DETAILED ACTION
Claims 2-17 are hereby under examination.
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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. 16/464,632, filed on 05/28/2019.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 12/18/2024 are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 2 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 2, it appears the “and” in line 5 should be deleted.
Regarding claim 10, it appears the “and” in line 5 should be deleted.
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 4, 6, 12, and 14 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.
Regarding claim 4, the claim recites the limitation "responsive to the variability in the hemodynamic values within the window being greater than the predetermined threshold" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 2 recites “determining that a variability in the plurality of hemodynamic values within the window is less than a predetermined threshold”. In light of the specification, it is currently unclear if claim 4 is attempting to claim an alternative to the determination of the variability in claim 2, or if claim 4 is claiming a variability in the hemodynamic values is determined again at a different time, for example after the window is updated. For the purposes of examination, “responsive to the variability in the hemodynamic values within the window being greater than the predetermined threshold” is being interpreted as being a determination of the variability in the hemodynamic values at any period of time.
Regarding claim 4, lines 2 and 3 recite “the window”. As recited above, it is currently unclear when “responsive to the variability in the hemodynamic values within the window being greater than the predetermined threshold” occurs. It is further unclear what the recitations of “the window” recited in claim 4 refer to. For example, does “the window” refer to the original received window in claim 2? The updated window that is moved on by x values in claim 2? A different window? For the purposes of examination, the recitations of “the window” in claim 4 refer to any window.
Regarding claim 6, the claim recites the limitation “responsive to the determination that the variability within the window is greater than the predetermined threshold” in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 2 recites “determining that a variability in the plurality of hemodynamic values within the window is less than a predetermined threshold”. In light of the specification, it is currently unclear if claim 6 is attempting to claim an alternative to the determination of the variability in claim 2, or if claim 6 is claiming a variability in the hemodynamic values is determined again at a different time, for example after the window is updated. For the purposes of examination, “responsive to the determination that the variability within the window is greater than the predetermined threshold” is being interpreted as being a determination of the variability in the hemodynamic values at any period of time.
Regarding claim 6, line 2 recites “the window”. As recited above, it is currently unclear when “responsive to the determination that the variability within the window is greater than the predetermined threshold” occurs. It is further unclear what the recitation of “the window” recited in claim 6 refers to. For example, does “the window” refer to the original received window in claim 2? The updated window that is moved on by x values in claim 2? A different window? For the purposes of examination, the recitation of “the window” in claim 6 refers to any window.
Regarding claim 12, the claim recites the limitation "responsive to the variability in the hemodynamic values within the window being greater than the predetermined threshold" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 10 recites “determine that a variability in the plurality of hemodynamic values within the window is less than a predetermined threshold”. In light of the specification, it is currently unclear if claim 12 is attempting to claim an alternative to the determination of the variability in claim 10, or if claim 12 is claiming a variability in the hemodynamic values is determined again at a different time, for example after the window is updated. For the purposes of examination, “responsive to the variability in the hemodynamic values within the window being greater than the predetermined threshold” is being interpreted as being a determination of the variability in the hemodynamic values at any period of time.
Regarding claim 12, line 3 recites “the window”. As recited above, it is currently unclear when “responsive to the variability in the hemodynamic values within the window being greater than the predetermined threshold” occurs. It is further unclear what the recitations of “the window” recited in claim 12 refer to. For example, does “the window” refer to the original received window in claim 10? The updated window that is moved on by x values in claim 11? A different window? For the purposes of examination, the recitations of “the window” in claim 4 refer to any window.
Regarding claim 14, the claim recites the limitation “responsive to the determination that the variability within the window is greater than the predetermined threshold” in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 10 recites “determine that a variability in the plurality of hemodynamic values within the window is less than a predetermined threshold”. In light of the specification, it is currently unclear if claim 14 is attempting to claim an alternative to the determination of the variability in claim 10, or if claim 14 is claiming a variability in the hemodynamic values is determined again at a different time, for example after the window is updated. For the purposes of examination, “responsive to the determination that the variability within the window is greater than the predetermined threshold” is being interpreted as being a determination of the variability in the hemodynamic values at any period of time.
Regarding claim 14, line 2 recites “the window”. As recited above, it is currently unclear when “responsive to the determination that the variability within the window is greater than the predetermined threshold” occurs. It is further unclear what the recitation of “the window” recited in claim 14 refers to. For example, does “the window” refer to the original received window in claim 10? The updated window that is moved on by x values in claim 11? A different window? For the purposes of examination, the recitation of “the window” in claim 14 refers to any window.
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 2-17 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.
Analysis of independent claims 2 and 10:
Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility test (see MPEP 2106.03).
Claim 2 is directed to a method, which describes one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter, i.e., a process. Claim 20 is directed to a system, which describes one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter, i.e., a machine. Therefore, further consideration is necessary.
Step 2A of the subject matter eligibility test (see MPEP 2106.04).
Prong One: Claims 2 and 10 recite an abstract idea. In particular, the claims recite the following:
Determine that a variability in the plurality of hemodynamic values within the window is less than a predetermined threshold;
Transitioning to a locked state based on the determination that the variability is less than the predetermined threshold; and
Filtering hemodynamic values with no lag based on the transitioning to the locked state.
These elements recited in claims 2 and 10 are drawn to an abstract idea since (1) they involve mathematical concepts in the form of mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and/or mathematical calculations; and/or (2) they involve a mental process that can be practically performed in the human mind including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion and using pen and paper.
Determining that a variability in a plurality of hemodynamic values within a window is less than a predetermined threshold is drawn to a mathematical concept and/or a mental process that can be practically performed in the human mind, with the aid of pen and paper. Determining a variability of a range of values is a mathematical calculation. Further, a person with ordinary skill in the art can reasonably view a plurality of hemodynamic values on a piece of paper, mentally determine a variability of the values, and mentally determine if that variability is below a predetermined threshold. There is nothing to suggest an undue level of complexity in the determining step.
Transitioning to a locked state based on the determination is drawn to a mental process that can be practically performed in the human mind. Based on the determination, a person can transition a filtering process to a locked state, for example, by keeping a window size consistent. There is nothing to suggest an undue level of complexity in the transitioning step.
Filtering hemodynamic values with no lag based on the transition to the locked state is drawn to a mental process that can be practically performed in the human mind, with the aid of pen and paper. For example, a person can view hemodynamic values on a piece of paper and continue to filter hemodynamic values that are above and/or below thresholds. There is nothing to suggest an undue level of complexity in the filtering steps.
Prong Two: Claims 2 and 10 do not recite additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application. Therefore, the claims are “directed to” the abstract idea. The additional elements merely:
Recite the words “apply it” or an equivalent with the judicial exception, or include instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or merely use the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea (e.g., “one or more hardware processors” (claim 10)), and
Add insignificant extra-solution activity (the pre-solution activity of: using generic data-gathering components (e.g. “receiving a window of a plurality of hemodynamic values from a patient” (claim 2), “receive a window of a plurality of hemodynamic values from a patient” (claim 10) - with no specific structure recited); the post-solution activity of: (e.g. N/A); using generic data-outputting components (e.g. N/A)).
As a whole, the additional elements merely serve to gather information to be used by the abstract idea, while generically implementing it on a computer. There is no practical application because the abstract idea is not applied, relied on, or used in a meaningful way. The processing performed remains in the abstract realm, i.e., the result is not used for a treatment. No improvement to the technology is evident. Therefore, the additional elements, alone or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Further, “one or more hardware processors” does not qualify as significantly more because this limitation is simply appending well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the industry (see Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014)) and/or a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than being stored on a computer readable medium which is a well-understood, routine and conventional activity previously known in the industry (see Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014); SAP Am. v. InvestPic, 890 F.3d 1016 (Fed. Circ. 2018)).
Step 2B of the subject matter eligibility test (see MPEP 2106.05).
Claims 2 and 10 does not include additional elements, alone or in combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (i.e., an inventive concept) for the same reasons as described above. E.g., all elements are directed to pre-solution steps of necessary data gathering, with no specific structure recited, which merely facilitate the abstract idea.
In view of the above, the additional elements individually do not integrate the exception into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the above-judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination (that is, as a whole) adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taking individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer, for example, or improves any other technology. There is no indication that the combination of elements permits automation of specific tasks that previously could not be automated. There is no indication that the combination of elements includes a particular solution to a computer-based problem or a particular way to achieve a desired computer-based outcome. Rather, the collective functions of the claimed invention merely provide conventional computer implementation, i.e., the computer is simply a tool to perform the process.
