Detailed Action
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 21, 24-25 and 36-38 has/have been considered but are moot in view of new ground(s) of rejection necessitated by the amendments.
Objections
Claim(s) 38 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
In regards to claim 38, the claim recite sin line 2 “comprises stand-alone mobile device”. The limitation of “stand-alone mobile device” must be preceded by the word “a” in order to make the sentence grammatically correct. For this reason, the claim is objected. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained through the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 21, 24-25, 30-31, 36-38, 41-44, 46, 48-50 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sze et al. (US-9,195,799) in view of Hastings (US-2005/0148890) and Moon et al. (US-10,420,476).
In regards to claim 21, Sze teaches a system comprising a wrist wearable device and an external device [fig. 1 element 14 (remote device) and 16 (wrist wearable device)]. Sze teaches that the wrist wearable device comprises a first display configured to visually present a physiological parameter in a first format [fig. 6 element 6, col. 5 L. 37-39, col. 7 L. 3-9]. Furthermore, Sze teaches that the first display is configured to output an alarm in response to a comparison between the physiological parameter and a preset threshold [col. 3 L. 63-65 , col. 5 L. 37-39, col. 7 L. 3-9, L. 16-30 and L. 40-45]. Sze further teaches that the external device is communicatively coupled with the wrist wearable device and comprises a second display [fig. 1 element 14, col. 4 L. 65-67, col. 5 L. 1-3]. Also, Sze teaches that the second display is configured to visually present the physiological parameter in a second format and visually present the alarm [col. 5 L. 1-3 and L. 14-18, col. 6 L. 61-67, col. 9 L. 29-31 and L. 37-40].
Sze does not teach that the wrist wearable device comprises an input device configured to receive a user input.
On the other hand, Hastings teaches that the device carried by the caregiver can comprise a touch screen (an input device) to receive a user input and can cease outputting the alarm in response to the user input [fig. 1 element 60 (device), fig. 5 step 422 (cease outputting alarm), fig. 6 steps 520, 522, 526, 534, 538 and 532 (cease outputting alarm based on the user input), par. 0136 L. 1-6, par. 0199 L. 1-16, par. 0208 L. 1-6, par. 0217 L. 1-5].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, to use Hastings’ teachings of having a touch screen and permitting a user of the device to cease output of the alarm in the system taught by Sze because it will permit a caregiver to let the system know that the alarm has been received and silence the alarm when is no longer needed.
The combination of Sze and Hastings does not teach that the second format is different than the first format
On the other hand, Moon teaches the concept of presenting the physiological data at a wearable device in a different format than the physiological data displayed at the device [fig. 12B (temp data is presented below other data due to screen size constraints), fig. 15A (all physiological data is presented next to each other due to the screen size been bigger that the wearable device)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, to use Moon’s teachings of presenting the data in different format in the device taught by the combination because the device and the wearable have different display sizes that permit to display the data in different ways.
In regards to claim 24, the combination of Sze, Hastings and Moon, as applied in the rejection of claim 21 above, further teaches that the physiological parameter comprises a heart rate [see Sze col. 7 L. 23-30], an electrocardiogram (ECG) [see Sze col. 11 L. 60-62] or a temperature [see Sze col. 4 L. 30-33].
In regards to claim 25, the combination of Sze, Hastings and Moon, as shown in the rejection of claim 21 above, teaches a system comprising the claimed wearable device. Furthermore, the combination teaches that the wearable device comprises a receiver communicatively coupled with the external device [see Sze fig. 1 elements 14 and 16, fig. 6 element 170, col. 5 L. 6-8].
In regards to claim 30, the combination of Sze, Hastings and Moon, as applied in the rejection of claim 21 above, further teaches that the physiological parameter comprises an electrocardiogram (ECG) [see Sze col. 11 L. 60-62] or an oxygen saturation [see Sze col. 4 L. 30-33].
In regards to claim 31, the combination of Sze, Hastings and Moon, as shown in the rejection of claims 21 and 25 above, teaches a system and a wrist wearable device performing the claimed functions. Therefore, the combination also teaches the claimed method. Furthermore, the combination teaches that the method comprises detecting, by a monitoring device a physiological parameter [see Sze fig. 1 element 10, col. 4 L. 30-33]. Also, the combination teaches that in response to detecting the user input, cease, by the wrist wearable device, outputting the alarm [see Hastings fig. 1 element 60 (device), fig. 5 step 422 (cease outputting alarm), fig. 6 steps 520, 522, 526, 534, 538 and 532 (cease outputting alarm based on the user input), par. 0136 L. 1-6, par. 0199 L. 1-16, par. 0208 L. 1-6, par. 0217 L. 1-5].
In regards to claim 36, the combination of Sze, Hastings and Moon, as applied in the rejection of claim 31 above, further teaches that the physiological parameter comprises a heart rate [see Sze col. 7 L. 23-30] and an electrocardiogram (ECG) [see Sze col. 11 L. 60-62]. Also, the combination teaches that the wearable device displays the physiological parameter [see Sze col. 5 L. 37-39, col. 7 L. 3-9, col. 9 L. 67, col. 10 L. 1-2]. These teaching means that visually presenting, by the wrist wearable device, the physiological parameter comprises visually presenting, by the wrist wearable device, an electrocardiogram (ECG) and visually presenting, by the wrist wearable device, a heart rate.
In regards to claim 37, the combination of Sze, Hastings and Moon, as applied in the rejection of claim 31 above, further teaches that the monitoring device comprises an electrocardiogram (ECG) sensor [see Sze col. 11 L. 60-62] or an oxygenation sensor [see Sze col. 4 L. 30-33].
In regards to claim 38, the combination of Sze, Hastings and Moon, as applied in the rejection of claim 31 above, further teaches that the device issuing alarms can be a bedside monitor that a patient can carry with him when moving around the hospital [col. 7 L. 5 L. 33-39, col. 11 L. 34-37]. This teaching means that the external device can be mobile bedside monitor. In other words the external device comprises a stand-alone mobile device.
In regards to claim 41, the combination of Sze, Hastings and Moon, as applied in the rejection of claim 21 above, further teaches that the user input can be used to silence the alarm in the entire system including the device transmitting the alarm [see Hastings fig. 5 step 422 (cease outputting alarm), fig. 6 steps 520, 522, 526, 534 and 532 (cease outputting alarm based on the user input), par. 0136 L. 1-6, par. 0199 L. 1-16, par. 0208 L. 1-6, par. 0217 L. 1-5]. This teaching means that the second display is configured to cease outputting the alarm in response to the user input.
In regards to claim 42, the combination of Sze, Hastings and Moon, as applied in the rejection of claim 21 above, further teaches that the system comprises a monitoring device configured to detect the physiological parameter [see Sze col. 4 L. 30-33].
In regards to claim 43, the combination of Sze, Hastings and Moon, as applied in the rejection of claim 42 above, further teaches that the monitoring device comprises an electrocardiogram (ECG) sensor [see Sze col. 11 L. 60-62] or an oxygenation sensor [see Sze col. 4 L. 30-33].
In regards to claim 44, the combination of Sze, Hastings and Moon, as applied in the rejection of claim 21 above, further teaches that the wrist wearable device further comprises a haptic device configured to vibrate in response to the comparison between the physiological parameter and the preset threshold [see Sze col. 5 L. 32-37].
In regards to claim 46, the combination of Sze, Hastings and Moon, as shown in the rejection of claim 44 above, teaches the claimed limitations.
In regards to claim 48, the combination of Sze, Hastings and Moon, as shown in the rejection of claim 41 above, teaches the claimed limitations.
In regards to claim 49, the combination of Sze, Hastings and Moon, as shown in the rejection of claim 24 above, teaches the claimed limitations.
In regards to claim 50, the combination of Sze, Hastings and Moon, as shown in the rejection of claim 44 above, teaches the claimed limitations.
Claim(s) 45 and 51 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sze et al. (US-9,195,799) in view of Hastings (US-2005/0148890) and Moon et al. (US-10,420,476) as applied to claim(s) 21 and 31 above, and further in view of Fennell et al. (US-11,213,226).
In regards to claim 45, the combination of Sze, Hastings and Moon, as applied in the rejection of claim 21 above, teaches that external device comprising the second display is in communication with the wrist wearable device [see Sze fig. 1 elements 14 and 16]. However, the combination does not teach that the second display outputs an indication of a transmission connectivity associated with the wrist wearable device.
On the other hand, Fennell teaches that a first device comprising a display and in communication with other devices can use the display to output an indication regarding the connection with the other devices [col. 4 L. 53-61]. This teaching means that the display is configured to output an indication of a transmission connectivity associated with the other devices which are in communication with the first device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, to use Fennell’s teachings of displaying an indication of connectivity with other device in the external device taught by the combination because it will permit the user of the external device to know connectivity status of the devices that are in communication with the external device including the wrist wearable device.
In regards to claim 51, the combination of Sze, Hastings, Moon and Fennell, as shown in the rejection of claim 45 above, teaches the claimed limitations.
Claim(s) 47 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sze et al. (US-9,195,799) in view of Hastings (US-2005/0148890) and Moon et al. (US-10,420,476) as applied to claim(s) 25 above, and further in view of Goldberg et al. (US-2011/0245633).
In regards to claim 47, the combination of Sze, Hastings and Moon, as shown in the rejection of claim 25 above, teaches a system comprising the claimed wearable device.
The combination also teaches that the system comprises a monitoring device configured to detect the physiological parameter [see Sze col. 4 L. 30-33]. However, the combination does not teach that the monitoring device is a wrist wearable monitoring device.
On the other hand, Goldberg teaches that physiological parameters can be monitored using a wrist wearable monitoring device [fig. 1, par. 0005 L. 6-9].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, to use Goldberg’s teachings of making the monitoring device to be a wrist wearable monitoring device in the system taught by the combination because it will permit the patient to carry the sensors at all times in a comfortable manner.
Claim(s) 52 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sze et al. (US-9,195,799) in view of Hastings (US-2005/0148890) and Moon et al. (US-10,420,476) as applied to claim(s) 31 above, and further in view of Leininger et al. (US-9,186,105) and Lin et al. (US-8,485,879).
In regards to claim 52, the combination of Sze, Hastings and Moon, as applied in the rejection of claim 31 above, does not teach outputting, by the wrist wearable device, a battery state of the external device.
On the other hand, Leininger teaches that the external device transmitting alert to the caregiver can comprise a battery [fig. 1 element 14, fig. 3 element 32, col. 9 L. 60-62, col. 10 L. 2-6].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, to use Leininger’s teachings of having a battery at the external device in the system taught by the combination because it will permit the external device to function even when there is a power outage.
The combination of Sze, Hastings, Moon and Leininger teaches that the external device comprises a battery [see Leininger fig. 3 element 32]. However, the combination does not teach outputting, by the wrist wearable device, a battery state of the external device.
On the other hand, Lin teaches that a device in communication with an external device comprising a battery can output a battery state of the external device [fig. 1 element 63, col. 3 L. 53-57].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, to use Lin’s teachings of outputting battery status of an external device in the wearable device taught by the combination because it will permit a caregiver to know the state of the battery at the external device.
Conclusion
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 FRANKLIN D BALSECA whose telephone number is (571)270-5966. The examiner can normally be reached 6AM-4PM EST M-F.
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, STEVEN LIM can be reached at 571-270-1210. 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.
/FRANKLIN D BALSECA/Examiner, Art Unit 2688
Prosecution Insights