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 .
The following is a non-final, first office action on the merits, in response to application filed 9/30/2024. Claims 1-16 have been examined and are currently pending.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for a provisional application filed on 1/25/2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 9/30/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Alice Corp. also establishes that the same analysis should be used for all categories of claims, regardless of a system/apparatus, a method, or a product claim.
The claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) abstract ideas including “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”, “an idea of itself”, “mental process” which have been identified/found by the courts as abstract ideas in new 101 memos of the subject matter eligibility in here (https://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/subject-matter-eligibility) including 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because It/they is/are recited at a high level of generality and/or are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in the computer applications:
Independent claim 12 (Step 2A, Prong I): is directed to multiple abstract ideas including “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”, and “Mental process”.
Claim 12, Steps of,
receiving, via a processor, image data from a camera within a patient monitoring area;
identifying, via the processor, a patient within the image data based on a unique identifier of a sensor attached to a patient or biometric data of the patient;
receiving, via the processor, sensor data indicative of a physiological parameter of the patient from the sensor; and
instructing, via the processor, a display device to display the image data and overlay the physiological parameter at a location proximate the patient in the displayed image data.
fall within “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract idea because the instant claims recite “obtaining data, identifying a patient, instructing a device to display/present/overlay data“, which are human activities and/or interactions and therefore, certain methods of organizing human activity which encompasses both certain activity of a single person, certain activity that involves multiple people, and certain activity between a person and a computer/a device.
In addition, claim 12, steps mentioned above also falls within the abstract
“Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas since these limitation covers performance of the limitations in the mind or by paper and pen. For example, observe/receive data, observe/identify a patient/person, instruct a device to present/display data.
Further, steps of (“receiving…”, “display…”) are considered as “insignificant extra-solution activity” to the judicial exception since they are merely receiving/collecting/displaying/providing data/presenting data.
Independent claim 12, Step 2A (Prong II): Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea(s) as pointed out above. This judicial exception(s) is/are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional element (a processor) that are not significant more than the abstract ideas. Other than reciting “via a processor”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind, and is simply organized information through human activity or merely mental tasks, and is part of, or a related, judicial exception and does not meaningfully limit the application of the identified judicial exception, and as such does not constitute significantly more.
There is no specificity regarding any technology, just broadly, execute the programming instructions to collect data, receive/generate data, identify data, displaying data. The steps are mainly receiving data, identifying data, and displaying data. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, there is neither improvement to another technology or technical field nor an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Independent claim 12, (step 2B):
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea(s) as pointed out above. There are no additional elements in claim 1 actually perform the steps. The additional element (“a processor”), is recited at a high level of generality, and add nothing of substance to the underlying abstract idea; thus, they are not significantly more than the identified abstract idea.
In light of the specification, ([0056]), the components are merely recited at a high level of generality and/or are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in the computer applications; thus, they are not significantly more than the identified abstract idea. Generic computer/device components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and convention activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. The use of generic computer components to receive/transmit/display information does not impose any meaningful limit on the computer implementation of the abstract idea. At best, the claim(s) are merely providing an environment to implement the abstract idea. (see analysis in claim 12).
According to MPEP 2106.05 (d), elements that the Courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity in particular fields are e.g., "Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward
information); Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93” (evidence required by Berkeimer memo). Further, according to Berkheimer memo 04/19/2018, section III.A.1, “A specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of additional elements when it describes the additional elements as well-understood or routine or conventional (or an equivalent term), as a commercially available product, or in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a)”.
Dependent claims 13-16, are merely add further details of the abstract steps/elements recited in claim 12 without including an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, dependent claims 13-16 are also non-statutory subject matter.
Independent claim 1, 9: Alice Corp. also establishes that the same analysis should be used for all categories of claims. Therefore, independent system/apparatus claim 1 and 9 are also rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 for substantially the same reasons as the method claim(s) 12.
Further, the components (i.e., a computing system, a sensor) described in independent claims 1and 9, add nothing of substance to the underlying abstract idea. Similarly, as it relates to the computer system claims, the limitations appear to be performed by a generic computing system/device. These components are merely recited at a high level of generality and/or are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in the computer applications; thus, they are not significantly more than the identified abstract idea. Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and convention activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. The use of generic computer components to receive/access/identify/search/transmit/send/display information over communication network/internet does not impose any meaningful limit on the computer implementation of the abstract idea. At best, the claim(s) are merely providing an environment to implement the abstract idea. (see analysis in claim 12).
