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 .
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.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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: “data acquisition unit”, “correlation coefficient calculation unit”, “filtering unit”, and “cerebral autoregulation evaluation unit” in Claim 1 as well as “alarm unit” in Claim 6.
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. The instant application’s specification fails to provide structure for any of the above elements comprising the generic placeholder “unit”.
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
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. The elements “data acquisition unit”, “correlation coefficient calculation unit”, “filtering unit”, “cerebral autoregulation evaluation unit”, and “alarm unit” have not been provided with any structure within the instant application’s specification that make it understood what comprises each of the “units”. What type of system are these “units” comprised within? Are these each a different algorithm within a controller, computer, processor, etc.? Are they each a separate sub-system within a controller, computer, processor, etc.? Without proper clarification, it is unclear what entails a “data acquisition unit”, “correlation coefficient calculation unit”, “filtering unit”, “cerebral autoregulation evaluation unit”, and “alarm unit” that would enable one of ordinary skill in the art to recreate these elements.
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 2 is 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.
Regarding Claim 2, the limitation "25 minutes or more" followed by "30 minutes or less" is broad to narrow. The phrase "25 minutes or more" would encompass any amount of time equivalent to 25 minutes or more which goes beyond 30 minutes whereas the phrase "30 minutes or less" would only encompass time equal to or less than 30 minutes, including less than 25 minutes. For examination purposes, this limitation is being interpreted to mean "the predetermined time window is in a range of 25 to 30 minutes".
Claim limitations “data acquisition unit”, “correlation coefficient calculation unit”, “filtering unit”, “cerebral autoregulation evaluation unit”, and “alarm unit” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims not explicitly rejected above are rejected due to their dependence on the above claims.
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. A streamlined analysis of Claim 7 follows.
STEP 1
Regarding Claim 7, the claim recites a series of steps or acts, including acquiring blood pressure data and oxygen saturation data of a patient; calculating correlation coefficients; filtering the calculated correlation coefficients; and evaluating the cerebral autoregulation of the patient. Thus, the claim is directed to a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
STEP 2A, PRONG ONE
The claim is then analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exception. The steps of calculating correlation coefficients and filtering the calculated correlation coefficients using a moving average filter set forth a judicial exception. These steps describe concept performed by mathematical calculations. Thus, the claim is drawn to a Mathematical Concept, which is an Abstract Idea.
STEP 2A, PRONG TWO
Next, the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim fails to recite an additional element or a combination of additional elements to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception. Claim 7 recites “evaluating the cerebral autoregulation of the patient…based on the filter correlation coefficient” as well as Claim 12 “outputting an alarm based on the cerebral autoregulation evaluation result”. The “evaluating” and “outputting” steps are insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception that does not provide an improvement to the technological field, does not affect a particular treatment or effect a particular change based on the “evaluating” and “outputting” steps, nor does the method use a particular machine to perform the Abstract Idea.
STEP 2B
Next, the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether any element, or combination of elements, is sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the exception. Besides the Abstract Idea, Claim 7 recites additional steps of acquiring blood pressure data and oxygen saturation data. The acquiring step is recited at a high level of generality such it amounts to insignificant pre-solution activity, e.g., mere data gathering step necessary to perform the Abstract Idea. When recited at this high level of generality, there is no meaningful limitation, such as a particular or unconventional step that distinguishes it from well-understood, routine, and conventional data gathering activity engaged in by medical professionals prior to Applicant's invention. Furthermore, it is well established that the mere physical or tangible nature of additional elements such as the acquiring step does not automatically confer eligibility on a claim directed to an abstract idea (see, e.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S.Ct. 2347, 2358-59 (2014)).
