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 .
Request for Continued Examination
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/22/26 has been entered.
Response to Applicant Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 12-15 filed date 06/22/26, with respect to Claims 1-7 and 10-13 have been fully considered and are not persuasive. The 35 U.S.C 101 Subject Matter Eligibility rejections is sustained for the reasons below:
Applicant argues that amended claims 1 and 11 do not recite a mental process because acquiring data is not an observation and not a mental process, but is at most a data-gathering step.
Examiner respectfully agrees that acquiring, retrieving, and transmitting patient data are not themselves mental observations, evaluations, judgments, or opinions. The current Prong One determination does not characterize those limitations as mental processes.
Applicant argues that amended claim 1 recites none of the certain-methods-of-organizing-human-activity categories.
Examiner respectfully disagrees that amended claims 1 and 11 do not recite managing interactions between people. Under BRI, the limitations requiring transmission of the patient information and status confirmation results to the emergency transport system, onward to the medical institution system to which the patient is to be transported, and presentation of that information and the recommended measures define an emergency-patient handoff. The claimed information flow organizes what patient information passes among the emergency worker, transport personnel, and receiving medical institution. This falls within managing interactions between people; computer mediation does not remove the underlying activity from that enumerated subgrouping. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II). Claim 11 recites the same handoff in method form, and the dependent claims inherit it. Prong One therefore remains satisfied on this basis.
Applicant argues that claims 1 and 11 recite a specific technical solution and particular machine because the emergency terminal uses a card reader, public-key certificate, communication interface, vital-information acquiring means, and processing circuitry.
Examiner respectfully disagrees that those elements establish integration. A particular machine is an eligibility consideration, not a stand-alone test. Under BRI, the card reader reads the certificate, the circuitry sends it to a server and receives patient information, and the interfaces relay that information. The claims recite no particular improvement to card reading, authentication, networking, sensing, or processing. The specification likewise states that the interface performs data communications with an external device and the circuitry executes a program stored in the memory to perform the assigned functions (Spec., paragraphs 0031-0032). The elements therefore implement the patient handoff without improving the underlying technology. MPEP 2106.05(a)-(b).
Applicant argues that the claims must be considered as a whole because the certificate-derived information is quickly transmitted through the transport and medical-institution systems, permitting more accurate and efficient treatment of an unconscious patient.
Examiner respectfully disagrees that the ordered arrangement supplies a technological improvement. Claims 1 and 11 require reading the certificate, retrieving records, acquiring vital information, relaying that information to the destination institution, and displaying the information and recommendations. The elements interact only by passing the same patient information through that sequence; no limitation changes how any reader, server, interface, processor, or display operates. Moreover, quickly, more accurate and efficient, and an unconscious patient are asserted benefits, not claim limitations. The specification identifies the benefit as providing prompt measures and a suitable response at the destination institution (Spec., paragraphs 0004 and 0089), which improves the medical-information workflow rather than the technology performing it. Prong Two is not satisfied.
Applicant argues that the Office lacks evidence that the additional elements are conventional and therefore has not established the absence of significantly more at Step 2B.
Examiner respectfully disagrees that the record lacks function-matched evidence. The specification describes the IC card reader only as used to acquire patient information from the patient information card (paragraph 0029), permits any display among several interchangeable types (paragraph 0030), and identifies the vital-information source merely as a vital measuring device (not illustrated) (paragraph 0034). More specifically, the Mynaportal server and patient-information server can be realized using an existing technique (paragraphs 0047-0048), while the communication interface operates in accordance with a preset existing standard (paragraph 0056). These express disclosures and implementation-without-particulars findings support WURC at the same functional level recited in the claims. MPEP 2106.05(d), 2106.07(a). Refer to below subject matter eligibility rejection below for more details
Applicant argues that characterizing the claim as an input-transfer-output sequence improperly dismisses the ordered combination.
Examiner respectfully disagrees that the ordered combination recites a nonconventional technical relationship. The server remains the source of the patient record, the reader supplies the certificate, the interfaces relay information, the circuitries execute the assigned transmissions, and the display presents the result. Paragraph 0022 confirms that the emergency-transport system, servers, databases, and medical-institution system are connected via a network, while paragraph 0047 identifies the certificate-based Mynaportal retrieval as an existing technique. The claimed order follows the patient-handoff sequence itself and creates no new placement, protocol, or component interaction comparable to an inventive arrangement. The additional elements therefore do not amount to significantly more at Step 2B.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 8-12 filed date 06/22/26, with respect to Claims 1-7 and 10-13 regarding 35 U.S.C 103 have been fully considered and answer as following:
Applicant argues the § 103 rejection is overcome because amended claim 1 now requires an emergency terminal with a card reader that reads a public-key certificate, transmits that certificate to a server, receives patient information from the server, and transmits the patient information and status confirmation results to the emergency transport system. Applicant states the Office Action relied on Mishra to remedy Zhang’s deficiencies, including a card reader configured to read certification information and the display screen showing patient information, status confirmation results, and recommended response measures. Applicant further argues claim 11 is patentable for analogous reasons, and dependent claims 2-7, 10, and 13 stand if independent claims 1 and 11 are allowable.
