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 .
Response to Amendment
In the amendment filed 05/14/2025, the following has occurred: claims 1, 8, and 20 have been amended. Now, claims 1-20 remain pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 8, and 20 each recite receiving/receive “for a plurality of user devices, information pertaining to one or more roles of each user associated with the plurality of user devices.” While the claims initially recite “a plurality of user devices,” there is no previous recitation of “users associated with the plurality of user devices” to provide antecedent basis for “each user associated with the plurality of user devices.”
Claims 1, 8, and 20 also recite the recitations “each control signal being associated with a different user of the plurality of user devices” followed by causing/cause “to be displayed at each of the plurality of user devices, a message associated with the control signal associated with the user device.” Because the claims initially recite “each control signal being associated with a different user,” it is unclear and indefinite when the claim subsequently recites “the control signal associated with the user device.”
Claims 2-7 and 9-19 are rejected based on their dependencies on claims 1 and 8.
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.
Step 2A Prong One
Claims 1, 8, and 20 (claim 1 representative) receiving, for a plurality of user devices, information pertaining to one or more roles of each user associated with the plurality of user devices; monitoring a plurality of medical devices for adjustments to the medical devices during a period of time; identifying, based on the monitoring, the adjustments to the plurality of medical devices during the period of time; building a therapy profile associated with a patient and the medical devices based on the identified adjustments; identifying an adverse event pertaining the patient or a respective medical device of the plurality of medical devices; and after identifying the adverse event: generating, based on the therapy profile, a plurality of corrective…to correct the adverse event, each being associated with a different user of the plurality of user devices and with a respective medical device of the medical devices associated with the different user; causing to be displayed a message associated with the control signal associated with the user device; and causing an operational parameter of at least one medical device to be adjusted, based on the generated control signal associated with the medical device, to adjust a therapy being provided to the patient by the medical device and to correct the adverse event.
These limitations, as drafted, given the broadest reasonable interpretation, encompass managing personal behavior, which is a subgrouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. For example, the claims encompass an individual, such as a care provider with a particular role, monitoring medical devices for adjustments, identifying an adjustment, building a therapy profile associated with a patient and a medical device from the adjustments, identifying an adverse event pertaining the patient or medical device, and correcting the adverse event. The broadest reasonable interpretation of displaying a message associated with the control signal and adjusting an operational parameter of a medical device encompasses displaying a message to a user to adjust a parameter, such as turning on the medical device, and the user pressing a button or entering a command which is “based on the generated control signal” via the display. Such manual steps could be carried out by a care provider in a healthcare environment to correct adverse events and encompass Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. Note that certain activity between a person and a computer may fall within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)II.).
Claims 2-7 and 9-19 incorporate the abstract idea identified above and recite additional limitations that expand on the abstract idea. For example, claims 3 and 10 further expand on monitoring the devices, which is part of the abstract idea identified above. Claims 4-5 and 11-12 further recite displaying a message, which could be carried out by the user identified as carrying out the abstract idea. Claim 14 further recites receiving user roles and providing different information corresponding to the rules, which is also managing personal behavior. Claims 15-19 further recite steps related to protocol information and therapy selection. These could similarly be carried out manually, encompassing managing personal behavior. As explained above, these manual steps encompass Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.
Step 2A Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the remaining elements amount to no more than general purpose computer components programmed to perform the abstract ideas along with insignificant, extra-solution data gathering and transmitting activity.
Claims 1-20, directly or indirectly, recite the following additional elements at a high level of generality and merely utilized as tools to implement the abstract idea:
Claim 1:
under control of one or more processing devices.
generating control signals.
displayed at each of the plurality of user devices
Claim 8:
a communication interface configured to exchange information with a plurality of medical devices, and to exchange information with at least one of a plurality of user devices; a processor; and a non-transitory computer readable medium including instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the medical device resource management system to.
generate control signals.
displayed at each of the plurality of user devices
Claim 20:
A machine-implemented method.
generating control signals.
displayed at each of the plurality of user devices
Note that the various recitations of “control signals” are generated and/or sent to medical devices. While claims recite descriptions of how the recited “control signals” would cause operations at the medical devices, none of the claims recite the medical devices carrying out certain operations according to the control signals. Additionally, as noted above, displaying a message “associated with” a control signal and adjusting an operational parameter “based on” the control signal similarly do not require operations of the medical device itself, but rather steps that could be carried out by a user that are related to the control signal. The written description discloses that the recited computer components encompass generic components including “personal computers, personal data assistants, mobile devices such as laptops, tablet computers, augmented reality devices, or smartphones, configured with software for communications with information system server” (see paragraph 0026). As set forth in the MPEP 2106.04(d) “merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer” is an example of when an abstract idea has not been integrated into a practical application.
Claims 1-20, directly or indirectly, recite the following additional elements at a high level of generality, involving no more that extra-solution data gathering and transmitting activity:
Claims 2 and 9:
sending each of a plurality of the consecutive control signals to a different device associated with a different user.
Claims 5 and 12:
The second control signal is sent to a device outside of an area associated with a procedure being performed during the period time.
These additional elements are recited at a high degree of generality and are merely involved in insignificant extra solution data gathering and transmitting of data over a generic computer network. Note that the various recitations of “control signals” are generated and/or sent to medical devices. While claims recite descriptions of how the recited “control signals” would cause operations at the medical devices, none of the claims recite the medical devices carrying out certain operations according to the control signals. As set forth in MPEP 2106.05(g) insignificant, extra-solution activity, such as insignificant acquisition and data transmission, is an example of when an abstract idea has not been integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above with respect to integration into a practical application, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality, and the written description indicates that these elements are generic computer components. Using generic computer components to perform abstract ideas does not provide a necessary inventive concept. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 (“mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”).
Insignificant, extra solution, data gathering activity (e.g. transmitting and receiving data over a computer network) has been found to not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(g) and Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
Additionally, the aforementioned additional elements, considered in combination, do not provide an improvement to a technical field or provide a technical improvement to a technical problem. Additionally, that the various recitations of “control signals” are generated and/or sent to medical devices. While claims recite descriptions of how the recited “control signals” would cause operations at the medical devices, none of the claims recite the medical devices carrying out certain operations according to the control signals. Therefore, whether considered alone or in combination, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-13, 15, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaib, US Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0095648 in view of Roberts, US Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0177249.
As per claim 1, Kaib teaches a method for medical device resource management, the method comprising, under control of one or more processing devices: receiving, for a plurality of user devices, information pertaining to one or more roles of each user associated with the plurality of user devices (see paragraphs 0061 and 0083; user authentication determines roles of healthcare providers associated with operated devices); monitoring a plurality of medical devices for adjustments to the medical devices during a period of time (see paragraph 0032; remote data collection of patient-worn medical devices; paragraph 0035 describes monitored medical devices includes wear-time of devices); identifying, based on the monitoring, the adjustments to the plurality of medical devices during the period of time (see paragraphs 0035-0036; example of adjustments being parameter changes); building a therapy profile associated with a patient and the medical devices based on the identified adjustments (see paragraph 0035; complete medical profile represents patient and medical device usage); identifying an adverse event pertaining the patient or a respective medical device of the plurality of medical devices (see paragraph 0038; analysis of equipment performance data may indicate the need for service or repair and/or a need to adjust treatment or therapies of the patient); and after identifying the adverse event: generating, based on the therapy profile, a plurality of consecutive control signals to correct the adverse event, each control signal being associated with a different user of the plurality of user devices and with a respective medical device of the medical devices associated with the different user (see paragraph 0038; the adverse event may be corrected through updating the operation of the device by changing the software via the Internet or by prescribing different medicines and notifying the patient. Additionally, the analysis of the collected data and corrective actions may be performed for any and all devices in use in the field).
Kaib does not explicitly teach causing, to be displayed at each of the plurality of user devices, a message associated with the control signal associated with the user device; and causing an operational parameter of at least one medical device to be adjusted, based on the generated control signal associated with the medical device, to adjust a therapy being provided to the patient by the medical device and to correct the adverse event.
Roberts teaches causing, to be displayed at each of a plurality of user devices, a message associated with a control signal associated with the user device (see paragraph 0130; an error occurring in a medical device triggers a notification to a caregiver having control of the medical device); and causing an operational parameter of at least one medical device to be adjusted, based on a generated control signal associated with the medical device, to adjust a therapy being provided to the patient by the medical device and to correct the adverse event (see paragraph 0130; upon detection of error, server corrects the error by returning the medical to its previous operational state). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to incorporate the message operational parameter adjustment of Roberts to the execute the corrective actions of Kaib with the motivation of improving the management of medical device operations in a healthcare facility (see paragraph 0005 of Roberts).
As per claim 2, Kaib and Roberts teaches the method of claim 1 as described above. Kaib further teaches sending each of the plurality of consecutive control signals to a different device associated with a different user (see paragraph 0038; the analysis of the collected data and corrective actions may be performed for any and all devices in use in the field).
As per claim 3, Kaib and Roberts teaches the method of claim 1 as described above. Kaib further teaches the monitoring the plurality of medical devices comprises monitoring medical devices that are associated with a procedure being performed during the period of time (see paragraph 0038; analysis of patient data allows adjustment to treatment or therapies through updating the operation of the device, which is encompassed by monitoring the devices associated with a procedure during the period of time).
As per claim 4, Kaib and Roberts teaches the method of claim 1 as described above. Kaib further teaches a first control signal of the plurality of consecutive control signals causes a first message to be displayed on a first device (see paragraph 0046; a message display regarding patient/ECG), and a second control signal of the plurality of consecutive control signals causes a second message to be displayed on a second device at a different time than when the first message is displayed on the first device (see paragraph 0034; patient message to correct nonconformities).
As per claim 5, Kaib and Roberts teaches the method of claim 4 as described above. Kaib further teaches the second control signal is sent to a device outside of an area associated with a procedure being performed during the period of time (see paragraph 0034; message is sent to a device that is outside of an area associated with a procedure because procedures may be performed in other areas).
As per claim 6, Kaib and Roberts teaches the method of claim 1 as described above. Kaib further teaches the adverse event comprises a sensor failure, wherein one of the consecutive control signals comprises a message for adjusting one of the medical devices (see paragraph 0035; message is sent advising adjustment to garment or device for proper placement of electrodes).
Claims 8-13 recite substantially similar system limitations to method claims 1-6 and, as such, are rejected for similar reasons as given above.
As per claim 15, Kaib and Roberts teaches the system of claim 8 as described above. Kaib further teaches the plurality of consecutive control signals causes display of protocol information after receiving a user selection of a therapy (see paragraph 0043; describes selection of therapy (such as arrhythmia evens) resulting in display of protocol information (such as actions to be taken)).
As per claim 19, Kaib and Roberts teaches the system of claim 8 as described above. Kaib further teaches the medical device resource management system is configured to update, delete, or download emergency protocol information via the communication interface (see paragraph 0013; updating and downloading software).
Claim 20 recites substantially similar method limitations to method claim 1 and, as such, is rejected for similar reasons as given above.
Claim(s) 7 and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaib, US Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0095648 in view of Roberts, US Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0177249 and further in view of Hresko, US Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0296056.
As per claim 7, Kaib and Roberts teaches the method of claim 1 as described above. Kaib does not explicitly teach a first control signal of the plurality of consecutive control signals comprises a reset command configured to cause a restart an operation of a medical device. Hresko teaches resolving a problem with a medical device with a first control signal comprises a reset command configured to cause a restart an operation of a medical device (see paragraph 0099; initiating a remote reboot of a specific functionality a medical device). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to include remotely restarting a device with a problem in the system of Kaib with the motivation of further facilitating corrections of problems with medical devices being used outside of access by a technician (see paragraph 0005 of Hresko).
As per claim 16, Kaib and Roberts teaches the system of claim 15 as described above. Kaib does not explicitly teach the user selection of the therapy comprises a therapy for one of asystole, bradycardia, ventricular tachycardia, or ventricular fibrillation. Hresko teaches the user selection of the therapy comprises a therapy for one of asystole, bradycardia, ventricular tachycardia, or ventricular fibrillation (see paragraph 0048; remote interactions set thresholds for different therapies including ventricular tachycardia and ventricular fibrillation). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to include these types of therapies for selection in the system of Kaib because monitors arrhythmia further improving the addressing of problems with similar medical devices (see paragraph 0004 of Hresko).
As per claim 17, Kaib and Roberts teaches the system of claim 15 as described above. Kaib does not explicitly teach the medical device resource management system is further configured to: receive verifications of one or more actions performed in response to the user selection of the therapy; and cause dynamic protocol information to be displayed based on the verifications of the one or more actions. Hresko teaches a medical device resource management system is configured to: receive verifications of one or more actions performed in response to user selection of a therapy (see paragraph 0100; verifies a problem with an action with a device corresponding to selected therapy); and cause dynamic protocol information to be displayed based on the verifications of the one or more actions (see 0100; in response to verification informing the patient that the device needs to be replaced). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to include verification of a device with a problem in the system of Kaib with the motivation of further facilitating corrections of problems with medical devices being used outside of access by a technician (see paragraph 0005 of Hresko).
As per claim 18, Kaib and Roberts teaches the system of claim 15 as described above. Kaib does not explicitly teach the protocol information comprises emergency protocol information, and wherein the emergency protocol information is provided in accordance with a determination by the medical device resource management system that a close-loop control algorithm of the medical devices fails to correct an anomaly detected during the period of time. Hresko teaches the protocol information comprises emergency protocol information, and wherein the emergency protocol information is provided in accordance with a determination by the medical device resource management system that a close-loop control algorithm of the medical devices fails to correct an anomaly detected during the period of time (see paragraph 0100; critical fault provides emergency protocol where immediate contact with a technician is initiated). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to include emergency protocol for a problem in the system of Kaib with the motivation of further facilitating corrections of problems with medical devices being used outside of access by a technician (see paragraph 0005 of Hresko).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaib, US Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0095648 in view of Roberts, US Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0177249 and further in view of Kehr, US Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0036683.
As per claim 14, Kaib and Roberts teaches the system of claim 8 as described above. Kaib does not explicitly teach the medical device resource management system is configured to: receive, from a plurality of user devices, information about roles of respective users associated with corresponding user devices; and display, based on the plurality of consecutive control signals, different protocol information at the corresponding user devices based on the roles of respective users. Kehr teaches a medical device resource management system is configured to: receive, from a plurality of user devices, information about roles of respective users associated with corresponding user devices; and display, based on a plurality of consecutive control signals, different protocol information at the corresponding user devices based on the roles of respective users (see paragraph 0083; user authentication determines user roles for accessing data, such as a designated healthcare providers being able to review patient treatment information). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to provide role-based access to data in the system of Kaib with the motivation of improving the access to data by permitting different levels of access and modification to patient data in the system of Kaib (see abstract of Kehr).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection set forth above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 C. Luke Gilligan whose telephone number is (571)272-6770. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 9:00 - 5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Robert Morgan can be reached at 571-272-6773. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
C. Luke Gilligan
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3683
/CHRISTOPHER L GILLIGAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3683
Prosecution Insights