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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,193,849. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are arguably broader than claims 1, 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,193,849 which encompasses the same metes, bounds and limitations. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was first filed to eliminate the limitations of the narrower claims, since it has been held that omission of an element and its function and a combination where the remaining elements perform the same functions as before involves only routine skill in the art. See in re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 9, of U.S. Patent No. 11,844,634. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are arguably broader than claims 1, 9 of U.S. Patent No. 11,844,634 which encompasses the same metes, bounds and limitations. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was first filed to eliminate the limitations of the narrower claims, since it has been held that omission of an element and its function and a combination where the remaining elements perform the same functions as before involves only routine skill in the art. See in re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 11, of U.S. Patent No. 11,109,818. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are arguably broader than claims 1, 11 of U.S. Patent No. 11,109,818 which encompasses the same metes, bounds and limitations. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was first filed to eliminate the limitations of the narrower claims, since it has been held that omission of an element and its function and a combination where the remaining elements perform the same functions as before involves only routine skill in the art. See in re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 27, of U.S. Patent No. 10,667,764. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are arguably broader than claims 1, 27 of U.S. Patent No. 10,667,764 which encompasses the same metes, bounds and limitations. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was first filed to eliminate the limitations of the narrower claims, since it has been held that omission of an element and its function and a combination where the remaining elements perform the same functions as before involves only routine skill in the art. See in re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184.
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 1-4, 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saleh et al. (US 2016/0210430) in view of Nakamura (US 2018/0314922).
Regarding claims 1, 12, Saleh discloses a system for managing patient alarms (abstract), the system comprising: a first clinician device (patient) comprising a first hardware processor (computer program) configured to execute instructions (page 1, [0001-0008]) to: cause presentation, in a display of the first clinician device, of a user interface (page 1, [0013-0014]) comprising: a plurality of tiles (fig. 1; page 3, [0043]), wherein each tile corresponds to a different one of a plurality of patients (page 3, [0040-0048]); measured physiological parameter values for each of the plurality of patients, each tile comprising a measured physiological parameter value corresponding to the different one of the plurality of patients (page 3, [0040-0048]), at least one of a patient identifier or a room identifier associated
with a patient (individual with a tag in page 1, [0010]).
Saleh discloses all the limitations set forth above but fails to explicitly disclose wherein each tile comprises a plurality of arrows, each of the plurality of arrows being colored or greyed out, wherein a different number of the plurality of arrows being colored corresponds to a different alarm notification state.
However, Nakamura discloses wherein each tile comprises a plurality of arrows, each of the plurality of arrows being colored or greyed out, wherein a different number of the plurality of arrows being colored corresponds to a different alarm notification state (fig. 1; page 3, [0030-0031])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was first filed to incorporate the feature of Nakamura within the system of Saleh in order to support health control thereby increasing the reliability of the system.
Regarding claims 2, 13, Saleh discloses wherein only one of the plurality of arrows being colored
corresponds to an initial alarm (fig. 1; page 3, [0042-0053]).
Regarding claims 3, 14, Saleh discloses wherein only two of the plurality of arrows being colored
corresponds to an alarm having been escalated (fig. 1; page 3, [0042-0053]).
Regarding claims 4, 15, Saleh discloses wherein more than two of the plurality of arrows being
colored corresponds to an alarm having been re-escalated (fig. 1; page 3, [0042-0053).
Regarding claim 10, Saleh discloses wherein the first clinician device comprises a mobile
computing device (Bluetooth in page 6, [0111]).
Regarding claim 11, Saleh discloses wherein the plurality of arrows comprise three arrows (fig. 1-fig. 2).
Claims 5-9, 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saleh et al. (US 2016/0210430) in view of Nakamura (US 2018/0314922) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hastings (US 2005/0151640).
Regarding claims 5, 16, Saleh and Nakamura disclose all the limitations set forth in claim 1 but fail to explicitly disclose wherein the user interface further comprises an option to accept and an option to forward an alarm notification regarding one of the plurality of patients, wherein a user selection of the option to accept causes the first clinician device to transmit an indication of acceptance to a server, and wherein a user selection of the option to forward causes the first clinician device to transmit an indication of forwarding to the server.
However, Hastings discloses wherein the user interface further comprises an option to accept and an option to forward an alarm notification regarding one of the plurality of patients, wherein a user selection of the option to accept causes the first clinician device to transmit an indication of acceptance to a server, and wherein a user selection of the option to forward causes the first clinician device to transmit an indication of forwarding to the server (page 12, [0142-0143]; page 19, [0222]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was first filed to incorporate the feature of Hastings within the system of Saleh and Nakamura in order to support health control thereby increasing the reliability of the system.
Regarding claims 6, 17, Saleh, Nakamura and Hastings disclose all the limitations set forth in claim 1 and Hastings further discloses wherein each of the plurality of tiles is user-selectable by swiping a portion of the display corresponding to the respective tile to display the option (page 12, [0142]; page 19, [0222])..
Regarding claims 7, 18, Saleh, Nakamura and Hastings disclose all the limitations set forth in claim 1 and Hastings further discloses wherein the server comprises a second hardware processor, the second hardware processor configured to execute further instructions to: receive, from the first clinician device, the indication of forwarding; identify a second clinician device to notify of the alarm; and transmit a notification of the alarm to the second clinician device indicating a responsibility for one or more of the plurality of patients (page 8, [0100]).
Regarding claims 8, 19, Saleh, Nakamura and Hastings disclose all the limitations set forth in claim 1 and Hastings further discloses wherein the second hardware processor is configured to execute further instructions to: determine that, after a period of time, a response to the notification has not been
received from the second clinician device; identify a third clinician device to notify; and
transmit the notification to the third clinician device (page 8, [0100-0102]).
Regarding claims 9, 20, Saleh, Nakamura and Hastings disclose all the limitations set forth in claim 1 and Hastings further discloses wherein the server receives the alarm notification from a patient monitoring device (page 8, [0093]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Vann et al. (US 2013/0268283) discloses process……patient.
Hausman et al. (US 7,685,048) discloses electronic….trades.
Cselle et al. (US 8,587,550) discloses method…….virtual space.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL PREVIL whose telephone number is (571)272-2971. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 9:30 AM -6:00 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, Wang Quan-Zhen can be reached at 571 272 3114. 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.
DP
February 7, 2026
/DANIEL PREVIL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2685