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 .
DETAILED ACTION
In the amendments filed 09 July 2026:
Claim(s) 1,15 are amended
Claim(s) 1-23 are pending
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 Examiner notes that the rejection will reference the translated documents (attached) corresponding to any foreign documents recited in the rejection.
Claims 1-4,6-7,15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lund et al (US Publication No. 20210057851) in view of Agnello et al (US Publication No. 20200312450) in view of Kall et al (US Publication No. 20180147024).
Regarding Claim 1
Lund teaches a method comprising:
a. providing a first docking station having a power source, a processor [Lund at Para. 0080 teaches in some variations, the one or more processors 162 and the memory 164 are omitted such that the monitor mount 160 provides only physical support and optionally a power source (monitor mount interpreted as docking station)], a mount configured to removably receive a multi-parameter patient monitor [Lund at Para. 0072 teaches with such a variation, the monitor 120 can include a sensor interface 122 that can be used to connect via wired and/or wireless interfaces to one or more physiological sensors and/or medical devices 1 12 (e.g., ECG electrodes, SPO2 sensors, blood pressure cuffs, apnea detection sensors, respirators, etc.) associated with the patient 1 10; Lund at Para. 0081 teaches the monitor mount 160 has a shape and size which allows the monitor mount 160 to detachably secure both the monitor 120 and the physiological parameter measurement pod 140. In this regard, “detachably secure” means that the monitor mount 160 can secure the monitor 120 and the physiological parameter measurement pod 140 such that the monitor 120 and/or the physiological parameter measurement pod 140 can be removed by a user when desired], at least one sensor port configured to mechanically and electrically connect to an intelligent physiological sensor [Lund at Para. 0075 teaches physiological parameter measurement pods 140 are devices for measuring one or more patient physiological parameters of the patient 110. Additionally, physiological parameter measurement pods 140 can facilitate the exchange of data related to the physiological parameters of the patient 110 with a patient monitoring device, such as the monitor 120. The physiological parameter measurement pod 140 can include one or more processors 142 (e.g., programmable data processors, etc.) which can execute various instructions stored in memory 144 of the physiological parameter measurement pod 140. In some variations, various data and graphical user interfaces can be conveyed to a user via an electronic visual display 146. This information can, for example, relate to the measured physiological parameters of the patient 110 and the like (e.g., blood pressure, heart related information, pulse oximetry, respiration information, etc.) as received from the monitor 120. (patient monitoring devices interpreted as sensors); Lund at Para. 0084 teaches any of the monitor mount 160, the monitor 120, and the physiological parameter measurement pod 140 can optionally also include an interface configured to receive a connector 701-702″″ of a cable 700-700″ or wired connection for connecting a module, a monitor, device, other external unit or the like; Lund at Para. 0092 teaches FIGS. 6-21 show various exemplary implementations of cables 700-700″, male connectors 701-701″, and female connectors 702-702″. The male and female connectors 701-702″″ can be used to electrically connect any two or more devices (e.g., a monitor mount 160, a physiological parameter measurement pod rack 210, a rack module 220, and/or a medical device or sensor 112 connected to a patient 110). In particular, the male and female connectors 701-702″″ enable power sharing and/or data transfer between the two or more devices.], a docking station communications interface configured to communicate with a hospital network [Lund at Para. 0073 teaches the monitor 120 can additionally include a communications interface 128 which allows the monitor 120 directly or indirectly (via, for example, the monitor mount 160) to access one or more computing networks. The communications interface 128 can include various network cards / interfaces to enable wired and wireless communications with such computing networks. The communications interface 128 can also enable direct (i.e., device-to-device, etc.) communications (i.e., messaging, signal exchange, etc.) such as from the monitor mount 160 to the monitor 120 (computer network interpreted as hospital network)], and a docking station I/O interface configured to communicate with the intelligent physiological sensor connected to each of the at least one sensor port and the multi-parameter patient monitor connected to the mount [Lund at Para. 0072 teaches the monitor 120 can, for example, be a patient monitor that is used to monitor various physiological parameters for a patient 1 10. With such a variation, the monitor 120 can include a sensor interface 122 that can be used to connect via wired and/or wireless interfaces to one or more physiological sensors and/or medical devices 1 12 (e.g., ECG electrodes, SPO2 sensors, blood pressure cuffs, apnea detection sensors, respirators, etc.) associated with the patient 1 10. The monitor 120 can include one or more processors 124 (e.g., programmable data processors, etc.) which can execute various instructions stored in memory 130 of the monitor 120. Various data and graphical user interfaces can be conveyed to a user via an electronic visual display 126; Lund at para. 0081], … [ … ] …, the intelligent physiological sensor being adapted to generate a sensor data signal that includes sensor parameter data [Lund at Para. 0006 teaches during the course of providing healthcare to patients, practitioners typically connect at least one type of sensor to a patient to sense, derive or otherwise monitor at least one type of patient medical parameter. Such patient connected sensors are further connected to a monitor that includes all relevant electronic components that enable conversion, manipulation and processing of the data sensed by the at least one type of sensor in order to generate patient medical parameters.];
c. establishing an electrical connection between the docking station I/O interface and a sensor data signal for the intelligent physiological sensor when the intelligent physiological sensor is connected to the at least one sensor port [Lund at Para. 0092 teaches FIGS. 6-21 show various exemplary implementations of cables 700-700″, male connectors 701-701″, and female connectors 702-702″. The male and female connectors 701-702″″ can be used to electrically connect any two or more devices (e.g., a monitor mount 160, a physiological parameter measurement pod rack 210, a rack module 220, and/or a medical device or sensor 112 connected to a patient 110). In particular, the male and female connectors 701-702″″ enable power sharing and/or data transfer between the two or more devices];
b. associating the first docking station with a first fixed location on the hospital network [Lund at Para. 0004 teaches when a patient arrives at a hospital room or other treatment location, the patient monitor is often plugged into or otherwise connected to a patient monitor mount. Patient monitor mounts provide a physical interface for the patient monitor and are generally fixed at the treatment location (patient mount interpreted as docking station)];
Lund does not teach [ … ] … the hospital network being adapted to store location data for the first docking station … [ … ]
and d. appending the sensor parameter data using the docking station I/O interface to include a sensor location parameter that associates the intelligent physiological sensor with the first fixed location.
Agnello teaches [ … ] … the hospital network being adapted to store location data for the first docking station [Agnello at Para. 0008 teaches the first electronic data store is configured to store a plurality of first entries. Each first entry contains information that associates a respective medical device controller with a respective physical location. The second electronic data store is configured to store a plurality of second entries. Each second entry contains information that associates a respective computer network device with a respective physical location.] … [ … ]
It would have been prima facie obvious skill in the art, at the time of effective filing, to combine docking station of Lund with the location data of Agnello with the motivation to improve medical device location tracking.
Lund/Agnello do not teach and d. appending the sensor parameter data using the docking station I/O interface to include a sensor location parameter that associates the intelligent physiological sensor with the first fixed location.
Kall teaches and d. appending the sensor parameter data using the docking station I/O interface to include a sensor location parameter that associates the intelligent physiological sensor with the first fixed location [Kall at Para. 0035 teaches the position detector 46 further provides the location of the wireless sensor 38 and can be transmitted by the transmitter 44 along with the physiological data collected by the sensor 26 (interpret to correspond with fixed location of Lund)].
It would have been prima facie obvious skill in the art, at the time of effective filing, to combine the references of Lund, Agnello with the data of Kall with the motivation to reduce the burden associated with cable management.
Regarding Claim 2
Lund/Agnello/Kall teach the method of claim 1,
Lund/Agnello/Kall further teach further comprising:
e. transmitting the appended sensor parameter data from the first docking station through the communications interface to at least one selected from the group of the multi-parameter patient monitor connected to the mount and the hospital network [Lund at Para. 0082 teaches the positioning of the monitor 120, when secured to the monitor mount 160, can be such that the communications interface 128 on the monitor 120 interacts with the communications interface 166 of the monitor mount 160 to allow, for example, a direct connection (e.g., electrical connection). In other variations, the communications interface 128 of the monitor 120 exchanges data with the communications interface 166 of the monitor mount 160 optically (via, for example, respective optical windows on the monitor 120 and the monitor mount 160).]; and
f. using the appended sensor data to associate the intelligent physiological sensor with the first location on the hospital network [Agnello at Para. 0080 (see Claim 1 for explanation)].
Regarding Claim 3
Lund/Agnello/Kall teach the method of claim 2,
Lund/Agnello/Kall further teach wherein step e comprises transmitting the appended sensor parameter data from the first docking station through the communications interface to the hospital network [Lund at Para. 0004 teaches patient monitor mounts provide a physical interface for the patient monitor and are generally fixed at the treatment location. Patient monitor mounts can also provide electrical connection to other devices or infrastructure, such as power to recharge patient monitor batteries, network connectivity to other medical devices or hospital computer systems, and the like].
Regarding Claim 4
Lund/Agnello/Kall teach the method of claim 3,
Lund/Agnello/Kall further teach wherein the first docking station is adapted to perform step e regardless of whether the multi-parameter patient monitor is connected to the mount [Lund at Para. 0073 (see Claim 1 for explanation)].
Regarding Claim 6
Lund/Agnello/Kall teach the method of claim 1,
Lund/Agnello/Kall do not teach wherein the intelligent physiological sensor is one selected from the group of an intelligent patient front end (IPFE) sensor and a service-oriented device connectivity (SDC) compliant sensor [Lund at Para. 0008 teaches systems, methods, and devices are described herein for a modular patient monitoring medical device and a connector. A new generation of physiological measurement devices, such as Intelligent Patient Front End Devices (IPFE) can provide updated algorithms, features, and software updates for parameter measurement devices without corresponding releases of a new version of host monitor software. IPFEs, together with patient sensors, comprise a complete physiological patient parameter measurement delivery system].
Regarding Claim 7
Lund/Agnello/Kall teach the method of claim 1,
Lund/Agnello/Kall further teach wherein the communication with the hospital network is facilitated by one or more network ports on the first docking station [Lund at Para. 0089 teaches the system bus 404 can also include at least one communication port 420 to allow for communication with external devices either physically connected to the computing system or available externally through a wired or wireless network. In some cases, the communication port 420 includes or otherwise comprises a network interface].
Regarding Claim 15
Lund teaches a docking station comprising:
a power source [Lund at Para. 0080 (see Claim 1 for explanation)];
a processor [Lund at Para. 0080 (see Claim 1 for explanation)];
a mount configured to removably receive a multi-parameter patient monitor [Lund at Para. 0081 (see Claim 1 for explanation)];
at least one sensor port configured to mechanically and electrically connect to an intelligent physiological sensor [Lund at Para. 0075, 0086, 0092 (see Claim 1 for explanation)];
a docking station communications interface configured to communicate with a hospital network [Lund at Para. 0073 (see Claim 1 for explanation)] and to associate a first fixed location with the docking station [Lund at Para. 0004 (see Claim 1 for explanation)];
and a docking station I/O interface configured to communicate with the intelligent physiological sensor connected to each of the at least one sensor port and the multi-parameter patient monitor connected to the mount [Lund at Para. 0072, 0081 (see Claim 1 for explanation)], wherein the docking station I/O interface is further configured … [ … ] … when the intelligent physiological sensor is electrically connected to the at least one sensor port [Lund at Para. 0072(see Claim 1 for explanation)].
[ … ] … to append the first location to a sensor data signal of the intelligent physiological sensor …. [ … ]
It would have been prima facie obvious skill in the art, at the time of effective filing, to combine docking station of Lund with the location data of Agnello with the motivation to improve medical device location tracking.
Lund/Agnello do not teach [ … ] … to append the first fixed location to a sensor data signal of the intelligent physiological sensor …. [ … ]
Kall teaches [ … ] … to append the first fixed location to a sensor data signal of the intelligent physiological sensor [Kall at Para. 0035 (see Claim 1 for explanation)]…. [ … ]
It would have been prima facie obvious skill in the art, at the time of effective filing, to combine the references of Lund, Agnello with the data of Kall with the motivation to reduce the burden associated with cable management.
Regarding Claim 16
Lund/Agnello/Kall teach the docking station of claim 15,
Lund/Agnello/Kall further teach wherein the docking station communications interface is adapted to transmit the sensor data signal to the hospital network even if the multi-parameter patient monitor is not received in the mount [Lund at Para. 0004 (see Claim 3 for explanation)].
Claims 5, 17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lund, Agnello, Kall as applied to claim 1, 15 above, and further in view of Kelly et al (US Publication No. 20050033124).
Regarding Claim 5
Lund/Agnello/Kall teach the method of claim 1,
Lund/Agnello/Kall do not teach further comprising:
g. terminating the connection between the docking station I/O interface after steps c and d have been completed.
Kelly teaches further comprising:
g. terminating the connection between the docking station I/O interface after steps c and d have been completed [Kelly at Para. 0022 teaches in response in step 210 interface 33 receives information from the remote system dependent on the geographic location of docking station 10. The process of FIG. 2 terminates at step 212 (interpreted as termination the connection)].
It would have been prima facie obvious skill in the art, at the time of effective filing, to combine the references of Lund, Agnello, Kall with the termination of Kelly with the motivation to improve simplification and reduce costs.
Regarding Claim 17
Claim(s) 17 is/are analogous to Claim(s) 5, thus Claim(s) 17 is/are similarly analyzed and rejected in a manner consistent with the rejection of Claim(s) 5.
Claims 8-9, 18, 20-21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lund, Agnello, Kall as applied to claim 1, 15 above, and further in view of Muhsin at al (US Publication No. 20230033122).
Regarding Claim 8
Lund/Agnello/Kall teach the method of claim 1,
Lund/Agnello/Kall do not teach wherein the first docking station further comprises a graphical user interface and the method further comprises:
h. displaying on the graphical user interface status information for each intelligent physiological sensor electrically connected to the at least one sensor port.
Muhsin teaches wherein the first docking station further comprises a graphical user interface and the method further comprises:
h. displaying on the graphical user interface status information for each intelligent physiological sensor electrically connected to the at least one sensor port [Muhsin at Para. 0336 teaches as described in the preceding sections, the monitoring hub 100 can display patient data and alarms based on data received from various connected medical systems or sensors native to the hub 100. The connected medical systems can include BICs, dongles, medical devices, or sensors external to the hub 100, etc., alone or in combination. The sensors external to the hub 100 can be connected to the hub 100 using various connections described herein and do not have to be connected to the hub 100 via the BIC or the dongle described in the preceding sections].
It would have been prima facie obvious skill in the art, at the time of effective filing, to combine the references of Lund, Agnello, Kall with the interface of Muhsin with the motivation to improve patient care quality.
Regarding Claim 9
Lund/Agnello/Kall/Muhsin teach the method of claim 8,
Lund/Agnello/Kall/Muhsin further teach wherein the status information comprises at least one selected from the group of a sensor type, a sensor status, a status description, and an alarm status [Muhsin at Para. 0326 teaches the object database 7420 is shown to have a medical device system (MDS) object 7422 which can be shown as an object representation of a medical device (e.g., an external device). A MDS object can include attributes, such as, for example, system type, system manufacturer and model name, unique identifiers (for example, serial number), system software and hardware version numbers, system status and operating mode, battery or power supply status, time, time zone, and clock synchronization information, etc (interpreted as sensor status)].
Regarding Claim 18
Lund/Agnello/Kall teach the docking station of claim 15,
Lund/Agnello/Kall do not teach wherein the at least one sensor port comprises at least one intelligent patient front end (IPFE) port.
Muhsin teaches wherein the at least one sensor port comprises at least one intelligent patient front end (IPFE) port [Muhsin at Para. 0326 (see Claim 9 for explanation)].
It would have been prima facie obvious skill in the art, at the time of effective filing, to combine the references of Lund, Agnello, Kall with the port of Muhsin with the motivation to improve patient care quality.
Regarding Claim 20
Claim(s) 20 is/are analogous to Claim(s) 8, thus Claim(s) 20 is/are similarly analyzed and rejected in a manner consistent with the rejection of Claim(s) 8.
Regarding Claim 21
Claim(s) 21 is/are analogous to Claim(s) 9, thus Claim(s) 21 is/are similarly analyzed and rejected in a manner consistent with the rejection of Claim(s) 9.
Claim 10, 22 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lund, Agnello, Kall, Muhsin as applied to claim 8, 20 above, and further in view of Liu et al (US Publication No. 20220202337).
Regarding Claim 10
Lund/Agnello/Kall/Muhsin teach the method of claim 8,
Lund/Agnello/Kall/Muhsin do not teach further comprising:
i. generating at least one selected from the group of an audio alarm and a visual alarm through the graphical user interface when the alarm status of at least one of the intelligent physiological sensors electrically connected to the at least one sensor port is active.
Liu teaches further comprising:
i. generating at least one selected from the group of an audio alarm and a visual alarm through the graphical user interface when the alarm status of at least one of the intelligent physiological sensors electrically connected to the at least one sensor port is active [Liu at Para. 0091 teaches the central station 204 generates a workplace aggregation GUI that may be configured to display visual alarms (e.g., those alarms triggered by bridge 203) on a display; Liu at Para. 0097 teaches The PPM device 208 may also be configured to monitor a patient's physiological data, compare the physiological data to one or more alarm conditions derived from one or more physiological measurement values or value streams, and generate alarm signals that are transmitted within the frontend SDC communication network 201FE should an alarm condition be satisfied. For example, a PPM device may transmit alarm signals to at least one of the bridge 203, the central station 204, or the alarm announcer 205].
It would have been prima facie obvious skill in the art, at the time of effective filing, to combine the references of Lund, Agnello, Kall, Muhsin with the alarm of Liu with the motivation to improve post ECG signal processing.
Regarding Claim 22
Claim(s) 22 is/are analogous to Claim(s) 10, thus Claim(s) 22 is/are similarly analyzed and rejected in a manner consistent with the rejection of Claim(s) 10.
Claim 11, 23 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lund, Agnello, Kall as applied to claim 1, 15 above, and further in view of Muhsin at al (US Publication No. 20230033122) in view of Liu et al (US Publication No. 20220202337).
Regarding Claim 11
Lund/Agnello/Kall/Muhsin/Liu teach the method of claim 10,
Lund/Agnello/Kall/Muhsin/Liu do not teach further comprising:
j. enabling a user to silence the alarm generated by step i using the graphical user interface.
HUSSAIN teaches teach further comprising:
j. enabling a user to silence the alarm generated by step i using the graphical user interface [HUSSAIN at Page 5, Lines 24-29 teaches the display 16 may also include an alarm status indicator (not shown), such as a bell that flashes when an alarm condition is present. One of the touch sensitive inputs 18, such as an alarm silence graphical element 34, may be selected to silence the alarm and display an alarm silence indicator, such as a slash through an alarm symbol, on the alarm silence graphical element 34. The alarm silence graphical element 34 may then be selected again to un- silence the alarm and remove the alarm silence indicator from the graphical element 34.].
It would have been prima facie obvious skill in the art, at the time of effective filing, to combine the references of Lund/Agnello/Kall/Muhsin/Liu with the alarm silencing of HUSSAIN with the motivation to improve patient monitor user interfaces.
Regarding Claim 23
Claim(s) 23 is/are analogous to Claim(s) 11, thus Claim(s) 23 is/are similarly analyzed and rejected in a manner consistent with the rejection of Claim(s) 11.
Claim 12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lund, Agnello, Kall as applied to claim 1, 15 above, and further in view of Muhsin at al (US Publication No. 20230033122) in view of MASTROTOTARO et al (Foreign Publication WO-2008069931-A1).
Regarding Claim 12
Lund/Agnello/Kall teach the method of claim 1,
Lund/Agnello/Kall do not teach further comprising:
k. calibrating at least one of the intelligent physiological sensors;
wherein the first docking station is adapted to perform step (k) even if the multi-parameter patient monitor is not connected to the mount.
