, and 52-53, is met by automatically recommends relevant videos or content generated by the medical provider, as well as relevant content from third-parties, that may be included in a report for the patient, where the report video may include speaking, where the report may be provided to the patient though a portal).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the portals and data presentation devices as taught by Engman and Mabotuwana to receive automatically recommended relevant videos or content generated by the medical provider, as well as relevant content from third-parties, that may be included in a report for the patient, , where the report video may include speaking, where the report may be provided to the patient though a portal, as taught by Stinnett, with the motivation of improving both in-person health services and telehealth services (see: Stinnett, paragraph 2).
Claim(s) 12-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2023/0091743 to Engman in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0335403 to Mabotuwana.
As per claim 12, Engman teaches a method of improving the quality and speed of physician review of data, the method comprising:
a) receiving data (see: Engman, Fig. 1, ele. 120; Fig. 8, ele. 844, 846; and paragraph 57, 73, 120, and 169-170, is met by assistant device 110 configured to serve as intermediary device to transfer data to a data management module 122 of a remote computing device 120, where the data includes the health data collected from medical monitoring device 104 worn by a patient 102 and supplemental information entered by the user such as symptoms) for viewing on a single review screen (see: Engman, Fig. 1, ele. 120, 122, 124; Fig. 4A-4C; and paragraph 57, 74, and 102-124, is met by data presentations are displayed on a user interface, where a reviewer can be provided a data presentation on a visual display via a display module 124, where a reviewer can be a clinical reviewer, a physician, a caregiver, the patient, a researcher, and the organized displayed of data in the data presentation can provide the reviewer with information);
b) associating one or more non-opaque classification buttons to the data wherein said association of the one or more opaque classification buttons automatically generates a report (see: Mabotuwana, Fig. 2-5 and 8; and paragraph 37-38, is met by a user interface to enable the user to annotate various types of clinical documents, such as by providing a pop-up list of annotations where the user can select from the list, the user selecting a suitable combination of multiple term options to create a description or recommended annotations as the most ideal annotation based on the clinical context, where the user interface supports inserting the annotations directly into a report, and all annotations for a patient are stored); and
c) selecting one or more non-opaque task buttons wherein each task button automatically triggers one or more tasks when selected (see: Mabotuwana, Fig. 2-5; and paragraph 37-38, is met by providing a pop-up list of annotations where the user can select from the list capturing actionable information from annotations which could subsequently be picked up by a management system that then creates an entry that is linked to the clinical document on which the annotation was made, or indicate an issue needs to be monitored, or that a clinical document is to be used as a teaching file).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the data presentations as taught by Engman to include combined term annotations and/or recommended annotations to various types of clinical documents which can be stored and inserted directly into a report, and capturing actionable information from annotations which could subsequently be picked up by a management system that then creates an entry that is linked to the clinical document on which the annotation was made, or indicate an issue needs to be monitored, or that a clinical document is to be used as a teaching file, as taught by Mabotuwana with the motivation of subsequently using the annotations by a graphical user interface for user-friendly rendering (see: Mabotuwana, paragraph 36) and/or with the motivation of providing an overview of actionable items and improving workflow efficiency (see: Mabotuwana, paragraph 5 and 13-14).
As per claim 13, Engman and Mabotuwana teach the invention as claimed, see discussion of claim 12, and further teach:
the method further comprising and sharing with a first user (see: Engman, Fig. 1, ele. 110, 120; Fig. 8, ele. 844, 846; paragraph 169-171, is met by user 846 may include a person and/or computing system, such as the assistant device 110 of FIG. 1 and/or the data management device 120 of FIG. 1, where the user 846 may include the patient or a local bystander, and/or the user 846 may be a remote entity, such as the assistant device of a remote person or a medical server device, where the user 846 may be a health support entity such as a doctor, caregiver, other health care provider, an authorized person, where the user interface 844 may be configured to send and receive data and information); and
Engman and Mabotuwana fail to specifically teach wherein the report is a diagnosis report such that the data and information shared by the data management device is the diagnosis report; however, Mabotuwana teaches combined term annotations and/or recommended annotations inserted directly into a report as cited:
editing the diagnosis report (see: Mabotuwana, Fig. 2-5 and 8; and paragraph 29, 33, and 37-38, is met by a user interface within which to manually enter the information items including diagnosis and to enable the user to annotate various types of clinical documents, the user selecting a suitable combination of multiple term options to create a description or recommended annotations as the most ideal annotation based on the clinical context, where the user interface supports inserting the annotations directly into a report).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the data presentations as taught by Engman and Mabotuwana to include be a user interface within which to manually enter the information items including diagnosis and to enable the user to annotate various types of clinical documents by inserting the annotations directly into a report as taught by Mabotuwana with the motivation of subsequently using the annotations by a graphical user interface for user-friendly rendering (see: Mabotuwana, paragraph 36) and/or with the motivation of improving clinical workflow and patient care (see: Mabotuwana, paragraph 13-14).
As per claim 14, Engman and Mabotuwana teach the invention as claimed, see discussion of claim 13, and further teach:
wherein the data comprises bioelectrical data (see: Engman, Fig. 1, ele. 104; and paragraph 57-58, 83, 107, 132-133, and 156-160, is met health data collected from medical monitoring device 104 worn by a patient 102, where the medical monitoring device includes sensors and may detect a heart arrhythmia and acquire data representing different health parameters such as electrodes may obtain ECG data and also obtain respiratory data, such as impedance or DC signals, and data from a cardiac monitoring device and data from an spO2 device can be acquired).
As per claim 15, Engman and Mabotuwana teach the invention as claimed, see discussion of claim 13, and further teach:
wherein the data comprises bioelectrical data (see: Engman, Fig. 1, ele. 104; and paragraph 57-58, 83, 107, 132-133, and 156-160, is met health data collected from medical monitoring device 104 worn by a patient 102, where the medical monitoring device includes sensors and may detect a heart arrhythmia and acquire data representing different health parameters such as electrodes may obtain ECG data and also obtain respiratory data, such as impedance or DC signals, and data from a cardiac monitoring device and data from an spO2 device can be acquired) and symptom information (see: Engman, Fig. 5A-5B; and paragraph 20, 73, and 125-130, is met by supplemental information entered by the user such as symptoms, where the patient is requested to input symptoms into a mobile assistant device of the patient that runs a monitoring application, enables access to a website form, enables logging into a portal, to input the symptomatic information, where a user interface allows the patient to touch or click on a list of symptoms).
As per claim 16, Engman and Mabotuwana teach the invention as claimed, see discussion of claim 13, and further teach:
wherein the symptom information is input by a user through selection from a preset symptoms list (see: Engman, Fig. 5A-5B; and paragraph 20, 73, and 125-130, is met by supplemental information entered by the user such as symptoms, where the patient is requested to input symptoms into a mobile assistant device of the patient that runs a monitoring application, enables access to a website form, enables logging into a portal, to input the symptomatic information, where a user interface allows the patient to touch or click on a list of symptoms).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2024/0079145 to Conward in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0335403 to Mabotuwana.
As per claim 19, Conward teaches a method of improving the quality and speed of physician review of data, the method comprising:
a) receiving a list of multiple patients’ data for review in order of priority (see: Conward, Fig. 3; and paragraph 50 and 74, is met by dashboard 300 that lists all patients (or a subset thereof) within a patient priority list);
b) accessing an individual patient’s data for viewing on a single review screen (see: Conward, Fig. 5; and paragraph 28, 37, and 53, is met by data pertaining to a selected patient 322 may be presented in the dashboard 500 including time series data related to measured biometric data such as electrocardiogram data);
Conward fails to specifically teach the following limitations met by Mabotuwana as cited:
c) associating one or more non-opaque classification buttons to the data wherein said association of the one or more opaque classification buttons automatically generates a report (see: Mabotuwana, Fig. 2-5 and 8; and paragraph 37-38, is met by a user interface to enable the user to annotate various types of clinical documents, such as by providing a pop-up list of annotations where the user can select from the list, the user selecting a suitable combination of multiple term options to create a description or recommended annotations as the most ideal annotation based on the clinical context, where the user interface supports inserting the annotations directly into a report, and all annotations for a patient are stored); and
d) selecting one or more non-opaque task buttons wherein each task button automatically triggers one or more tasks when selected (see: Mabotuwana, Fig. 2-5; and paragraph 37-38, is met by providing a pop-up list of annotations where the user can select from the list capturing actionable information from annotations which could subsequently be picked up by a management system that then creates an entry that is linked to the clinical document on which the annotation was made, or indicate an issue needs to be monitored, or that a clinical document is to be used as a teaching file).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the dashboard as taught by Conward to include combined term annotations and/or recommended annotations to various types of clinical documents which can be stored and inserted directly into a report as taught by Mabotuwana with the motivation of subsequently using the annotations by a graphical user interface for user-friendly rendering (see: Mabotuwana, paragraph 36) and/or with the motivation of improving clinical workflow and patient care (see: Mabotuwana, paragraph 13-14).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments from the response filed on 04/22/2026 have been fully considered and will be addressed below in the order in which they appeared.
In the remarks, Applicant argues in substance that (1) the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection should be withdrawn in view of the amendments because “[i]ndependent claim 1 has been amended to recite "A system" in the preamble, rather than "An application". This amendment places the claimed invention squarely within the statutory category of a "machine" under 35 U.S.C. 101, thereby overcoming the Examiner's rejection.”
The rejections are withdrawn; however, note that the amendments necessitate a 35 U.S.C. 112 rejection as the claimed system fails to include system elements. Further note, all claims right now perform simple functions related to sending, receiving, and viewing data. If the claims are further amended to include any processing or analysis beyond such functions, an Alice-type 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection may be necessary if the claims are not also further amended to include substantial additional elements such that the claims provide a practical application or inventive concept that is significantly more.
In the remarks, Applicant argues in substance that (2) the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection should be withdrawn in view of the amendments because “[t]he combination of Engman, Mabotuwana, and Stinnett fails to teach or suggest these critical features. The Examiner relies on Mabotuwana for the teaching of classification and task buttons. However, Mabotuwana merely discloses a 'context menu' or a 'pop-up based user interface' (Mabotuwana, par. [0037]). These conventional user interface elements are typically opaque, designed to appear on top of and obscure the underlying content. Mabotuwana provides no disclosure, either explicitly or implicitly, that its annotation selection interface is non-opaque, translucent, or transparent. The claimed 'non-opaque' feature provides a significant functional advantage that is central to the invention's goal of improving the speed and quality of physician review. As detailed in the specification, the non-opaque nature of the buttons allows the reviewing user to continuously view the underlying bioelectrical data chart on the single review screen, even while the button selection interface is active (specification, par. [0022], [0024]). This prevents the data from being obscured, allowing the user to make classification and task selections with full context. The claims recite a specific screen architecture, including non-opaque overlay controls rendered over bioelectrical data, that improves the functioning of the review system in a concrete and technical way. These claims recite a specific improvement over prior systems. The Examiner's conclusion that Mabotuwana teaches this feature is an unsupported assertion, and the 'non-opaque' limitation is a missing element in the prior art combination.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
This issue was discussed during the interview (mail day of interview summary 4/20/2026). The “non-opaque” feature claimed is a broad negative limitation that does not describe to what effect the buttons are non-opaque, and that the prior art does not depict buttons as being completely opaque to the point of not being able to distinguish the text within them (i.e., a solid button where the text would be imperceptible), and so are non-opaque to meet the broad claims.
It is argued that the non-opaque nature of the button provides “a significant functional advantage”, where “[a]s detailed in the specification, the non-opaque nature of the buttons allows the reviewing user to continuously view the underlying bioelectrical data chart on the single review screen, even while the button selection interface is active (specification, par. [0022], [0024]).” As discussed in said interview, the functional feature argued may be present in the specification, but it is not present in the claims, and although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Again, with regard to the argued feature, the claims are broadly to “one or more non-opaque task buttons”, and that the viewer may “continuously view the underlying bioelectrical data chart on the single review screen, even while the button selection interface is active”, as argued, is not claimed. There is nothing claimed that distinguishes from Mabotuwana. Further, the argued “non-opaque” button(s) provides the opposite of a “significant functional advantage” as currently claimed, and instead represents nonfunctional descriptive material and as such is not patentably significant. See e.g., 1300 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office at 151 ("'Nonfunctional descriptive material' includes but is not limited to ... a compilation or mere arrangement of data."). Regardless, Mabotuwana teaches the broad limitation as claimed as shown above.
As stated in said interview summary, “a proper claiming that incorporates argued specification paragraph 22 features describing the manner in which the buttons are meant to be non-opaque would overcome the prior art of record. Such a feature would require further search and consideration.” This has not been achieved in the current amendments.
In the remarks, Applicant argues in substance that (3) the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection should be withdrawn in view of the amendments because “the amended claims recite that 'each task button automatically triggers one or more tasks when selected.' The Examiner maps this to Mabotuwana, which discloses that an actionable annotation can be 'picked up by a biopsy management system that then creates a biopsy entry' (Mabotuwana, par. [0038]). This describes a single button selection initiating a single downstream task. While Mabotuwana's FIG. 5 shows selections for 'monitored' and 'teaching file,' the user interface depicts these as separate selectable options (e.g., checkboxes), not a single button that can trigger a series of distinct tasks. The claimed invention, in contrast, provides for a single user action to initiate a multi-step workflow. For example, as disclosed in the specification, selecting a single button prompts the user to schedule an appointment and sends a prescription to a pharmacy (specification, par. [0024]). This single-selection, multi-task functionality streamlines the physician's workflow beyond anything suggested by the art. The combination of references does not teach or motivate this specific functionality.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
The limitation in question is to “one or more” buttons where “each task button automatically triggers one or more tasks when selected”, which is a broad limitation that under broadest reasonable interpretation is to a “single” (i.e., the claimed “one” in “one or more”) button for a “single” (i.e., the claimed “one” in “one or more”) task; hence, that it is argued that Mabotuwana “describes a single button selection initiating a single downstream task” is an argument that the prior art teaches the invention as broadly claimed. Further, with regard to the specification describing “a single button that can trigger a series of distinct tasks” such that “a single button prompts the user to schedule an appointment and sends a prescription to a pharmacy”, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). And further, after the claimed “trigger[ing]” event, the performance of the task appears to lie outside the scope of invention, where the limitation itself is to a broad triggering event.
In the remarks, Applicant argues in substance that (4) the 35 U.S.C. 112 rejection should be withdrawn in view of the amendments.
The previous rejections have been withdrawn in view of the amendments, though the amendments to address the previous 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection have necessitated further rejection under this heading.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found on the attached PTO-892 form, including:
U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0360411 to Rothberg (para 204, elements may be implemented, for example, as: opaque elements (so as to obscure the portion of the image 512 under the element), transparent elements (so as to not obscure the portion of the image 512 under the element), pseudo colorized elements, and/or cut-away elements).
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT A SOREY whose telephone number is (571)270-3606. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 8am to 5pm.
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, Fonya Long can be reached at (571) 270-5096. 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.
/ROBERT A SOREY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3682
Prosecution Insights