Analysis of the dependent claims:
Claims 3-9 and 11-17 depend from the independent claim. The dependent claims merely further define the abstract idea and are, therefore, directed to an abstract idea for similar reasons: they merely
Further describe the abstract idea (“responsive to the variability in the hemodynamic values within the window being less than the predetermined threshold, updating the window by moving the window on by x values in a sequence, wherein x is a positive integer that is less than a size of the window of the plurality of hemodynamic values divided by two” (claim 3), “responsive to the variability in the hemodynamic values within the window being greater than the predetermined threshold, updating the window by moving the window on by z values in the sequence, wherein z is a positive integer equal to the size of the window or equal to the size of window minus x” (claim 4), “transitioning to an unlocked state responsive to the determination that the variability within the window is greater than the predetermined threshold, wherein the transition between the locked state and the unlocked state is performed continuously in real time” (claim 6), “wherein the filtering comprises filtering an outlier value” (claim 7), “further comprising determining a derivative hemodynamic value based on the plurality of hemodynamic values after the filtration” (claim 8), “responsive to the variability in the hemodynamic values within the window being less than the predetermined threshold, updating the window by moving the window on by x values in a sequence, wherein x is a positive integer that is less than a size of the window of the plurality of hemodynamic values divided by two” (claim 11), “responsive to the variability in the hemodynamic values within the window being greater than the predetermined threshold, updating the window by moving the window on by z values in the sequence, wherein z is a positive integer equal to the size of the window or equal to the size of window minus x” (claim 12), “further comprising transitioning to an unlocked state responsive to the determination that the variability within the window is greater than the predetermined threshold, wherein the transition between the locked state and the unlocked state is performed continuously in real time” (claim 14), “wherein the filtering comprises filtering an outlier value” (claim 15), “further comprising determining a derivative hemodynamic value based on the plurality of hemodynamic values after the filtration” (claim 16)),
Further describe the pre-solution activity (or the structure used for such activity) (“wherein the hemodynamic values include one or more of: stroke volume, pulse pressure, stroke volume variation, or pulse pressure variation” (claim 5), “the hemodynamic values include one or more of: stroke volume, pulse pressure, stroke volume variation, or pulse pressure variation” (claim 13)),
Further describe the computer implementation (N/A), and
Further describe the post-solution activity (“displaying the derivative hemodynamic value, wherein the hemodynamic value is tagged with a status indicator for reliability of the derivative hemodynamic value” (claim 9), “displaying the derivative hemodynamic value, wherein the hemodynamic value is tagged with a status indicator” (claim 17)) (recited at a high level of generality).
Taken alone or in combination, the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application at least because the abstract idea is not applied, relied on, or used in a meaningful way. The additional elements do not add anything significantly more than the abstract idea. The collective functions of the additional elements merely provide computer/electronic implementation and processing, and no additional elements beyond those of the abstract idea. There is no indication that the combination of elements permits automation of specific tasks that previously could not be automated. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer, output device, improves technology other than the technical field of the claimed invention, etc. Therefore, the claims are rejected as being directed to non-statutory subjection matter. Claims 2-17 are rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2, 5, 7, 10, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Townsend et al. (US 20150164428 A1), hereinafter referred to as Townsend, in view of Basak et al. (US 20080167837 A1), hereinafter referred to as Basak.
The claims are generally directed towards a method for filtering outliers from regular physiological values, the method comprising: receiving a window of a plurality of hemodynamic values from a patient; determining that a variability in the plurality of hemodynamic values within the window is less than a predetermined threshold; and transitioning to a locked state based on the determination that the variability is less than the predetermined threshold; and filtering hemodynamic values with no lag based on the transitioning to the locked state.
Regarding claim 2, Townsend discloses a method for filtering outliers from regular physiological values (Abstract, para. [0010]), the method comprising:
receiving a window of a plurality of hemodynamic values from a patient (para. [0031], “heart beats”, para. [0045-0046], “variability analysis server gathers data acquired from one or more patients through individual patient interfaces …patient interfaces monitor physiological parameters of the patient using one or more sensors …”);
determining that a variability in the plurality of hemodynamic values within the window is less than a predetermined threshold (para. [0038], “variability is calculated …”, para. [0039], “individual variability measurements within that window … low quality … variability …”).
However, Townsend does not explicitly disclose transitioning to a locked state based on the determination that the variability is less than the predetermined threshold; and filtering hemodynamic values with no lag based on the transitioning to the locked state.
Basak teaches an analogous method for filtering outliers (Abstract, para. [0001-0002]). Basak further teaches transitioning to a locked state based on a determination that the variability is less than the predetermined threshold; and filtering values with no lag based on the transitioning to the locked state (para. [0089], “removing outliers … determine the optimum window size … use is made of this optimum window size to detect outliers for the entire data set …”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method taught by Townsend to additionally transition to a locked state based on the determination that the variability is less than the predetermined threshold; and filter hemodynamic values with no lag based on the transitioning to the locked state, as taught by Basak. This is because Basak teaches transitioning to a locked state of maintaining an optimized window size allows for filtering outliers allows for the most data to be retained, while also filtering extreme values (para. [0026]).
