DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,243,014. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both are directed to a prescription based system and method for remotely verifying compliance of prescribed treatment of a breathing condition of a patient using medical equipment.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Step 1:
Claims 1-14 are directed to a system (i.e., a machine); Claims 15-20 are directed to a method (i.e., a process). Accordingly, claims 1-20 are all within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Alice/Mayo Test: Step 2A - Prong One:
Regarding Prong One of Step 2A, the claim limitations are to be analyzed to determine whether, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, they “recite” a judicial exception or in other words whether a judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claims. MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1). An “abstract idea” judicial exception is subject matter that falls within at least one of the following groupings: a) certain methods of organizing human activity, b) mental processes, and/or c) mathematical concepts. MPEP 2106.04(a).
Representative independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite at least one abstract idea. Specifically, independent claim 1 recites:
1. A prescription-based patient treatment system, the system comprising:
a communications module operatively coupled to a communication network;
at least one sensor configured to monitor one or more parameters associated with a medical equipment in connection with a prescription prescribed by a physician for a prescribed treatment of a breathing condition of a patient; and
at least one microcontroller coupled with the communications module and the at least one sensor, the microcontroller being configured to:
transmit to a remote user over the communication network, via the communications module, data indicative of real-time status and usage of the medical equipment by the patient, wherein the data includes an apnea hypopnea index (AHI) associated with a severity of the breathing condition of the patient calculated by the medical equipment;
receive from the remote user over the communication network, via the communications module, at least one control signal generated by the remote user to modify the prescription for the prescribed treatment to a modified prescription prescribed by the physician based on the real-time status and usage of the medical equipment including the AHI associated with the severity of the breathing condition of the patient; and
adjust an amount and/or frequency of at least one parameter associated with the medical equipment being currently prescribed for administration to the patient from a first in-use value to a second value as a function of the at least one control signal so as to change an operation of the medical equipment in accordance with the modified prescription for the prescribed treatment, wherein the prescribed treatment using the medical equipment facilitates identification of the severity of the breathing condition and associated treatment of the patient based at least on the severity of the breathing condition in accordance with the modified prescription without a need for an in-office doctor-patient visit.
The Examiner submits that the foregoing underlined limitations constitute “methods of organizing human activity” because receiving and sending healthcare data from various parties, detecting a medical condition, generating and sending control parameters are associated with managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. For example, but for the system, this claim encompasses a person facilitating data access, receiving data, and outputting data in the manner described in the identified abstract idea. The Examiner notes that “method of organizing human activity” includes a person’s interaction with a computer – see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or interactions between people but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “method of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Accordingly, independent claim 1 and analogous independent claims 15 recite at least one abstract idea.
Furthermore, dependent claims 2-14, 16-20 further narrow the abstract idea described in the independent claims. Claims 2, 10, 16, & 20 recite maintaining information and providing access to the information; Claims 3 & 17 recite a type of parameter; Claim 9 recites sending and receiving data regarding the medical system and control parameters; Claim 12 recites receiving a user identifier of the medical equipment; Claim 13 recites the type of information. These limitations only serve to further limit the abstract idea and hence, are directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as independent claim 1 and analogous independent claim 15, even when considered individually and as an ordered combination.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Alice/Mayo Test: Step 2A - Prong Two:
Regarding Prong Two of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, it must be determined whether the claim as a whole integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted at MPEP §2106.04(II)(A)(2), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.” MPEP §2106.05(I)(A).
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted at least one abstract idea recited in the claim are as follows (where the bolded portions are the “additional limitations” while the underlined portions continue to represent the at least one “abstract idea”):
1. A prescription-based patient treatment system, the system comprising:
a communications module operatively coupled to a communication network;
at least one sensor configured to monitor one or more parameters associated with a medical equipment in connection with a prescription prescribed by a physician for a prescribed treatment of a breathing condition of a patient; and
at least one microcontroller coupled with the communications module and the at least one sensor, the microcontroller being configured to:
transmit to a remote user over the communication network, via the communications module, data indicative of real-time status and usage of the medical equipment by the patient, wherein the data includes an apnea hypopnea index (AHI) associated with a severity of the breathing condition of the patient calculated by the medical equipment;
receive from the remote user over the communication network, via the communications module, at least one control signal generated by the remote user to modify the prescription for the prescribed treatment to a modified prescription prescribed by the physician based on the real-time status and usage of the medical equipment including the AHI associated with the severity of the breathing condition of the patient; and
adjust an amount and/or frequency of at least one parameter associated with the medical equipment being currently prescribed for administration to the patient from a first in-use value to a second value as a function of the at least one control signal so as to change an operation of the medical equipment in accordance with the modified prescription for the prescribed treatment, wherein the prescribed treatment using the medical equipment facilitates identification of the severity of the breathing condition and associated treatment of the patient based at least on the severity of the breathing condition in accordance with the modified prescription without a need for an in-office doctor-patient visit.
For the following reasons, the Examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of the communications module, communication network, microcontroller, the Examiner submits that these limitations amount to merely using computers as tools to perform the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Regarding the additional limitation of a sensor monitoring parameters associated with a medical equipment, the Examiner submits that these additional limitations do no more than generally link use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use without altering or affecting how the steps of the at least one abstract idea are performed (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole with the abstract idea, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea. MPEP §2106.05(I)(A) and §2106.04(II)(A)(2).
For these reasons, representative independent claim 1 and analogous independent claim 15 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, the claims recites at least one abstract idea.
The remaining dependent claim limitations not addressed above fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as set forth below:
Claims 4 & 18: These claims recite a type of medical equipment and thus do no more than generally link use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use without altering or affecting how the at least one abstract idea is performed (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
Claims 5 & 19: These claims recite a GPS system capturing longitude and latitude coordinates and transmitting the coordinates to a remote user which amounts to use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) and is therefore mere instructions to apply an exception – see MPEP 2106(f)(2).
Claims 6: These claims recite the sensor and microcontroller integrated within the medical equipment and thus do no more than generally link use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use without altering or affecting how the at least one abstract idea is performed (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
Claim 8: This claim recites interface circuitry receiving signal data and outputting signal data and the type of interface circuitry which amounts to merely using computers as tools to perform the at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Claim 9: This claim recites transmitter and receivers for sending and receiving data which amounts to merely using computers as tools to perform the at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Claims 10 & 20: This claim recites a memory for storing data which amounts to merely using computers as tools to perform the at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Claim 14: This claim wirelessly connecting a communication module with a network which amounts to merely using computers as tools to perform the at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Thus, taken alone, any additional elements do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claims are directed to at least one abstract idea.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Alice/Mayo Test: Step 2B:
Regarding Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for reasons the same as those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
As discussed above, regarding the additional limitations of the communications module, communication network, microcontroller, the Examiner submits that these limitations amount to merely using computers as tools to perform the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Regarding the additional limitation of a sensor monitoring parameters associated with a medical equipment, the Examiner submits that these additional limitations do no more than generally link use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use without altering or affecting how the steps of the at least one abstract idea are performed (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
The dependent claims also do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the dependent claims do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Therefore, claims 1-20 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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.
Claims 1-7 & 9-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeVille (US20140052466) in view of Bao (US20160193437).
As per claim 1, Bao teaches a prescription-based patient treatment system, the system comprising:
a communications module operatively coupled to a communication network (para. 161: network interface devices),
at least one sensor configured to monitor one or more parameters associated with a medical equipment in connection with a prescription prescribed by a physician for a prescribed treatment of a breathing condition of a patient (para. 27: sensor monitors parameters associated with treatment device); and
at least one microcontroller coupled with the communications module and the at least one sensor (para. 163-164: microprocessor connected to network interface device), the microcontroller being configured to:
transmit to a remote user over the communication network, data indicative of real-time status and usage of the medical equipment by the patient (para. 23-24: data collected by sensor and equipment sent to remote user regarding usage and status of equipment).
DeVille does not expressly teach transmit to a remote user over the communication network, via the communications module, wherein the data includes an apnea hypopnea index (AHI) associated with a severity of the breathing condition of the patient calculated by the medical equipment; receive from the remote user over the communication network, via the communications module, at least one control signal generated by the remote user to modify the prescription for the prescribed treatment to a modified prescription prescribed by the physician based on the real-time status and usage of the medical equipment including the AHI associated with the severity of the breathing condition of the patient; and adjust an amount and/or frequency of at least one parameter associated with the medical equipment being currently prescribed for administration to the patient from a first in-use value to a second value as a function of the at least one control signal so as to change an operation of the medical equipment in accordance with the modified prescription for the prescribed treatment, wherein the prescribed treatment using the medical equipment facilitates identification of the severity of the breathing condition and associated treatment of the patient based at least on the severity of the breathing condition in accordance with the modified prescription without a need for an in-office doctor-patient visit.
Bao, however, teaches to a CPAP device using a network connection to communicate to a mobile computing device (para. 10). Bao also teaches to the remote device receives and displays various data regarding treatment including compliance data, therapy efficacy data, trending data representing compliance and/or therapy efficacy for a patient over time, AHI data, number of hours used, severity of mask leak, current humidity, current pressure, current flow, and/or data concerning the CPAP apparatus (para. 132). The clinician remotely adjusts parameters of treatment device after reviewing received data from device and patient data via computing device, data received includes AHI data and received data used to assist in diagnosing various sleep conditions such as sleep apnea (para. 132, 145).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the aforementioned features in Bao with DeVille based on the motivation of improve the compliance of a patient utilizing the respiratory apparatus (Bao – para. abstract).
As per claim 2, DeVille and Bao teach the system of claim 1, wherein the microcontroller is further configured to:
maintain information associated with at least one of the patient, the medical equipment, the physician, and an ancillary provider, the information comprising an agreement by the patient verifying accuracy of data entered into the patient treatment system by the physician comprising at least one of (i) whether the patient is benefitting from use of the medical equipment, (ii) whether continued use of the medical equipment by the patient is required, (iii) hours of operation of the medical equipment, and (iv) a measure of efficacy of the prescribed treatment (para. 23-24: information stored regarding status and usage of medical equipment including signature, physician data, usage data, and operation data); and
provide selective access to the information in the patient treatment system, the access being selectively provided in real-time to at least one of the physician, the ancillary provider, a payor, and an auditor (para. 23-24, 159: selective real-time access provided).
As per claim 3, DeVille and Bao teach the system of claim 1. DeVille does not expressly teach wherein the at least one parameter of the medical equipment comprises at least one of airway pressure, air, oxygen, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, continuous passive motion, mobility assistance, parenteral nutrition, enteral nutrition, and dialysis to the patient.
Bao, however, teaches to collecting pressure parameter data (para. 36).
The motivations to combine the above mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
As per claim 4, DeVille and Bao teach the system of claim 1. DeVille does not expressly teach wherein the medical equipment comprises at least one of an airway pressure device, a ventilator, an oxygen delivery device, a parenteral nutrition device, an enteral nutrition device, and a dialysis device.
Bao, however, teaches to a respiratory treatment device such as a CPAP(para. 36).
The motivations to combine the above mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
As per claim 5, DeVille and Bao teach the system of claim 1. DeVille teaches wherein the system further comprises a global positioning system (GPS) device coupled to the microcontroller, the GPS configured to capture latitude and longitude coordinates of the medical equipment, wherein the microcontroller is further configured to transmit the latitude and longitude of the medical equipment to the remote user over the communication network, via the communications module, for verifying a location of the medical equipment (para 144: GPS location data capture via application and GPS data sent to remote user).
As per claim 6, DeVille and Bao teach the system of claim 1. DeVille does not expressly teach wherein the at least one sensor and the at least one microcontroller are integrated within the medical equipment.
Bao, however, teaches to where a sensor and display are integrated with the treatment device (para. 171).
The motivations to combine the above mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
As per claim 7, DeVille and Bao teach the system of claim 1. DeVille does not expressly teach wherein the system further comprises an interface circuit coupled between the at least one sensor and the microcontroller, the interface circuit comprising a signal conditioning circuitry configured to receive one or more signals from the at least one sensor and to generate one or more corresponding output signals in a form compatible with the microcontroller.
Bao, however, teaches to the treatment device communication module receive data from the sensor and generate data that is sent to a controller (para. 171).
The motivations to combine the above mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
As per claim 9, DeVille and Bao teach the system of claim 1. DeVille does not expressly teach wherein the communications module comprises:
a transmitter configured to send, to the remote user over the communication network, data generated by the microcontroller and/or stored in a memory of the patient treatment system, the data being indicative of at least one of the operation and the status of the medical equipment; and
a receiver configured to receive data supplied to the patient treatment system for at least one of requesting the patient treatment system to send information regarding the operation and/or the status of the medical equipment, and controlling the at least one parameter of the medical equipment by the remote user.
Bao, however, teaches to a CPAP device using a network connection to communicate to a mobile computing device (para. 10). Bao also teaches to the remote device receives and displays various data regarding treatment including compliance data, therapy efficacy data, trending data representing compliance and/or therapy efficacy for a patient over time, AHI data, number of hours used, severity of mask leak, current humidity, current pressure, current flow, and/or data concerning the CPAP apparatus (para. 132). The clinician remotely adjusts parameters of treatment device after reviewing received data from device and patient data via computing device, data received includes AHI data and received data used to assist in diagnosing various sleep conditions such as sleep apnea (para. 132, 145).
The motivations to combine the above mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
As per claim 10, DeVille and Bao teach the system of claim 1. DeVille does not expressly teach wherein the system further comprises a memory coupled with the at least one microcontroller, the memory storing historical data relating to at least one of an operational status of the medical equipment, patient physiological information, and patient usage information corresponding to the medical equipment.
Bao, however, teaches to the treatment device memory storing parameters relating to treatment and patient data (para. 39).
The motivations to combine the above mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
As per claim 11, DeVille and Bao teach the system of claim 1. DeVille does not expressly teach wherein the microcontroller and the at least one sensor are connected together in a closed-loop feedback arrangement to control the one or more parameters of the medical equipment as a function of data generated by the at least one sensor so that treatment of the patient by the medical equipment is maintained within prescribed parameters.
Bao, however, teaches to the sensor collecting parameter data and sending the parameter data to the treatment device which is used to adjust parameters of the treatment device (para. 168).
The motivations to combine the above mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
As per claim 12, DeVille and Bao teach the system of claim 1. DeVille teaches wherein the microcontroller is further configured to obtain a user identifier associated with the medical equipment using a feature of the communications module without user intervention, the user identifier representing an identity of an ancillary company technician scanning the medical equipment (para. 25, 87, 94): user identifier using a feature of the processing device without user intervention).
As per claim 13, DeVille and Bao teach the system of claim 1. DeVille teaches wherein the information comprises:
ancillary provider information comprising at least one of an image or video of an hours-of-operation display of the medical equipment; functional information associated with diagnostic testing, whether the patient has had any problems with the medical equipment, whether the patient is benefitting from the medical equipment, whether the patient needs to continue using the medical equipment, and whether the patient is non-compliant with the prescribed usage of the medical equipment yet has been instructed to use the medical equipment correctly; and in-home diagnostic testing and gathering information requested by the physician comprising at least one of blood gasses, international normalized ratio (INR) Coumadin® testing, apnea hypoxia index (AHI), ventilators, spirometry, and pulse oximetry (para. 23-24: various information collected regarding status and usage of device by patient).
As per claim 14, DeVille and Bao teach the system of claim 1. DeVille teaches wherein the communications module is wirelessly coupled to the communication network (para. 160: wireless connection used to connect devices together).
Claims 15-19 recite substantially similar limitations as those already addressed in claims 1-4, and, as such, are rejected for similar reasons as given above.
Claim 20 recites substantially similar limitations as those already addressed in claim 10, and, as such, are rejected for similar reasons as given above.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeVille (US20140052466) in view of Bao (US20160193437) as applied to claim 7 above, and in further view of Boute (US Patent Publication US20060167509A1).
As per claim 8, DeVille and Bao teach the system of claim 8, but do not expressly teach wherein the signal conditioning circuitry comprises at least one of an amplifier, a filter, an analog-to-digital converter, a digital-to-analog converter, a voltage translator, and a voltage level shifter.
Boute, however, teaches to a medical device with an interface circuit with analog
to digital converter for digitizing analog signals to provide real time telemetry signals (para. 30-31).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
invention to combine the aforementioned features in Boute with DeVille and
Bao based on the motivation of reducing delay in treatment patient conditions
using medical device data (Boute - para. 3).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Rauker (US 20210196916) teaches an integrated system for monitoring conditions of a patient and adjusting treatment for the patient based on comparisons of acquired data and historical data related to the patient includes a central processor, an oxygen concentrator, a level of consciousness monitor and a mobile device.
Kocinski (US 20030236450) teaches to a data collection and processing system provides user and apparatus information from a CPAP apparatus to a remote location. The system also allows the operating settings for the CPAP apparatus to be remotely programmed. Information is collected and stored in a digital memory in the CPAP apparatus. The CPAP apparatus is programmed to periodically transfer data to a central database server. The central database server can collect and store data from CPAP apparatus for a number of patients who undergo sleep therapy.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jonathan K Ng whose telephone number is (571)270-7941. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 AM - 5 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, Anita Coupe can be reached at 571-270-7949. 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.
/Jonathan Ng/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights