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 .
The current application has the effective filing date to 10/12/2018 according to the priority chain on the record.
Claim Status
As per Applicant’s response received on 06/22/2026, claim 1-16 are pending, claim 1 has been amended.
Response to Amendment
The double patenting rejection is withdrawn in view of the current claim amendment.
Regarding the 35 USC 102 rejection based on Sweeney US 2011/0137680 A1, the Applicant’s arguments are moot in view of the new grounds of rejections set forth below.
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. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “mobile computing system”
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.
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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: " is objected to because this limitation is a functional feature of the “patient monitoring device” and not a positively recited limitation, but this recitation implies a potential positive relationship with a human- a possible 35 USC 101 rejection. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
To claim 1, line 12 “mobile computer device” lacks proper antecedent basis, this should be amended to “mobile computing system”
To claim 1 recites “wherein the one or more user interfaces (executed by the mobile computing system) are configured to allow a clinician to receive information from the mobile computing system in response to a user selection on the one or more user interfaces.” This limitation is vague and indefinite for a plurality of reasons: 1) claim 1 mentions various persons, including ‘clinician’, ‘patient’ and ‘user’, in view of this, it is unclear whether the “user selection” refers to any user of this system, i.e. both patients and clinicians, or simply one of patient or clinician; and 2) the phraseology of this limitation is awkward, and as drafted cover the following interpretation: the mobile computing system (executed executing the “user interface”) receives data (from any user, e.g. clinician or patient) via the user interface, the mobile computer system then displays the received data (to a clinician) via the same user interface. This is equivalent to a person (i.e. the clinician) typing into a text input application while simultaneously viewing the entered text. It is the Examiner’s best guess that this limitation attempts to convey: a user interface that displays data to a clinician user, wherein the data is received from a patient user. Further amendment is required.
Due to the amendment in claim 1, the claim term “patient information system” recited in claims 2 and 9-16 lack proper antecedent basis. For purposes of examination, Examiner interprets “patient information system” in claims 2 and 9-16 to refer to “mobile computing system” recited in claim 1.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 8 recites “wherein the patient monitoring device includes a camera to allow the patient to conduct a video call with the clinician”; this repeats limitations already present in claim 1.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Interpretation
To claim 1 “patient monitoring device configured to be coupled to one or more sensors attached to a patient to monitor one or more physiological parameters”; the recited “one or more sensors attached to a patient…” limitation is not a positively recited limitation, but a functional feature of the “patient monitoring device”
To claim 1: the “allow a clinician” feature is not limited by an identification process/feature, thus any user interface that displays data is sufficient to meet this claim limitation.
To claim 1, “wherein the camera is configured to transmit video data using a communication network that is entirely located in a hospital”, the recited “the communication network” is not a positively recited claim feature in the claim, it is a functional feature of the camera’s communication capability.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-2, 8-13, 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sweeney US 2011/0137680 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Sweeney discloses a medical system comprising:
a patient monitoring device (patient portal device 110, see [0031]) configured to be coupled to one or more sensors attached to a patient to monitor one or more physiological parameters ([0090: last sentence] 110 is communicatively coupled to remote monitoring device 155, [0101] 110 is coupled to hospital peripheral s and vital sign monitoring devices, e.g. smart intravenous ("IV") infusion pumps, vital signs monitoring equipment, glucometers, and respiratory aids such as a ventilator);
a mobile computing system (application server 135) configured to execute a mobile application ([0099] “the application server 135 comprises a computer designed to store applications or "modules;" to store data input and collected by the various elements of the patient-centric care management system 100; and to execute functions based on the data and modules”) including one or more user interfaces (see Fig. 5 and [0108], user interfaces provided for each of patient portal 575, nurse handheld 580 , hospital admin. equipment 585 and hospital databases 590; the described applications or modules are exemplary as shown in Figs.2-4); and
wherein the one or more user interfaces are configured to allow a clinician (e.g. nurse handheld 580, hospital admin. equipment 585 and hospital databases 590) to receive information from the mobile computing system (135) in response to a user selection on the one or more user interfaces (see Fig. 5 and [0108] application server 135 receives input information from 545,550,555,560,565 and 570, then passes the information to be viewed at/displayed at 575,580,585,590. In Fig 5, at least nurse portal 580 is taken to encompass “to allow a clinician to receive information from the mobile computing system” in this claim),
wherein the patient monitoring device (110) comprises a camera (220) that is independent of the mobile computing device (135, 220 and 135 are independent), wherein the camera is configured to transmit video data ([0105] video communication) using a communication network (140) that is entirely located in a hospital (as shown in Figs. 1 and 5, patient portal 110 communicates via communications network 140, which is intended as a hospital network as discussed in [0108]).
