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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 15 recites "determine whether the medical device is properly fitted to the patient by the at least one matching responder based on one or more readings acquired from one or more sensors; in response to a determination that the medical device is properly fitted to the patient: enable the medical device to monitor the patient for a medical event, and upon detecting that the medical event is being experienced by the patient, administer therapy to the patient via the medical device, wherein an effectiveness of the administered therapy is related to an accuracy of a fitment of the medical device on the patient” in lines 31-38 (claim 1). However, the specification only seems to describe the benefits of “proper fitment,” but does not describe how to “determine whether the medical device is properly fitted to the patient by the at least one matching responder based on one or more readings acquired from one or more sensors,” let alone the determination being performed by “the one or more processors” of “the central platform.” Furthermore, the specification describes: “When defibrillation electrodes 104, 108 make good electrical contact with the body of patient 82,defibrillator 100 can administer, via electrodes 104, 108, a brief, strong electric pulse 111 through the body. Accordingly, proper fitment of the WCD system affects the quality of the electrical contact and hence the quality of the therapy” (¶ 0025); “a proper fitment of the WCD system affects the quality of the ECG signal because an ill-fitted WCD system may impact or degrade how well ECG electrodes adhere to the patient 82. A poor connection between the ECG electrodes and the patient 82 impacts how much noise is on the ECG signal and therefore decisions regarding therapy. For this and other reasons, the fitment of the WCD system impacts how well the WCD system performs and, thereby, the effectiveness of the WCD system as a life-saving medical device” (¶ 0025). However, the specification does not describe the claim limitations of “enable the medical device to monitor the patient for a medical event” and “upon detecting that the medical event is being experienced by the patient, administer therapy to the patient via the medical device, wherein an effectiveness of the administered therapy is related to an accuracy of a fitment of the medical device on the patient” “in response to a determination that the medical device is properly fitted to the patient,” let alone the enabling and administering steps being performed by “the one or more processors” of “the central platform.” As such, the claimed invention lacks adequate written description. (The Examiner prospectively notes that this written description rejection is not based on whether one skilled in the art would know how to program a computer to perform any form of the processing (i.e., an enablement rejection), but rather is directed to the Applicant’s lack of specificity as to how the processing is specifically performed with respect to the Applicant’s claimed invention.)
Claims 2-14 are rejected as being dependent on claim 1.
Claims 16-20 are rejected as being dependent on claim 15.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/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. Based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claims as a whole, the claims are directed to non-statutory subject matter which do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because of the following analysis:
Claim 1 is drawn to a system which is within the four statutory categories (i.e., machine). Claim 15 is drawn to a method which is within the four statutory categories (i.e., method).
Independent claim 1 (which is representative of independent claim 15) recites… at least one responder profile associated with a corresponding responder, the responder profile including information that identifies one or more characteristics of the corresponding responder, the one or more characteristics including a qualification of the corresponding responder to assist the patient with the medical device, … match a responder of the one or more responders based on a service request received to render assistance to the patient with a medical device, wherein to match the responder…determine availability of the one or more responders based on at least one of the one or more characteristics including a location of the one or more responders; and receive a reply from at least one matching responder from the available one or more responders…, in response to a notification communicated to the one or more responders; responsive to the reply received from the at least one matching responder, verify whether a medical device of the plurality of medical devices from the inventory system is the medical device having the size or type corresponding to the patient; determine whether the medical device is properly fitted to the patient by the at least one matching responder based on one or more readings acquired from one or more sensors….
Under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations noted above, as drafted, covers certain methods of organizing human activity (i.e., managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people…following rules or instructions), but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “one or more processors” (claim 1), “a central platform” (claim 15), the claim encompasses rules or instructions to help a provider match with a patient and fit a medical device to the patient. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Claim 1 recites additional elements (i.e., A medical product resource management system, comprising: a medical device configured to selectively provide treatment to a patient, wherein the medical device has a size or type corresponding to the patient; one or more responder devices associated with one or more responders qualified to assist the patient in using the medical device; an inventory system including one or more databases configured to identify a plurality of medical devices, including a size or type of each of the plurality of medical devices, available to at least one of the one or more responders; and a central platform including a database of responder profiles; wherein the central platform comprises one or more processors; a responder device of the at least one matching responder; in response to a determination that the medical device is properly fitted to the patient: enable the medical device to monitor the patient for a medical event, and upon detecting that the medical event is being experienced by the patient, administer therapy to the patient via the medical device, wherein an effectiveness of the administered therapy is related to an accuracy of a fitment of the medical device on the patient). Claim 15 recites additional elements (i.e., a medical device provisioning system; a central platform; a responder device of the at least one matching responder; in response to a determination that the medical device is properly fitted to the patient: enabling the medical device to monitor the patient for a medical event, and upon detecting that the medical event is being experienced by the patient, administering therapy to the patient via the medical device, wherein an effectiveness of the administered therapy is related to an accuracy of a fitment of the medical device on the patient). Looking to the specifications, an inventory system including one or more databases; a central platform including a database, one or more processors is described at a high level of generality (¶ 0084; ¶ 0097), such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Also, “a medical device configured to selectively provide treatment to a patient, wherein the medical device has a size or type corresponding to the patient” and “in response to a determination that the medical device is properly fitted to the patient: enable the medical device to monitor the patient for a medical event, and upon detecting that the medical event is being experienced by the patient, administer therapy to the patient via the medical device, wherein an effectiveness of the administered therapy is related to an accuracy of a fitment of the medical device on the patient” only invokes the medical device merely as a tool in its ordinary capacity to perform an existing process (i.e., monitoring, administering therapy), which amounts to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) and only generally links the claimed invention to a particular technological environment or field of use, which does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claim. Furthermore, adding a step of “enable the medical device to monitor the patient for a medical event, and upon detecting that the medical event is being experienced by the patient, administer therapy to the patient via the medical device, wherein an effectiveness of the administered therapy is related to an accuracy of a fitment of the medical device on the patient” to a process that only recites helping a provider match with a patient and fit a medical device to the patient does not add a meaningful limitation to the process of matching a patient with a provider and scheduling between the respective parties, and as such, amounts to insignificant extrasolution activity. Also, “one or more responder devices associated with one or more responders qualified to assist the patient in using the medical device” only invokes the responder device merely as a tool in its ordinary capacity to perform an existing process (i.e., sending data), which amounts to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) and only generally links the claimed invention to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., computer technology), which does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claim. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements individually. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Reevaluated under step 2B, the additional elements noted above do not provide “significantly more” when taken either individually or as an ordered combination. The use of a general purpose computer or computers (i.e., an inventory system including one or more databases; a central platform including a database, one or more processors) amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and does not impose any meaningful limitation on the computer implementation of the abstract idea, so it does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Also, “a medical device configured to selectively provide treatment to a patient, wherein the medical device has a size or type corresponding to the patient” and “in response to a determination that the medical device is properly fitted to the patient: enable the medical device to monitor the patient for a medical event, and upon detecting that the medical event is being experienced by the patient, administer therapy to the patient via the medical device, wherein an effectiveness of the administered therapy is related to an accuracy of a fitment of the medical device on the patient” only invokes the medical device merely as a tool in its ordinary capacity to perform an existing process (i.e., monitoring, administering therapy), which amounts to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) and only generally links the claimed invention to a particular technological environment or field of use, which does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claim. Also, the limitations of “enable the medical device to monitor the patient for a medical event, and upon detecting that the medical event is being experienced by the patient, administer therapy to the patient via the medical device, wherein an effectiveness of the administered therapy is related to an accuracy of a fitment of the medical device on the patient” is determined to constitute well-understood, routine, and conventional elements/functions. As evidenced by US 2020/0105404 A1 (hereinafter referred to as "Major") (Major: ¶ 0003; ¶ 0175; ¶ 0180) and US 2012/0191476 A1 (hereinafter referred to as "REID") (REID: ¶ 0475), using a medical device to administer therapy is well-understood, routine, and conventional and thus, cannot provide “significantly more.” Furthermore, receiving or transmitting data over a network has been recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional elements/functions. See: MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II). Also, “one or more responder devices associated with one or more responders qualified to assist the patient in using the medical device” only invokes the responder device merely as a tool in its ordinary capacity to perform an existing process (i.e., sending data), which amounts to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) and only generally links the claimed invention to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., computer technology), which does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claim. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements individually. The combination of elements does not indicate a significant improvement to the functioning of a computer or any other technology and their collective functions merely provide a conventional computer implementation of the abstract idea. Furthermore, the additional elements or combination of elements in the claims, other than the abstract idea per se, amount to no more than a recitation of generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, as the courts have found in Parker v. Flook; similarly, the current invention merely limits the claimed calculations to the healthcare industry which does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claim. Therefore, there are no limitations in the claims that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 2-14, 16-20 include all the limitations of the parent claims and further elaborate on the abstract idea discussed above and incorporated herein.
Claims 2, 6, 9-14, 16-20 further define the analysis and organization of data for the performance of the abstract idea and do not recite any additional elements. Thus, the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not provide “significantly more.”
Claim 3 further recites the additional elements of “wherein the medical device includes a wearable support structure that maintains the medical device in a predefined position on a body of the patient when the patient is wearing the medical device,” which does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claim because the medical device with a wearable support structure is still invoked merely as a tool in its ordinary capacity to perform an existing process (i.e., monitoring, administering therapy), which amounts to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) and only generally links the claimed invention to a particular technological environment or field of use. Also, functional limitations further define the analysis and organization of data for the performance of the abstract idea. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements individually. Thus, the claims as a whole do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not provide “significantly more.”
Claims 4-5 further recites the additional elements of “wherein the medical device comprises a user interface to receive an input from a user to prevent or cease the administration of therapy to the patient” and “wherein the user interface is configured to provide visual feedback to the user for resuscitation attempts,” which does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claim because the medical device with a user interface is still invoked merely as a tool in its ordinary capacity to perform an existing process (i.e., receiving, providing data), which amounts to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) and only generally links the claimed invention to a particular technological environment or field of use. Also, functional limitations further define the analysis and organization of data for the performance of the abstract idea. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements individually. Thus, the claims as a whole do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not provide “significantly more.”
Claim 7 further recites the additional elements of “wherein the medical device is a defibrillator configured to deliver defibrillation therapy,” which does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claim because the defibrillator is still invoked merely as a tool in its ordinary capacity to perform an existing process (i.e., administering therapy), which amounts to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) and only generally links the claimed invention to a particular technological environment or field of use. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements individually. Thus, the claims as a whole do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not provide “significantly more.”
Claim 8 further recites the additional elements of “wherein the responder device comprises an interface,” which does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claim because the responder device with an interface is still invoked merely as a tool in its ordinary capacity to perform an existing process (i.e., receiving, providing data), which amounts to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) and only generally links the claimed invention to a particular technological environment or field of use. Also, functional limitations further define the analysis and organization of data for the performance of the abstract idea. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements individually. Thus, the claims as a whole do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not provide “significantly more.”
Although the dependent claims add additional limitations, they only serve to further limit the abstract idea by reciting limitations on what the information is and how it is received and used. These information characteristics do not change the fundamental analogy to the abstract idea grouping of “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity,” and, when viewed individually or as a whole, they do not add anything substantial beyond the abstract idea. Furthermore, the combination of elements does not indicate a significant improvement to the functioning of a computer or any other technology. Therefore, the claims when taken as a whole are ineligible for the same reasons as the independent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0105404 A1 (hereinafter referred to as "Major") in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. US 2019/0122760 A1 (hereinafter referred to as "Wang") and U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. US 2017/0056682 A1 (hereinafter referred to as "KUMAR").
Regarding claim 1, Major teaches a medical product resource management system, comprising:
a medical device configured to selectively provide treatment to a patient, wherein the medical device has a size or type corresponding to the patient (Major: ¶ 0097, i.e., “the prescription parameters may call for a wearable cardiac device to include one or more pacing or defibrillating routines to be applied in response to a respective cardiac event”);
one or more responder devices associated with one or more responders (Major: ¶ 0112, i.e., “A medical service person 570 uses a mobile device 560”) qualified to assist the patient in using the medical device (Major: ¶ 0121-0122);
an inventory system including one or more databases configured to identify a plurality of medical devices, including a size or type of each of the plurality of medical devices, available to at least one of the one or more responders; and
a central platform (Major: ¶ 0112, i.e., “central server 550”)…, at least one responder profile associated with a corresponding responder, the responder profile including information that identifies one or more characteristics of the corresponding responder, the one or more characteristics including a qualification of the corresponding responder to assist the patient with the medical device (Major: ¶ 0121, i.e., “the medical service personnel information includes information about one or more medical service persons”; ¶ 0122, i.e., “the medical service person's authorization to perform certain assignments, or the medical service person's access rights to one or more depot locations. For example, a medical service person may…be suitably trained or authorized to assign a wearable cardiac device to a new patient and instruct the patient on its use”),
wherein the central platform comprises one or more processors (Major: ¶ 0112, i.e., “The central server includes a processor 552”) configured to:
match a responder of the one or more responders based on a service request received to render assistance to the patient with a medical device, wherein to match the responder, the one or more processors are configured to:
determine availability of the one or more responders based on at least one of the one or more characteristics including a location of the one or more responders (Major: ¶ 0121, i.e., “The central server may determine the suitability of the medical service person according to a number of predetermined personnel criteria, including…location of the patient and/or medical service personnel”; ¶ 0123, i.e., “the central server may identify the most suitable medical service persons, and may selectively offer the assignment to the most suitable first…the server may automatically identify the most suitable medical service person or persons based on a series of configurable rules stored in a memory associated with the central server. For example, the rules may specify based on certain types of fields in the prescription parameters the type of medical service person to be assigned to the patient”; ¶ 0159); and
receive a reply from at least one matching responder from the available one or more responders via a responder device of the at least one matching responder, in response to a notification communicated to the one or more responders (Major: ¶ 0116, i.e., “The medical service person's interactions with the central server, the depot device(s), and other components as described herein may be performed through a mobile application (“app”) executed on the mobile device”; ¶ 0125, i.e., “the medical service person either accepts…the assignment, with the acceptance or rejection being transmitted by the mobile device to the central server”; ¶ 0126, i.e., “if the medical service person has accepted the assignment, the prescription/patient are assigned to the medical service person, and the assignment is confirmed to the medical service person”);
responsive to the reply received from the at least one matching responder, verify whether a medical device of the plurality of medical devices from the inventory system is the medical device having the size or type corresponding to the patient (Major: ¶ 0108, i.e., “the central server 450 requests and receives from a depot site (e.g., one associated with depot device 410b) inventory information at that depot location, including information indicative of whether the required device and components are at the depot location and available. If the necessary inventory is available at that depot location, the central server 450 may transmit to one or more medical service persons 470a-c a request that the equipment be retrieved from the appropriate depot location”; ¶ 0127, i.e., “If more than one of those medical service persons indicates a willingness to accept the assignment, then the central server 450 may pick from among those accepting medical service persons based on who is closest to the depot and/or the patient”; ¶ 0128);
Yet, Major does not explicitly teach, but Wang teaches, in the same field of endeavor,
a central platform including a database of responder profiles (Wang: figure 1, i.e., “Server” 102 includes “Database” 108; ¶ 0082, i.e., “Database(s) 108 can store…caregiver data…Caregiver data can include caregivers' profiles”; ¶ 0083)…;
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include a central platform including a database of responder profiles, as taught by Wang, within the system of Major, with the motivation of “to provide and maintain a prescheduled service application in order to dispatch a compatible caregiver based on a patient's preferences and needs” (Wang: ¶ 0084).
Yet, Major and Wang do not explicitly teach, but KUMAR teaches, in the same field of endeavor,
determine whether the medical device is properly fitted to the patient by the at least one matching responder based on one or more readings acquired from one or more sensors (KUMAR: ¶ 0189, i.e., under broadest reasonable interpretation, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have understood the “defibrillator” of KUMAR as the “wearable cardiac device” of Major, which is the claimed medical device); and
in response to a determination that the medical device is properly fitted to the patient:
enable the medical device to monitor the patient for a medical event (KUMAR: ¶ 0190, i.e., “Based on the analysis of the patient data…The ECG data can be analyzed to determine if the patient has a treatable arrhythmia”), and
upon detecting that the medical event is being experienced by the patient, administer therapy to the patient via the medical device (KUMAR: ¶ 0190, i.e., “Based on the analysis of the patient data…If the patient is determined to have a treatable arrhythmia then the wearable defibrillator can provide a therapeutic shock to the patient”), wherein an effectiveness of the administered therapy is related to an accuracy of a fitment of the medical device on the patient (KUMAR: ¶ 0190, i.e., “the transthoracic impedance of the patient between the first defibrillator pad electrode and the second defibrillator pad electrode can be measured prior to delivering the electrical shock. The impedance can be measured to confirm proper electrical contact and to tailor the characteristics of the waveform based on the transthoracic impedance to deliver the desired amount of electrical energy to the patient”; ¶ 0191).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include determine whether the medical device is properly fitted to the patient by the at least one matching responder based on one or more readings acquired from one or more sensors; and in response to a determination that the medical device is properly fitted to the patient: enable the medical device to monitor the patient for a medical event, and upon detecting that the medical event is being experienced by the patient, administer therapy to the patient via the medical device, wherein an effectiveness of the administered therapy is related to an accuracy of a fitment of the medical device on the patient, as taught by KUMAR, with the system of Major and Wang, with the motivation “to determine if the patient may be in need of a treatment or if the device may need to be adjusted or replaced” (KUMAR: ¶ 0189).
Regarding claim 2, Major, Wang, and KUMAR teach the medical product resource management system of claim 1, wherein the one or more readings acquired by the one or more sensors are used to adjust the fitment of the medical device (KUMAR: ¶ 0187; ¶ 0189, i.e., “The patient data can be analyzed to determine…if the device may need to be adjusted”).
The obviousness of combining the teachings of Major, Wang, and KUMAR are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 3, Major, Wang, and KUMAR teach the medical product resource management system of claim 1, wherein the medical device includes a wearable support structure that maintains the medical device in a predefined position on a body of the patient when the patient is wearing the medical device (Major: figure 13, i.e., medical device 1300 includes garment 1310, belt 1350; ¶ 0176), and wherein the wearable support structure is adjusted based on the accuracy of the fitment of the medical device (KUMAR: ¶ 0187; ¶ 0189, i.e., “The patient data can be analyzed to determine…if the device may need to be adjusted”) to ensure the effectiveness of the therapy (Examiner interprets this limitation as not patentably distinguishing the claimed invention from the cited prior art because it merely recites a statement of purpose, which is not given weight when it simply expresses the intended result or natural consequence of the recited “the wearable support structure is adjusted”).
The obviousness of combining the teachings of Major, Wang, and KUMAR are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 4, Major, Wang, and KUMAR teach the medical product resource management system of claim 1, wherein the medical device comprises a user interface to receive an input from a user to prevent or cease the administration of therapy to the patient (Major: ¶ 0181, i.e., “an authorized person can access a protected user interface of the medical device and select a preconfigured option or perform some other user action via the user interface to deactivate the therapeutic elements of the medical device”).
Regarding claim 5, Major, Wang, and KUMAR teach the medical product resource management system of claim 4.
Yet, Major, Wang, and KUMAR do not explicitly teach, but Wang teaches, in the same field of endeavor, wherein the user interface is configured to provide visual feedback to the user for resuscitation attempts (KUMAR: ¶ 0226, i.e., under broadest reasonable interpretation, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have understood the “small visual display” of KUMAR as the “user interface” of Major, which is the claimed user interface).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include wherein the user interface is configured to provide visual feedback to the user for resuscitation attempts, as taught by Wang, with the system of Major, Wang, and KUMAR, with the motivation “to provide information and/or instructions to the user” (KUMAR: ¶ 0226).
Regarding claim 6, Major, Wang, and KUMAR teach the medical product resource management system of claim 1, wherein the central platform is configured to determine the location of the at least one matching responder based on a geographic proximity to the patient, and wherein the availability of the at least one matching responder is prioritized based on the location of the at least one matching responder and severity of the medical event (Major: ¶ 0069; ¶ 0121-0123; ¶ 0127).
Regarding claim 7, Major, Wang, and KUMAR teach the medical product resource management system of claim 1, wherein the medical device is a defibrillator configured to deliver defibrillation therapy (Major: ¶ 0097; ¶ 0176).
Regarding claim 8, Major, Wang, and KUMAR teach the medical product resource management system of claim 1, wherein the responder device comprises an interface configured to allow the at least one matching responder to communicate with the patient via the central platform (Major: figure 9, i.e., interface 920 includes “Tap to contact patient” 924; ¶ 0133, i.e., “A block diagram of a mobile device 760 (e.g., such as mobile device 560 for use by a medical service person) is shown in FIG. 7…The mobile device 760 includes… a network interface 766, and a user interface 768”; ¶ 0134, i.e., “an example user interface 810 in which a mobile device of a medical service person (e.g., mobile device 760)”; ¶ 0137, i.e., “In the interface 910 shown in FIG. 9, the medical service person is presented with various options discussed above with respect to interface 810”) to provide training to the patient on how to position and wear the medical device (Examiner interprets this limitation as not patentably distinguishing the claimed invention from the cited prior art because it merely recites a statement of purpose, which is not given weight when it simply expresses the intended result or natural consequence of the recited “allow the at least one matching responder to communicate with the patient via the central platform”).
Regarding claim 9, Major, Wang, and KUMAR teach the medical product resource management system of claim 1, wherein the central platform is configured to receive the service request from a requester (Major: ¶ 0070, i.e., “The central server can parse a received prescription”; ¶ 0120, i.e., “receives a prescription or a new electronic order”) to schedule an appointment between the at least one matching responder and the patient (Major: ¶ 0138, i.e., “a schedule field 924 that the medical service person can interact with to schedule an appointment with or contact the patient”).
Regarding claim 10, Major, Wang, and KUMAR teach the medical product resource management system of claim 9.
Yet, Major, Wang, and KUMAR do not explicitly teach, but Wang teaches, in the same field of endeavor, wherein the service request includes one or more time slots during which the patient is available for the appointment (Wang: ¶ 0094, i.e., under broadest reasonable interpretation, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have understood the “service details such as pick-up and drop-off locations as well as desired pick-up and visit end times” in the “service request” of Wang as the “the prescription parameters” of Major, which is the information included in the claimed service request).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include wherein the service request includes one or more time slots during which the patient is available for the appointment, as taught by Wang, with the system of Major, Wang, and KUMAR, with the motivation of “[to] enable patients or caregivers to prioritize their categories of preferences or limitations, respectively, in order to further resolve any conflicts arising during the prescheduling process and facilitate automated matching and scheduling” (Wang: ¶ 0018).
Regarding claim 11, Major, Wang, and KUMAR teach the medical product resource management system of claim 9, wherein the service request includes information indicative of physical measurements of the patient (Major: ¶ 0070, i.e., “prescription parameters can include…[the patient’s] identifying characteristics and biometric information…the patient's size and fit”).
Regarding claim 12, Major, Wang, and KUMAR teach the medical product resource management system of claim 9, wherein the service request includes information indicative of a medical history of the patient (Major: ¶ 0070, i.e., “prescription parameters can include…the patient's underlying medical condition”).
Regarding claim 13, Major, Wang, and KUMAR teach the medical product resource management system of claim 9, wherein the service request includes information indicative of the patient's preferences for the responder (Major: ¶ 0070, i.e., “prescription parameters can include a type of the medical device…monitoring and/or treatment settings for the device”; ¶ 0122, i.e., “the medical service person's authorization to perform certain assignments…For example, a medical service person may…be suitably trained or authorized to assign a wearable cardiac device to a new patient and instruct the patient on its use”).
Regarding claim 14, Major, Wang, and KUMAR teach the medical product resource management system of claim 13, wherein the patient's preferences includes one or more of language fluency, gender, and/or experience in providing assistance to use the medical device (Major: ¶ 0122, i.e., “the medical service person's authorization to perform certain assignments…For example, a medical service person may…be suitably trained or authorized to assign a wearable cardiac device to a new patient and instruct the patient on its use”).
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 recites substantially similar limitations analogous to those already addressed in claim 1, and thus, claim 15 is similarly analyzed and rejected in a manner consistent with the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 16, Major, Wang, and KUMAR teach the method of claim 15, wherein the service request comprises information describing the patient, and wherein the information is used in matching the responder (Major: ¶ 0070; ¶ 0121, i.e., “the prescription parameters may include information used to determine the suitability of the medical service person needed to fill the prescription”; ¶ 0123, i.e., “the server may automatically identify the most suitable medical service person or persons based on a series of configurable rules stored in a memory associated with the central server. For example, the rules may specify based on certain types of fields in the prescription parameters the type of medical service person to be assigned to the patient”; ¶ 0159, i.e., “determine whether there is a suitable medical service person that can be matched to the patient based on the patient's prescription”).
Regarding claim 17, Major, Wang, and KUMAR teach the method of claim 15, wherein the service request comprises a location of the patient (Major: ¶ 0070, i.e., “prescription parameters can include…the location of the patient”), and wherein the location of the patient is used to assist in matching the responder (Major: ¶ 0121, i.e., “The central server may determine the suitability of the medical service person according to a number of predetermined personnel criteria, including the…location of the patient…the prescription parameters may include information used to determine the suitability of the medical service person needed to fill the prescription”; ¶ 0123, i.e., “the server may automatically identify the most suitable medical service person or persons based on a series of configurable rules stored in a memory associated with the central server. For example, the rules may specify based on certain types of fields in the prescription parameters the type of medical service person to be assigned to the patient”).
Regarding claim 18, Major, Wang, and KUMAR teach the method of claim 15, wherein matching the responder further comprises selecting a service responder with a profile that has at least one of the one or more characteristics that corresponds to a similar preferred characteristic in the service request (Major: ¶ 0121, i.e., “the prescription parameters may include information used to determine the suitability of the medical service person needed to fill the prescription”; ¶ 0123, i.e., “the server may automatically identify the most suitable medical service person or persons based on a series of configurable rules stored in a memory associated with the central server. For example, the rules may specify based on certain types of fields in the prescription parameters the type of medical service person to be assigned to the patient”; ¶ 0159, i.e., “determine whether there is a suitable medical service person that can be matched to the patient based on the patient's prescription”).
Regarding claim 19, Major, Wang, and KUMAR teach the method of claim 15, wherein the one or more sensors are configured to detect one or more physiological parameters of the patient, and wherein the one or more readings from the one or more sensors are used to adjust the fitment of the medical device (KUMAR: ¶ 0187; ¶ 0189, i.e., “The patient data can be analyzed to determine…if the device may need to be adjusted”).
The obviousness of combining the teachings of Major, Wang, and KUMAR are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 20, Major, Wang, and KUMAR teach the method of claim 15, further comprising receiving the service request from a requester (Major: ¶ 0070, i.e., “The central server can parse a received prescription”; ¶ 0120, i.e., “receives a prescription or a new electronic order”) to schedule an appointment between the at least one matching responder and the patient (Major: ¶ 0138, i.e., “a schedule field 924 that the medical service person can interact with to schedule an appointment with or contact the patient”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2019/0213524 A1 teaches receiving a task and matching hospital employees to perform the tasks.
WO2017070625A1 teaches providing customized matches between healthcare professionals and patients.
“An auction system for nurse scheduling” teaches appropriately matching skill levels of nurses with operational requirements of tasks.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Emily Huynh whose telephone number is (571)272-8317. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 8-5 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, Robert Morgan can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/EMILY HUYNH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3683