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 .
Response to Amendment
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on 6/1/2026. As directed by the amendment, the status of the claim(s) are:
Claim(s) 1-2, 7-8 has/have been amended;
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are new;
Claim(s) 1-11 is/are presently pending.
The amendment(s) to the claim(s) is sufficient to overcome the claim objection(s) from the previous office action.
The amendment(s) to the claim(s) is sufficient to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112 rejection(s) from the previous office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues on p. 8 of remarks that Worder does not teach “the user performs physiological measurements through the inspection instrument”. After review, this is not persuasive because Worden teaches blood glucose monitoring and as cited specifically teaches using test strip ([0046] “test strip”) which means user is performing the measurement and so teaches this element.
Applicant argues on p. 8 of remarks that Worden does not teach “any implementation steps of the automatic correction method of the present invention”. After review this is not persuasive because the rejection of claim 1 relied on the combination of Worden and Chang not just Worden.
Applicant argues on p. 8 of remarks that Chang does not teach “the automatic correction system, the wireless transmission unit, the wireless transceiver unit, the warning unit and any implementation steps of the automatic correction method of the present invention”. After review, this is not persuasive, the rejection of claim 1 relied on the combination of Worden and Chang to teach the steps of the automatic correction method. Chang as cited teaches [0026] “the mobile device 2 may estimate a geographical region in which the corresponding measurement is performed based on the longitude and latitude of the location of the mobile device 2” and so meets the limitation of wireless transmission unit, the wireless transceiver unit since mobile device is wireless and both transmits and receives wirelessly. Worden was relied upon to teach warning unit (Worden Fig. 1A-1D; Fig. 4A-5C; [0078] “remind the PWD to administer a bolus”; [0088]).
Applicant argues on p. 8 of remarks that Worden and Chang only disclose general medical-related devices or systems, not the automatic time correction methods or steps. After review, this is not persuasive, the rejection of claim 1 relied on the combination of Worden and Chang to teach the steps of the automatic correction method and even if the prior art taught devices/systems, these devices/systems performed the recited method steps.
Applicant argues on p. 8 of remarks that Worden teaches timestamps based on universal concept of time to determine times rather than automatically correcting time. After review, this is not persuasive, Worden as cited teaches correcting for local time ([0078] “This time information can be based, for example, on a local time”; [0088] “based on the current time zone of the mobile device”).
Applicant argues on p. 8 of remarks that Chang is used to monitor the user’s physiological condition by using the first measuring apparatus for personal use and the second measuring apparatus for use by medical professionals…” There is no further statement/argument presented by Applicant with respect to this statement.
Applicant argues on p. 9 of remarks that it is not obvious to combine Worden and Chang. In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Worden and Chang both teach medical system that deal with different time zones for measurements and treatment. In response to applicant's argument that Worden and Chang is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Worden and Chang both teach medical system that deal with different time zones for measurements and treatment.
Applicant argues on p. 9 of remarks that Worden and Chang do not teach “reminding the user to undergo medical-related treatments”. After review, this is not persuasive because Worden as cited teaches this limitation ([0078] “remind the PWD to administer a bolus”; [0088]).
Applicant argues on p. 10 of remarks that it is not obvious to combine Worden, Chang, and Maeta and that these references are completely different description and technical contents form the present invention. In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Worden, Chang, and Maeta teach medical system that deal with different time zones for measurements and treatment. In response to applicant's argument that Worden, Chang, and Maeta is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Worden, Chang, and Maeta teach medical system that deal with different time zones for measurements and treatment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 3-6, 8-9, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Worden (US 20190307957 A1; 10/10/2019; cited in previous office action) in view of Chang (US 20180199891 A1; 7/19/2018; cited in previous office action).
Regarding claim 1, Worden teaches a remote area automatic time correction method (Abstract; Fig. 3), comprising the steps of:
(A01) an user of a remote end performing physiological measurement through an inspection instrument (Fig. 1A; [0011]; [0017]; [0045]-[0046]);
(A02) transmitting the physiological measurement value information obtained by said user using said inspection instrument to an automatic correction system through a wireless transmission unit (Fig. 1A; Fig. 3; Fig. 5A-5C; [0011]; [0017]; [0088]).
Worden does not teach (A03) said automatic correction system using the physiological measurement value information received from said wireless transmission unit through a wireless transceiver unit to detect the longitude and latitude location of the area where said remote end of said wireless transmission unit is located through a control unit of said automatic correction system. Note that Worden teaches GPS in wireless unit in form factor of mobile phone and server to obtain local time (Fig. 5A-5C; [0059]; [0096]). However, Chang teaches in the same field of endeavor (Fig. 1-2) said automatic correction system using the physiological measurement value information received from said wireless transmission unit through a wireless transceiver unit to detect the longitude and latitude location of the area where said remote end of said wireless transmission unit is located through a control unit of said automatic correction system (Fig. 1-2; [0026] “the mobile device 2 may estimate a geographical region in which the corresponding measurement is performed based on the longitude and latitude of the location of the mobile device 2”). Thus it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Worden to include this feature as taught by Chang because this enables obtaining local time in order to accurately correct for universal time (Fig. 1-2; [0025]-[0026]).
The combination of Worden and Chang teaches (A04) said control unit detecting the time zone of the longitude and latitude location of the area where said remote end is located to obtain the time difference between the time in the area where said remote end is located and the location of said automatic correction system (Worden Fig. 5A-5C; [0017]; [0059]; [0061]; [0088]; [0096]; Chang Fig. 1-2; [0025]-[0026]).
(A05) based on the obtained time difference, said control unit calculating the medical-related treatment time that said user needs to undergo by pre-establishing the medical-related information of said user in a storage unit (Worden Fig. 1A-1D; Fig. 4A-4B; [0078]; [0088]);
(A06) said control unit then converting the obtained medical-related treatment time for said user into the time in the area where said user is located, and recording the data to said storage unit (Worden Fig. 1A-1D; Fig. 4A-5C; [0078]; [0088]);
(A07) said control unit of said automatic correction system transmitting the message to said wireless transmission unit of said remote end through said wireless transceiver unit when the time said user needs to undergo the treatment is reached (Worden Fig. 1A-1D; Fig. 4A-5C; [0078]; [0088]); and
(A08) said wireless transmission unit using a warning unit to remind said user to perform the medical-related treatment (Worden Fig. 1A-1D; Fig. 4A-5C; [0078] “remind the PWD to administer a bolus”; [0088]).
Regarding claim 3, in the combination of Worden and Chang, Worden teaches wherein said inspection instrument in the steps (A01) and (A02) is selectively a blood pressure machine, an oximeter, a body temperature machine or a blood glucose meter (Fig. 1A-1D; Fig. 4A-4B; [0011]; [0017]), and the physiological measurement is carried out to measure and examine the blood pressure, pulse, heartbeat, body temperature, blood oxygen or blood sugar of the physiological status of said user (Fig. 1A-1D; Fig. 4A-4B; [0011]; [0017]).
Regarding claim 4, in the combination of Worden and Chang, Worden teaches wherein the numerical information of the physiological measurement value information in the steps (A02) and (A03) is the numerical information of the physiological status measurement value information of the blood pressure, pulse, heartbeat, body temperature, blood oxygen or blood sugar of said user (Fig. 1A-1D; Fig. 4A-4B; [0011]; [0017]).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Worden and Chang teaches wherein the wireless signal transmission is carried out between said wireless transceiver unit and said wireless transmission unit in the step (A03) through the Global Positioning System (GPS) (Worden [0059]; [0096]).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Worden and Chang teaches wherein said control unit in the steps (A03) to (A07) is selectively a central processing unit (CPU), a microprocessor or a chip (Worden Fig. 1A-1D; Fig. 3; [0052] “processors”)
Regarding claim 8, in the combination of Worden and Chang, Worden teaches wherein the medical-related treatment time in the steps (A05) to (A07) is when said user needs to receive medical treatment (Fig. 4A-4B; [0078] “remind the PWD to administer a bolus”; [0088]) (oral medicines).
Regarding claim 9, in the combination of Worden and Chang, Worden teaches wherein said warning unit in the step (A08) is selectively a smart watch, a smart phone (Fig. 4A-4B; [0078] “remind the PWD to administer a bolus”), a tablet computer or a radio walkie-talkie.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Worden, Chang, and Maeta teaches wherein the medical treatment includes an oral medicine, an injection (Worden Fig. 4A-4B; [0048] “injection”; [0078] “remind the PWD to administer a bolus”; [0088]), an eye drop, or an external medicine, the external medicine including applying or changing dressings and bandaging on external injuries.
Claim(s) 2, 7, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Worden and Chang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Maeta (US 20190228860 A1; 47/25/2019; cited in previous office action).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Worden and Chang does not teach wherein said remote end in the step (A01) is a ship or vessel. However, Maeta teaches in the same field of endeavor (Abstract; Fig. 1; Fig. 7; [0049] “time zone”) wherein said remote end in the step (A01) is a ship or vessel ([0314] “ships…deep-sea fishing…overseas”). Thus it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Worden and Chang to include this feature as taught by Maeta because this enables health care in a remote site such as a ship ([0314]).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Worden, Chang, and Maeta teaches wherein said control unit in the step (A04) detects the longitude and latitude location of the ocean position in the area where said remote end is located (Chang Fig. 1-2; [0026] “the mobile device 2 may estimate a geographical region in which the corresponding measurement is performed based on the longitude and latitude of the location of the mobile device 2”; Maeta [0314] “ships…deep-sea fishing…overseas”), and the location of said automatic correction system is a land area, so that the time difference between the standard time of the longitude and latitude of the location in the area where said remote end is located and the standard time of the location of said automatic correction system is calculated (Worden Fig. 5A-5C; [0017]; [0053] “UTC clock”; [0056] “Greenwich Mean Time (GMT)”; [0059]; [0061]; [0088]; [0096]; Chang Fig. 1-2; [0025]-[0026] “UTC”; the use of universal time or UTC or GMT reads on “to the location of said automatic correction system is a land area… standard time of the location of said automatic correction system”). Thus it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Worden to include this feature as taught by Chang because this enables obtaining local time in order to accurately correct for universal time (Fig. 1-2; [0025]-[0026]). Thus it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Worden and Chang to include this feature as taught by Maeta because this enables health care in a remote site such as a ship ([0314]).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Worden, Chang, and Maeta teaches wherein the ship or vessel includes cargo ship, ocean-going fishing vessel or cruise ship located in the ocean (Maeta [0314] “ships…deep-sea fishing…overseas”). Thus it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Worden and Chang to include this feature as taught by Maeta because this enables health care in a remote site such as a ship ([0314]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bernini (US 20170357766 A1; cited in previous office action) teaches in [0058] “Precisely when journeys are made, therefore, an automatic changeover of the time, for example a local time in relation to an absolute time, can be important. The medical system can be designed to perform such an automatic changeover. By way of example, a function of the medical system, in particular a function of the medical user element, can be completely or partly adapted to a local time, for example automatically. By way of example, a controlled delivery of medicaments or some other medical function can be adapted to a local time, in particular automatically, such that, by way of example, jetlag is not accompanied by therapy-lag.”.
Cohan (US 20140316803 A1; cited in previous office action) teaches medication management in which “The reminder criterion module 408 may operate on a 7-day a week, 24 hour time basis similar to a clock. The reminder criterion module 408 may also automatically adjust to different time zones. In other example embodiments, the reminder criterion module 408 may simply measure absolute time in hours and fractions thereof from some initialization time or from some repeating event (e.g., midnight).” ([0059]).
Howieson (US 20170242976 A1; cited in previous office action) also teaches medication management in which “By utilising a telecommunication device such as a “smartphone”, software embedded in the phone or a computer program operating on the phone can automatically remind patients to take the medicines at the correct timings and the software can also include features to take account of patients travelling between time zones, whilst maintaining correct dosage regimes which are often difficult for travellers etc.” ([0122]).
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 Jonathan T Kuo whose telephone number is (408)918-7534. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10 a.m. - 6 p.m. PT.
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, Niketa Patel can be reached at 571-272-4156. 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.
/JONATHAN T KUO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3792
Prosecution Insights