Regarding claim 2, Sweeney discloses medical system of Claim 1, wherein the patient information system (this is rejected under 112B, this refers to “mobile computing system” of claim 1, Fig.5: application server 135) includes a communications application (535) to allow the patient to communicate with the clinician by text or voice. ([0036:2nd sentence] “…the [patient] portal may be configured to allow the patient to communicate directed by voice, text and video messaging with hospital including doctors, nurses, and other staff”. Also see [0105] “The systems communication module 535 provides interconnectivity between the application server 135 and the patient portal 575, handheld device 580, hospital administrative equipment 585, and hospital databases 590 through the communication server (not shown)”)
Regarding claim 8, Sweeney discloses the medical system of Claim 1, wherein the patient monitoring device includes a camera to allow the patient to conduct a video call with the clinician. (See rejection to claim 1)
Regarding claim 9, Sweeney discloses the medical system of Claim 1, wherein the patient information system (135) is configured to display the patient's schedule. (See Fig. 3:315, an exemplary display of the patient’s schedule.)
Regarding claim 10, Sweeney discloses the medical system of Claim 9, wherein the patient information system (135) includes one or more compliance inputs to allow the patient to indicate his or her compliance with a schedule item. (see [0035] the patient portal provides a list schedule of scheduled items for the patient to complete, e.g. diet, exercise, or procedure, [0037] compliance with regard to diet; the patient can provide feedback via an input on the patient portal. And the patient’s experience and compliances are measured via a care module 510 as discussed in [0108: 5th sentence]; also see Fig. 5: care module 510 and [0108] “The care module 510 provides access to vital signs and the patient's care and discharge plan; provides patient education; and measures patient experience and compliance”)
Regarding claim 11, Sweeney discloses the medical system of Claim 9, wherein the patient information system (135) is configured to display a graphical schedule compliance indicator which indicates the patient's compliance with schedule items. (See rejection to claim 10 above, since compliance is measured and can be displayed graphically on the patient portal 110, this is taken to encompass “graphical schedule compliance indicator.” Also see [0034: last sentence] regarding checklist of medications and treatments, which can be interpreted as compliance.)
Regarding claim 12, Sweeney discloses the medical system of Claim 1, wherein the patient information system (135) is configured to display the patient's medications. (See Fig. 3:315, an exemplary display of the patient’s schedule includes a display of the patient’s medication, e.g. antibiotic (pill); also see [0027: 1st sentence] patient portal includes a reference application to allow patient to look up medications; also see [0029] patient portal allows the patient to access his own medical record, which would include medications).
Regarding claim 13, Sweeney discloses the medical system of Claim 1, wherein the patient information system (135) is configured to display one or more fields that list a scheduled procedure and information about the procedure. (See Fig. 3:315, an exemplary display of the patient’s schedule includes a display of the patient’s list of scheduled procedure, e.g. physical therapy, blood draw; also see [0027: 1st sentence] patient portal includes a reference application to allow patient to look up information regarding treatments, and procedures, also see [0028] education material regarding upcoming treatments surgeries and other procedures.)
Regarding claim 15, Sweeney discloses the medical system of Claim 1, wherein the patient information system (135) is configured to display contact information for one or more clinicians assigned to care for the patient. ([0036] patient portal 110 has access to a directory to contact a hospital staff via text, phone or video; also see [0106:3rd to last sentence] patient portal 110 can view which hospital staff are current in the room and assigned to care for the patient. [0108: 4th sentence] “For example, the needs module 505 provides communication with nurses, doctors, or other staff about patient needs”)
Regarding claim 16, Sweeney discloses the medical system of Claim 1, wherein the patient information system (135) is configured to display the one or more physiological parameters from the patient monitoring device. ([0029] patient portal 110 gives patient access to his medical records which include pas physiological measurements, lab results etc. measured by the patient monitoring device, i.e. hospital technical peripherals 130; [0101] vital sign information measured by 130 are stored and accessible via the communications server 140.)
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.
Claims 3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sweeney as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of Zhang et al. US 2014/0278536 A1 (hereinafter “Zhang”).
Regarding claim 3, Sweeney discloses the patient information system (135) includes a communications application (535); Sweeney also discloses a plurality of preset clinician notification inputs configured to send preset notifications to the clinician when activated by the patient ([0033] discloses individual patient are able to use patient portal device 110 to input pain increase which notifies a nurse/doctor that the patient needs care; this can be interpreted as “send preset notifications to the clinician when activated by patient”, the input on the patient portal device 110 is an inherent feature based on this teaching, which can be interpreted as a “preset clinician notification inputs” in this claim. Also Fig. 2 “PatientConnect” is also interpreted as a “preset clinician notification input” as is notifies a hospital staff of the patient’s communication, see [0093-0094] two-way communication).
Alternatively, Zhang, another prior art reference in analogous field of patient communication devices discloses a system that enables a clinician to customize a specific symptom list (interpreted as “plurality of preset clinician notification inputs”; see [0076: first 4 sentences]); such that a patient’s device (GUI 203), operating a communications applications (Fig.8A: symptom log) includes said plurality of preset clinician notification inputs (Fig.8C: symptom log list) configured to send present notifications to the clinician when activated by the patient ([0070, 0076] the patient 209’s symptoms results are send to notify the doctor 202 as shown in Fig. 6B). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify Sweeny’s patient-centric management system 100 to include the clinician customizable symptom log for display on the patient portable device 110, in view of Zhang; the motivation for doing so is because this enables the clinician to customize a patient’s medical profile and to allow the patient to also enter new symptoms electronically to better keep track of their own health and to notify a hospital staff. (Zhang [0076] Sweeney [0033])
Regarding claim 7, Sweeney modified discloses the medical system of Claim 3, wherein at least one of the preset clinician notification inputs (Zhang: Fig. 8C symptom log list, e.g. pain log) is configured, when activated, to allow the patient to enter a value to personalize the corresponding preset clinician notification (Zhang Fig.8E, patient enters a value associated with pain, after selecting pain log from Fig. 8C).
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sweeney and Zhang as applied to claim 3 above, and in view of Tarnok et al. US 2013/0096819 A1 (hereinafter “Tarnok”).
Regarding claims 4-6, Sweeney in view of Zhang teaches the medical system of Claim 3, providing a plurality of preset clinician notification inputs which are selectable by a patient on the patient portable device (see rejection to claim 3 immediately above; Zhang Fig. 8C); but neither Sweeney nor Zhang discloses wherein each of the plurality of preset clinician notification inputs is displayed with a visual prominence that corresponds to its usage frequency, wherein the visual prominence corresponds to a displayed size of each of the plurality of preset clinician notification inputs, and wherein the usage frequency for each of the plurality of preset clinician notification inputs is determined based on usage by a selected group of patients.
However, with regard to these limitations associated with visual prominence, it is the Examiner position that these are obvious design choice modifications to a person of ordinary skill in the art to adjust preset clinician notification input based on preferred visual convenience.
Tarnok, a prior art reference that teaches a graphical user interface/GUI displaying a plurality of icons each associated with an application, discloses that the GUI dynamically adjusts the icon’s size based on frequency of use by the user ([0013] and see Fig. 2 showing circular icons in larger and smaller size, wherein the size is adjusted based on frequency of use). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to further modify Sweeny’s displayed plurality of preset clinician notification inputs with a visual prominence that corresponds to its usage frequency, wherein the visual prominence corresponds to a displayed size of each of the plurality of preset clinician notification inputs, and wherein the usage frequency for each of the plurality of preset clinician notification inputs is determined based on usage by a selected group of patients, based on the dynamically adjusted icon sizing method demonstrated in Tarnok. The motivation for doing so is to make the displayed inputs visually more convenient to select.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sweeney as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of Mitchell et al. US 2011/0054924 A1 (hereinafter “Mitchell”).
Regarding claim 14, Sweeney discloses the medical system of Claim 1, wherein the patient information system is configured to display a patient’s scheduled procedures and appointed (Fig.3: 314) and also allow the patient to access a directory and communicate with hospital staff ([0036]); but does not disclose the patient information system configured to display a map of the patient's surroundings. However Mitchell, another prior art reference in the analogous field of patient communication device, discloses a handheld patient communication device (10) intended for patient use during a visit/stay at a medical facility (Abstract). The device 10 allows the patient to view his own medical information, provide input, see scheduled/upcoming medical appoints (Fig.3), and also view a map of his surroundings (Fig.6 and [0043] map and directions to guide the patient to a desired location of his scheduled appointment). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify Sweeney’s patient portal system to further provide a map of a patient’s surroundings as shown in Mitchell so as to guide the patient to find the desired location of his scheduled appointment (see Mitchell Fig.6).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHIRLEY X JIAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7374. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-4:00.
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, Benjamin Klein can be reached at 571-270-5213. 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.
/SHIRLEY X JIAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3792
September 11, 2026
Prosecution Insights