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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 10/08/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the 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. Claims 1-12 are drawn to a system, claims 13-16 are drawn to a method, and claims 17-20 are drawn to a media, each of which is within the four statutory categories. Claims 1-20 are further directed to an abstract idea on the grounds set out in detail below. As discussed below, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional computer elements, which are recited at a high level of generality, provide conventional computer functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A:
Prong One:
Claim 1 recites a computing system configured to facilitate monitoring a patient when the patient transitions between environments, comprising:
a) an in-room display terminal associated with a healthcare environment and configured to 1) display indicia of a health of the patient for b) electronically monitoring the health of the patient within the healthcare environment; and
c) one or more hardware computer processors configured to execute program instructions to cause the computing system to:
2) receive, via the in-room display terminal, a request to initiate monitoring the patient with the in-room display terminal at the healthcare environment;
3) responsive to the request, access historical physiological data associated with the patient and generated by a home monitoring device before the patient enters the healthcare environment;
4) access real-time physiological data associated with the patient and originating from a physiological monitoring device coupled to the patient within the healthcare environment; and
5) responsive to determining that the historical physiological data originates from an approved device:
5a) generate one or more physiological parameters from the real-time physiological data and the historical physiological data; and
5b) cause the in-room display terminal to display indicia of the one or more physiological parameters.
Claim 1 recites, in part, performing the steps of 1) display indicia of a health of the patient for monitoring the health of the patient within the healthcare environment, 2) receive a request to initiate monitoring the patient at the healthcare environment, 3) responsive to the request, access historical physiological data associated with the patient and generated by a home monitoring device (the device is part of the abstract idea here as the data could have already been generated by this device, but is now being accessed) before the patient enters the healthcare environment, and 5) responsive to determining that the historical physiological data originates from an approved device (the device is part of the abstract idea here as the check for origination could be done by a human): 5a) generate one or more physiological parameters from the real-time physiological data and the historical physiological data and 5b) cause the display to display indicia of the one or more physiological parameters. These steps correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, more particularly, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including following rules or instructions). For example, a person can monitor a patient and then display their information in real time. Independent claims 13 and 17 recite similar limitations and are also directed to an abstract idea under the same analysis.
Depending claims 2-12, 14-16, and 18-20 include all of the limitations of claims 1, 13, and 17, and therefore likewise incorporate the above described abstract idea. Depending claims 2-8, 11-12, 14-15, and 18-19 add additional, functional steps which only further serve to limit the abstract idea. Claims 5-6, 9-10, 16, and 20 add additional elements to the claims and these are addressed further below. Thus, depending claims 2-12, 14-16, and 18-20 are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as independent claims 1, 13, and 17 (Step 2A (Prong One): YES).
Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of – using a) an in-room display terminal associated with a healthcare environment, b) electronically monitoring, and c) one or more hardware computer processors configured to execute program instructions to perform the claimed steps.
The claims also include the additional element steps of 4) “access real-time physiological data associated with the patient and originating from a physiological monitoring device coupled to the patient within the healthcare environment”, 6) “receive the historical physiological data from a server” (from claim 5), 7) “NFC communication between the in-room display terminal and a user device and/or the home monitoring device” (from claim 6), 8) “receive the real-time physiological data from the in-room display terminal” (from claim 9), 9) “receive the historical physiological data associated with the patient from one or more of the home monitoring device or a server” (from claim 10), and 10) “causing the in-room display terminal to display indicia of whether the historical physiological data originates from an approved device” (from claims 16 and 20).
The a) in-room display terminal associated with a healthcare environment, b) electronically monitoring, and c) one or more hardware computer processors configured to execute program instructions in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic components performing generic computer functions) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (see: Applicant’s specification, paragraphs [0326] – [0327] where there are general purpose components for these elements, see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Additionally, the additional element steps of 4) “access real-time physiological data associated with the patient and originating from a physiological monitoring device coupled to the patient within the healthcare environment”, 6) “receive the historical physiological data from a server”, 7) “NFC communication between the in-room display terminal and a user device and/or the home monitoring device”, 8) “receive the real-time physiological data from the in-room display terminal”, 9) “receive the historical physiological data associated with the patient from one or more of the home monitoring device or a server”, and 10) “causing the in-room display terminal to display indicia of whether the historical physiological data originates from an approved device” in these steps adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea (such as recitation of 4), 6), 8), and 9) amounts to mere data gathering and recitation of 7) and 10) amounts to insignificant application, see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which amount to limitations consistent with the additional elements in the independent claims. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation and do not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
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 2A (Prong Two): NO).
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 elements of using a) an in-room display terminal associated with a healthcare environment, b) electronically monitoring, and c) one or more hardware computer processors configured to execute program instructions to perform the claimed steps and using the additional element steps of 4) “access real-time physiological data associated with the patient and originating from a physiological monitoring device coupled to the patient within the healthcare environment”, 6) “receive the historical physiological data from a server”, 7) “NFC communication between the in-room display terminal and a user device and/or the home monitoring device”, 8) “receive the real-time physiological data from the in-room display terminal”, 9) “receive the historical physiological data associated with the patient from one or more of the home monitoring device or a server”, and 10) “causing the in-room display terminal to display indicia of whether the historical physiological data originates from an approved device” amounts to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of WURC activity (well-understood, routine, and conventional activity) and mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component that does not offer “significantly more” than the abstract idea itself because the claims do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of any computer itself, or provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. It should be noted that the claims do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the Specification recites mere generic computer components, as discussed above that are being used to apply certain method steps of organizing human activity. Specifically, MPEP 2106.05(d) and MPEP 2106.05(f) recite that the following limitations are not significantly more:
Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); and
Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2360, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
The current invention causes an indicia to display utilizing a) an in-room display terminal associated with a healthcare environment, b) electronically monitoring, and c) one or more hardware computer processors configured to execute program instructions, thus these computing components are adding the words “apply it” with mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
Furthermore, the additional element steps of 4) “access real-time physiological data associated with the patient and originating from a physiological monitoring device coupled to the patient within the healthcare environment”, 6) “receive the historical physiological data from a server”, 8) “receive the real-time physiological data from the in-room display terminal”, 9) “receive the historical physiological data associated with the patient from one or more of the home monitoring device or a server”, and 10) “causing the in-room display terminal to display indicia of whether the historical physiological data originates from an approved device” in these steps add insignificant extra-solution activity/pre-solution activity in the form of WURC activity to the abstract idea. The following is an example of a court decision demonstrating computer functions as 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 current invention receives data (4), 6), 8), and 9)), and transmits the data to a terminal (10)) over a network, for example the Internet.
Lastly, the following State of the Art Publication demonstrates the well-understood, routine, and conventional nature of the additional elements: 7) “NFC communication between the in-room display terminal and a user device and/or the home monitoring device”, e.g. see paragraph [0038] of U.S. 2021/0338145 to Dehaney where NFC communication is well-known in the art.
Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components and insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of WURC activity cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible (Step 2B: NO).
Claims 1-20 are therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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, 6, 9, 10, 12-13, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2018/0353084 to Wainright et al. in view of U.S. 2017/0340293 to Al-Ali et al.
As per claim 1, Wainright et al. teaches a computing system configured to facilitate monitoring a patient when the patient transitions between environments, comprising:
--an in-room display terminal associated with a healthcare environment and configured to display indicia of a health of the patient for electronically monitoring the health of the patient within the healthcare environment; (see: paragraphs [0074] and [0077] where there is such a display in a building/healthcare environment. Also see: FIG. 4 where the display is configured to display indicia for monitoring health of a patient) and
--one or more hardware computer processors configured to execute program instructions (see: paragraphs [0073] and [0076] where there is such a processor configured to execute programs) to cause the computing system to:
--access real-time physiological data associated with the patient and originating from a physiological monitoring device coupled to the patient within the healthcare environment; (see: FIG. 2 and paragraphs [0079] – [0080] where there is accessing of real-time data of the patient an originating from a device coupled to the patient in a healthcare environment) and
--responsive to determining that the historical physiological data originates from an approved device (see: paragraph [0076] where there is coupling of sensor devices to the processing subsystem 110. The coupling and displaying of this data here is a determination that the devices can send the data to the subsystem, and then this data is displayed):
--generate one or more physiological parameters from the real-time physiological data and the historical physiological data; (see: paragraphs [0085] and [0086] where there is generation of a display of parameters such as real-time data (physiological data) and historical data (historical trends of physiological data)) and
--cause the in-room display terminal to display indicia of the one or more physiological parameters (see: FIG. 4 and paragraph [0093] where there is a display of indicia of the parameters).
Wainright et al. may not further, specifically teach:
1) --receive, via the in-room display terminal, a request to initiate monitoring the patient with the in-room display terminal at the healthcare environment; and
2) --responsive to the request, access historical physiological data associated with the patient and generated by a home monitoring device before the patient enters the healthcare environment.
Al-Ali et al. teaches:
1) --receive, via the in-room display terminal, a request to initiate monitoring the patient with the in-room display terminal at the healthcare environment; (see: paragraph [0084] where there is a request by the patient monitor 502. Also see: FIG. 5 where the patient monitor is in-hospital. A request is being received here on the terminal for monitoring the patient in the form of accessing the patient’s data) and
2) --responsive to the request, access historical physiological data associated with the patient and generated by a home monitoring device before the patient enters the healthcare environment (see: paragraphs [0049] and [0084] where there is access of previous screening data which includes previous oximeter data (historical physiological data) which can be from home as explained in paragraph [0113]).
One of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to 1) receive, via the in-room display terminal, a request to initiate monitoring the patient with the in-room display terminal at the healthcare environment and 2) responsive to the request, access historical physiological data associated with the patient and generated by a home monitoring device before the patient enters the healthcare environment as taught by Al-Ali et al. in the system as taught by Wainright et al. with the motivation(s) of improving detection of a condition (see: paragraph [0095] of Al-Ali et al.).
As per claim 6, Wainright et al. and Al-Ali et al. in combination teaches the system of claim 1, see discussion of claim 1. Wainright et al. further teaches wherein the one or more hardware computer processors are configured to execute the program instructions to cause the computing system to:
--receive the request to initiate monitoring the patient with the in-room display terminal responsive to NFC communication between the in-room display terminal and a user device and/or the home monitoring device (see: paragraph [0077] where there are NFC sensors used to communicate between devices. The receiving of data that is happening in claim 1 is in view of the NFC communication being established).
As per claim 9, Wainright et al. and Al-Ali et al. in combination teaches the system of claim 1, see discussion of claim 1. Wainright et al. further teaches wherein the one or more hardware computer processors are configured to execute the program instructions to cause the computing system to:
--receive the real-time physiological data from the in-room display terminal (see: FIG. 2 and paragraphs [0079] – [0080] where there is accessing of real-time data of the patient an originating from a device coupled to the patient in a healthcare environment).
As per claim 10, Wainright et al. and Al-Ali et al. in combination teaches the system of claim 1, see discussion of claim 1. Al-Ali et al. further teaches wherein the one or more hardware computer processors are configured to execute the program instructions to cause the computing system to:
--receive the historical physiological data associated with the patient from one or more of the home monitoring device or a server (see: paragraphs [0049] and [0084] where there is access of previous screening data which includes previous oximeter data (historical physiological data) which can be from home as explained in paragraph [0113]).
The motivations to combine the above-mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
As per claim 12, Wainright et al. and Al-Ali et al. in combination teaches the system of claim 1, see discussion of claim 1. Wainright et al. further teaches wherein the one or more hardware computer processors are configured to execute the program instructions to cause the computing system to:
--generate user interface data for rendering indicia of the real-time physiological data originating from the physiological monitoring device in combination with the historical physiological data (see: paragraphs [0085] and [0086] where there is generation of a display of parameters such as real-time data (physiological data) and historical data (historical trends of physiological data). Also see: FIG. 2 where there is displaying of this data. The displaying of this data is a generation of an indicia).
Al-Ali et al. teaches the historical physiological data generated by the home monitoring device (see: paragraphs [0049] and [0084] where there is access of previous screening data which includes previous oximeter data (historical physiological data) which can be from home as explained in paragraph [0113]).
The motivations to combine the above-mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
As per claim 13, claim 13 is similar to claim 1 and is therefore taught in a similar manner to claim 1.
As per claim 17, claim 17 is similar to claim 1 and is therefore taught in a similar manner to claim 1.
Claims 3, 15, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2018/0353084 to Wainright et al. in view of U.S. 2017/0340293 to Al-Ali et al. as applied to claims 1, 13, and 17, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 11,693,827 to Mazukabov et al.
As per claim 3, Wainright et al. and Al-Ali et al. in combination teaches the system of claim 1, see discussion of claim 1. The combination may not further, specifically teach wherein the one or more hardware computer processors are configured to execute the program instructions to cause the computing system to:
--update metadata of the historical physiological data to indicate whether the historical physiological data originates from an approved device.
Mazukabov et al. teaches:
--wherein the one or more hardware computer processors are configured to execute the program instructions to cause the computing system to:
--update metadata of the historical physiological data to indicate whether the historical physiological data originates from an approved device (see: column 5, lines 32-57 where there are permission settings metadata including permissions associated with a user or multiple users. Also see: claim 4 where there is updated metadata comprising permission/approval settings being received).
One of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to update metadata of the historical physiological data to indicate whether the historical physiological data originates from an approved device as taught by Mazukabov et al. in the system as taught by Wainright et al. and Al-Ali et al. in combination with the motivation(s) of accessing and interacting with datasets (see: column 5, lines 58-67 of Mazukabov et al.).
As per claim 15, claim 15 is similar to claim 3 and is therefore taught in a similar manner to claim 3.
As per claim 19, claim 19 is similar to claim 3 and is therefore taught in a similar manner to claim 3.
Claim 4-5, 16, and 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2018/0353084 to Wainright et al. in view of U.S. 2017/0340293 to Al-Ali et al. as applied to claim 1, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 6,032,257 to Olarig et al.
As per claim 4, Wainright et al. and Al-Ali et al. in combination teaches the system of claim 1, see discussion of claim 1. The combination may not further, specifically teach wherein the one or more hardware computer processors are configured to execute the program instructions to cause the computing system to:
--cause the in-room display terminal to display indicia of whether the historical physiological data originates from an approved device.
Olarig et al. teaches:
--cause the in-room display terminal to display indicia of whether the historical physiological data originates from an approved device (see: FIG. 4 and column 5, line 64 to column 6, line 20 where there is an alert if the device is unapproved device. The display here displays an indicia of no alert when approved).
One of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to cause the in-room display terminal to display indicia of whether the historical physiological data originates from an approved device as taught by Olarig et al. in the system as taught by Wainright et al. and Al-Ali et al. in combination with the motivation(s) of verifying the device is associated with the person (see: column 5, line 64 to column 6, line 20 of Olarig et al.).
As per claim 5, Wainright et al. and Al-Ali et al. in combination teaches the system of claim 1, see discussion of claim 1. Wainright et al. further teaches wherein the one or more hardware computer processors are configured to execute the program instructions to cause the computing system to:
--receive the historical physiological data from a server; (see: paragraphs [0049] and [0084] where there is access of previous screening data which includes previous oximeter data (historical physiological data) which can be from home as explained in paragraph [0113]).
Wainright et al. and Al-Ali et al. in combination may not further, specifically teach:
--determine whether the historical physiological data originates from an approved device based on at least the server from which the historical physiological data is received.
Olarig et al. teaches:
--determine whether the historical physiological data originates from an approved device based on at least the server from which the historical physiological data is received (see: FIG. 4 and column 5, line 64 to column 6, line 20 where there is a determination of whether data originated from an approved/unapproved device. The data being from a server is taught in claim 1).
One of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to determine whether the historical physiological data originates from an approved device based on at least the server from which the historical physiological data is received as taught by Olarig et al. in the system as taught by Wainright et al. and Al-Ali et al. in combination with the motivation(s) of verifying the device is associated with the person (see: column 5, line 64 to column 6, line 20 of Olarig et al.).
As per claim 16, claim 16 is similar to claim 4 and is therefore taught in a similar manner to claim 4.
As per claim 20, claim 20 is similar to claim 4 and is therefore taught in a similar manner to claim 4.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2018/0353084 to Wainright et al. in view of U.S. 2017/0340293 to Al-Ali et al. as applied to claim 1, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 9,854,972 to Mensinger et al.
As per claim 7, Wainright et al. and Al-Ali et al. in combination teaches the system of claim 1, see discussion of claim 1. The combination may not further, specifically teach wherein the one or more hardware computer processors are configured to execute the program instructions to cause the computing system to:
--receive the request to initiate monitoring the patient with the in-room display terminal responsive to authorization via a user device and/or the home monitoring device.
Mensinger et al. teaches:
--wherein the one or more hardware computer processors are configured to execute the program instructions to cause the computing system to:
--receive the request to initiate monitoring the patient with the in-room display terminal responsive to authorization via a user device and/or the home monitoring device (see: claim 1 where there is an authorization request, and in response to authorization, data is being monitored by a device).
One of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to have wherein the one or more hardware computer processors are configured to execute the program instructions to cause the computing system to: receive the request to initiate monitoring the patient with the in-room display terminal responsive to authorization via a user device and/or the home monitoring device as taught by Mensinger et al. in the system as taught by Wainright et al. and Al-Ali et al. in combination with the motivation(s) of verifying the integrity of the received data (see: column 25, lines 19-49 of Mensinger et al.).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2018/0353084 to Wainright et al. in view of U.S. 2017/0340293 to Al-Ali et al. as applied to claim 1, and further in view of U.S. 2017/0124269 to McNair et al.
As per claim 8, Wainright et al. and Al-Ali et al. in combination teaches the system of claim 1, see discussion of claim 1. The combination may not further, specifically teach wherein the one or more hardware computer processors are configured to execute the program instructions to cause the computing system to:
--access a subset of the historical physiological data based on a health condition identified in the historical physiological data.
McNair et al. teaches:
--wherein the one or more hardware computer processors are configured to execute the program instructions to cause the computing system to:
--access a subset of the historical physiological data based on a health condition identified in the historical physiological data (see: paragraph [0171] where there is accessing of historical data based on an identified condition in the patient).
One of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to have wherein the one or more hardware computer processors are configured to execute the program instructions to cause the computing system to: access a subset of the historical physiological data based on a health condition identified in the historical physiological data as taught by McNair et al. in the system as taught by Wainright et al. and Al-Ali et al. in combination with the motivation(s) of improving condition detection (see: paragraph [0047] of McNair et al.).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2018/0353084 to Wainright et al. in view of U.S. 2017/0340293 to Al-Ali et al. as applied to claim 1, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 9,854,972 to Blumenthal et al.
As per claim 11, Wainright et al. and Al-Ali et al. in combination teaches the system of claim 1, see discussion of claim 1. The combination may not further, specifically teach wherein the one or more hardware computer processors are configured to execute the program instructions to cause the computing system to:
--parse the historical physiological data into a structured data format corresponding to a format of the real-time physiological data.
Blumenthal et al. teaches:
--wherein the one or more hardware computer processors are configured to execute the program instructions to cause the computing system to:
--parse the historical physiological data into a structured data format corresponding to a format of the real-time physiological data (see: paragraph [0056] where there is a parsing of data into a structured format).
One of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to have wherein the one or more hardware computer processors are configured to execute the program instructions to cause the computing system to: access a subset of the historical physiological data based on a health condition identified in the historical physiological data as taught by McNair et al. in the system as taught by Wainright et al. and Al-Ali et al. in combination with the motivation(s) of improving care quality and patient experience (see: paragraph [0012] of Blumenthal et al.).
No Art Rejections
Claims 2, 14, and 18 do not have art rejections in view of any potential combination of references being used to reject these claims are being an unreasonable combination.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Steven G.S. Sanghera whose telephone number is (571)272-6873. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00 (alternating Fri).
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, Shahid Merchant can be reached at 571-270-1360. 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.
/STEVEN G.S. SANGHERA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3684
Prosecution Insights