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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement submitted on June 19, 2025 in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by Examiner.
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 a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1-20 are within the four statutory categories. Claims 1-10 are drawn to a system for deriving physiological data, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. machine). Claims 11-20 are drawn to a method for deriving physiological data, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. process).
Prong 1 of Step 2A
Claim 1, which is representative of the inventive concept, recites: A system for deriving medical characteristics from data, comprising:
a gateway computer comprising a memory that stores instructions and a processor that executes the instructions, wherein, when executed by the processor, the instructions cause the gateway computer to:
receive first data from a first consumer device;
filter the first data for quality based on a first pattern of the first data and to eliminate artefacts to produce first filtered data;
derive, from the first filtered data, a first physiological parameter;
receive, from a second consumer device, second data;
filter the second data for quality based on a second pattern of the second data and to eliminate artefacts to produce second filtered data; and
derive, from the second filtered data, a second physiological parameter.
The underlined limitations as shown above recite the abstract idea of a mental process and/or a certain method of organizing human activity because they recite a process that could be practically performed in the human mind (i.e. observations, evaluations, judgments, and/or opinions – in this case, receiving data, filtering the data, and deriving data from the filtered data recite at least observations and evaluations) or using a pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components (i.e. the gateway computer and the first and second consumer devices) used as a tool to perform the mental process, and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (i.e. social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions – in this case, receiving data, filtering the data, and deriving data from the filtered data recite at least filtering content and/or following rules or instructions to derive patient physiological data), e.g. see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). Any limitations not identified above as part of the abstract idea are deemed “additional elements,” and will be discussed in further detail below.
Furthermore, the abstract idea for Claim 11 is identical as the abstract idea for Claim 1, because the only difference between Claims 1 and 11 is that Claim 1 recites a system, whereas Claim 11 recites a method.
Dependent Claims 2-10 and 12-20 include other limitations, for example Claims 2, 4, 12, and 14 recite sources for the data, Claims 3 and 13 recite performing user authentication prior to receiving of the data, Claims 5 and 15 recite a format for the received data, Claims 6-7 and 16-17 recite quarantining data before confirming that the data is accurate based on patterns in previous data, and then releasing the data after confirmation, Claims 8-10 and 18-20 recite detecting a deterioration in the health of the subject based on the first or second data using a trained artificial intelligence model, but these only serve to further narrow the abstract idea, and a claim may not preempt abstract ideas, even if the judicial exception is narrow, e.g. see MPEP 2106.04, and/or do not further narrow the abstract idea and instead only recite additional elements, which will be further addressed below. Hence dependent Claims 2-10 and 12-20 nonetheless recite the same abstract idea as independent Claims 1 and 11.
Hence Claims 1-20 recite the aforementioned abstract idea.
Prong 2 of Step 2A
Claims 1 and 11 are not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements (i.e. the non-underlined limitations above – in this case, the gateway computer and the first and second consumer devices) amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to mere instructions to apply an exception – for example, the recitation of the gateway computer and the first and second consumer devices, which only amounts to merely invoking a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, and/or recites additional elements at such a high level of generality so as to not provide meaningful limitations that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, e.g. see [0024] and [00114] of the as-filed Specification, and see MPEP 2106.05(f);
generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use – for example, the claim language of the derived data being physiological data, which amounts to limiting the abstract idea to the field of healthcare and/or patient monitoring, e.g. see MPEP 2106.05(h); and/or
add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea – for example, the recitation of receiving the first and second data, which amounts to mere data gathering, recitation of the first and second consumer devices, which amounts to selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated, e.g. see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Additionally, dependent Claims 2-10 and 12-20 include other limitations, but these limitations also amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception (e.g. the first and second applications nested in the first and second consumer devices recited in dependent Claims 2 and 12), generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (e.g. the particular data sources recited in dependent Claims 2, 4, 12, and 14, the trained artificial intelligence model recited in dependent Claims 9 and 19), and/or adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea (e.g. the receiving of the identification data recited in dependent Claims 3 and 13), and/or do not include any additional elements beyond those already recited in independent Claims 1 and 11, and hence also do not integrate the aforementioned abstract idea into a practical application.
Hence Claims 1-20 do not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
Claims 1 and 11 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” than the judicial exception because the additional elements (i.e. the non-underlined limitations above – in this case, the gateway computer and the first and second consumer devices), as stated above, are directed towards no more than limitations that amount to mere instructions to apply the exception, generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, and/or add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, wherein the additional elements comprise limitations which:
amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields, as demonstrated by:
The present Specification expressly disclosing that the structural additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional in nature:
[0024] and [00114] of the as-filed Specification disclose that the additional elements (i.e. the gateway computer and the first and second consumer devices) comprise a plurality of different types of generic computing systems;
Relevant court decisions: The functional limitations interpreted as additional elements are analogized to the following examples of court decisions demonstrating well-understood, routine and conventional activities, e.g. see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II):
Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g. see Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec – similarly, the additional elements recite receiving first and second data over a network, for example the Internet, e.g. see [0024]-[0025] of the as-filed Specification;
Storing and retrieving information in memory, e.g. see Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. – similarly, the additional elements recite storing (at least temporarily) in the form of receiving the first and second data, and utilizing the received first and second data from storage in order to derive the first and second physiological parameters;
Dependent Claims 2-10 and 12-20 include other limitations, but none of these limitations are deemed significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements recited in the aforementioned dependent claims similarly amount to mere instructions to apply the exception (e.g. the first and second applications nested in the first and second consumer devices recited in dependent Claims 2 and 12), generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (e.g. the particular data sources recited in dependent Claims 2, 4, 12, and 14, the trained artificial intelligence model recited in dependent Claims 9 and 19), receiving or transmitting data over a network (e.g. the receiving of the identification data recited in dependent Claims 3 and 13), and/or the limitations recited by the dependent claims do not recite any additional elements not already recited in independent Claims 1 and 11, and hence do not amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea.
Hence, Claims 1-20 do not include any additional elements that amount to “significantly more” than the judicial exception.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above. Furthermore, looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually, and there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology, and their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Therefore, whether taken individually or as an ordered combination, Claims 1-20 are nonetheless rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 6, 11-12, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Hornyk (US 2017/0172510).
Regarding Claim 1, Hornyk discloses the following: A system for deriving medical characteristics from data, comprising:
a gateway computer comprising a memory that stores instructions and a processor that executes the instructions, wherein, when executed by the processor (The system includes a controller including at least one processor and data storage device that stores program instructions that are executed by the processor, e.g. see Hornyk [0037], Fig. 2.), the instructions cause the gateway computer to:
receive first data from a first consumer device (The system includes a plurality of cardiovascular monitoring devices (i.e. any of which may be interpreted as a first consumer device) including a plurality of respective sensors, wherein the sensors collect various types of data (i.e. any of which may be interpreted as first data), for example ECG data, e.g. see Hornyk [0037] and [0055].);
filter the first data for quality based on a first pattern of the first data and to eliminate artefacts to produce first filtered data (The data collected by the sensors is processed to determine respective cardiac cycle components by rejecting uncorrelated artifact components within the collected data, wherein the artifact components may arise from movement, interference, and/or other phenomena (i.e. any of which may be interpreted as a first pattern), e.g. see Hornyk [0056]-[0060] and [0065], Fig. 3.);
derive, from the first filtered data, a first physiological parameter (The system extracts cardiovascular information from the data by rejecting the artifact components, and utilizes the extracted cardiovascular information to determine other cardiovascular indicators (i.e. any of which may be interpreted as a first physiological parameter), for example pulse transit time (PTT), e.g. see Hornyk [0060]-[0062], Fig. 3.);
receive, from a second consumer device, second data (The system includes a plurality of cardiovascular monitoring devices (i.e. any of which may be interpreted as a second consumer device) including a plurality of respective sensors, wherein the sensors collect various types of data (i.e. any of which may be interpreted as second data), for example PPG data, e.g. see Hornyk [0037] and [0055].);
filter the second data for quality based on a second pattern of the second data and to eliminate artefacts to produce second filtered data (The data collected by the sensors is processed to determine respective cardiac cycle components by rejecting uncorrelated artifact components within the collected data, wherein the artifact components may arise from movement, interference, and/or other phenomena (i.e. any of which may be interpreted as a second pattern), e.g. see Hornyk [0056]-[0060] and [0065], Fig. 3.); and
derive, from the second filtered data, a second physiological parameter (The system extracts cardiovascular information from the data by rejecting the artifact components, and utilizes the extracted cardiovascular information to determine other cardiovascular indicators (i.e. any of which may be interpreted as a second physiological parameter), for example pulse wave velocity (PWV), e.g. see Hornyk [0060]-[0062], Fig. 3.).
Regarding Claim 2, Hornyk discloses the limitations of Claim 1, and Hornyk further discloses the following:
The system of claim 1, wherein the gateway computer receives the first data via a first application nested in the first consumer device, and the second data via a second application nested in the second consumer device (The system includes software applications (i.e. first and second applications) that control the devices of the system, e.g. see Hornyk [0076], wherein the devices include multiple monitoring devices (i.e. first and second consumer devices), e.g. see Hornyk [0024].).
Regarding Claim 6, Hornyk discloses the limitations of Claim 2, and Hornyk further discloses the following: The system of claim 2, wherein, when executed by the processor, the instructions cause the gateway computer further to:
quarantine the first data and the second data while filtering and eliminating artefacts (The system determines the cardiovascular indicators from the extracted cardiovascular information, e.g. see Hornyk [0060]-[0062], wherein the extracted cardiovascular information is obtained from rejecting data containing artifacts, e.g. see Hornyk [0056]-[0060]. That is, the raw data obtained from the sensors (i.e. the first and second data) is “quarantined” from the ultimately determined cardiovascular indicators because it is not used in the determination, but rather the filtered data is used.); and
confirming that the first data reflects the first physiological parameter and confirming that the second data reflects the second physiological parameter (The system processes the extracted cardiovascular information to determine the cardiovascular indicators, e.g. see Hornyk [0060]-[0062]. That is, the system confirms that the first and second data reflect the first and second physiological parameters by enabling the extraction of the cardiovascular information.), and
releasing the first data and the second data based on confirming that the first data reflects the first physiological parameter and based on confirming that the second data reflects the second physiological parameter (The system determines the cardiovascular indicators such as PTT and PWV from the extracted cardiovascular information, e.g. see Hornyk [0060]-[0062]. That is, the confirmed first and second data are interpreted as the extracted cardiovascular information, and the extracted cardiovascular information is released by virtue of the system enabling the cardiovascular indicators to be determined.).
Regarding Claims 11-12 and 16, the limitations of Claims 11-12 and 16 are substantially similar to those claimed in Claims 1-2 and 6, with the sole difference being that Claims 1-2 and 6 recite a system whereas Claims 11-12 and 16 recite a method. Specifically pertaining to Claims 11-12 and 16, Examiner notes that Hornyk teaches that the invention may be embodied as systems and methods, e.g. see Hornyk [0015], and hence the grounds of rejection provided above for Claims 1-2 and 6 are similarly applied to Claims 11-12 and 16.
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.
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hornyk in view of Kovacs (US 2017/0143266).
Regarding Claim 3, Hornyk discloses the limitations of Claim 2, but does not teach and Kovacs teaches the following: The system of claim 2, wherein, when executed by the processor, the instructions further cause the gateway computer to:
receive identification information of a subject from the first application, and confirm that the gateway computer is authorized to receive the first data for the subject (The system includes a scale including a plurality of sensors (i.e. any of which may be interpreted as a first consumer device), e.g. see Kovacs [0057]-[0058], Fig. 1a, and an external circuitry (i.e. a gateway computer) that receives user-corresponding data (i.e. identification information of the subject) including data indicative of the identity of the user, e.g. see Kovacs [0058] and [0063], Fig. 1a..);
respond to the first application to confirm that the gateway computer is authorized to receive the first data for the subject before receiving the first data from the first consumer device (The user-corresponding data is received by the processing circuitry prior to the user standing on the scale (i.e. before the gateway computer receives the first data from the first consumer device), e.g. see Kovacs [0074], and transmits the data to the external circuitry to validate that the data concerns a specific user, e.g. see Kovacs [0063], [0069], and [0093].);
receive identification information of the subject from the second application, and confirm that the gateway computer is authorized to receive the second data for the subject (The system includes a scale including a plurality of sensors (i.e. any of which may be interpreted as a second consumer device), e.g. see Kovacs [0057]-[0058], Fig. 1a, and an external circuitry (i.e. a gateway computer) that receives user-corresponding data (i.e. identification information of the subject) including data indicative of the identity of the user, e.g. see Kovacs [0058] and [0063], Fig. 1a..); and
respond to the second application to confirm that the gateway computer is authorized to receive the second data for the subject before receiving the second data from the second consumer device (The user-corresponding data is received by the processing circuitry prior to the user standing on the scale (i.e. before the gateway computer receives the second data from the second consumer device), e.g. see Kovacs [0074], and transmits the data to the external circuitry to validate that the data concerns a specific user, e.g. see Kovacs [0063], [0069], and [0093].).
Furthermore, before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art of patient monitoring to modify Hornyk to incorporate the user identity validation prior to receiving the first and second data as taught by Kovacs in order to enable medical personnel to assess, diagnose, and/or identify with high degrees of confidence and accuracy for a specific user, e.g. see Kovacs [0053].
Regarding Claim 13, the limitations of Claim 13 are substantially similar to those claimed in Claim 3, with the sole difference being that Claim 3 recites a system whereas Claim 13 recites a method. Specifically pertaining to Claim 13, Examiner notes that Hornyk teaches that the invention may be embodied as systems and methods, e.g. see Hornyk [0015], and hence the grounds of rejection provided above for Claim 3 are similarly applied to Claim 13.
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Hornyk and Kovacs in view of Podobas (US 2021/0366608).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Hornyk and Kovacs teaches the limitations of Claim 3, but does not teach and Podobas teaches the following:
The system of claim 3, wherein the first application nested in the first consumer device identifies the first data by filtering data sensed by the first consumer device, and wherein the second application nested in the second consumer device identifies the second data by filtering data sensed by the second consumer device (The system includes one or more data collection devices, one or more user devices (i.e. first and second consumer devices), and a backend system (i.e. a gateway computer), e.g. see Podobas [0022], wherein the data collection devices transmit the collected data to the user devices, and the user devices transmit the data to the backend system, wherein the data may be pre-processed (i.e. filtered) prior to being sent to the backend system, e.g. see Podobas [0029]-[0031].).
Furthermore, before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art of patient monitoring to modify the combination of Hornyk and Kovacs to incorporate the pre-processing of the data as taught by Podobas in order to enable a superior and faster searching of the data, e.g. see Podobas [0042].
Regarding Claim 14, the limitations of Claim 14 are substantially similar to those claimed in Claim 4, with the sole difference being that Claim 4 recites a system whereas Claim 14 recites a method. Specifically pertaining to Claim 14, Examiner notes that Hornyk teaches that the invention may be embodied as systems and methods, e.g. see Hornyk [0015], and hence the grounds of rejection provided above for Claim 4 are similarly applied to Claim 14.
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Hornyk and Kovacs in view of Riff (US 2002/0082480).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Hornyk and Kovacs teaches the limitations of Claim 3, but does not teach and Riff teaches the following:
The system of claim 3, wherein the gateway computer receives the first data and the second data in a format required by the gateway computer, wherein the format includes a source identification field to identify the first consumer device or the second consumer device and a source identification field to identify the subject (The system includes one or more medical devices (i.e. first and second consumer devices providing first and second data), a patient management database, and a web-based site (i.e. collectively interpreted as a gateway computer), wherein the physiological data provided to the database and web-based site by the medical devices is of a format designed to selectively provide essential high relevance information, e.g. see Riff [0028]. Additionally, the formatted data includes a portion identifying a patient, e.g. see Riff Claim 22, and a portion identifying the source device of the data, e.g. see Riff Claims 22-23 and 26.).
Furthermore, before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art of patient monitoring to modify the combination of Hornyk and Kovacs to incorporate the formatting of the data as taught by Riff in order to selectively provide essential high relevance information, e.g. see Riff [0028].
Regarding Claim 15, the limitations of Claim 15 are substantially similar to those claimed in Claim 5, with the sole difference being that Claim 5 recites a system whereas Claim 15 recites a method. Specifically pertaining to Claim 15, Examiner notes that Hornyk teaches that the invention may be embodied as systems and methods, e.g. see Hornyk [0015], and hence the grounds of rejection provided above for Claim 5 are similarly applied to Claim 15.
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hornyk in view of Pav (US 2008/0076986).
Regarding Claim 7, Hornyk discloses the limitations of Claim 6, but does not teach and Pav teaches the following: The system of claim 6,
wherein the confirming that the first data reflects the first physiological parameter is performed based on a pattern detected on data previously received from the subject (The system utilizes prior values to determine a prediction for a value, and in order to determine observation noise for the value, e.g. see Pav [0025]-[0026].), and
wherein the confirming that the second data reflects the second physiological parameter is performed based on a pattern detected on data previously received from the subject (The system utilizes prior values to determine a prediction for a value, and in order to determine observation noise for the value, e.g. see Pav [0025]-[0026].).
Furthermore, before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art of patient monitoring to modify Hornyk to incorporate the prior values as a basis for determining the noise and filtering as taught by Pav in order to provide substantially accurate values, e.g. see Pav [0006] and [0024]-[0026].
Regarding Claim 17, the limitations of Claim 17 are substantially similar to those claimed in Claim 7, with the sole difference being that Claim 7 recites a system whereas Claim 17 recites a method. Specifically pertaining to Claim 17, Examiner notes that Hornyk teaches that the invention may be embodied as systems and methods, e.g. see Hornyk [0015], and hence the grounds of rejection provided above for Claim 7 are similarly applied to Claim 17.
Claims 8-10 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Hornyk and Kovacs in view of Mariottinni (US 2016/0147959).
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Hornyk and Kovacs teaches the limitations of Claim 3, but does not teach and Mariottinni teaches the following: The system of claim 3, wherein, when executed by the processor, the instructions cause the gateway computer further to:
detect deterioration in health of the subject based on at least one of the first data or the second data (The system includes one or more data capture devices for obtaining various patient data (i.e. first and second data), e.g. see Mariottinni [0027]. The system further includes an assessment module that utilizes training data and artificial intelligence techniques to generate an assessment of the patient, e.g. see Mariottinni [0028], [0037], and [0042], wherein the patient assessment may indicate a risk of the patient’s declining with respect to an existing medical condition, e.g. see Mariottinni [0042].).
Furthermore, before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art of patient monitoring to modify the combination of Hornyk and Kovacs to incorporate the assessment of the patient risks for deteriorating health as taught by Mariottinni in order to provide an accurate assessment of the patient’s condition, e.g. see Mariottinni [0004] and [0052].
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Hornyk, Kovacs, and Mariottinni teaches the limitations of Claim 8, and Mariottinni further teaches the following: The system of claim 8, wherein, when executed by the processor, the instructions cause the gateway computer further to:
apply a trained artificial intelligence model to the first data and the second data to detect the deterioration in health of the subject (The system includes one or more data capture devices for obtaining various patient data (i.e. first and second data), e.g. see Mariottinni [0027]. The system further includes an assessment module that utilizes training data and artificial intelligence techniques to generate an assessment of the patient, e.g. see Mariottinni [0028], [0037], and [0042], wherein the patient assessment may indicate a risk of the patient’s declining with respect to an existing medical condition, e.g. see Mariottinni [0042].).
Furthermore, before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art of patient monitoring to modify the combination of Hornyk and Kovacs to incorporate the artificial intelligence techniques for the assessment of the patient risks for deteriorating health as taught by Mariottinni in order to provide an accurate assessment of the patient’s condition, e.g. see Mariottinni [0004] and [0052].
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Hornyk, Kovacs, and Mariottinni teaches the limitations of Claim 8, and Mariottinni further teaches the following: The system of claim 8, wherein, when executed by the processor, the instructions cause the gateway computer further to:
apply parameters customized for the subject to detect the deterioration in health of the subject (The system includes one or more data capture devices for obtaining various patient data, e.g. see Mariottinni [0027]. The system further includes an assessment module that utilizes training data including previous patient data (i.e. parameters customized for the subject) and artificial intelligence techniques to generate an assessment of the patient, e.g. see Mariottinni [0028], [0037], and [0042], wherein the patient assessment may indicate a risk of the patient’s declining with respect to an existing medical condition, e.g. see Mariottinni [0042].).
Furthermore, before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art of patient monitoring to modify the combination of Hornyk and Kovacs to incorporate training the artificial intelligence techniques on previous patient data as taught by Mariottinni in order to provide an accurate assessment of the patient’s condition, e.g. see Mariottinni [0004] and [0052].
Regarding Claims 18-20, the limitations of Claims 18-20 are substantially similar to those claimed in Claims 8-10, with the sole difference being that Claims 8-10 recite a system whereas Claims 18-20 recite a method. Specifically pertaining to Claims 18-20, Examiner notes that Hornyk teaches that the invention may be embodied as systems and methods, e.g. see Hornyk [0015], and hence the grounds of rejection provided above for Claims 8-10 are similarly applied to Claims 18-20.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is as follows:
Panchal (US 2021/0158921) – teaches a system for verifying user identities to enable communications between devices.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN P GO whose telephone number is (703)756-1965. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-6pm Pacific.
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, PETER H CHOI can be reached at (469)295-9171. 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.
/JOHN P GO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3681
Prosecution Insights