According to MPEP 2106.05 (d), elements that the Courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity in particular fields are e.g., "Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward
information); Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93” (evidence required by Berkeimer memo). Further, according to Berkheimer memo 04/19/2018, section III.A.1, “A specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of additional elements when it describes the additional elements as well-understood or routine or conventional (or an equivalent term), as a commercially available product, or in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a)”.
Applicant’s Specification, [0056] indicate a general-purpose computer perform the instant steps and demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the information processing device (a processor/a memory/a computer, sensor) in any computing implementation. Thus, evidence has been provided to show these additional elements are well-understood, routine, conventional activity according to Berkheimer memo. Therefore, for the above mentioned reasons, viewed as a whole, even in combination, the above steps do not amount to significantly more/do not provide an inventive concept.
Dependent claims 2-8, and 10-11, are merely add further details of the abstract steps/elements recited in claim 1, and 9 respectively, without including an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, dependent claims 2-8, 10-11 are also non-statutory subject matter.
Viewed as a whole, the claims (1-16) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Thus, the claims do NOT recite limitations that are “significantly more” than the abstract idea because the claims do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Thus, the claimed invention, as a whole, does not provide 'significantly more' than the abstract idea, and is non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jordan (US 2021/0343017).
As per claim 1, 12, Jordan discloses a patient monitoring system, a method,
comprising:
a camera to acquire image data of an environment ([0062, 0115, 0116]);
a sensor coupled to a patient in the environment ([0062, 0115, 0116]); and
a computing system communicatively coupled to the camera and the sensor ([0115, 0116]), the computing system performs operations comprising:
receive the image data from the camera (Abstract, Fig. 16, item 1612, [0014, 0015]);
identify the patient in the image data based on biometric data of the patient ([0072, 0171, 0172, 0174--0176]) or a unique identifier of the sensor;
receive, from the sensor, sensor data indicative of a physiological parameter of the patient (Fig. 11, 12, [0012, 0117, 0125, 0141, 0146]);
display the image data (Fig. 6, Fig. 17, 18); and
overlay the physiological parameter on the displayed image data at a location proximate the identified patient in the image data ([0062, 0199, 0249, 0254, 0262]).
As per claim 2, Jordan further discloses,
wherein the computing system performs operations comprising:
associate the sensor with the patient based on the unique identifier ([0085, 0164, 0165, 0171, 0172]);
identify the unique identifier within the image data ([0085, 0171, 0172, 0174-- 0176]); and
associate the physiological parameter from the sensor with the identified patient based on the unique identifier ([0072, 0134, 0171, 0172, 0174--0176]).
As per claim 3, Jordan further discloses,
wherein the computing system performs operations comprising:
receive updated image data from the camera ([0066, 0200, 0295]);
identify the patient in the updated image data (Fig. 17, 18, [0066, 0073, 0200, 0295]);
display the updated image data (Fig. 17, 18); and
overlay the physiological parameter on the displayed updated image data at an updated location proximate the identified patient in the updated image data (Fig. 17, 18, [0062, 0249,0253, 0254, 0262]).
As per claim 4, Jordan further discloses,
wherein the location of the overlaid physiological parameter on the displayed image data is determined based on a location of the identified patient in the image data (Fig. 17, 18, [0062, 0249,0253, 0254, 0262]), and wherein the location of the identified patient obscures or excludes a facial portion of the patient (Fig. 17, 18).
As per claim 5, Jordan further discloses,
wherein the computing system performs operations comprising:
identify a first value of the physiological parameter of the patient over a period of time based on the image data (Fig. 11, [0049, 0095, 0096, 0151]);
hold a second value of the physiological parameter prior to the period of time based on the sensor data in response to the first value of the physiological parameter not matching a third value of the physiological parameter of the sensor data (Fig. 11, 12, 0060, 0066, 0077, [0101, 0112, 0125, 0151, 0153, 0231, 0270]); and
overlay or hold the second value of the overlaid physiological parameter proximate the identified patient (Fig. 12, [0050, 0060, 0066, 0077, 0096, 0151, 0153]).
As per claim 6, Jordan further discloses,
wherein the computing system performs operations comprising:
detect increased patient activity of the identified patient over a period of time based on the image data ([0088, 0144, 0151]); and
apply a noise mitigation algorithm to the sensor data during the period of time hold the physiological parameter during the period of time ([0062, 0077, 0109, 0233, 0235, 0237, 0252, 0263]).
As per claim 7, Jordan further discloses,
comprising an additional wearable device coupled to a clinician and configured to generate additional sensor data of a clinician physiological parameter ([0080, 0151]),
wherein the computing system performs operations comprising:
overlay the clinician physiological parameter at a location proximate the clinician in the image data ([0062, 0199, 0249, 0254, 0262]).
As per claim 8, Jordan further discloses,
wherein the computing system performs operations comprising:
display patient information associated with the identified patient or the sensor data over a pre-determined period of time in response to user selection of the identified patient or a visual representation of the identified patient in the image data (Fig. 6, 10, 17, 18).
As per claim 9, Jordan discloses a patient monitoring system,
comprising:
a camera to acquire image data of an environment ([0062, 0115, 0116]);
a sensor coupled to a patient in the environment ([0062, 0115, 0116]); and
a computing system communicatively coupled to the camera and the sensor ([0115, 0116]), the computing system performs operations comprising:
receive the image data from the camera (Abstract, Fig. 16, item 1612, [0014, 0015]);
receive patient biometric data and an association of the plurality of sensors with the patient biometric data ([0171, 0172]);
identify the patient within the image data based on biometric data of the patient ([0072, 0171, 0172, 0174--0176]);
associate the respective physiological parameters determined from sensor data of the plurality of sensors with the identified patient in the image data (Fig. 11, 12, [0012, 0117, 0125, 0141, 0146]);
display the image data (Fig. 6, Fig. 17, 18); and
overlay the respective physiological parameters on the displayed image data at a location proximate the identified patient in the displayed image data ([0062, 0199, 0249, 0254, 0262]).
As per claim 10, Jordan further discloses,
wherein the computing system performs operations comprising:
associate a unique identifier of a respective sensor of the plurality of sensors and the patient ([0085, 0164, 0165, 0171, 0172]);
identify the unique identifier within the image data ([0085, 0171, 0172, 0174—0176]); and
overlay the respective physiological parameter on the displayed image data at a location proximate the respective sensor in the image data (Fig. 17, 18, [0062, 0249,0253, 0254, 0262]).
As per claim 11, Jordan further discloses,
wherein the computing system performs operations comprising:
identify a patient activity of the patient within the image data (Fig. 10, 11, [0088, 0144, 0151]); and
display a notification to check a respective wearable device of the plurality of sensors in response to the patient activity of the patient within the image data being different from a patient activity of the patient as determined using the sensor data (Fig. 12, item 1212, Fig. 18, item 1806).
As per claim 13, Jordan further discloses, comprising:
determining, via the processor, a second physiological parameter using the image data (Fig. 12, item 1210); and
outputting, via the processor, a notification of unreliable data in response to the second physiological parameter diverging from the physiological parameter (Fig. 12, item 1212).
As per claim 14, Jordan further discloses, comprising:
determining, via the processor, patient activity of the patient within the image data (Fig. 10, 11, [0088, 0144, 0151]); and
outputting, via the processor, a notification to check the sensor in response to the patient activity of the patient within the image data being different from a patient activity of the patient determined using the sensor data ([0011, identify abnormalities with the medical device, 0066, 0081, 0100, 0104, In another example, these models and engines may be trained to synthesize data in order to identify abnormalities of patient 4 or medical device(s) 17 and to identify abnormalities of patient 4 or medical device(s) 17 from individual data items]).
As per claim 15, Jordan further discloses,
wherein the physiological parameter is overlaid on the image data to at least partially overlay the patient or a visual representation of the patient in the image data (Fig. 17, 18).
As per claim 16, Jordan further discloses,
wherein the physiological parameter is graphically associated with the patient or a visual representation of the patient in the image data (Fig. 10, Fig. 11, 12, 17, 18).
The prior art made of record and relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Aykut et al. (US 2023/0196567, teaches non-invasive monitoring of a patient. These systems and methods may receive one or more image signals corresponding to a skin of the patient, process the one or more image signals using a first machine learning model, and predict a physiological parameter based on the processed one or more image signals using a second machine learning model).
Jeanne et al. (US 2012/0141000, relates to image analysis by performing a vision-based analysis on at least one of the sequence of images to obtain data for classifying at least one activity of a subject represented in the image and determining at least one value of a physiological parameter of a living being represented in at least some of the sequence of images).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUN M LI whose telephone number is (571)270-5489. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thurs, 8:30am--5pm. Fax is 571-270-6489.
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, Kambiz Abdi, can be reached on 571-272-6702. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Should you have questions on access to the Patent Center system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SUN M LI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3685