DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-22 have been examined.
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 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 1-14 and 22 are drawn to a method which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. process). Claims 15-21 are drawn to a system which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. machine).
Step 2A, Prong 1:
Claim 1 recites “detecting an annotation trigger based on user input; in response to detecting the annotation trigger, obtaining a first audio data segment containing speech uttered by a user; determining that the first audio data segment containing speech comprises at least one marker word that is associated with at least one marker event in a pre-defined set of marker events; determining a marker time at which the annotation trigger was detected, or at which the first audio data segment containing speech was uttered; annotating the patient electronic health record with the marker event that is associated with the at least one marker word, wherein the marker event is annotated within the patient electronic health record at a time point representing the marker time; and adding the annotated patient electronic health record to a master medical record”.
Claims 15 and 22 recite “listening to speech uttered by a user; detecting an action trigger present in the speech uttered by the user; in response to detecting the action trigger, obtaining an audio data segment comprising speech from the user; determining that the audio data segment comprising speech from the user includes a physiological signal monitor command; determining if the physiological signal monitor command is valid; and instructing the physiological signal monitor to perform a physiological signal monitor action associated with the physiological signal monitor command.”
The limitations of “annotating the patient electronic health record with the marker event that is associated with the at least one marker word, wherein the marker event is annotated within the patient electronic health record at a time point representing the marker time; and adding the annotated patient electronic health record to a master medical record” within claim 1,and “listening to speech uttered by a user; detecting an action trigger present in the speech uttered by the user; in response to detecting the action trigger, obtaining an audio data segment comprising speech from the user; determining that the audio data segment comprising speech from the user includes a physiological signal monitor command; determining if the physiological signal monitor command is valid…” within claims 15, 22 correspond to an abstract idea of “certain methods of organizing human activity”. This is a method of managing interactions between people, such as user following rules and instructions.
The mere nominal recitation of a generic processor and generic physical signal monitor does not take the claims out of the methods of organizing human interactions grouping. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea. The current specification recites “In some cases, the physiological signal monitor 120 can take the form of a different and/or more specific type of computing system, such as a desktop or workstation computer, a laptop, a tablet, a television, a set-top box, a media player, and/or a head-mountable display device (e.g., virtual-reality headset or an augmented-reality headset), among numerous other possibilities.” in [0045], and “The at least one processor 162 can include one or more processors, such as one or more general- purpose microprocessors and/or one or more special purpose microprocessors.” in [0050].
After considering all claim elements, both individually and in combination and in ordered combination, it has been determined that the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claims 2-14, 16-21 are ultimately dependent from claims 1, 15 and include all the limitations of claims 1, 15. Therefore, claims 2-14, 16-21 recite the same abstract idea. Claims 2-14, 16-21 describe a further limitation regarding the basis for determining user command to obtain audio data and annotating patient records. These are all just further describing the abstract idea recited in claims 1, 15 without adding significantly more.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claims recite the additional elements of “a physiological signal monitor configured to monitor a patient; a microphone device configured to obtain speech from a user associated with the physiological signal monitor; a controller comprising at least one processor, at least one non-transitory data storage and a non-transitory computer-readable medium that stores a set of program instructions and a speech recognition system, wherein the at least one processor executes the program instructions stored in the at least one non-transitory data storage and executable by the at least one processor to carry out operations comprising:…” the detecting, determining and instructing functions.
These additional elements are directed to hardware and software elements, these limitations are not enough to qualify as “practical application” being recited in the claims along with the abstract idea since these elements are merely invoked as a tool to apply instructions of the abstract idea in a particular technological environment, and mere instructions to apply/implement/automate an abstract idea in a particular technological environment and merely limiting the use of an abstract idea to a particular field or technological environment do not provide practical application for an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f) & (h)).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the detecting, determining and instructing steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-4, 6-11, 13, 15-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moore et al. (hereinafter Moore) (US 2004/0172070 A1) in view of Packer et al. (hereinafter Packer) (US 2016/0133160 A1).
Claim 1 recites a method for annotating a patient electronic health record comprising:
detecting an annotation trigger based on user input (Moore discloses “…audio recorder 18 selectively records audio, processor 42 may receive record indications from the paramedic via a user interface 48, which may include various buttons. In Some embodiments, processor 42 may interpret audio signals received via micro phone, and record audio in response to recognition of a voice command. …” in [0052]);
in response to detecting the annotation trigger, obtaining a first audio data segment containing speech uttered by a user (Moore discloses “…audio recorder 18 selectively records audio, processor 42 may receive record indications from the paramedic via a user interface 48, which may include various buttons. In Some embodiments, processor 42 may interpret audio signals received via micro phone, and record audio in response to recognition of a voice command. …” in [0052]);
determining that the first audio data segment containing speech comprises at least one marker word that is associated with at least one marker event in a pre-defined set of marker events (Moore discloses “…audio recorder 18 may continuously record while a button of user interface 48 is depressed, or record for a fixed interval after the button is depressed or a voice command is received via microphone 40. Different buttons or commands may be used for different lengths of time. AS another example, audio recorder may continuously record after a button is depressed or a voice command is received So long as the Volume of the Sound being recorded exceeds a threshold.” in [0064]);
determining a marker time at which the annotation trigger was detected, or at which the first audio data segment containing speech was uttered (Moore discloses “…Defibrillator 12 may mark generated medical emergency information according to the clock maintained by defibrillator 12, and audio recorder 18 may mark recorded audio according to the Synchronized clock maintained by audio recorder 18. Time Stamps used to mark medical emergency information…” in [0061], “…defibrillator 12 may mark the medical emergency information with time-stamps or identifiers…” in [0068]);
annotating the patient electronic health record with the marker event that is associated with the at least one marker word, wherein the marker event is annotated within the patient electronic health record at a time point representing the marker time (Moore discloses “…The computer may correlate the recorded audio with the medical emergency information according the Synchronization markings.” in abstract, “…Computer 20 may match recorded audio with the correct medical emergency information based on a patient identifier, and may correlate the recorded audio with the medical emergency information by linking the recorded audio to appropriate portions of the medical emergency information based on the Synchronization markings.…” in [0070]).
Moore fails to expressly teach “adding the annotated patient electronic health record to a master medical record”. However, this feature is well known in the art, as evidenced by Packer.
In particular, Packer discloses “The central server system 120 may be part of a larger system for a healthcare organization in which medical records are kept for various patients in the system. Information about the victim 102 may then be associated with an identification number or other identifier, and stored by the central server system 120 for later access. Where an identity of the victim 102 can be determined, the information may be stored with a pre-existing electronic medical record (EMR) for that victim 102…” in [0105].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include the aforementioned limitation as disclosed by Packer with the motivation of to be able to update patient information at a central server system (Packer; [0107]).
Claim 2 recites the method of claim 1, further comprising:
receiving a patient data stream generated from patient physiological data gathered by at least one physiological signal monitor (Moore discloses “Use of audio recorder 18 to record audio during the medical emergency may allow the paramedic to generate a more accurate and complete run report for the medical emergency. For example, the paramedic may record Verbal descriptions of the Scene, the condition of patient 14, Vital Signs of patient 14, a record of treatments provided to patient 14, and the like. Audio recorder 18 may also be used to record Verbal responses of patient 14 to questions posed by the paramedic.” in [0031]);
annotating the patient data stream with the marker event that is associated with the at least one marker word at the time point representing the marker time (Moore discloses “Audio recorder 18 generates correlation information to temporally correlate the recorded audio with the medical emergency. For example, audio recorder 18 may mark the recorded audio to correlate the recorded audio with the medical emergency. By generating correlation information, audio recorder 18 may, for example, allow the recorded audio to be more easily correlated with the medical emergency information recorded by defibrillator 12 during the medical emergency. This, in turn, may allow the paramedic to more easily and accurately generate a run report for the medical emergency.” in [0033]); and
The obviousness of modifying the teaching of Moore to include the adding the annotated patient data stream to the patient electronic health record (as taught by Packer) is as addressed above in the rejection of claim 1 and incorporated herein.
Claim 3 recites the method of claim 1, further comprising:
in response to determining that the speech in the first audio data segment comprises the at least one marker word that is associated with the at least one marker event, determining that the marker event comprises a command to create the patient electronic health record (Moore discloses “…processor 42 may interpret audio Signals received via micro phone, and record audio in response to recognition of a voice command..…” in [0052]); and
in response to determining that the marker event comprises creating the patient electronic health record, creating the electronic patient health record (Moore discloses “Computer 20 correlates the recorded audio with the medical emergency information according to the Synchronization markings within each of the recorded audio and medical emergency information (104) in order to create a combined event record for the medical emergency involving patient 14...…” in [0070]).
Claim 4 recites the method of claim 1, wherein detecting the annotation trigger comprises detecting a predetermined sound with a microphone (Moore discloses “In another embodiment, the invention is directed to a device. The device includes a microphone to detect Sound and a processor coupled to the microphone…” in [0010]).
Claim 6 recites the method of claim 1, wherein detecting the annotation trigger comprises determining that the user has pushed a trigger button (Moore discloses “The user may mark the time of the occurrence of various events, such as the delivery of drugs or the administration of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), during the treatment of patient 34 by, for example, pressing a key or button of user interface 50 at the time when the event occurred…” in [0050]).
Claim 7 recites the method of claim 1, wherein detecting the annotation trigger comprises detecting an event (Moore discloses “The user may mark the time of the occurrence of various events, such as the delivery of drugs or the administration of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), during the treatment of patient 34 by, for example, pressing a key or button of user interface 50 at the time when the event occurred…” in [0050].
Claim 8 recites the method of claim 1, wherein the first audio data segment is a predetermined duration (Moore discloses “User interface 50 may include a microphone (not shown) that detects sounds in the vicinity of defibrillator 30. Processor 44 may receive signals from the microphone and store an audio recording that includes these signals as medical event information 32 for patient 34. The audio recording may include verbal notations of a user of defibrillator 30, or conversations between the user and patient 34.” in [0049] and “The user may mark the time of the occurrence of various events,…” in [0050]).
Claim 9 recites the method of claim 1, further comprising determining a duration of the first audio data segment by detecting when the speech uttered by the user has discontinued (Moore discloses “User interface 50 may include a microphone (not shown) that detects sounds in the vicinity of defibrillator 30. Processor 44 may receive signals from the microphone and store an audio recording that includes these signals as medical event information 32 for patient 34. The audio recording may include verbal notations of a user of defibrillator 30, or conversations between the user and patient 34.” in [0049] and “The user may mark the time of the occurrence of various events,…” in [0050]).
Claim 10 recites the method of claim 1, wherein the marker event comprises at least one of a medical event, a note, a treatment, or a medication (Moore discloses “User interface 50 may include a microphone (not shown) that detects sounds in the vicinity of defibrillator 30. Processor 44 may receive signals from the microphone and store an audio recording that includes these signals as medical event information 32 for patient 34. The audio recording may include verbal notations of a user of defibrillator 30, or conversations between the user and patient 34.” in [0049] and “The user may mark the time of the occurrence of various events,…” in [0050]).
Claim 11 recites the method of claim 1, further comprising:
based on determining that the first audio data segment containing speech comprises the at least one marker word that is associated with one of the pre-defined set of marker events, converting a portion of the first audio data segment following the at least one marker word to text and adding the text to a record of the marker event in the patient electronic health record.
Moore fails to expressly teach “based on determining that the first audio data segment containing speech comprises the at least one marker word that is associated with one of the pre-defined set of marker events, converting a portion of the first audio data segment following the at least one marker word to text and adding the text to a record of the marker event in the patient electronic health record”. However, this feature is well known in the art, as evidenced by Packer.
In particular, Packer discloses “Device 1050 may also communicate audibly using audio codec 1060, which may receive spoken information from a user and convert it to usable digital information. …” in [0203] and “The central server system 120 may be part of a larger system for a healthcare organization in which medical records are kept for various patients in the system. Information about the victim 102 may then be associated with an identification number or other identifier, and stored by the central server system 120 for later access. Where an identity of the victim 102 can be determined, the information may be stored with a pre-existing electronic medical record (EMR) for that victim 102…” in [0105].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include the aforementioned limitation as disclosed by Packer with the motivation of to be able to update patient information at a central server system (Packer; [0107]).
Moore fails to expressly teach “adding the text to a record of the marker event in the patient electronic health record”. However, this feature is well known in the art, as evidenced by Packer.
In particular, Packer discloses “The central server system 120 may be part of a larger system for a healthcare organization in which medical records are kept for various patients in the system. Information about the victim 102 may then be associated with an identification number or other identifier, and stored by the central server system 120 for later access. Where an identity of the victim 102 can be determined, the information may be stored with a pre-existing electronic medical record (EMR) for that victim 102…” in [0105].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include the aforementioned limitation as disclosed by Packer with the motivation of to be able to update patient information at a central server system (Packer; [0107]).
Claim 13 recites the method of claim 1, further comprising: in response to detecting the annotation trigger, activating at least one feature of a physiological signal monitor (Moore discloses “…Processor 44 may receive signals from the microphone and store an audio recording that includes these signals as medical event information 32 for patient 34. The audio recording may include verbal notations of a user of defibrillator 30,…” in [0049]).
Claim 15 recites a system comprising:
a physiological signal monitor configured to monitor a patient (Moore discloses “The disclosure describes a system in which medical devices, such as external defibrillators, vital signs monitors, or computers, collect medical event information during the treatment of a patient, and transmit the medical event information to a data destination, e.g., a computer at hospital or other medical facility…” in abstract);
a microphone device configured to obtain speech from a user associated with the physiological signal monitor (Moore discloses “User interface 50 may include a microphone (not shown) that detects sounds in the vicinity of defibrillator 30…” in [0049]);
a controller comprising at least one processor, at least one non-transitory data storage and a non-transitory computer-readable medium that stores a set of program instructions and a speech recognition system (Moore discloses “…A plurality of medical devices 14 may collect medical event information during treatment of a single patient and individually transmit their collected medical event information to computer 20, or one of the medical devices, such as a computer, may collect medical event information from the other medical device for transmission to computer 20. When received by computer 20, medical event information for a patient may be reviewed by physicians or other caregivers at the medical facility that provide further treatment to the patient, and incorporated into a patient record for the patient.” in [0028] and “computer readable medium” in [0015]), wherein the at least one processor executes the program instructions stored in the at least one non-transitory data storage and executable by the at least one processor to carry out operations comprising:
listening to speech uttered by a user;
detecting an action trigger present in the speech uttered by the user;
in response to detecting the action trigger, obtaining an audio data segment comprising speech from the user;
determining that the audio data segment comprising speech from the user includes a physiological signal monitor command;
determining if the physiological signal monitor command is valid; and
instructing the physiological signal monitor to perform a physiological signal monitor action associated with the physiological signal monitor command (Moore discloses “User interface 50 may include a microphone (not shown) that detects sounds in the vicinity of defibrillator 30. Processor 44 may receive signals from the microphone and store an audio recording that includes these signals as medical event information 32 for patient 34. The audio recording may include verbal notations of a user of defibrillator 30, or conversations between the user and patient 34.” in [0049] and “The user may mark the time of the occurrence of various events, such as the delivery of drugs or the administration of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), during the treatment of patient 34 by, for example, pressing a key or button of user interface 50 at the time when the event occurred. These event markers may also be included within medical event information 32 for patient 34…” in [0050]).
Claim 16 recites the system of claim 15, wherein determining if the physiological signal monitor command is valid comprises determining any false interpretation in the audio data segment (Moore discloses “…Server 16 may request login information from the user, and determine if the user is authorized as an administrator for server 16, e.g., to create and modify data destination information 12, based on the login information (72). If the user is authorized, server 16 provides whatever data destination information is currently stored by the server to client device 24 (74).” in [0062])-Examiner considers that the authorized login corresponds to a valid command.
Claim 17 recites the system of claim 15, wherein determining if the physiological signal monitor command is valid comprises requiring and obtaining voice confirmation of the physiological signal monitor command (Moore discloses “…Server 16 may request login information from the user, and determine if the user is authorized as an administrator for server 16, e.g., to create and modify data destination information 12, based on the login information (72). If the user is authorized, server 16 provides whatever data destination information is currently stored by the server to client device 24 (74).” in [0062])-Examiner considers that the authorized login corresponds to a valid command.
Claim 18 recites the system of claim 15, further comprising: determining that the physiological signal monitor command is invalid; and in response to determining that the physiological signal monitor command is invalid, requesting a further command from the user (Moore discloses “…Server 16 may request login information from the user, and determine if the user is authorized as an administrator for server 16, e.g., to create and modify data destination information 12, based on the login information (72). If the user is authorized, server 16 provides whatever data destination information is currently stored by the server to client device 24 (74).” in [0062])-Examiner considers that the unauthorized login corresponds to requesting more command from the user.
Claim 19 recites the system of claim 15, further comprising: determining that the physiological signal monitor command is valid; and in response to determining that the physiological signal monitor command is valid, requesting a confirmation command from the user, wherein the confirmation command comprises at least one of a voice confirmation or a touch confirmation (Moore discloses “…Server 16 may request login information from the user, and determine if the user is authorized as an administrator for server 16, e.g., to create and modify data destination information 12, based on the login information (72). If the user is authorized, server 16 provides whatever data destination information is currently stored by the server to client device 24 (74).” in [0062])-Examiner considers that the authorized login corresponds to a valid command.
Claim 20 recites the system of claim 15, wherein the physiological signal monitor is a defibrillator (Moore; abstract).
Claim 21 recites the system of claim 20, wherein the physiological signal monitor command is at least one of charge, shock, annotate, or display (Moore; [0058]).
Claim 22 recites a method for physiological signal monitor control comprising:
listening, with a microphone, to speech uttered by a user;
detecting a trigger word present in the speech uttered by the user;
in response to detecting the trigger word, obtaining an audio data segment comprising speech from the user;
determining that the audio data segment comprising speech from the user includes an activation, wherein the activation comprises at least one of a command or annotation; and
sending instructions to a physiological signal monitor based on the activation (Moore discloses “User interface 50 may include a microphone (not shown) that detects sounds in the vicinity of defibrillator 30. Processor 44 may receive signals from the microphone and store an audio recording that includes these signals as medical event information 32 for patient 34. The audio recording may include verbal notations of a user of defibrillator 30, or conversations between the user and patient 34.” in [0049] and “The user may mark the time of the occurrence of various events, such as the delivery of drugs or the administration of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), during the treatment of patient 34 by, for example, pressing a key or button of user interface 50 at the time when the event occurred. These event markers may also be included within medical event information 32 for patient 34…” in [0050].
Claims 5, 12, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moore et al. (hereinafter Moore) (US 2004/0172070 A1), Packer et al. (hereinafter Packer) (US 2016/0133160 A1) and further in view of Li et al. (hereinafter Li) (US 12,555,575 B2).
Claim 5 recites the method of claim 4, wherein detecting the annotation trigger comprises determining that the user has uttered a wake word.
Moore and Packer fail to expressly teach “detecting the annotation trigger comprises determining that the user has uttered a wake word”. However, this feature is well known in the art, as evidenced by Li.
In particular, Li discloses “determining a first wakeup confidence for each piece of the M pieces of audio data, the first wakeup confidence indicating a probability that audio data contains a first wakeup word for waking up the device to be monitored” on page 2, [7].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include the aforementioned limitation as disclosed by Li with the motivation of to be able to wakeup the audio device (Li; page 2, [7]).
Claim 12 recites the method of claim 11, further comprising:
determining that the text comprises an additional marker word that is associated with a second marker event of the pre-defined set of marker events;
determining a second marker time at which the additional marker word was uttered; and
annotating the patient electronic health record with the second marker event that is associated with the additional marker word, wherein the second marker event is annotated within the patient electronic health record at a second time point representing the marker time.
Moore and Packer fail to expressly teach “determining that the text comprises an additional marker word that is associated with a second marker event of the pre-defined set of marker events; determining a second marker time at which the additional marker word was uttered”. However, this feature is well known in the art, as evidenced by Li.
In particular, Li discloses “determining a first wakeup confidence for each piece of the M pieces of audio data, the first wakeup confidence indicating a probability that audio data contains a first wakeup word for waking up the device to be monitored” on page 2, [7], and “Preferably, before said step S101, said method comprises: obtaining P audio data of N audio devices and an annotation result of the P audio data, the annotation result being such that the audio data includes a second wake signal for waking up the audio device…” on page 7, [36].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include the aforementioned limitation as disclosed by Li with the motivation of to be able to wakeup the audio device (Li; page 2, [7]).
Claim 14 recites the method of claim 1, wherein the patient electronic health record further comprises a second audio data segment, and wherein such second audio segment comprises a raw audio data segment that is annotated within the patient electronic health record using the marker word in the first audio data segment.
Moore and Packer fail to expressly teach “determining that the text comprises an additional marker word that is associated with a second marker event of the pre-defined set of marker events; determining a second marker time at which the additional marker word was uttered”. However, this feature is well known in the art, as evidenced by Li.
In particular, Li discloses “determining a first wakeup confidence for each piece of the M pieces of audio data, the first wakeup confidence indicating a probability that audio data contains a first wakeup word for waking up the device to be monitored” on page 2, [7], and “Preferably, before said step S101, said method comprises: obtaining P audio data of N audio devices and an annotation result of the P audio data, the annotation result being such that the audio data includes a second wake signal for waking up the audio device…” on page 7, [36].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include the aforementioned limitation as disclosed by Li with the motivation of to be able to wakeup the audio device (Li; page 2, [7]).
Moore fails to expressly teach “audio data segment that is annotated within the patient electronic health record using the marker word in the first audio data segment”. However, this feature is well known in the art, as evidenced by Packer.
In particular, Packer discloses “The central server system 120 may be part of a larger system for a healthcare organization in which medical records are kept for various patients in the system. Information about the victim 102 may then be associated with an identification number or other identifier, and stored by the central server system 120 for later access. Where an identity of the victim 102 can be determined, the information may be stored with a pre-existing electronic medical record (EMR) for that victim 102…” in [0105].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include the aforementioned limitation as disclosed by Packer with the motivation of to be able to update patient information at a central server system (Packer; [0107]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DILEK B COBANOGLU whose telephone number is (571)272-8295. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:00 ET.
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, Obeid Mamon can be reached at (571) 270-1813. 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.
/DILEK B COBANOGLU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3687
Prosecution Insights