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 .
Examiner’s Note
Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to
fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
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:
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murai et al. (US 2018/0199825) and in view of Bogineni (US 2010/0131280).
As to claim 1, Murai teaches a method comprising: accessing a command comprising an instruction for setting an alarm limit/threshold of a monitoring medical device (Fig.1, #10, #20, #60; Fig.20) that is actively monitoring a patient; determining that the command is associated with a particular user authorized to instruct the monitoring medical device based at least in part on information stored in an electronic health record for the patient (Fig.10; Pars.88, 113-114, 122-123); wherein an electronic health information system stores the electronic health record for the patient and a plurality of other electronic health records for a plurality of other patients (Figs.8, 15-19; Fig.1, 40; Par.105-106); determining that the instruction to the monitoring device corresponds to a prescribed monitoring of the patient included in the electronic health record for the patient (Figs.15-16, 20); and in response to the determining that the particular user is authorized and that the alarm limit corresponds to the prescribed monitoring of the patient, automatically instructing the monitoring medical device according to the instruction,); wherein automatically instructing the monitoring medical device causes the medical device to be set or controlled without manual involvement of the monitoring medical device (Fig.22; Pars.208-214); updating the electronic health record for the patient; and causing a notification (Fig.23, R850, Pars.129, 133-138) to be sent to one or more users in response to an indication regarding the measured unit of the monitoring medical device (Pars.50-58, 68-78; Figs.).
PNG
media_image1.png
446
694
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It is noted that Murai doesn’t explicitly teach wherein the instruction to set the alarm limit/threshold comprises a voice command comprising an instruction to set the alarm threshold.
However, Bogineni teaches a system comprising a remote control device that receives a command from the caregiver and recognizes the caregiver as being authorized to give such commands. The recognized commands are then analyzed to determine the particular command, and the signals representing that command transmitted to a receiving module incorporated into or in communication with the medical device. The receiving module identifies the particular command, and interfaces that command to the patient device, whereby the command effects the operation of the patient device, where the operations include changing alarm settings, alarm parameters, silence an alarm, and/or the like on the medical device, wherein the command to set the alarm comprises a voice command (Figs.1-3; Pars.2-3, 13, 23-27).
The combination of the analogous teachings would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of applicant’s invention for the purpose of communicating the alarm limit parameters efficiently.
As to claim 2, Bogineni teaches wherein determining that the voice command is associated with the particular user comprises determining that a device of the particular user is within a certain distance of a listening device that receives the voice command (Fig.1; Pars.8, 12, 25-27).
As to claim 3, Bogineni teaches wherein determining that the voice command is associated with the particular user comprises receiving the voice command on a wearable device of the particular user (Fig.1).
As to claim 4, Bogineni teaches wherein determining that the voice command is associated with the particular user comprises receiving the voice command on a mobile device of the particular user (Figs.1-2, 12).
As to claim 5, Bogineni teaches wherein determining that the voice command is associated with the particular user comprises determining that the voice command matches a distinct voice signature stored in association with the particular user. (Pars.12-13, 24-27).
As to claim 6, Murai teaches where the authentication step for the person issuing the command includes a log-in process by the person which implies the use of pass codes by an authorized person (Figs.9-10, 19).
As to claim 7, Murai teaches wherein the measured unit is a pulse rate and the monitoring medical device is an electrocardiogramonitor (Fig.22).
As to claim 8, Murai teaches wherein the monitoring medical device is one or more of a ventilator, dialysis equipment, a blood pressure monitor, a heart rate monitor, or any combination thereof (Figs.4-6, 16-17, 19).
As to claim 9, Murai teaches wherein the measured unit is one or more of a patient's breathing rate, heart rate, blood pressure, oxygen statistics, or any combination thereof (Pars.4-6, 16-17, 19).
As to claim 10, Murai teaches wherein the particular user (log-in person) associated with the command is a nurse, and wherein the one or more users to which the notification is sent are clinicians determined from the electronic health record for the patient (Fig.19, Pars.134-136), and Bogineni teaches where the command comprises voice command.
Regarding claims 11-20, the corresponding system and instructions comprising the steps similar to the claims addressed above are analogous, therefore rejected as being unpatentable over Murai et al. and in view of Bogineni for the foregoing reasons.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Killen et al. (US 2012/0136221) (Par.243; Figs.A69-A73)
PNG
media_image2.png
334
432
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Cohen et al. (US 2005/0108057), Pars,145-155.
Abstract
An information system for managing operation of medical devices in delivering treatment to a patient, comprising: an order processor for processing a physician order for initiating providing a treatment to a patient; a device management processor for receiving data items from the order processor comprising at least one of, (a) a patient identifier and (b) an identifier for identifying the physician order, and for processing and using the data items in managing access to a medical device used for delivering the treatment to the patient; and a communication interface enabling bidirectional communication between the device management processor and the medical device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL DEMELASH ABEBE whose telephone number is (571)272-7615. The examiner can normally be reached monday-friday 7-4.
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, Daniel Washburn can be reached at 571-272-5551. 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.
/DANIEL ABEBE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2657
Prosecution Insights