Muhsin teaches further comprising:
k. calibrating at least one of the intelligent physiological sensors [Muhsin at Para. 0296 teaches for example, the received data may be used to calibrate an algorithm used for processing data received from a sensor connected to the BIC.];
It would have been prima facie obvious skill in the art, at the time of effective filing, to combine the references of Lund, Agnello, Kall with the calibration of Muhsin with the motivation to improve patient care quality.
Lund/Agnello/Kall/Muhsin do not teach wherein the first docking station is adapted to perform step (k) even if the multi-parameter patient monitor is not connected to the mount.
MASTROTOTARO teaches wherein the first docking station is adapted to perform step (k) even if the multi-parameter patient monitor is not connected to the mount [MASTROTOTARO at Para. 00141 teaches Figs. 6A-6E show similar embodiments to Figs. 5A-5H. However, as shown in Figs. 6A-6C, the sensor electronics 120 include sensor wireless communication mechanism 1205 and the user interface 200 includes user interface wireless communication mechanism 1005. As shown in Fig. 6A, the sensor power supply 1210 and regulator 1090 are part of the sensor electronics 120. Thus, the sensor 100 constantly remains powered (interpreted as not connected to mount)].
It would have been prima facie obvious skill in the art, at the time of effective filing, to combine the references of Lund, Agnello, Kall, Mushin with the monitor of MASTROTOTARO with the motivation to better monitor and manage the patient's diet and dosage schedules.
Claims 13-14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lund, Agnello, Kall as applied to claim 1, 15 above, and further in view of MASTROTOTARO et al (Foreign Publication WO-2008069931-A1).
Regarding Claim 13
Lund/Agnello/Kall teach the method of claim 1,
Lund/Agnello/Kall do not teach further comprising:
l. warming at least one of the intelligent physiological sensors;
wherein the first docking station is adapted to perform step (l) even if the multi-parameter patient monitor is not connected to the mount.
MASTROTOTARO teaches further comprising:
l. warming at least one of the intelligent physiological sensors [MASTROTOTARO at Para. 00109 teaches it is possible that a sensor will need to receive regulated power for a defined duration before it can generate a stable signal, in other words it must warm up];
wherein the first docking station is adapted to perform step (l) even if the multi-parameter patient monitor is not connected to the mount [MASTROTOTARO at Para. 00141 (see Claim 12 for explanation)].
It would have been prima facie obvious skill in the art, at the time of effective filing, to combine the references of Lund, Agnello, Kall with the monitor of MASTROTOTARO with the motivation to better monitor and manage the patient's diet and dosage schedules.
Regarding Claim 14
Lund/Agnello/Kall teach the method of claim 1,
Lund/Agnello/Kall further teach further comprising:
n. automatically associating the intelligent physiological sensor with the first location when step (m) is performed [Agnello at Para. 008 (see Claim 1 for explanation; interpret to combine with step m of HUSSAIN recited later)];
o. mechanically and electrically connecting the intelligent physiological sensor to a second docking station, the second docking station being associated with a second location on the hospital network [Agnello at Para. 008 (see Claim 1 for explanation); Lund at Para. 0004 (see Claim 1 for explanation)]; and
p. automatically associating the intelligent physiological sensor with the second location when step (o) is performed [Agnello at Para. 008 (see Claim 1 for explanation)].
Lund/Agnello/Kall do not teach m. disconnecting the intelligent physiological sensor from the first docking station;
MASTROTOTARO teaches m. disconnecting the intelligent physiological sensor from the first docking station [MASTROTOTARO at Para. 00134 teaches thus, a user can wear the sensor and move about freely, physically disconnect from other devices. This can be useful if the patient needs to leave the proximity of one or more devices. For example, if the patient is wearing a sensor with wireless sensor electronics that communicate with a stationary device such as a wall-mounted or bed-mounted display, then the patient may leave the room for a therapeutic procedure without having to disconnect the sensor electronics from any devices];
It would have been prima facie obvious skill in the art, at the time of effective filing, to combine the references of Lund, Agnello, Kall with the disconnection of MASTROTOTARO with the motivation to better monitor and manage the patient's diet and dosage schedules.
Claim 19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lund, Agnello, Kall as applied to claim 1, 15 above, and further in view of Liu et al (US Publication No. 20220202337).
Regarding Claim 19
Lund/Agnello/Kall teach the docking station of claim 15,
Lund/Agnello/Kall do not teach wherein the at least one sensor port comprises at least one service-oriented device connectivity (SDC) port.
Liu teaches wherein the at least one sensor port comprises at least one service-oriented device connectivity (SDC) port [Liu at Para. 0076 teaches additionally, being that the IPFE communication protocol is modeled on the SDC protocol, IPFE data can be transmitted to other devices within the SDC network. For example, a monitoring or therapy device may receive IPFE data from an IPFE device via the IPFE-compatible connector and may transmit the received IPFE data to another device connected to the SDC network via an SDC communication protocol; Liu at Para. 0078 teaches various communication protocol interfaces may include an IPFE interface, an SDC interface, a CTAG interface, an RS-232 serial interface (e.g., MEDIBUS®), a serial peripheral interface (SPI), a USB interface, a third-party proprietary protocol-based interface, a data export protocol interface (e.g., an infinity export protocol interface or a legacy export protocol interface), an internet interface, a web interface, a hospital IT (HIT) network interface, a Remote Data Connection (RDC) interface, a server interface, a storage interface, a massaging protocol interface, a paging protocol interface, and the like. It is to be noted that third-party devices (medical and therapy devices) may use the SDC protocol format or non-SDC protocol formats].
It would have been prima facie obvious skill in the art, at the time of effective filing, to combine the references of Lund, Agnello, Kall, Muhsin with the port of Liu with the motivation to improve post ECG signal processing.
Response to Arguments
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Regarding the rejection of Claims 1-23, the Examiner has considered the Applicant’s arguments; however the arguments are not persuasive. Applicant argues:
However, claims 1 and 15 both require, inter alia, the claimed docking station have "at least one sensor port configured to mechanically and electrically connect to an intelligent physiological sensor." Lund fails to teach such a limitation. As clearly indicated on page 3 of the Office Action, the mount of Lund is equivalent to the docking station of the present claims. However, the mount of Lund fails to teach or even suggest the limitation of a "sensor port." The Office Action attempts to show such a teaching be referring to paragraph [0072]. However, paragraph [0072] of Lund is not referring to the mount, but rather the actual monitor. Paragraph [0072] of Lund teaches that the "monitor 120 can include a sensor interface" and makes no reference to the mount having a "sensor interface" or any type of ability to "connect to an intelligent physiological sensor" as required by claims 1 and 15. Applicant submits that the Office Action is reading the limitations of the claims onto the teachings of Lund without fully considering either the application or Lund as a whole. The recited claim limitations aim to solve the current issues in the art and the Office Action appears to misread that entirely. Lund fails to teach the limitation of "at least one sensor port" on the docking station and Agnello and Kall fail to remedy the deficiencies of Lund.
Regarding (a), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Para. 0072 teaches the feature where it teaches the sensor ports. As informed by Para. 0075, 0084 and 0092, a person having ordinary skill in the art in view of the disclosure would understand the prior art to teach physiological parameter measurement pods having interfaces for devices like sensors while attached to the rack module.
Furthermore, the Office Action misapplies the teachings of Agnello and Kallto the present claims. The Office Action refers to paragraph [0008] of Agnello to teach the limitations of "a hospital network being adapted to store location data for the first docking station" as well as "associating the first docking station with a first fixed location on the hospital network." Amended to include the italicized limitation. Paragraph [0008] of Agnello teaches specifically a "first entry" and a "second entry" where the first and second entries contain electronic data that has information related to a network device or a "respective medical device controller" and the "respective physical location." However, the Office Action fails to consider Agnello in its entirety. Agnello is specifically directed towards monitoring and updating the location of a medical device controller as it moves through a hospital. More specifically, paragraphs [0071] - [0089]
Regarding (b), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. A monitor attached to a docking station is taught by Lund. Thereafter Agnello teaches the location data of the controller, which is interpreted to be
the location of the docking station. Thereafter, the location data in multiple data entries would be the same with the combination of the prior arts of Agnello and Lund and therefore, the device is interpreted to be in a fixed location.