Examiner disagreed because arguments are not persuasive against the present combination. Zhang supplies the emergency workflow, Wilson supplies the public-key-certificate record-retrieval credential, and Mishra supplies the consolidated physician display. The dependent-claim arguments rely on the same alleged deficiencies and do not separately show error in the Makram or Shields combinations. See Zhang paragraphs 0061, 0064, 0086-0088; Wilson paragraphs 0084, 0090-0094, 0101, 0105-0106; Mishra paragraphs 0047, 0072, 0152 and below 35 U.S.C 103 rejections for more details.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7 filed 06/22/2026, with respect to claim 13 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejection is withdrawn because applicant removed the before destination candidate results, so the phrase is introduced in claim 13 rather than referring to a missing antecedent. The prior § 112(b) uncertainty is resolved.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
35 U.S.C 112(f) Rational:
Claims 1 and 11 each recite vital information acquiring means for acquiring vital information of the patient. This limitation uses the word means coupled with functional language - for acquiring vital information, without reciting sufficient structure to perform the entire function.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Examiner Interpretation vital information acquiring means for acquiring vital information of the patient:
The specification discloses the corresponding structure as: a camera and an IC card reader of input interface 22 - see paragraph 0029; processing circuitry 25 executing acquiring function 251, which captures moving image data from the camera as vital information - see paragraphs 0032 through 0033; and a vital measuring device that provides respiratory rate, blood pressure, pulse rate, and body temperature - see paragraph 0034. This structure, and equivalents thereof, is the scope of vital information acquiring means for purposes of examination.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claim 1 to 7 and 10 to 13 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.
Antecedent Lack Basis:
Claims 1 and 11 recite the recommended response measures without first introducing what generates, receives, or supplies those measures. For compact prosecution, the examiner interprets the recommended response measures as measures generated or supplied by the medical institution system. Claims 2-4 and 12 depend from claims 1 or 11 and are rejected on the same ground.
Claims 2-7, 10, and 13 depend from claim 1, and claim 12 depends from claim 11; therefore, each dependent claim incorporates the same indefinite limitation and are rejected too.
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 to 7 and 10 to 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed subject matter is directed to a judicial exception without reciting elements that integrate the exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept amounting to significantly more than the exception itself.
Step 1: Statutory Categories
Step 1 asks whether each claim falls within a statutory category as a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter per MPEP 2106.03.
Claims 1 to 7, 10, and 13 recite a machine: an emergency support system, comprising an emergency terminal, an emergency transport system, and a medical institution system with circuitry, interfaces, and a display. Claims 11 and 12 recite a process: an emergency support method executed by an emergency support system.
All pending claims fall within statutory categories, so the analysis proceeds to Step 2A, Prong One.
Step 2A, Prong One
Prong One asks whether the claims recite a judicial exception.
Independent Claims Analysis:
Representative Claim 1:
an emergency terminal of an emergency service worker;
an emergency transport system configured to support emergency transport by the emergency service worker; and
a medical institution system provided in a medical institution that is a destination of transport, wherein
the emergency terminal includes a card reader configured to read a public-key certificate from a card carried by a patient;
a communication interface;
vital information acquiring means for acquiring vital information of the patient; and
processing circuitry configured to transmit the public-key certificate to a server via the communication interface; receive patient information from the server via the communication interface; and transmit the patient information and status confirmation results of the patient, including the vital information, to the emergency transport system via the communication interface,
the emergency transport system includes a first communication interface; and
first processing circuitry configured to transmit, to the medical institution system to which the patient is to be transported, the patient information received from the emergency terminal via the first communication interface, and the status confirmation results received from the emergency terminal via the first communication interface,
the medical institution system includes a second communication interface; and
second processing circuitry configured to receive the patient information and the status confirmation results from the second communication interface, and cause a display to display a display screen including the patient information, the status confirmation results, and the recommended response measures.
Note: non-bold language represents the candidate judicial exception; bold language represents the additional elements evaluated at Prong Two and Step 2B.
Claim 11 mirrors Claim 1 as a method and carries the same amendment.
Under BRI per MPEP 2111, the non-bold language recites obtaining a patient's identification from a card the patient carries, obtaining the patient's records with it, acquiring the patient's vital information, passing the records and status confirmation results to the transport side, forwarding them to the destination medical institution, and presenting them with the recommended response measures.
That non-bold language recites a certain method of organizing human activity, sub-group managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II). Limitations 4, 6, 7, 9, and 11 set forth who conveys what patient information to whom: the worker obtains identity and vitals from a card carried by a patient and from the patient, shares the patient information and status confirmation results of the patient, including the vital information with the transport side, which forwards them to the medical institution system to which the patient is to be transported, where they are presented for the receiving staff. This is the emergency patient handoff, a protocol of interactions among the patient, the emergency service worker, the transport team, and hospital personnel, conducted by following handoff rules. The specification frames the advance in the same workflow terms: prior systems leave room for improvement in supporting a medical institution that is a destination of transport (Spec., para. 0004). The claims recite, not merely involve, this exception because the sharing and presenting acts are themselves the claim limitations, and MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II) confirms that performing the activity with computers does not remove it from the grouping.
Dependent Claims Analysis:
Claims 2 to 4 recite generating, updating, and ranking one or more recommended response measures from the patient information, the status confirmation results, examination information, and vital data collected in real time, which fits mental processes, evaluation, judgment, and opinion, per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), because forming, revising, and ranking response recommendations from patient data is cognitive assessment a physician performs in ordinary practice. The practicality check is satisfied: the models may be respectively replaced with predetermined logic determinations (Spec., para. 0099). Claims 5 to 7 recite transport destination determination results or transport destination candidate determination results, a predicted disease, and results of triage, which fits the same grouping, evaluation and judgment, because selecting a hospital, predicting a condition, and classifying severity are judgments. Claim 10 recites recommended response measures falling within a range executable by the emergency service worker, and Claim 13 recites determining destination candidate results and results of triage from electrocardiographic, vital, and patient information, both fitting the same grouping, judgment and opinion. Claim 12 recites acquiring electrocardiographic information related to an electrocardiographic waveform measured from the patient, which adds data gathering only, but Claim 12 recites the exception through the handoff limitations inherited from Claim 11. Per MPEP 2106.04(II)(B), the handoff activity and the dependent evaluations are identified together and treated as a single abstract idea.
Every claim recites a judicial exception, so the analysis proceeds to Prong Two.
Step 2A, Prong Two
Prong Two asks whether the additional elements, individually and as a whole, integrate the recited exception into a practical application.
Independent Claims Analysis:
The additional elements of Claims 1 and 11 are the emergency terminal, emergency transport system, and medical institution system; the card reader and public-key certificate; the server; the communication interface, first communication interface, and second communication interface; the vital information acquiring means; the processing circuitry, first processing circuitry, and second processing circuitry; and the display.
Individual Additional Elements Evaluation:
Claims 1 and 11 recite the same additional elements in system and method form: an emergency terminal, an emergency transport system, and a medical institution system, each housing a card reader, a communication interface, a first communication interface, a second communication interface, vital information acquiring means, processing circuitry, first processing circuitry, second processing circuitry, and a display.
The three systems do no more than locate the exception in an emergency-care setting. Claim 1 recites an emergency terminal of an emergency service worker, an emergency transport system configured to support emergency transport by the emergency service worker, and a medical institution system provided in a medical institution that is a destination of transport; Neither claim changes how any of these systems operates; each simply houses the card reader, interfaces, circuitry, and display addressed below. The specification treats the arrangement the same way, describing the emergency transport system and the medical institution system as infrastructure already joined over a network (Spec., para. 0022) and stating that it is possible to integrate the emergency transport system into the medical institution system (Spec., para. 0089), a statement that presents the integration as a matter of network configuration rather than a new architecture. Limiting the exception to this three-system environment does not integrate it into a practical application. MPEP 2106.05(h).
The card reader and the public-key certificate it reads do the same. Claim 1 recites a card reader configured to read a public-key certificate from a card carried by a patient; claim 11 recites the identical reading step. Under BRI the claim requires only that a certificate be read, not any particular way of reading it, and the specification confirms the reader performs only that function: the IC card reader is used to acquire patient information from the patient information card carried by a patient (Spec., para. 0029). Reading identity data from a card the patient carries is the same data-collection activity the Federal Circuit found insufficient where a reader extracted data from a document. Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, 776 F.3d 1343, 1347-48 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Reading the certificate is pre-solution data gathering. MPEP 2106.05(g).
The communication interface, first communication interface, second communication interface, and the surrounding transmit-and-receive limitations relay the certificate, the patient information, and the status confirmation results between the three systems and do nothing else. Claim 1 recites processing circuitry that transmits the certificate to a server, receives patient information from the server, and transmits the patient information and status confirmation results to the emergency transport system; the emergency transport system's first processing circuitry then transmits that information to the medical institution system; the medical institution system's second processing circuitry receives it. The specification describes the communication interface only as one that performs data communications with an external device such as the cloud system (Spec., para. 0031). A computer that receives and sends information over a network, with no further specification, is not even arguably inventive and does not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application. buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Each interface and circuitry limitation is invoked only as a tool to carry out the exception. MPEP 2106.05(f).
The vital information acquiring means gathers data the same way. Claim 1 recites vital information acquiring means for acquiring vital information of the patient. The specification identifies the corresponding structure as a camera or a vital measuring device reporting respiratory rate, blood pressure, pulse rate, and body temperature (Spec., paras. 0029, 0034), disclosing sensing hardware that gathers data and nothing more. Gathering the vital-sign data an exception needs is insignificant pre-solution activity. MPEP 2106.05(g); Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 79 (2012).
The processing circuitry, first processing circuitry, and second processing circuitry contribute nothing beyond the transmitting, receiving, and acquiring functions already addressed. The specification describes the processing circuitry as a processor that executes a program stored in memory to realize a function corresponding to the program (Spec., para. 0032), a role limited to executing the claimed steps rather than improving how any of the three systems operates.
The display presents the result of the relay after it is complete and integrates nothing. Claim 1 recites causing a display to display a display screen including the patient information, the status confirmation results, and the recommended response measures; The specification lists five interchangeable display types that may be suitably employed (Spec., para. 0030), confirming no display-specific technique is disclosed. Merely presenting the results of collecting and relaying information, without more, is abstract as an supplementary part of that collection and relay. Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016); MPEP 2106.05(g).
Viewed as a whole, claims 1 and 11 read a card, obtain records, obtain vital signs, relay the combined information from the terminal through the transport system to the medical institution system, and display what was relayed. Every additional element performs only its assigned step in that obtain-relay-display sequence, and no claimed arrangement changes how the terminal, the interfaces, the circuitry, or the display operates. The additional elements, individually and in combination, do not integrate the exception into a practical application.
Dependent Claims Analysis:
Claims 4 and 7 add no additional elements; ranking presentation and triage output narrow the evaluations and are referred to Prong One. Claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 10, and 13 add trained models, which do not overcome Prong Two under MPEP 2106.05(f): each model is recited at the input and output level, the algorithms are interchangeable, a neural network, deep learning, ChatGPT, Random Forest, etc. (Spec., para. 0041). Their added inputs, vacancy, position, examination, and real-time vital data, specify data types per MPEP 2106.05(h). Claim 12 adds electrocardiographic acquisition, pre-solution data gathering per MPEP 2106.05(g).
The additional elements, individually and as a whole, do not integrate the exception into a practical application. The extra-solution findings above are re-evaluated for conventionality at Step 2B with the evidence MPEP 2106.05(d) requires, so the analysis proceeds to Step 2B.
Step 2B
Independent Claims Analysis:
Step 2B asks whether the same additional elements, the systems, card reader and public-key certificate, server, interfaces, circuitries, vital information acquiring means, and display, individually and as an ordered combination, provide an inventive concept amounting to significantly more per MPEP 2106.05.
Individual Additional Elements Evaluation:
The three systems supply no inventive concept. Claim 1 arranges the card reader, communication interface, vital information acquiring means, and processing circuitry inside an emergency terminal, then places matching components inside an emergency transport system and a medical institution system; The specification states that it is possible to integrate the emergency transport system into the medical institution system (Spec., para. 0089), describing the systems as separable, combinable components rather than a specific new architecture. MPEP 2106.05(h).
The card reader and the public-key certificate supply no inventive concept. The specification describes the reader only as used to acquire patient information from the patient information card carried by a patient (Spec., para. 0029), the same generic reading function found insufficient where a reader extracted data from a document. Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1347-48.
The communication interfaces and their transmit-and-receive functions supply no inventive concept. A computer that receives and sends information over a network, with no further specification, is not even arguably inventive. buySAFE, 765 F.3d at 1355. Claims 1 and 11 recite exactly that: a communication interface that transmits the certificate and receives patient information, a first communication interface that relays patient information and status confirmation results to the medical institution system, and a second communication interface that receives that information, none described as anything other than a data-communications channel (Spec., para. 0031).
The vital information acquiring means supplies no inventive concept. Acquiring vital sign data by camera or vital measuring device (Spec., paras. 0029, 0034) is the same physiological data gathering found insufficient in Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79.
The processing circuitry, first processing circuitry, and second processing circuitry supply no inventive concept individually. Each executes a program stored in memory to realize a function corresponding to the program (Spec., para. 0032), and the function realized in each instance is the transmitting, receiving, or acquiring step already addressed above; no specification passage assigns any circuitry an operation beyond executing those steps.
The display supplies no inventive concept. Merely presenting the results of collecting and analyzing information, without more, is abstract as an ancillary part of that collection and analysis. Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d at 1354. The specification confirms the display performs no more than that ancillary role, listing five interchangeable display types that may be suitably employed (Spec., para. 0030).
As an ordered combination, claims 1 and 11 arrange these elements in the sequence the abstract idea itself dictates: read the card, transmit the certificate, receive the records, acquire the vital signs, relay the combined information through the transport system to the medical institution system, and display it. A generic computer implementation arranged in the sequence an abstract idea already requires does not supply an inventive concept. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 226 (2014). The additional elements, individually and as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than the exception.
Dependent Claims Analysis:
Claims 4 and 7 add no additional elements and are referred to Prong One. Claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 10, and 13 add trained models and input specifications, which do not overcome Step 2B: the models may be respectively replaced with predetermined logic determinations (Spec., para. 0099), a replacement made to reduce the burden of machine learning for constructing a trained model (Spec., para. 0099), and the algorithms are interchangeable, a neural network, deep learning, ChatGPT, Random Forest, etc. (Spec., para. 0041); a component the specification declares replaceable and interchangeable cannot supply significantly more. Claim 12 adds electrocardiographic acquisition described as transmits an email to which electrocardiographic information related to the electrocardiographic waveform is attached (Spec., para. 0070); transmitting data over a network is conventional per buySAFE, 765 F.3d at 1355, and MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
The claims are directed to an abstract idea, the emergency patient handoff combined with the dependent medical evaluations, without integration into a practical application and without significantly more. Claims 1 to 7 and 10 to 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
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.
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, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (CN 103312782 A) in view of Wilson (US 2007/0245144 A1), and further in view of Mishra (US 2016/0103963 A1).
Claim 1.
Zhang teaches,
An emergency support system, comprising: an emergency terminal of an emergency service worker; (Zhang, the remote intelligent emergency system comprises a data centre, an ambulance vehicle subsystem, the emergency command center subsystem, hospital work station and doctor client par. 0041; the ambulance vehicle sub system further comprises a user operation terminal, said user operation terminal for information input by the emergency personnel aid site par. 0022)
Zhang's user operation terminal (emergency terminal) on the ambulance is operated by the emergency personnel (emergency service worker) at the aid site.
an emergency transport system configured to support emergency transport by the emergency service worker; and (Zhang, par. 0041; the data centre are vehicular subsystem with the ambulance, the emergency command centre system, the hospital working station and the doctor client end through wireless network connection communication, for data storage and distribution par. 0042)
The ambulance vehicle subsystem together with the data centre and emergency command centre (emergency transport system) supports the ambulance rescue and transport performed by the emergency personnel.
a medical institution system provided in a medical institution that is a destination of transport, wherein (Zhang, the remote intelligent emergency system further comprising a hospital work station par. 0018; said hospital scheduling sub-system for the patient assigned to the appropriate hospital par. 0016; selected from the hospital nearest to ambulance hospital as the appropriate hospital par. 0017, 0026, 0042)
The hospital work station and doctor client (medical institution system) reside at the appropriate hospital to which the patient is assigned (medical institution that is a destination of transport).
the emergency terminal includes a card reader configured to read (Zhang, the ambulance vehicle sub system further comprises an identity document scanning device, said identity document scanning device for automatic retrieval health record of the patient through an identity card scanning patients, before rescue pars. 0023, 0034; said identity document scanning device through scanning identity document, obtaining the identity certificate number, and automatically inquiring the patient health record according to the identity certificate number par. 0064, 0041-0042)
Zhang's identity document scanning device (card reader) reads the patient-carried identity card (card carried by a patient) at the emergency stage to retrieve the patient health record.
a communication interface; (Zhang, an ambulance vehicle subsystem through WCDMA network, internet, private and other access technology par. 0061; a gateway comprises a data gateway and audio/video gateway par. 0055, par. 0041-0042)
vital information acquiring means for acquiring vital information of the patient; and (Zhang, monitoring device, used for real time collecting the vital sign data of the patient par. 0044; video collecting device for instantly collecting process of the emergency ambulance in the video data par. 0046; audio collecting device for instantly collecting in ambulance aid process of audio data par. 0047)
Zhang's monitoring device and camera-based video collecting device (vital information acquiring means) are the same structure as, or equivalents of, the disclosed vital measuring device and camera, and they collect the patient's vital sign data (vital information of the patient).
processing circuitry configured to transmit (Zhang, obtaining the identity certificate number, and automatically inquiring the patient health record according to the identity certificate number par. 0064; the data gateway for ambulance ID, vital sign data and the geographic position data is compressed and transmitted to the data centre pars. 0055, 0076)
Zhang's gateway and terminal circuitry (processing circuitry) transmit the card-read credential inquiry to the data centre (server) over the wireless network (communication interface).
receive patient information from the server via the communication interface; (Zhang, said user operation terminal is further used for inquiring the patient to the data centre of the electronic record, the electronic medical record for patient history and patient health record data of patient electronic form pars. 0022, 0048; the emergency-related data comprises … the patient medical history, patient health record data par. 0057)
The electronic medical record with the patient history and health record data (patient information) is returned from the data centre (server) to the ambulance-side terminal.
and transmit the patient information and status confirmation results of the patient, including the vital information, to the emergency transport system via the communication interface, (Zhang, the data gateway for ambulance ID, vital sign data and the geographic position data is compressed and transmitted to the data centre, audio/video gateway is used for transmitting the video and audio data in the rescuing process par. 0055; collecting blood pressure, temperature, heart rate, electrocardiogram, body position and so on various vital sign parameters, converging the geographical position information and video image information, is transmitted to the data centre par. 0061, 0051, 0053)
The collected vital sign parameters and rescuing-process data (status confirmation results of the patient, including the vital information) and the patient record data (patient information) flow from the emergency terminal to the data centre and emergency command centre (emergency transport system).
the emergency transport system includes a first communication interface; (Zhang par. 0008: ambulance vehicle subsystem communicates with the data centre through wireless network communication connection; paragraph 0014: the gateway for the ambulance ID, patient vital signs; paragraph 0042: ambulance vehicle subsystem communicates through wireless network connection communication, for data storage and distribution; paragraph 0048: gateway transmits the collected emergency data to the data centre.)
and first processing circuitry configured to transmit, to the medical institution system to which the patient is to be transported, the patient information received from the emergency terminal via the first communication interface, and the status confirmation results received from the emergency terminal via the first communication interface, (Zhang, the data centre sends the received ambulance ID, vital sign data, geographic location data, video and audio data in the rescuing process stored and forwarded to the emergency command centre system pars. 0049, 0081; triage sub-system of the hospital work station query relevant data from the data centre, hospital work station according to the related data of the patient assigned to the specific doctor client par. 0085)
The store-and-forward of the received ambulance-side data toward the assigned hospital reads on the first processing circuitry transmitting, to the medical institution system, the patient information and status confirmation results received from the emergency terminal.
the medical institution system includes a second communication interface; (Zhang para. 0008: data centre respectively ... ambulance vehicle subsystem ... through wireless network communication connection; para. 0018: hospital work station ... communication connection with the data centre through the wireless network; para. 0042: ambulance vehicle subsystem ... hospital work station ... through wireless network connection communication, for data storage and distribution; para. 0051: hospital triage subsystem queries patient data from the data centre.)
The second communication interface is the hospital-side communication path: the hospital work station communicates with the data centre through a wireless network and uses that connection to obtain patient data. In plain terms, this is the medical-institution interface.
and second processing circuitry configured to receive the patient information and the status confirmation results from the second communication interface, (Zhang, work station of the hospital communication connection with the data centre through the wireless network par. 0018; the triage sub-system of hospital work station inquires the vehicle-mounted subsystem of the ambulance recording patient vital from the data centre … sign data, video and audio data in the rescuing process par. 0086; pneumology subsystem of the doctor client end from the triage sub-system of hospital working station receives the assigned patient and guidance subsystem, transferring the vital sign data of the patient from said data centre par. 0088)
. (Zhang, each ambulance is need to provide network terminal for conveniently inputting patient basic information, record information and emergency site, for viewing a patient health record par. 0053; the doctor client to receive the distribution of patient and give guidance information par. 0087; doctors know disease, medical history, health record of the patient, real time patient vital sign parameter and its variation par. 0061)
Zhang displays patient record data and provides guidance information at the hospital-side doctor client.
35 USC 103 Rationales:
Zhang teaches the limitations mapped above, except the following two elements:
Zhang's identity certificate number is a plain identification number, not a public-key certificate.
Wilson teaches the missing element because the patient’s smartcard stores/controls access to a public-key certificate, the certificate includes a unique patient identifier that points to the patient’s electronic health record, and a hospital doctor can use that certificate-based pointer to retrieve the patient record in an emergency. Refer to Wilson par. 0084, 0090-0091, 0094 and 0101.
A POSITA would have substituted Wilson’s public-key certificate for Zhang’s scanned identity-card credential as a simple substitution of one known card-based record-retrieval credential for another. Zhang already scans the patient card to retrieve records before rescue; Wilson explains why certificate-based access improves security and supports emergency access when the patient cannot enter a passphrase. The substitution predictably provides secure, authenticated retrieval of Zhang’s patient record in the same pre-rescue workflow. Refer to Zhang para. 0064; Wilson para. 0011; para. 0084; para. 0105;
Zhang does not clearly show one screen including all three categories together.
Mishra teaches a display screen including the patient information, the status confirmation results, and the recommended response measures. Refer to par. 0152, par. 0069 and 0081
A POSITA would have applied Mishra’s single-view physician display to Zhang’s hospital-side doctor client to reduce the clinician’s navigation burden and speed treatment preparation. Zhang already sends patient vital signs, rescue video/audio data, and emergency guidance to the doctor client before hospital arrival. Mishra improves a similar clinical interface by putting desired physician information in one place with minimal navigation. The modification predictably lets Zhang’s doctor view patient information, status confirmation results, and recommended response measures on one consolidated screen, improving rapid review before admittance. Refer to Zhang para. 0088; Mishra para. 0047: secure emergency medical information; para. 0072: recommendation engine; para. 0152: single view, window and/or screen with minimum of required navigation.
Note: Claim 11 is rejected with the same analysis above for being very similar to claim 1.
Claim 12.
Zhang in combination with Mishra and further view of Wilson’s teaches, The emergency support method according to claim 11, further comprising: acquiring, from the emergency terminal, electrocardiographic information related to an electrocardiographic waveform measured from the patient by the emergency transport system, prior to the transmitting,
wherein the status confirmation results further include the electrocardiographic
information acquired from the emergency terminal. (Zhang , par. 0057, 0061, 0090)
Claim(s) 2-7 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang – CN- 103312782, in combination with Zhang in combination with MISHRA- US20160103963A1 and further view of Wilson (US 2007/0245144 A1), and further in view of Makram-US 20190180868 A1.
Claim 2.
Zhang in combination with Mishra and further view of Wilson’s teaches, The emergency support system according to claim 1,
wherein the second processing circuitry is further configured to generate the one or more
recommended response measures by taking, as an input, at least the patient information and the status confirmation results to execute a trained model, (Zhang , par. 0014, 0021-0022, 0032, 0035, 0061)
and output the one or more recommended response measures. (Zhang , par. 0014, 0021-0022, 0032, 0035, 0061)
Zhang describe the use of different inputs (patient information and status confirmation result) to recommended guidance. However, does not explicitly said that the guidance are executed by a trained model.
However, Makram in fig. 1, paragraphs 0044- 0046, 0014-0016, describe a system functionally assesses patient biometrics, medical history, and nurse input to calculate a triage assessment, which is then used by a resource prediction machine (uses supervised machine learning techniques) to sort patients by acuity and assign appropriate resources like teams or specialists. In fig.6 describe the uses machine learning to receive patient parameters, analyze them to determine an acuity score and predict resource needs, and then use these predictions to assign tasks and manage work queues.
Markram and Zhang describe a functional process aims to improve hospital emergency (Markram paragraphs 0002-0005 and Zhang , paragraphs 0002-0004) therefore it is obvious for a PHOSITA look in Markram because are in the same topic of hospital emergency.
A PHOSITA would be motivated to include machine learning in Zhang to solve the flow through the complex assessment and treatment process and to sorting and resource allocation using machine learning, in comparison with potential variability in assessment accuracy due to reliance on human intuition in hospital emergency to improve the different patient data management and output process. Markram, par. 0004, 0039, 0044.
Claim 3.
Zhang in combination with Mishra and further view of Wilson’s and further view of Markram teaches, The emergency support system according to claim 2, wherein the second processing circuitry is further configured to update the one or more recommended response measures by taking, as an input, the patient information, the status confirmation results, examination information of the patient, and vital data collected in real time from the patient to execute the trained model. (Zhang , 0057, 0090-0094)
The system ambulance real-time recording and updating the multimedia medical record in an ambulance on patient vital sign data for remote guidance.
Claim 4.
Zhang in combination with Mishra and further view of Wilson’s and further view of Markram teaches, The emergency support system according to claim 3, wherein the second processing circuitry is further configured to cause the display to display a ranking of a plurality of recommended response measures sequentially obtained by the updating of the one or more recommended response measures. (Zhang , 0057, 0090-0094)
Zhang describe a data center utilizes various servers to process and manage diverse emergency-related information, including real-time ambulance data, patient medical records, and vital signs, to facilitate remote guidance and optimize emergency services. However does not exactly describe a ranking for obtained a sequentially recommendations.
However Markram describe a system that tracks real-time collection of data (par.0048, 0053-0059) and including timestamps for various events like study assigned bed, surgery etc. (par. 0014, 0018, 0020, 0069-0076, 0081, 0088), this represent a ranking plurality of recommendation sequentially by timestamps in the work queues.
Markram and Zhang describe a functional process aims to improve hospital emergency (Markram paragraphs 0002-0005 and Zhang , paragraphs 0002-0004) therefore it is obvious for a PHOSITA look in Markram because are in the same topic of hospital emergency.
A PHOSITA would be motivated to include a sequential recommended process from Markram to resolve unplanned nature of patient attendance and needs can lead to the inefficient management of medical resources and patient flows. Markram, par. 0003
Claim 5.
Zhang in combination with Mishra and further view of Wilson’s teaches, The emergency support system according to claim 1, wherein the first processing circuitry is further configured to output transport destination determination results or transport destination candidate determination results, and the status confirmation results, which include information on a predicted disease of the patient, by taking, as an input, the patient information, the vital information, and medical institution vacancy information to execute a trained model for transport determination. (Zhang , par. 0003, 0063)
Zhang describe the ambulance emergency intelligent auxiliary system collects patient physiological data via an ambulance terminal, transmits it in real-time to a rescue center, and utilizes an emergency command center for remote diagnosis, management, and deployment, including expert-guided cure plans by utilization rate, capacity and so on principle the patient assigned to the appropriate hospital.
However, does not explicitly said that are executed by a trained model.
However, Makram in fig. 1, paragraphs 0044- 0046, 0014-0016, describe a system functionally assesses patient biometrics, medical history, and nurse input to calculate a triage assessment, which is then used by a resource prediction machine (uses supervised machine learning techniques) to sort patients by acuity and assign appropriate resources like teams or specialists. In fig.6 describe the uses machine learning to receive patient parameters, analyze them to determine an acuity score and predict resource needs, and then use these predictions to assign tasks and manage work queues.
Markram and Zhang describe a functional process aims to improve hospital emergency (Markram paragraphs 0002-0005 and Zhang , paragraphs 0002-0004) therefore it is obvious for a PHOSITA look in Markram because are in the same topic of hospital emergency.
A PHOSITA would be motivated to include machine learning in Zhang to solve the flow through the complex assessment and treatment process and to sorting and resource allocation using machine learning, in comparison with potential variability in assessment accuracy due to reliance on human intuition in hospital emergency to improve the different patient data management and output process. Markram, par. 0004, 0039, 0044.
Claim 6.
Zhang in combination with Mishra and further view of Wilson’s teaches and further view Markram teaches, The emergency support system according to claim 5, wherein the first processing circuitry is further configured to take, as an input, the patient information, the vital information, position information of the emergency service worker, and the medical institution vacancy information to execute the trained model for transport determination. (Zhang , par. 0003, 0061-0063)
Zhang use geographical position information and video image information, is transmitted to the data center, for the expert-guided cure plans by utilization rate, capacity and so on principle the patient assigned to the appropriate hospital.
Claim 7.
Zhang in combination with Mishra and further view of Wilson’s teaches and further view of Markram teaches, The emergency support system according to claim 5, wherein the first processing circuitry is further configured to output results of triage of the patient by executing the trained model for transport determination.
(Zhang , par. 0003, 0031-0032, 0051-0052)
The triage subsystem of the hospital work station inquires about recorded patient vital signs, video, and audio data from the ambulance vehicle subsystem. This information, along with geographic location data of the ambulance, is then used to assign the patient to a specific doctor client. The doctor client's pneumology subsystem receives this data, including vital signs, video, and audio, along with emergency guidance information, to facilitate remote diagnosis and direct the ambulance vehicle subsystem for transport.
Claim 10.
Zhang in combination with Mishra and further view of Wilson’s teaches, The emergency support system according to claim 1, wherein the first processing circuitry is further configured to generate recommended response measures falling within a range executable by the emergency service worker by taking, as an input, at least the patient information and the vital information to execute a trained model for the emergency service worker, and output the recommended response measures falling within the range executable by the emergency service worker. (Zhang , par. 0021, 0052, 0057, 0090-0094, 0014, 0021-0022, 0032, 0035, 0061, 0063)
Examiner interpret “range” according to par. 0098 of the applicant as recommended actions are within the scope of practice and capabilities of the emergency service worker. Zhang system provided guidance according to adjusting from said data center taking video and audio data in the vital sign data and the rescuing process of patient in for patient hospitalization treatment as preparation work, for providing emergency guidance. Also guidance it is provide according to the resource utilization rate, capacity and so on principle the patient assigned to the appropriate hospital.
However, does not explicitly said that are executed by a trained model.
However, Makram in fig. 1, paragraphs 0044- 0046, 0014-0016, describe a system functionally assesses patient biometrics, medical history, and nurse input to calculate a triage assessment, which is then used by a resource prediction machine (uses supervised machine learning techniques) to sort patients by acuity and assign appropriate resources like teams or specialists. In fig.6 describe the uses machine learning to receive patient parameters, analyze them to determine an acuity score and predict resource needs, and then use these predictions to assign tasks and manage work queues.
Markram and Zhang describe a functional process aims to improve hospital emergency (Markram paragraphs 0002-0005 and Zhang , paragraphs 0002-0004) therefore it is obvious for a PHOSITA look in Markram because are in the same topic of hospital emergency.
A PHOSITA would be motivated to include machine learning in Zhang to solve the flow through the complex assessment and treatment process and to sorting and resource allocation using machine learning, in comparison with potential variability in assessment accuracy due to reliance on human intuition in hospital emergency to improve the different patient data management and output process. Markram, par. 0004, 0039, 0044.
Claim(s) 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang – CN- 103312782, and MISHRA- US20160103963A1 and in further view of Wilson (US 2007/0245144 A1), and further in view of Shields- US11763949.
Claim 13.
Zhang in combination with Mishra and further view of Wilson’s teaches, The emergency support system of claim 1, wherein the first processing circuitry is further configured to determine destination candidate results and results of
triage by inputting, to a trained machine-learning model, electrocardiographic information,
the vital information, and the patient information.
The claim 13 limitation requires the same first processing circuitry to input ECG information, vital information, and patient information to a trained machine-learning model and, from that model execution, determine both destination candidate results and triage results.
Zhang teaches several pieces of this limitation in part. Zhang teaches patient basic information, record information and collecting blood pressure, temperature, heart rate, electrocardiogram at paragraphs 0053 and 0061, which read on patient information, vital information, and electrocardiographic information.
Zhang teaches patient basic information, record information and collecting blood pressure, temperature, heart rate, electrocardiogram at paragraphs 0053 and 0061, which read on patient information, vital information, and electrocardiographic information.
Zhang also teaches destination-selection activity and triage-type output with direct record support.
For destination selection, Zhang teaches that the emergency command centre sub-system comprises a hospital scheduling subsystem, wherein said hospital scheduling sub-system for the patient assigned to the appropriate hospital Zhang [0016], and further explains that the hospital scheduling subsystem inquires the current geographic position of the ambulance and, within a designated distance, considers the salvation ability and free rescue resource of hospital and selected from the hospital nearest to ambulance hospital as the appropriate hospital Zhang [0017]; see also Zhang [0028], [0082]-[0083].
For triage-type output, Zhang teaches that the hospital work station comprises a triage subsystem and that the triage subsystem is used for inquiring patient vital sign data, video and audio data, and geographic location data of the ambulance, and then the patient assigned to the specific doctor Zhang [0018]; see also Zhang [0085]-[0086]. Zhang further describes embedded intelligent triage and nursing function and states This is secondary triage of emergency command centre Zhang [0063].
However, Zhang does not teach the missing feature of inputting the claimed data set to a trained machine-learning model.
Shields teaches that ML-based algorithms can be used to process and make decisions with a high volume of information surrounding a patient including, for example and without limitation: continuous physiological vitals data, HL7 FHIR data e.g. historical patient data Shields, col. 10, ll. 20-50, col. 4, ll. 20-40, fig. 12. Shields teaches the exact relationship Zhang is missing: ECG/vital/patient data go into a machine-learning decision process, and destination and triage results come out.
A POSITA would have made that modification because Shields teaches that machine-learning processing of patient vitals and historical patient data improves emergency decision making for effectively collect, transfer, analyze, and process data for patients in need of health care. Shield, Col 1. ll. 50-60. Using Shields’s known technique in Zhang’s similar system would have predictably produced a more data-driven and more consistent destination and triage determination process.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA DAMIAN RUIZ whose telephone number is (571)272-0409. The examiner can normally be reached 0800-1800.
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, Shahid Merchant can be reached at (571) 270-1360. 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.
/JOSHUA DAMIAN RUIZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3684
/Shahid Merchant/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3684
Prosecution Insights