Consideration of the additional elements as a combination also adds no other meaningful limitations to the exception not already present when the elements are considered separately. Unlike the eligible claim in Diehr in which the elements limiting the exception are individually conventional, but taken together act in concert to improve a technical field, the claim here does not provide an improvement to the technical field. Even when viewed as a combination, the additional elements fail to transform the exception into a patent-eligible application of that exception. Thus, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself. The claim is therefore drawn to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding Claim 1, the claim recites a series of components, including a data acquisition unit configured to acquire blood pressure data and oxygen saturation data; a correlation coefficient calculation unit configured to calculate correlation coefficients; a filtering unit configured to filter the calculated correlation coefficients; and a cerebral autoregulation evaluation unit configured to evaluate the cerebral autoregulation of the patient. Thus, the claim is directed to a machine, which is one of the statutory categories of invention. The functions of calculating correlation coefficients and filtering the calculated correlation coefficients set forth a judicial exception. These steps describe a concept performed by mathematical calculations. Thus, the claim is drawn to a Mathematical Concept, which is an Abstract Idea. Additionally, the device recited in the claim is a generic device comprising generic components configured to perform the abstract idea. The recited “data acquisition unit” is a generic device configured to perform acquiring blood pressure data and oxygen saturation data as mere pre-solution data gathering and the recited “cerebral autoregulation evaluation unit” is a generic device configured to evaluate the cerebral autoregulation of the patient as mere insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
Dependent Claims 2-5 and 8-11 fail to add something more to the abstract independent claims as they generally recite steps pertaining to data gathering and processing. Regarding Claims 6 and 12, an “alarm unit” is a generic device configured to output an alarm based on a cerebral autoregulation evaluation result as insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
The acquiring, correlating, filtering, and evaluating steps recited in the independent claims, Claims 1 and 7, maintain a high level of generality even when considered in combination with the dependent claims.
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.
Claims 1, 3-7, and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Antunes et. al.’866 (U.S. Patent Publication 20200187866).
Regarding Claim 1, Antunes et. al.’866 discloses an apparatus for evaluating cerebral autoregulation (Paragraph [0037] - device 100 may be configured to determine and display the cerebral autoregulation status of a patient) comprising:
a data acquisition unit configured to acquire blood pressure data and oxygen saturation data of a patient undergoing surgery (Paragraph [0033] - In certain aspects of the present disclosure, a patient's autoregulation may be monitored by correlating measurements of the patient's blood pressure (e.g., arterial blood pressure) with measurements of the patient's oxygen saturation (e.g., regional oxygen saturation); Paragraph [0037] - configured to determine and display the cerebral autoregulation status of a patient, e.g., during a medical procedure; Paragraph [0045] – Sensing circuitry 140-142 may receive signals indicating physiological parameters from a patient, such as, but not limited to, blood pressure, regional oxygen saturation…);
a correlation coefficient calculation unit configured to calculate correlation coefficients between the acquired blood pressure data and the acquired oxygen saturation data (Paragraph [0029] - The COx measure (e.g., using the Pearson correlation coefficient) is derived from the correlation between rSO.sub.2 and MAP. COx relates to the regression line fit or linear correlation between rSO.sub.2 and MAP over a time window having a particular length);
a filtering unit configured to filter the calculated correlation coefficients using a moving average filter having a predetermined time window (Paragraph [0029] - include the COx measure, which is a moving correlation index between mean arterial pressure (MAP) and regional oxygen saturation (rSO.sub.2); Paragraph [0085] -Oxygen saturation signal indicator 310 and COx signal indicator 330 may also present rSO.sub.2 values and COx values, respectively, as discrete points, in a table, as a moving average); and
a cerebral autoregulation evaluation unit configured to evaluate the cerebral autoregulation of the patient undergoing surgery based on the filtered correlation coefficient (Paragraph [0086] - COx signal indicator 330 may present a set of correlation coefficient values determined by processing circuitry 110. Processing circuitry 110 may determine the correlation coefficient values as a function of the oxygen saturation values presented in oxygen saturation signal indicator 310 and the MAP values presented in blood pressure signal indicator 320. In some examples, a COx value at or near one indicates the autoregulation status).
Regarding Claim 7, the sections of Antunes et. al.’866 cited above disclose a method comprising the elements and steps set forth in the claim.
Regarding Claim 3, Antunes et. al.’866 discloses the system outlined in Claim 1 above as well as wherein the correlation coefficient calculation unit calculates the correlation coefficients between the blood pressure data and the oxygen saturation data for a first time period at a second time interval (Paragraph [0087] - Processing circuitry 110 may be configured to determine an estimate of a limit of autoregulation based on correlation coefficient values across a time window for data collection. For example, the length of the time window may be one, two, or three hundred seconds; Paragraph [0140] - Responsive to determining that a portion of the signal indicates a cardiopulmonary bypass procedure, processing circuitry 110, processing circuitry 110 can apply a moving average with a duration of one second to the elements in the ten-second window in steps of 0.5 seconds).
Regarding Claim 9, the sections of Antunes et. al.’866 cited above disclose a method comprising the elements and steps set forth in the claim.
Regarding Claim 4, Antunes et. al.’866 discloses the system outlined in Claim 3 above as well as wherein the first time period is 5 minutes, and the second time interval is 10 seconds (Paragraph [0053] - Processing circuitry 110 may be configured to determine mean arterial pressure values based on a sampling window of, e.g., five or ten seconds for the blood pressure values in the signal received from sensing circuitry 141; Paragraph [0087] - Processing circuitry 110 may be configured to determine an estimate of a limit of autoregulation based on correlation coefficient values across a time window for data collection. For example, the length of the time window may be one, two, or three hundred seconds; Paragraph [0140] - Responsive to determining that a portion of the signal indicates a cardiopulmonary bypass procedure, processing circuitry 110, processing circuitry 110 can apply a moving average with a duration of one second to the elements in the ten-second window in steps of 0.5 seconds).
Regarding Claim 10, the sections of Antunes et. al.’866 cited above disclose a method comprising the elements and steps set forth in the claim.
Regarding Claim 5, Antunes et. al.’866 discloses the system outlined in Claim 1 above as well as wherein the cerebral autoregulation evaluation unit evaluates the cerebral autoregulation of the patient undergoing surgery as normal if an absolute value of the filtered correlation coefficient is in a first section less than a predetermined threshold value, and evaluates the cerebral autoregulation of the patient undergoing surgery as abnormal if the absolute value of the filtered correlation coefficient is in a second section greater than or equal to the predetermined threshold value (Paragraph [0028] - The autoregulation status of a patient may be an indication that the cerebral autoregulation control mechanism of the patient is intact (e.g., functioning properly) or impaired (e.g., not functioning properly). A cerebral autoregulation control mechanism of the body may regulate cerebral blood flow (CBF) over a range of systemic blood pressures. This range of systemic blood pressures may lie within a lower limit of autoregulation (LLA) and an upper limit of autoregulation (ULA). Outside of the LLA and the ULA, blood pressure directly drives CBF, and cerebral autoregulation function may thus be considered impaired; Paragraph [0030] - When the cerebral autoregulation is intact for a patient, there is typically no, or little, correlation between MAP and rSO.sub.2. In contrast, MAP and rSO.sub.2 typically directly correlate (e.g., the COx value is approximately positive one) when the cerebral autoregulation is impaired; Paragraph [0033] - In particular, a COx value may be derived based at least in part on a linear correlation between the patient's blood pressure and oxygen saturation; Paragraph [0053] - For example, processing circuitry 110 may be configured to identify a portion of the signal including a characteristic that exceeds a threshold and to set a flag for the identified portion; Paragraph [0057] - Therefore, to determine an estimate of the lower limit of autoregulation, processing circuitry 110 may determine the lowest blood pressure value at which the associated correlation coefficient values are below a threshold level, such as 0.8, 0.7, 0.6, 0.5, 0.4, 0.3, 0.2, 0.1, or 0.0, where full correlation is approximately 1.0 and no correlation is approximately 0.0. To determine an estimate of the upper limit of autoregulation, processing circuitry 110 may determine the highest blood pressure value at which the associated correlation coefficient values are below a threshold level; Paragraph [0058] - If the current mean arterial pressure value is greater than the estimate of the lower limit of autoregulation, then processing circuitry 110 can determine that the patient has intact autoregulation, unless the current mean arterial pressure value is greater than the upper limit of autoregulation of the patient; Paragraph [0076] - In some examples, memory 220 may store measurements of physiological parameters, mean arterial pressure values, oxygen saturation values, correlation coefficient values, threshold rates, threshold values, threshold time durations, blood pressure variation values, predetermined ranges of variation, maximum and minimum blood pressure values, threshold rates, non-bypass conditions, and kernels, any other determined values, or any combination thereof, in a memory device for later retrieval; Paragraph [0086] - Processing circuitry 110 may determine the correlation coefficient values as a function of the oxygen saturation values presented in oxygen saturation signal indicator 310 and the MAP values presented in blood pressure signal indicator 320. In some examples, a COx value at or near one indicates the autoregulation status of a patient is impaired, as shown in autoregulation status indicator 350; Paragraph [0109] - Processing circuitry 110 can use a combination of signal features and characteristics to identify these portions, such as maximum allowable…portions of the signal with a blood pressure derivative that is greater than a first threshold rate or less than a second threshold rate).
Regarding Claim 11, the sections of Antunes et. al.’866 cited above disclose a method comprising the elements and steps set forth in the claim.
Regarding Claim 6, Antunes et. al.’866 discloses the system outlined in Claim 1 above as well as further comprising an alarm unit configured to output an alarm based on a cerebral autoregulation evaluation result (Paragraph [0043] - Processing circuitry 110 may be configured to present, via user interface 130, a visual, audible, tactile, or somatosensory notification (e.g., an alarm signal) indicative of the patient's autoregulation status and/or a notification indicative of the patient's limit(s) of autoregulation).
Regarding Claim 12, the sections of Antunes et. al.’866 cited above disclose a method comprising the elements and steps set forth in the claim.
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 2 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Antunes et. al.’866 (U.S. Patent Publication 20200187866) as applied to Claims 1 and 7 above, and further in view of Addison et. al.'631 (U.S. Patent Publication 20170105631).
Regarding Claim 2, Antunes et. al.’866 discloses the system outlined in Claim 1 above but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the predetermined time window is 25-30 minutes. Addison et. al.’631 teaches a time window is 30 minutes (Paragraph [0040] - In certain embodiments, it may take a number of minutes to build up a useful picture of the autoregulation function. For example, it may take 30 minutes in the operating room or 3 to 4 hours in the intensive care unit to experience enough blood pressure changes to build up the autoregulation profile 36. While the autoregulation profile 36 is being built, the BP safe zone 40 may have a color (e.g., yellow, see display 49 of FIG. 3) different than a color (e.g., green) of the BP safe zone 40 once enough data has been obtained to build the autoregulation profile 36). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the device of Antunes et. al.’866 to include a time window of 30 minutes in order to ensure enough time has occurred for a patient to experience blood pressure changes and build an accurate cerebral autoregulation profiled as seen in Addison et. al.’631.
Regarding Claim 8, the sections of Antunes et. al.’866 in view of Addison et. al.'631 cited above disclose a method comprising the elements set forth in the claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Montgomery et. al.’076 (U.S. Patent Publication 20200129076), Meehan et. al.’538 (U.S. Patent 10849538), and Addison et. al.’672 (U.S. Patent Publication 20170105672) disclose evaluating autoregulation states of a patient. Furthermore, Montgomery et. al.’076 and Meehan et. al.’538 disclose a device utilizing moving averages to evaluate cerebral autoregulation states.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH ANN WESTFALL whose telephone number is (571) 272-3845. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am-4:30pm EST.
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, Jennifer Robertson can be reached at (571) 272-5001. 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.
/SARAH ANN WESTFALL/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/ETSUB D BERHANU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights