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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7/18/24 is being considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1 and 17 are provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 of Copending US Patent Application No 18/871,203 In view of Gross et al. (US 2013/0246089 A1). Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the present claims have the same scope of US Patent.
This is a provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented.
Table 1 illustrates the conflicting claims.
Present Application 18/776,317
1
17
Copending Application 18/871,203
1
1
Table 2 provides a comparative mapping of the limitations of independent claims 1 of the present application when compared against the limitations of claims 1 of Copending Application No 18/871,203.
Present Application 18/776,317
Copending Application 18/871,203
1. A non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions readable and executable by an electronic processor to perform an alert monitoring method, the alert monitoring method comprising:
receiving alerts generated by one or more medical systems, each alert being timestamped and associated to the medical system that generated the alert;
segmenting a displayed time span into discrete time units whose size depends on the displayed time span; generating a timeline representing the alerts over the displayed time span, the timeline comprising a two-dimensional grid of blocks with each block having a corresponding discrete time unit and a corresponding alert source for the one or more medical systems, and each block being color coded based on a fraction of the corresponding discrete time unit over which the corresponding alert is critical; displaying, on a display device, the timeline representing the alerts over the displayed time span; and in response to receiving a user input adjusting the displayed time span, repeating the segmenting, generating, and displaying to display an updated timeline representing the alerts over the updated displayed time span.
1. A non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions readable and executable by an electronic processor
to perform an alert monitoring method, the alert monitoring method comprising:
receiving, at the electronic processor and via an electronic network, alerts generated by n medical databases servicing
respective medical entities, each alert being timestamped with a receipt time when the alert was received at the electronic processor and each alert being
associated to the medical database that generated the alert;
generating a grid representation of the alerts over a time span T, the grid representation comprising a grid of
blocks indexed (i, j) where index i=l, ... , n indexes then medical facilities and index j=l, ... , k indexes k time-ordered time intervals ti, ... , tk spanning the time span T where the time intervals t1, ... , tk are of
equal time duration, wherein each block (i, j) of the grid has a value a,J indicative of a number of alerts received from medical database i over the time interval S;
generating a heat map representing the alerts over the time span T and having blocks corresponding to the blocks
indexed (i, j) of the grid representation by mapping the values a,,1 of the respective blocks of the grid representation
to colors using a color scale; and
displaying the heat map on a color display that is operatively connected with the electronic processor.
As Table 2 illustrates, all the limitations of claims 1 & 17 of the present application are included in claim 1 of Copending US Application No 18/871,203 except for the bolded limitations. Gross further discloses “Hovering a tool tip over a selected time range, in one embodiment, causes the graphical event and alarm depictions to be displayed for the highlighted time period. Clicking sets the time focus to the selected time and causes all events in the selected time focus to be displayed. Clicking can also be used to expand and collapse the various event and alarm bars in the selected time focus” in [0033].) Thus, claims 1 & 17 of the present application would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, as anticipation of all limitations is tantamount to obviousness.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 9-10, 13, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or (a)(2) as being anticipated by Gross et al. (US 2013/0246089 A1).
As to Claim 1, Gross teaches A non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions readable and executable by an electronic processor to perform an alert monitoring method, the alert monitoring method comprising:
receiving alerts generated by one or more medical systems, each alert being timestamped and associated to the medical system that generated the alert (Gross discloses “The display controller is programmed to receive data indicative of physiological or clinical status versus time of a selected patient from a data store (16, 16') and detect events and/or alarms” in Abstract; “Additionally the controller 14 receives data from the alarm and event sources 10, related to how the system or user acknowledged the alarm or event which is also saved in the data store 16… If an alarm condition is detected an alarm marking unit or algorithm 30 marks a beginning or annunciation time which is stored in the data store 16 in conjunction with the data, as well as how the alarm was acknowledged, by whom and where” in [0023]);
segmenting a displayed time span into discrete time units whose size depends on the displayed time span (Gross, Fig 3-5);
generating a timeline representing the alerts over the displayed time span, the timeline comprising a two-dimensional grid of blocks with each block having a corresponding discrete time unit and a corresponding alert source for the one or more medical systems, and each block being color coded based on a fraction of the corresponding discrete time unit over which the corresponding alert is critical (Gross discloses “Each object rendered on the display spans the same time range. Each event segment is rendered as an object in a row on the display 20, in the assigned color and color intensity, over the range of time that the event segment occurred.” in [00287], see also Fig 3-5);
displaying, on a display device, the timeline representing the alerts over the displayed time span (Gross, Fig 3-5); and
in response to receiving a user input adjusting the displayed time span, repeating the segmenting, generating, and displaying to display an updated timeline representing the alerts over the updated displayed time span (Gross discloses “Hovering a tool tip over a selected time range, in one embodiment, causes the graphical event and alarm depictions to be displayed for the highlighted time period. Clicking sets the time focus to the selected time and causes all events in the selected time focus to be displayed. Clicking can also be used to expand and collapse the various event and alarm bars in the selected time focus” in [0033].)
As to Claim 9, Gross teaches The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 1, wherein the alert monitoring method further comprises: providing a zoom control via which a user can zoom the displayed timeline in or out, wherein the user input adjusting the displayed time span is received via the zoom control (Gross discloses “Hovering a tool tip over a selected time range, in one embodiment, causes the graphical event and alarm depictions to be displayed for the highlighted time period. Clicking sets the time focus to the selected time and causes all events in the selected time focus to be displayed. Clicking can also be used to expand and collapse the various event and alarm bars in the selected time focus” in [0033].)
As to Claim 10, Gross teaches The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 1, wherein the alert monitoring method further comprises:
receiving a user input modifying the alert sources by grouping two or more of the alert sources into a single alert source or breaking up an alert source into two or more constituent alert sources; and repeating the segmenting, generating, and displaying to display an updated timeline representing the alerts with the modified alert sources (Gross discloses “The method includes collecting alarms and events from at least one other medical device or clinical system and presenting alarms and events of similar cause, body system, or event context, grouped together under a single hierarchical representation” in [7]; “In the case where the subgroups contain multiple events, the expanded rows 82, 84 are rendered to represent the event which exists below the higher level grouping 80… Overlaid events can be expanded such that each event is rendered in a separate row 82, 84 over the same time range or collapsed into a high level data view 80,86, in which multiple events are rendered as a single collapsed row. An "Asystole" bar 80 is expanded into the sub group "Asystole Events" 82 and "*** Asystole Alarms" 84” in [0027]; “Clicking can also be used to expand and collapse the various event and alarm bars in the selected time focus.” in [0033]; see also Fig 3-6.)
As to Claim 13, Gross teaches The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 1, wherein the alert monitoring method further comprises:
receiving a selection of a row of alerts of the displayed timeline via a user-operable input device; grouping alerts corresponding to a component of one of the medical systems based on the selected row (Gross discloses “Hovering a tool tip over a selected time range, in one embodiment, causes the graphical event and alarm depictions to be displayed for the highlighted time period. Clicking sets the time focus to the selected time and causes all events in the selected time focus to be displayed. Clicking can also be used to expand and collapse the various event and alarm bars in the selected time focus” in [0033]; “In the case where the subgroups contain multiple events, the expanded rows 82, 84 are rendered to represent the event which exists below the higher level grouping 80… Overlaid events can be expanded such that each event is rendered in a separate row 82, 84 over the same time range or collapsed into a high level data view 80,86, in which multiple events are rendered as a single collapsed row. An "Asystole" bar 80 is expanded into the sub group "Asystole Events" 82 and "*** Asystole Alarms" 84” in [0027]; see also Fig 3-6.)
As to Claim 17, Gross teaches An alert monitoring method, comprising:
receiving timestamped alerts generated by a plurality of alert sources; segmenting a time span to be displayed into discrete time units whose size depends on the time span (Gross, Fig 3-6);
displaying, on a display, a timeline representing the alerts over the time span, the displayed timeline comprising blocks having corresponding discrete time units and alert sources, each block being displayed with a color determined based on a fraction of the corresponding discrete time interval over which the corresponding alert is critical (Gross discloses “Each object rendered on the display spans the same time range. Each event segment is rendered as an object in a row on the display 20, in the assigned color and color intensity, over the range of time that the event segment occurred.” in [00287], see also Fig 3-5);
receiving an adjusted time span to be displayed; segmenting the adjusted time span into adjusted discrete time intervals whose size depends on the adjusted time span; and displaying an updated timeline representing the alerts over the adjusted time span, each block of the updated timeline being displayed with a color determined based on a fraction of the corresponding adjusted discrete time interval over which the corresponding critical alert (Gross discloses “Hovering a tool tip over a selected time range, in one embodiment, causes the graphical event and alarm depictions to be displayed for the highlighted time period. Clicking sets the time focus to the selected time and causes all events in the selected time focus to be displayed. Clicking can also be used to expand and collapse the various event and alarm bars in the selected time focus” in [0033].)
Claim 19 is rejected based upon similar rationale as Claim 1.
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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 2-8, 15, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gross et al. (US 2013/0246089 A1) in view of Sinha et al. (US 2022/0107632 A1).
As to Claim 2, Gross teaches The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 1, wherein the color coding of the blocks comprises:
color coding each block by inputting the fraction of the corresponding discrete time unit over which the corresponding critical alert is in a first range of a fraction-to-color mapping (Gross discloses “Event segments that overlap in time are rendered by changing the color intensity, color transparency, or a combination thereof of the overlapping portion. In the preferred embodiment, color intensity is changed to show overlapping events, each event segment being a different color as well” in [0029]. Sinha further discloses “In various embodiments, spaces 2104 are color-coded to identify a status of the space. For example, a building having a large number of unaddressed alarms may display as a red color, a building having a number of unaddressed alarms in a medium range may display as an orange color, and a building having below a threshold number of unaddressed alarms may display as a green color” in [0141]; “Out of order view 2700 may facilitate displaying time periods for which a device and/or space was out of order. For example, out of order view 2700 may display a timeline and may include a colored portion on the timeline corresponding to a period of time for which a device was out of order. In various embodiments, out of order view 2700 display a frequency and/or duration of each out of order event.” in [0147].)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of Gross with the teaching of Sinha so as to assign a different color to a region with different number of alarms (Sinha, [0141]).
As to Claim 3, Gross in view of Sinha teaches The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 2, wherein the fraction-to-color mapping comprises: color coding, with a first color, blocks whose fraction of the corresponding discrete time unit over which the corresponding critical alert is in a first range; color coding, with a second color, blocks whose fraction of the corresponding discrete time unit over which the corresponding critical alert is in a second range (Sinha further discloses “In various embodiments, spaces 2104 are color-coded to identify a status of the space. For example, a building having a large number of unaddressed alarms may display as a red color, a building having a number of unaddressed alarms in a medium range may display as an orange color, and a building having below a threshold number of unaddressed alarms may display as a green color” in [0141]; “Out of order view 2700 may facilitate displaying time periods for which a device and/or space was out of order. For example, out of order view 2700 may display a timeline and may include a colored portion on the timeline corresponding to a period of time for which a device was out of order. In various embodiments, out of order view 2700 display a frequency and/or duration of each out of order event.” in [0147].)
As to Claim 4, Gross in view of Sinha teaches The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 3, wherein the fraction-to-color mapping further comprises: color coding, with a third color, blocks whose fraction of the corresponding discrete time unit over which the corresponding critical alert is in a third range (Sinha further discloses “In various embodiments, spaces 2104 are color-coded to identify a status of the space. For example, a building having a large number of unaddressed alarms may display as a red color, a building having a number of unaddressed alarms in a medium range may display as an orange color, and a building having below a threshold number of unaddressed alarms may display as a green color” in [0141].)
As to Claim 5, Gross in view of Sinha teaches The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 3, wherein the fraction-to-color mapping comprises further comprises: color coding, with a zero-indicative color, blocks whose fraction of the corresponding discrete time unit over which the corresponding critical alert is equal to zero (Sinha further discloses “In various embodiments, spaces 2104 are color-coded to identify a status of the space. For example, a building having a large number of unaddressed alarms may display as a red color, a building having a number of unaddressed alarms in a medium range may display as an orange color, and a building having below a threshold number of unaddressed alarms may display as a green color” in [0141]. Here, Sinha doesn’t limit the invention on the number of assigned colors. It is not critical to the number of range corresponding to the alerts. It is rendered obvious as a design choice (see MPEP 2144.04) that would have no impact on the function or results of the claimed invention.)
As to Claim 6, Gross in view of Sinha teaches The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 3, wherein the fraction-to-color mapping comprises further comprises: color coding, with a max-indicative color, blocks whose fraction of the corresponding discrete time unit over which the corresponding critical alert is equal to unity (Gross discloses event object 100 and alarm object 74 in Fig 4-6.)
As to Claim 7, Gross in view of Sinha teaches The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 2, wherein the fraction-to-color mapping is a continuous fraction-to-color mapping (Sinha discloses red-orange-green for different range of alerts in [0141].)
As to Claim 8, Gross in view of Sinha teaches The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 2, wherein the fraction-to-color mapping depends on the displayed time span (Gross, Fig 3-5. Sinha, Fig 27.)
As to Claim 15, Gross teaches The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 1, wherein the alert monitoring method further comprises: using the timeline to predict a failure or malfunction of one or more of the medical systems (Sinha discloses “In some embodiments, systems of the present disclosure may predict maintenance problems. For example, a predictive maintenance system may predict a device failure that has yet to occur based on performance deterioration.” in [0028]; “For example, data platform 480 may perform Bayesian analysis of alarm data from devices 430 to predict device failures…” in [0056]; “For example, machine learning circuit 856 may generate a model representing alarm events within a building and may execute the model to predict one or more alarm events” in [0082].)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of Gross with the teaching of Sinha so as to perform Bayesian analysis of alarm data from devices 430 to predict device failures (Sinha, [0056]).
Claim 18 is rejected based upon similar rationale as Claim 2.
Claim 20 is rejected based upon similar rationale as Claim 18.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gross et al. (US 2013/0246089 A1) in view of Wakefield et al. (US 2013/0093782 A1).
As to Claim 11, Gross teaches The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 1, wherein the alert monitoring method further comprises:
receiving a selection of a block via a user-operable input device; and adjusting the color scale of the selected block (Gross discloses “label each object with the color chosen for the type of event object” in Fig 7; user interface 34 in [0024]; “The acknowledgement time is the time when the event is acknowledged either by the clinician…” in [0025]. Wakefield further discloses “a color selection tool may be provided that may allow a user to choose a color by clicking on a pixel on a screen, and then apply the chosen color to an object property” in [0018]; see also Fig 4.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of Gross with the teaching of Wakefield so as to apply a selected color on the selected object (Wakefield, Abstract).
As to Claim 12, Gross in view of Wakefield teaches The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 11, wherein the adjusting comprises:
automatically changing the discrete time unit into which the parameter timelines are segmented based on a determined zoom level comprising the selected block (Gross discloses “Hovering a tool tip over a selected time range, in one embodiment, causes the graphical event and alarm depictions to be displayed for the highlighted time period. Clicking sets the time focus to the selected time and causes all events in the selected time focus to be displayed” in [0033].)
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gross et al. (US 2013/0246089 A1) in view of He et al. (WO 2024/138431 A1).
As to Claim 14, Gross teaches The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 1, wherein the alert monitoring method further comprises:
receiving a selection of a block of the displayed timeline via a user-operable input device; and displaying a list of the alerts received from the corresponding alert source (Gross discloses “Hovering a tool tip over a selected time range, in one embodiment, causes the graphical event and alarm depictions to be displayed for the highlighted time period. Clicking sets the time focus to the selected time and causes all events in the selected time focus to be displayed. Clicking can also be used to expand and collapse the various event and alarm bars in the selected time focus” in [0033]. He further discloses “In some embodiments, as shown in FIG5, the review information further includes an alarm event list of the selected target object. The alarm event list is used to display alarm event information of the selected target object within a preset time” in [0120].)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of Gross with the teaching of He so as to display alarm event list for alarm event information of the selected target object (He, [0120]).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gross et al. (US 2013/0246089 A1) in view of Pronk et al. (US 2019/0156942 A1).
As to Claim 16, Gross teaches The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 1, wherein the medical systems comprise Picture Archiving and Communication System (PACS) systems and the receiving of the alerts comprises receiving the alerts from the PACS systems (Gross discloses “Visual renderings of medical events and alarms are generated by a display controller (114) and displayed on a display (42, 42').” in Abstract. Pronk discloses “FIG. 4 shows a detailed architecture of a system for providing medical alerts along with an adjoining picture archiving and communication system (PACS) and an adjoining common analyzer tool and early alert system” in [0055].)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of Gross with the teaching of Pronk so as to provide medical alerts long with an adjoining PAC and an common analyzer tool and early alert system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WEIMING HE whose telephone number is (571)270-1221. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 8:30am-5:00pm.
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, Tammy Goddard can be reached on 571-272-7773. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WEIMING HE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2611
Prosecution Insights