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.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1 – 136 were originally filed.
In the amendment dated 2/26/2025, the following has occurred: Claims 115, 116, 118 – 120, 122, 125 – 128, 133, 135, and 136 have been amended; Claims 1 – 114, 130 – 132, and 134 have been canceled; Claims 137 – 139 have been added.
Claims 115 – 129, 133, and 136 – 139 are pending.
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 115 – 129, 133, and 136 – 139 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.
The claims, understood as a whole, recites subject matter within a statutory category as a machine (claims 115 – 129, 133, and 136 – 139), which recite the abstract idea steps of
receive incident data identifying a patient,
identify a device associated with the patient,
receive medical data associated with the patient
send to one or more devices the incident data and the medical data
The Examiner understands the claimed invention, as a whole, in light of the Specification. The Specification includes:
DETAILED DESCRIPTION
[0062] When a patient is treated by EMS, particularly in an emergent situation, access to the health history of the patient can improve the efficacy of care and increase the likelihood of a positive outcome. Moreover, access to the patient's health history can also help care providers avoid threats to their own health and safety. However, practical constraints on the availability and usefulness of a patient's health history to EMS exist at present.
[0064]Thus, and in accordance with at least some examples disclosed herein, systems and methods are provided for more effectively identifying EMS patients and for providing portions of the patient's health record that are clinically relevant to the patient encounter.
[0176] In combination, the systems illustrated in FIG. 3B can produce accurate and comprehensive documentation that improves continuity of patient care and overall patient health outcomes. More specifically, continuity of care may benefit from a record that thoroughly describes symptoms, physiological scores, and treatments provided.
[0225] The preceding disclosure describes several features that may be implemented with one or more computing devices. For example, any of the user interface device 106, the CAD system 130, the digest system 102, the exchange system 165, and the repository 105 of FIG. 1 may be implemented using one or more computing devices as described further below with reference to FIG. 11. In addition, the medical billing system 425, the navigation system 428, the demographic verifier 499, and the patient charting system 429 of FIG. 3A may be implemented using one or more computing devices. Moreover, the CAD server 430, the navigation server 428, the digest server 418, the charting server 422, the incident data exchange server 497, the case data store 424, the medical billing server 467, the data stores 420 and 496, the navigation device 436, and the user interface device 434 may be implemented using one or more computing devices. An example of such a computing device includes a laptop computer, a mobile device (e.g., a computer tablet, smartphone, or wearable device such as a headset, glasses, or watch), a server in the data center, and the like.
The Specification describes the claimed invention as being directed towards methods of organizing human activity. It is the Specification that describes the abstract idea applied to technology to obtain all the benefits of applying that abstract idea to technology. The Specification does not describe the invention as a technological improvement to overcome a problem of technology. The result of the claimed invention is data that has a potential application and not a practical application.
It should be understood that the Examiner is familiar with Desjardins. Desjardins memo includes, “Indeed, the Ex Parte Desjardins decision analyzed eligibility in terms of whether the claims were directed to an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field under longstanding Federal Circuit precedent in Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016) and McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games.” The Specification describes only improvements to the patient experience.
These steps of claims 115 – 129, 133, and 136 – 139, as drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, includes performance of the limitation in the mind but for recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting steps as performed by the generic computer components, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the endpoint language, receive in the context of this claim encompasses a mental process of the user. Similarly, the limitation of identify, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the at least one processor language, transmit in the context of this claim encompasses a mental process of the user. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
These steps of claims 115 – 129, 133, and 136 – 139, as drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, includes methods of organizing human activity.
[0063] For example, consider an illustrative scenario of a crew of EMS care providers in an ambulance being called upon to treat a patient suffering from an emergency medical condition (e.g., cardiac arrest, trauma, respiratory distress, drug overdose, etc.) and to transport the patient to a hospital. In this situation, depending on the condition of the patient, the care providers may be unable to unambiguously determine the identity of the patient. Without a definitive identification, accessing the patient's health history records is difficult. Furthermore, even where the identity of the patient is unambiguous, reviewing the entire health record of a patient to find information relevant to the current emergent situation can be time consuming, which can prevent EMS care providers from even attempting to make use of the health record. However, the lack of this health history information may significantly reduce the efficacy of care.
The claims are understood, as a whole, in light of the Specification.
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which further narrows or defines the abstract idea embodied in the claims (such as claim 116 – 129, 133, and 136 – 139, reciting particular aspects of how receiving and transmitting may be performed in the mind but for recitation of generic computer components).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, other than the abstract idea per se, because the additional elements amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to mere instructions to apply an exception (such as recitation of at least one processor coupled to the memory and configured to amounts to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f))
add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea (such as recitation of receive amounts to mere data gathering, recitation of identify a plurality amounts to selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated, recitation of transmit … the incident data and the medical data amounts to insignificant application, see MPEP 2106.05(g))
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which amount to limitations consistent with the additional elements in the independent claims (such as claims 116 – 129, 133, and 136 – 139, additional limitations which amount to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation and do not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to discussion of integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception, add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, and generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. Additionally, the additional limitations, other than the abstract idea per se, amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields (such as claims 115 – 129, 133, and 136 – 139; receive and transmit, e.g., receiving or transmitting data over a network, Symantec, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i))
Additional Elements
at least one processor coupled to the memory and configured to – figure 11, #108 server and paragraphs 242 - 244
a plurality of endpoints – figure 11 # 1190 patient interface devices paragraph 229
health information exchange – paragraph 35 database, figure 2B #130 CAD System paragraph 170 a server
incident data exchange system – figure 1 #165 figure 3B #497
API – paragraphs 34, 79- support health data exchange standards
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, amount to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which amount to limitations consistent with the additional elements in the independent claims (such as claims 116 – 129, 133, and 136 – 139, additional limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields, receiving and storing, e.g., receiving or transmitting data over a network, Symantec, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
McGee Pub. No.: US 2011/0047230 enable heart beacon rainbow force tracking
Medema et al Pub. No.: US 2018/0221 detect when a therapy administered to a patient by the WCD system is unsuccessful, and in response determine whether to send notifications to remote non-witness responders.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Neal R Sereboff whose telephone number is (571)270-1373. The examiner can normally be reached M - T, M - F 8AM - 6PM.
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, Robert Morgan can be reached at (571)272-6773. 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.
/NEAL SEREBOFF/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights