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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
In the amendment dated 04/23/2026, the following occurred: Claims 1, 9, 11 and 12 have been amended.
Claims 1-12 are currently pending.
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.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1, 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites a device, method and non-transitory computer readable storage medium for processing and displaying information, which are within a statutory category.
Regarding claims 1, 11 and 12, the limitation of (claim 1 being representative) physiological information on a subject is input; store at least one command; display a first physiological information group, a second physiological information group, a first line that is a timeline, and a second line that indicates a value related to the physiological information, the first physiological information group including the physiological information during at least a first period among the physiological information input, the second physiological information group including the physiological information during a second period different from the first period among the physiological information input, wherein the first physiological information group and the second physiological information group are displayed together in a same graph region with the second line being common, and such that the first lines overlap each other by mapping time information of the first period and time information of the second period onto a same timeline as drafted, is are processes that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers certain methods of organizing human activity (i.e., managing personal behavior including following rules or instructions) but for recitation of generic computer components. The claims encompass a series of rules or instructions for a person or persons to follow, with or without the aid of a computer, to input physiological information; store at least one command; display a first physiological information group, a second physiological information group, a first line that is a timeline, and a second line that indicates a value related to the physiological information in the manner described in the identified abstract idea, supra. The rules or instructions are the claimed steps of “input…store… and display” as indicated supra.
Other than reciting generic computer components (discussed infra), i.e., an information processing device, at least one processor and a memory (Claim 1), an information processing device (Claim 11) and a non-transitory computer readable storage medium, a processor and an information processing device (Claim 12), the claimed invention amounts to managing personal behavior or interaction between people. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or interactions between people but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 1 recites the additional elements of an information processing device, at least one processor, and a memory. Claim 11 recites the additional elements of an information processing device. Claim 12 recites the additional elements of a non-transitory computer readable storage medium, a processor and an information processing device. These additional elements are not exclusively defined by the applicant and are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., a generic computer components for enabling access to medical information or for performing generic computer functions- see Specification at para. [0014], [0017], [0018] and [0028]) such that they amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. As set forth in MPEP 2106.04(d) “merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer” is an example of when an abstract idea has not been integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Claims 1, 11 and 12 further recite the additional element of an input interface. This additional element merely generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) indicates that generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide a practical application. Accordingly, even in combination, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 1 also recites the additional element of a display. The display merely generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) indicates that generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide a practical application. Accordingly, even in combination, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of the information processing device, at least one processor, processor, memory and non-transitory computer readable storage medium to perform the noted steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”). Moreover, using generic computer components to perform abstract ideas does not provide a necessary inventive concept. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 (“mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention”). Therefore, whether considered alone or in combination, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Also as discussed with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of an input interface was determined to generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. This has been re-evaluated under the “significantly more” analysis and has also been found insufficient to provide significantly more. MPEP 2106.05(A) indicates that generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide significantly more. Accordingly, even in combination, this additional element does not provide significantly more. As such the claim is not patent eligible.
Also as discussed with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of a display was determined to generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. This has been re-evaluated under the “significantly more” analysis and has also been found insufficient to provide significantly more. MPEP 2106.05(A) indicates that generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide significantly more. Accordingly, even in combination, this additional element does not provide significantly more. As such the claim is not patent eligible.
The examiner notes that: A well-known, general-purpose computer has been determined by the courts to be a well-understood, routine and conventional element (see, e.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank; see also MPEP 2106.05(d)). MPEP 2016.05(d)(II) indicates that receiving and/or transmitting data over a network has been held by the courts to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity (citing Symantec, TLI Communications, OIP Techs., and buySAFE).
Claims 2-10 are similarly rejected because they either further define/narrow the abstract idea and/or do not further limit the claim to a practical application or provide as inventive concept such that the claims are subject matter eligible even when considered individually or as an ordered combination. Claim(s) 2 and 10 further merely describe(s) different display modes. Claim(s) 3 further merely describe(s) the first period and the second period and calculating a comparison value and comparing to a threshold value. Claim(s) 4 further merely describe(s) using colors to distinguish between the portions. Claim(s) 5 further merely describe(s) the first period and setting a threshold value. Claim(s) 6 further merely describe(s) setting a threshold value based on at least one of previous history information, attribute information, condition information, or administration information of the subject. Claim(s) 7 further merely describe(s) calculating a change value of the previous physiological information. Claim(s) 8 further merely describe(s) generating supplementary physiological information. Claim(s) 9 further merely describe(s) determining quality of the physiological information, replacing the physiological information having the quality equal to or lower than the predetermined level, and generating supplementary physiological information. Claims 2-10 further define the abstract idea and are rejected for the same reason presented above with respect to claims 1, 11 and 12.
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 11 and 12 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.
Claims 11 and 12 recite the limitation " the first physiological information group including the physiological information during at least a first period among the physiological information input to the input interface," in pages 5 and 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. An input interface was never previously recited.
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.
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 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.
Claims 1, 3 and 5-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lopez (US 2023/0139196) and in further view of Tognetti (US 2023/0039091).
REGARDING CLAIM 1
Lopez Lopez discloses an information processing device comprising: an input interface to which physiological information on a subject is input; at least one processor; and a memory configured to store at least one command that the at least one processor is configured to execute, wherein in a case where the at least one command is executed by the at least one processor (Lopez Lopez at [0015] teaches an input interface for receiving measurement data comprising measured values of physiological parameters of a patient at consecutive time instances (interpreted by examiner as an input interface to which physiological information on a subject is input)), cause a display to display a first physiological information group, a second physiological information group, a first line that is a timeline, and a second line that indicates a value related to the physiological information; and wherein the first physiological information group and the second physiological information group are displayed together in a same graph region with the second line being common, and such that the first lines overlap each other by mapping time information of the first period and time information of the second period onto a same timeline (Lopez Lopez at [0139] and Fig. 6 teach a longitudinal visualization 510 of measurement data of the patient, e.g., a trend view 510 and physiological parameters overlap. [0026] teaches a display that provides a longitudinal visualization of the measurement data by setting out the measured values of a first set of the physiological parameters (interpreted by examiner as the first physiological information group during at least a first period of Tognetti below) at the consecutive time instances against a common timeline and [0035] teaches a longitudinal visualization of the measurement data in which the measured values of a second set of the physiological parameters (interpreted by examiner as the second physiological information group during at least a second period of Tognetti below) are set out against a common timeline (interpreted by examiner as display a first physiological information group, a second physiological information group, a first line that is a timeline, and a second line that indicates a value related to the physiological information; wherein the first physiological information group and the second physiological information group are displayed together in a same graph region with the second line being common, and such that the first lines overlap each other by mapping time information of the first period and time information of the second period onto a same timeline)).
Lopez Lopez does not explicitly disclose, however Tognetti discloses:
the first physiological information group including the physiological information during at least a first period among the physiological information input to the input interface, the second physiological information group including the physiological information during a second period different from the first period among the physiological information input to the input interface (Tognetti at [0074] teaches physiological parameters may be measured during a first time period (interpreted by examiner as the first physiological information group including the physiological information during at least a first period) and a second time period after the first time period (interpreted by examiner as the second physiological information group including the physiological information during at least a second period different from the first period) and [0118] teaches classifying physiological data as healthy or infected);
It would have been obvious for one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the physiological information of Lopez Lopez to incorporate classifying the physiological information into a first physiological information group during a first time period and a second physiological information group during a second period as taught by Tognetti, with the motivation of providing additional methods, device, and systems for detecting and identifying viral infection. (Tognetti at [0003]).
REGARDING CLAIM 3
Lopez Lopez and Tognetti disclose the limitation of claim 1.
Tognetti does not explicitly disclose, however Lopez Lopez further discloses:
he information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the first period and the second period have the same length, the information processing device is configured to calculate a comparison value between a first value based on the first physiological information group and a second value based on the second physiological information group, and in a case where the comparison value is compared to a threshold value, the information processing device is configured to generate alert information for prompting confirmation of a condition of the subject (Lopez Lopez at [0002] teaches in patient monitoring, the measured values may be compared to static or dynamic thresholds so detect abnormalities in the physical parameters, and if such abnormalities are detected, an alarm may be triggered, e.g., to attract the attention of medical personnel. For example, on an intensive care unit (ICU), a patient's vital signs (heart rate (HR), respiration rate (RR), core body temperature (CBT), oxygen saturation (SpO2) and blood pressure (BP)) may be closely monitored.).
Lopez Lopez does not explicitly disclose that the comparison value is equal to or greater than a threshold, however Tognetti further discloses:
the comparison value is equal to or greater than a threshold value (Tognetti at [0011] teaches determining whether the predictive value (interpreted by examiner as the comparison value) is greater than a predefined threshold value, and in response to the predictive value being greater than the predefined threshold value, determining that the patient is infected.)
It would have been obvious for one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the comparison value against a threshold value of Lopez Lopez to incorporate the comparison value being equal to or greater than a threshold value as taught by Tognetti, with the motivation of determining that a patient is infected. (Tognetti at [0011]).
REGARDING CLAIM 5
Lopez Lopez and Tognetti disclose the limitation of claim 1.
Tognetti does not explicitly disclose, however Lopez Lopez further discloses:
The information processing device according to claim 3, wherein the first period is a period temporally later than the second period, and the information processing device is configured to set the threshold value, based on a change tendency of the first physiological information group (Lopez Lopez at [0008] teaches the measured values of physiological parameters may change over time, with some physiological parameters fluctuating within minutes or hours and others showing only considerable changes over days or months. Changes over time may be particularly relevant to be able to see if a patient is getting better, is stable, or is deteriorating, or to see if certain interventions (medication/fluids) have an effect (interpreted by examiner as means to set the threshold value, based on a change tendency of the first physiological information group)).
REGARDING CLAIM 6
Lopez Lopez and Tognetti disclose the limitation of claim 1.
Lopez Lopez does not explicitly disclose, however Tognetti further discloses:
The information processing device according to claim 3, wherein the information processing device is configured to set the threshold value, based on at least one of previous history information, attribute information, condition information, or administration information of the subject (Tognetti at [0004] teaches determining patient-specific historical baseline metrics for a predetermined period of time. As physiological parameters are measured, the user device identifies measurements deviating from the baseline metrics. In response to a predetermined deviation a notification of infection is provided (interpreted by examiner as means to set the threshold value, based on at least one of previous history information)).
It would have been obvious for one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the method for setting the threshold value of Lopez Lopez to incorporate setting the threshold value, based on at least one of previous history information as taught by Tognetti, with the motivation of determining that a patient is infected. (Tognetti at [0011]).
REGARDING CLAIM 7
Claim 7 is analogous to Claims 3, 5 and 6 thus Claim 7 is similarly analyzed and rejected in a manner consistent with the rejection of Claims 3, 5 and 6.
REGARDING CLAIM 8
Lopez Lopez and Tognetti disclose the limitation of claim 1.
Tognetti does not explicitly disclose, however Lopez Lopez further discloses:
The information processing device according to claim 1, wherein in a case where the first physiological information group includes missing information indicating that the physiological information is missing during at least a portion of the first period, the information processing device is configured to generate supplementary physiological information for compensating for the missing physiological information based on the physiological information input to the input interface (Lopez Lopez at [0149] teaches using a so called ‘digital twin’ which may be a simulation model of the patient which may allow virtual measurements. While the simulation model may be based on actual measured physiological values of a patient, such virtual measurements may allow the selection of time instances in the future, e.g., to estimate changes in the patient's condition in the future, or to select time instances in the past, e.g., where actual measurement values were not available, are missing or have been corrupted (interpreted by examiner as generate supplementary physiological information for compensating for the missing physiological information)).
REGARDING CLAIM 9
Lopez Lopez and Tognetti disclose the limitation of claim 1.
Tognetti does not explicitly disclose, however Lopez Lopez further discloses:
The information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the information processing device is configured to: determine a quality of the physiological information, based on the physiological information and a quality reference value for evaluating the quality of the physiological information, and in a case where the quality of the physiological information during at least a portion of the first period is equal to or lower than a predetermined level: replace the physiological information having the quality equal to or lower than the predetermined level with missing information indicating that the physiological information is missing, and generate supplementary physiological information for compensating for the missing physiological information based on the physiological information input to the input interface (Lopez Lopez at [0149] teaches where actual measurement have been corrupted (interpreted by examiner as having a quality equal to or lower than the predetermined level)).
REGARDING CLAIM 10
Lopez Lopez and Tognetti disclose the limitation of claim 1.
Tognetti does not explicitly disclose, however Lopez Lopez further discloses:
The information processing device according to claim 8, wherein a display mode corresponding to the supplementary physiological information is different from a display mode corresponding to the physiological information input to the input interface (Lopez Lopez at [0149] teaches that the so called ‘digital twin’ can be a simulation model of the patient which may allow virtual measurements (interpreted by examiner as a different display mode based on the difference in measurements)).
REGARDING CLAIMS 11 and 12
Claims 11 and 12 are analogous to Claim 1 thus Claims 11 and 12 are similarly analyzed and rejected in a manner consistent with the rejection of Claim 1.
Claims 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lopez Lopez (US 2023/0139196), in view of Tognetti (US 2023/0039091) and in further view of McSweeney (US 2023/0063782).
REGARDING CLAIM 2
Lopez Lopez and Tognetti disclose the limitation of claim 1.
Lopez Lopez and Tognetti do not explicitly disclose the display mode of an overlapped portion and the display mode of a non-overlapped portion, however McSweeney further discloses:
The information processing device according to claim 1, wherein a display mode of an overlapped portion which is a portion where a first portion and a second portion overlap is different from a display mode of a non-overlapped portion which is a portion where the first portion and the second portion do not overlap, the first portion being surrounded by the first line and a first graph object indicating a size of each piece of the physiological information included in the first physiological information group, the second portion being surrounded by the first line and a second graph object indicating a size of each piece of the physiological information included in the second physiological information group (McSweeney at [0131], [0134] and Fig. 15 teach a displayed visualization (interpreted by examiner as the displayed visualization of the first and second physiological information groups of Lopez Lopez) and you can see from Fig. 15 overlapped and non-overlapped portion of heart rate values on a common timeline. The chart 1500 displays heart rate values and can display the physiological data values acquired from the physiological sensor (interpreted by examiner as a display mode of an overlapped portion which is a portion where a first portion and a second portion overlap is different from a display mode of a non-overlapped portion which is a portion where the first portion and the second portion do not overlap, the first portion being surrounded by the first line and a first graph object indicating a size of each piece of the physiological information included in the first physiological information group, the second portion being surrounded by the first line and a second graph object indicating a size of each piece of the physiological information included in the second physiological information group)).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to combine the noted features of Lopez Lopez and Tognetti with teaching of McSweeney since known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations in design in either the same field or a different field based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art of healthcare data processing would found it obvious to update the physiological information of the primary reference and the display of physiological information of the secondary reference using the display modes of an overlapped portion and a non-overlapped portion, as found in the third reference, in order to gain the commonly understood benefits of such adaptation, such as decreased size, increased reliability, simplified operation, and reduced cost. This update would be accomplished with no unpredictable results.
REGARDING CLAIM 4
Lopez Lopez and Tognetti disclose the limitation of claim 1.
Lopez Lopez and Tognetti do not explicitly disclose the non-overlapped portion in the first portion is colored with a first color, the non-overlapped portion in the second portion is colored with a second color different from the first color, and the overlapped portion is colored with a color different from the first color and the second color, however McSweeney further discloses:
The information processing device according to claim 2, wherein the non-overlapped portion in the first portion is colored with a first color, the non-overlapped portion in the second portion is colored with a second color different from the first color, and the overlapped portion is colored with a color different from the first color and the second color (McSweeney at [0140] and Fig. 15 teach a first, second, and third shades of color when overlayed on the heart rate values are overlapped with one another, and can be used to provide intuitive information that improves the operation of the monitor device. The overlapped portion in the chart 1500 is a darker shade of the color, and the not overlapped portion in the chart 1500 is a lighter or brighter shade of the color. This can help visualize expected targeted effects or side effects of treatment events on the physiological data values measured by the physiological sensor).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to combine the noted features of Lopez Lopez and Tognetti with teaching of McSweeney since known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations in design in either the same field or a different field based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art of healthcare data processing would found it obvious to update the physiological information of the primary reference and the display of physiological information of the secondary reference using the coloring technique for the overlapped portion and a non-overlapped portions, as found in the third reference, in order to gain the commonly understood benefits of such adaptation, such as decreased size, increased reliability, simplified operation, and reduced cost. This update would be accomplished with no unpredictable results.
Response to Arguments
Claim Objections
Regarding the objection of claim 1, the Applicant has amended the claim to overcome the basis of objection.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101
Regarding the rejection of claims 1-12, the Examiner has considered the Applicant’s arguments, but does not find them persuasive. Applicant argues:
Each of the above examples, and the others cited in the MPEP, are particularly directed to some fundamental human activity (i.e., voting, budgeting, gaming, investing). But nothing in the present claims relates to such personal behavior, let alone how one should behave based on any rule or instruction. Indeed, the action does not even allege what type of human activity is being managed by the present displays, or otherwise explain how the displayed information constitutes a human activity comparable to the above example activities (such as playing a dice game). Rather, the claims are directed to the bases for controlling a computer-based display. Such concepts are purely technical in nature, and are untethered from any human activity. In view of this, the claims do not constitute organizing human activity and do not recite any abstract ideas.
Regarding 1, The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims do not control a computer-based display. The claims just display data. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claims covers certain methods of organizing human activity (i.e., managing personal behavior including following rules or instructions) but for recitation of generic computer components. The claims encompass a series of rules or instructions for a person or persons to follow, with or without the aid of a computer, to input physiological information; store at least one command; display a first physiological information group, a second physiological information group, a first line that is a timeline, and a second line that indicates a value related to the physiological information in the manner described in the identified abstract idea, supra. The rules or instructions are the claimed steps of “input…store… and display” as indicated supra. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or interactions between people but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Regarding the rejection of claims 1-12, the Examiner has considered the Applicant’s arguments, but does not find them persuasive. Applicant argues:
Regarding independent claims 1, 11, and 12, the prior art references, alone and in combination, do not teach or render obvious that the first and second physiological information groups "are displayed together in a same graph region with the second line being common" and that "the first lines overlap each other by mapping time information of the first period and time information of the second period onto a same timeline as recited by the claims.
Regarding 1, The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Lopez Lopez teaches the first physiological information group and the second physiological information group are displayed together in a same graph region with the second line being common, and such that the first lines overlap each other by mapping time information of the first period and time information of the second period onto a same timeline. Lopez Lopez at [0139] and Fig. 6 show a longitudinal visualization 510 of measurement data of the patient, e.g., a trend view 510 and physiological parameters overlap. [0026] teaches a display that provides a longitudinal visualization of the measurement data by setting out the measured values of a first set of the physiological parameters (interpreted by examiner as the first physiological information group during at least a first period of Tognetti below) at the consecutive time instances against a common timeline and [0035] teaches a longitudinal visualization of the measurement data in which the measured values of a second set of the physiological parameters (interpreted by examiner as the second physiological information group during at least a second period of Tognetti below) are set out against a common timeline. Given the broadest reasonable interpretation, the cited references in combination teach the claimed feature.
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection presented in this Office action. 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.
The prior art made of record though not relied upon in the present basis of rejection are noted in the attached PTO 892 and include:
Stewart (US 2009/0054743) discloses trending display of patient wellness.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIZA TONY KANAAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4664. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thu 9:00am-6:00pm ET.
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 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 the 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/docs 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.
/L.T.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3683
/ROBERT W MORGAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3683
Prosecution Insights