However, Agnello is not focused on or directed to having a docking station with a fixed location. Rather, Agnello is focused on solving the problem of not knowing where a medical device controller is within a hospital network because they frequently move without location information being updated. Here, the location information is a "first fixed location" that relates to the docking station. This location information is being transmitted to the intelligent physiological sensors and then appended into the sensor data stream to be provided to a medical device monitor. This allows medical providers to ensure patient data information, including the location of the sensors, is tracked. As should be readily understood, when considering the application as a whole, patients may move and their monitoring device may be moved to different docking stations. When multiple sensors are used with the docking station and the monitoring device, the systems and methods of at least claims 1 and 15 solve the issues of accurate patient data, including location, travels with the patient and not necessarily with the docking station. Accordingly, it would not be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the teachings of Agnello combined with Lund to teach the limitations of claims 1 and/or 15. Kall fails to remedy the deficiencies of Lund and Agnello.
Regarding (c), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The prior art of Lund at Para. 0004 recites the patient monitor mount being in a fixed location, which is interpreted as the docking station.
Additionally, the Office Action uses Kall to teach the limitation of "appending" the "first fixed location" to the "sensor parameter data" or "sensor data signal" as taught by claims 1 and/or 15. More specifically, the Office Action refers to paragraph [0035] of Kall, which teaches: "the wireless sensor 38 may further include a position detector 46. In an exemplary embodiment, the position detector 46 may be a global positioning system (GPS) detector or other RTLS (Real Time Location Service). The position detector 46 further provides the location of the wireless sensor 38 and can be transmitted by the transmitter 44 along with the physiological data collected by the sensor 26." Here the Office Action misses the fact that the wireless sensor of Kall itself has a "position detector" such as a GPS locator. This means that that sensor itself already has a locator element. It is not receiving a "first fixed location" from the docking station but rather is generating its own location data and then sending that along with any sensor information.
Regarding (d), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Theres nothing in the claim that recites receiving a first fixed location from the docking station. There is nothing recited as having the capacity to receive location data tied to the docking station. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitation could be interpreted to recite as the sensor generating location data, even if it is fixed to the treatment room, in combination with the prior art of Lund.
In contrast, claims 1 and 15 require that the "first fixed location" data come from the docking station and not the sensor itself. The sensor is receiving the location information and then "appending" that information into its data stream. It is not generating location data but rather receiving new location information as the sensor moves from one docking station to the other. When considering the present application as well as Kallas a whole, it would not be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art would to combine Kall with Lund and/or Agnello to teach the referenced limitation because it would require a modification to the principal of operation of Kall. Any change to the principle of operation of a reference does not support a rejection on the basis of obviousness. See M.P.E.P. 2143.01 V.
Regarding (e), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, the first fixed location is recited as separate from the docking station. Even assuming that the cited portions of Lund, Kall, and Agnello do not explicitly teach this feature, the Examiner submits that the cited Paras, a person having ordinary skills in the art, when viewing the entire teachings of Lund, Kall, and Agnello would understand the cited Para to mean the first fixed location is coming from the docking station.
Examiner has updated the rejection to provide further information as to how its combining the prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon in the present basis of rejection are noted in the attached PTO 892 and include:
Hirst et al (US Publication No. 11721434) discloses mounts for patient monitors.
Al-Ali et al (US Publication No. 20230320673) discloses system for calculating physiological parameters.
Kiani et al (US Publication No. 20210134130) discloses a modular monitoring system.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL, necessitated by amendment. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN C EDOUARD whose telephone number is (571)270-0107. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 730 - 430.
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 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 C EDOUARD/Examiner, Art Unit 3683
/JASON S TIEDEMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3683
Prosecution Insights