Regarding claim 5, modified Townsend discloses the method of Claim 2, wherein the hemodynamic values include one or more of: stroke volume, pulse pressure, stroke volume variation, or pulse pressure variation (para. [0046-0048], “one or more sensors … ECG … blood pressure sensors …”).
Regarding claim 7, modified Townsend discloses the method of Claim 2, wherein the filtering comprises filtering an outlier value (Townsend, para. [0094], “removes the display of the variability for that window …”, Basak, para. [0089], “removing outliers …”, - further, see the rejection of claim 2).
Regarding claim 10, Townsend discloses a system for filtering outliers from regular physiological values (Abstract, para. [0010]), the system comprising one or more hardware processors (para. [0012], para. [0118]) configured to:
receive a window of a plurality of hemodynamic values from a patient (para. [0031], “heart beats”, para. [0045-0046], “variability analysis server gathers data acquired from one or more patients through individual patient interfaces …patient interfaces monitor physiological parameters of the patient using one or more sensors …”);
determine that a variability in the plurality of hemodynamic values within the window is less than a predetermined threshold (para. [0038], “variability is calculated …”, para. [0039], “individual variability measurements within that window … low quality … variability …”).
However, Townsend does not explicitly disclose the one or more hardware processors are configured to transition to a locked state based on the determination that the variability is less than the predetermined threshold; and filter hemodynamic values with no lag based on the transitioning to the locked state.
Basak teaches an analogous system for filtering outliers (Abstract, para. [0001-0002]). Basak further teaches transitioning to a locked state based on a determination that the variability is less than the predetermined threshold; and filtering values with no lag based on the transitioning to the locked state (para. [0089], “removing outliers … determine the optimum window size … use is made of this optimum window size to detect outliers for the entire data set …”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system taught by Townsend to additionally transition to a locked state based on the determination that the variability is less than the predetermined threshold; and filter hemodynamic values with no lag based on the transitioning to the locked state, as taught by Basak. This is because Basak teaches transitioning to a locked state of maintaining an optimized window size allows for filtering outliers allows for the most data to be retained, while also filtering extreme values (para. [0026]).
Regarding claim 13, modified Townsend discloses the system of Claim 10, wherein the hemodynamic values include one or more of: stroke volume, pulse pressure, stroke volume variation, or pulse pressure variation (para. [0046-0048], “one or more sensors … ECG … blood pressure sensors …”).
Regarding claim 15, modified Townsend discloses the system of Claim 10, wherein the filtering comprises filtering an outlier value (Townsend, para. [0094], “removes the display of the variability for that window …”, Basak, para. [0089], “removing outliers …”, - further, see the rejection of claim 2).
Claims 6, 8, 9, 14, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Townsend et al. (US 20150164428 A1), hereinafter referred to as Townsend, in view of Basak et al. (US 20080167837 A1), hereinafter referred to as Basak as applied to claims 2 and 10 above, and further in view of Colman et al. (US 20130289364 A1), hereinafter referred to as Colman.
Regarding claim 6, modified Townsend discloses the method of Claim 2.
However, modified Townsend does not explicitly disclose the method further comprises transitioning to an unlocked state responsive to the determination that the variability within the window is greater than the predetermined threshold, wherein the transition between the locked state and the unlocked state is performed continuously in real time.
Colman teaches an analogous method of filtering outliers from regular physiological values (para. [0123]). Colman further teaches the method comprises transitioning to an unlocked state responsive to the determination that the variability within the window is greater than the predetermined threshold, wherein the transition between the locked state and the unlocked state is performed continuously in real time (para. [0123], “variability of the inputs … dynamically adjusted … in response to values of criteria”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method taught by modified Townsend to additionally include transitioning to an unlocked state responsive to the determination that the variability within the window is greater than the predetermined threshold, wherein the transition between the locked state and the unlocked state is performed continuously in real time, as taught by Colman. This is because Colman teaches a dynamically adjusted window based on the variability of inputs allows for the window size to be adjusted based on the variability of the input data to remove artifacts from the data (para. [0123]).
Regarding claim 8, modified Townsend discloses the method of Claim 2.
However, modified Townsend does not explicitly disclose the method further comprises determining a derivative hemodynamic value based on the plurality of hemodynamic values after the filtration.
Colman teaches an analogous method of filtering outliers from regular physiological values (para. [0123]). Colman further teaches determining a derivative hemodynamic value based on the plurality of hemodynamic values after the filtration (para. [0089]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method taught by modified Townsend to additionally include determining a derivative hemodynamic value based on the plurality of hemodynamic values after the filtration, as taught by Colman. This is because Colman teaches derivates of physiological values allows for a condition index to be calculated and displayed to a user (para. [0089]).
Regarding claim 9, modified Townsend discloses the method of Claim 8.
However, modified Townsend does not explicitly disclose the method further comprises displaying the derivative hemodynamic value, wherein the hemodynamic value is tagged with a status indicator for reliability of the derivative hemodynamic value.
Colman further teaches displaying the derivative hemodynamic value, wherein the hemodynamic value is tagged with a status indicator for reliability of the derivative hemodynamic value (para. [0088-0092]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method taught by modified Townsend to additionally display the derivative hemodynamic value, wherein the hemodynamic value is tagged with a status indicator for reliability of the derivative hemodynamic value, as taught by Colman. This is because Colman teaches displaying the derivative value and a status indicator allows a user to view a patients condition and reliability index of the data quickly (para. [0088-0092]).
Regarding claim 14, modified Townsend discloses the system of Claim 10.
However, modified Townsend does not explicitly disclose the system further comprises transitioning to an unlocked state responsive to the determination that the variability within the window is greater than the predetermined threshold, wherein the transition between the locked state and the unlocked state is performed continuously in real time.
Colman teaches an analogous system for filtering outliers from regular physiological values (para. [0123]). Colman further teaches the system comprises transitioning to an unlocked state responsive to the determination that the variability within the window is greater than the predetermined threshold, wherein the transition between the locked state and the unlocked state is performed continuously in real time (para. [0123], “variability of the inputs … dynamically adjusted … in response to values of criteria”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system taught by modified Townsend to additionally include transitioning to an unlocked state responsive to the determination that the variability within the window is greater than the predetermined threshold, wherein the transition between the locked state and the unlocked state is performed continuously in real time, as taught by Colman. This is because Colman teaches a dynamically adjusted window based on the variability of inputs allows for the window size to be adjusted based on the variability of the input data to remove artifacts from the data (para. [0123]).
Regarding claim 16, modified Townsend discloses the system of Claim 10.
However, modified Townsend does not explicitly disclose further comprising determining a derivative hemodynamic value based on the plurality of hemodynamic values after the filtration.
Colman teaches an analogous system for filtering outliers from regular physiological values (para. [0123]). Colman further teaches determining a derivative hemodynamic value based on the plurality of hemodynamic values after the filtration (para. [0089]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system taught by modified Townsend to additionally include determining a derivative hemodynamic value based on the plurality of hemodynamic values after the filtration, as taught by Colman. This is because Colman teaches derivates of physiological values allows for a condition index to be calculated and displayed to a user (para. [0089]).
Regarding claim 17, modified Townsend discloses the system of Claim 16.
However, modified Townsend does not explicitly disclose further comprising displaying the derivative hemodynamic value, wherein the hemodynamic value is tagged with a status indicator.
Colman further teaches displaying the derivative hemodynamic value, wherein the hemodynamic value is tagged with a status indicator for reliability of the derivative hemodynamic value (para. [0088-0092]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system taught by modified Townsend to additionally display the derivative hemodynamic value, wherein the hemodynamic value is tagged with a status indicator for reliability of the derivative hemodynamic value, as taught by Colman. This is because Colman teaches displaying the derivative value and a status indicator allows a user to view a patient’s condition and reliability index of the data quickly (para. [0088-0092]).
Prior Art Analysis
Claims 3, 4, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 USC 112 and/or 35 USC 101, as recited above. However, claims 3, 4, 11, and 12 are not rejected in view of the prior art made of record.
The closest prior art made of record includes Colman et al. (US 20130289364 A1), hereinafter referred to as Colman. Colman teaches window lengths for a filtering method can be dynamically adjusted to be expanded or contracted based on the variability of the inputs (para. [0123]). However, the prior art made of record does not disclose, teach, or reasonably suggest, “wherein responsive to the variability in the hemodynamic values within the window being less than the predetermined threshold, updating the window by moving the window on by x values in a sequence, wherein x is a positive integer that is less than a size of the window of the plurality of hemodynamic values divided by two” and “wherein responsive to the variability in the hemodynamic values within the window being greater than the predetermined threshold, updating the window by moving the window on by z values in the sequence, wherein z is a positive integer equal to the size of the window or equal to the size of window minus x”, in combination with the other elements of the claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE W KRETZER whose telephone number is (571)272-1907. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 8:30 AM to 5:30 PM.
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, Jason M Sims can be reached at (571)272-7540. 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.
/K.W.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/JASON M SIMS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights