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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on October 28, 2025, has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 7, 10, 11, 13, 24, 29, 32, and 34 have been amended. Claims 1-6, 12, 16-23, and 25 have been canceled. Claims 35 and 36 are new. Claims 7-11, 13-15, 24, and 26-36 are pending and are provided to be examined upon their merits.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 28, 2025, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. A response is provided below in bold where appropriate.
Applicant argues 35 USC 112(a) Rejection, pg. 12 of Remarks:
Claims 7-15 and 24-34 Comply with § 112(a)
Claims 7-15 and 24-34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), as allegedly failing to comply with the written description requirement. Applicant respectfully traverses this rejection.
Nevertheless, for the sole purpose of expediting allowance and without commenting on the propriety of the Office's rejections, Applicant herein amends independent claims 7, 24, and 32, and dependent claims 13, 29, and 34 to remove the objected-to claim language. Applicant respectfully submits that these amendments render the § 112(a) rejections moot, and requests favorable reconsideration.
Regarding section (7) from the 35 USC112(a) rejection, Applicant has removed priority and replaced with ordering. Applicant is also now claiming “greater than the threshold distance.”
Respectfully, there is no teaching of greater than the threshold distance, only within the threshold distance. Also, the claim teaches receiving from sensor location information.
From the specification…
“The workflow system 108 may further determine whether medical equipment 132 is associated with the task(s). The medical equipment 132, for example, is any object that can be used to diagnose, treat, or manage the patient 104. For instance, the medical equipment 132 may be mobility equipment (e.g., a wheelchair, gurney, walker, etc.), a therapeutic medical device (e.g., a continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) machine), a diagnostic medical device (e.g., a portable ultrasound machine, a thermometer, etc.), and so on. If the workflow system 108 determines that a particular task can be performed with the medical equipment 132, the workflow system 108 may determine whether the medical equipment 132 is available and/or located within a vicinity of the patient 104. In some cases, the medical equipment 132 includes a real time location system (RTLS) tag that emits a wireless signal (e.g., an NFC signal). The wireless signal may be received by RTLS sensors 134 located at predetermined locations in the clinical environment. The RTLS sensors 134 may transmit, to the workflow system 108, one or more signals indicative of the times at which the wireless signal from the medical equipment 132 is received. The workflow system 108 may determine the location of the medical equipment 132 based on the signal(s) from the RTLS sensors 134. The workflow system 108 may also determine the location of the patient 104, e.g., based on the patient data. In some cases, the workflow system 108 may determine whether the medical equipment 132 is located within a threshold distance of the location of the patient 104 or within a room associated with the patient 104. The workflow system 108 may indicate, in the workflow report, whether the medical equipment 132 is in the vicinity of the patient 104.
The above RTLS (real time location sensor) tag is using NFC (near field communication). The specification teaches sensors to determine if equipment is located within a threshold distance, using RTLS tag and NFC, which is low power for detecting nearby objects. This is not for using sensors to determine if equipment is greater than a threshold distance, and these sensors would have no way of knowing what/where equipment that is outside the threshold distance. See also Fig. 1, ref. 132 and 134 where equipment is using RTLS sensors.” [0055]
Essentially, the sensors know what equipment is located within a threshold distance but would not know what equipment is outside of this threshold. The specification appears to be silent as to how the system knows what equipment is not nearby.
Regarding ordering, Fig. 4 and para. [0099] kind of teaches this, but for the same patient (Patient 2). Paragraph [0092] indicates equipment that should be acquired before visiting patient 5. Therefore, ordering an action seems taught.
This rejection is modified but maintained as there is no teaching of sensor data for determining location of equipment greater than a threshold.
Sections (8)-(13) are withdrawn based on the claim amendments. However, the amendments have caused further rejections.
Applicant argues 35 USC 103 Rejection, starting pg. 12 of Remarks:
Applicant’s amendments have caused the prior art rejection to be withdrawn, for now.
Claim Interpretation
The specification teaches a bedside mobility assessment tool (BMAT), where there is no teaching as to exactly what the assessment tool is. For examination
purposes, if claimed, anything (e.g., patient or healthcare provider with pen/paper or computer, etc.) that can assess patient bedside mobility is considered a bedside mobility assessment tool.
The specification teaches “alarm,” they do not teach an “alert”. For examination purposes the “alarm” is interpreted to be an “alert.”
35 USC § 101 Analysis
Claims 7-15 and 24-34 are directed to a system, method, or product, which are statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
The Examiner has identified method Claim 32 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to system Claim 7 and product Claim 24.
Claim 32 recites the limitations of:
A non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform operations comprising:
receiving, during a first time period, first user data comprising a first location of a first user and information indicating a vital sign of the first user;
determining, based on the first user data, a condition of the first user and a first action to be performed with respect to the first user;
receiving, during the first time period, second user data of a second user, the second user data comprising a second location of the second user different from the first location, and information indicating a vital sign of the second user;
determining, based on the second user data, a second action to be performed with respect to the second user;
determining that equipment is required to perform the first action;
determining, based on receiving sensor data from a sensor of the equipment, a location of the equipment;
determining, based on the first location, that the location of the equipment is greater than a threshold distance of the first user;
determining, based at least in part on the location being greater than the threshold distance of the first user, an ordering of the first action and the second action;
causing a computing device in communication with the processor to provide a listing of actions via a user interface indicating, in accordance with the ordering, the first action and the second action;
receiving, during a second time period, third data comprising additional information indicating a change in the location of the equipment;
determining, in real time and based on the change in location, a change in the ordering of the first action or the second action; and
causing the computing device to modify the listing of actions provided via the
user interface in accordance with the change in the ordering.
These above limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes. However, the determining equipment required to perform a first action, determining based on receiving sensor data location of the equipment, determining if the location is greater than a threshold distance of a user, provide a practical application and significantly more. See para’s [0055] and [0056]), where location and distance provide useful information for a workflow system and improve efficiency. The combination of steps also provides significantly more as the actual location of equipment and users and predetermined distance provides additional information useful in managing workflow.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 7-11, 13-15, 24, and 26-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 7 recites “receiving, from a sensor of the medical equipment, sensor data indicating a second location of the medical equipment;” and “determining, based on the first location of the first user and the second location, that the medical equipment is greater than a threshold distance from the first user” where no teaching of sensor determining a location, where the location is greater than a threshold distance from the first user can be found. The specification is using near field communication with tags to determine if equipment is within a threshold distance. No teaching can be found of sensors determining a location greater than a distance.
From the specification:
“The workflow system 108 may further determine whether medical equipment 132 is associated with the task(s). The medical equipment 132, for example, is any object that can be used to diagnose, treat, or manage the patient 104. For instance, the medical equipment 132 may be mobility equipment (e.g., a wheelchair, gurney, walker, etc.), a therapeutic medical device (e.g., a continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) machine), a diagnostic medical device (e.g., a portable ultrasound machine, a thermometer, etc.), and so on. If the workflow system 108 determines that a particular task can be performed with the medical equipment 132, the workflow system 108 may determine whether the medical equipment 132 is available and/or located within a vicinity of the patient 104. In some cases, the medical equipment 132 includes a real time location system (RTLS) tag that emits a wireless signal (e.g., an NFC signal). The wireless signal may be received by RTLS sensors 134 located at predetermined locations in the clinical environment. The RTLS sensors 134 may transmit, to the workflow system 108, one or more signals indicative of the times at which the wireless signal from the medical equipment 132 is received. The workflow system 108 may determine the location of the medical equipment 132 based on the signal(s) from the RTLS sensors 134. The workflow system 108 may also determine the location of the patient 104, e.g., based on the patient data. In some cases, the workflow system 108 may determine whether the medical equipment 132 is located within a threshold distance of the location of the patient 104 or within a room associated with the patient 104. The workflow system 108 may indicate, in the workflow report, whether the medical equipment 132 is in the vicinity of the patient 104.
The above RTLS (real time location sensor) tag is using NFC (near field communication). The specification teaches sensors to determine if equipment is located within a threshold distance, using RTLS tag and NFC, which is low power for detecting nearby objects. This is not for using sensors to determine if equipment is greater than a threshold distance, and these sensors would have no way of knowing what/where equipment that is outside the threshold distance. See also Fig. 1, ref. 132 and 134 where equipment is using RTLS sensors.” [0055]
Claims 24, 29, and 32 have a similar problem of claiming greater than a threshold.
Claim 7 recites “provide an alert indicative of the change in the ordering and the change in the location of the medical equipment” where no teaching of an alert indicating change in the ordering and change in the location of equipment can be found in the specification.
From the specification:
“… According to various implementations, the support device 114 can include vital sign monitors configured to output alarms or otherwise communicate vital signs of the patient 104 to external observers (e.g., care providers, family members, and the like). The support device 114 may include railings that prevent the patient 104 from sliding off of a resting surface of the support device 114. The railings may be adjustable, in some cases.” [0033]
“The workflow system 108 may indicate the sepsis risk, fall risk, pressure injury risk, or a combination thereof, of the patient 104 in the workflow report in a variety of ways. For example, the workflow system 108 may output the risk itself as a percentage risk, wherein 0% corresponds to no risk and 100% corresponds to a certainty that the patient 104 will experience the complication (e.g., within a particular time period, such as one day). In some cases, the workflow system 108 may include an icon, color, alarm, or other indicator in the workflow report when the risk is above a particular threshold (e.g., the percentage risk is greater than 50%). According to some implementations, the workflow system 108 may indicate the statuses of multiple patients assigned to the first care provider 102 in the workflow report, and may arrange an order of user interface elements corresponding to the multiple patients in the workflow report based on the respective risks of the patients. For instance, the workflow system 108 may list a patient with a highest risk at the top of a graphical user interface (GUI) of the workflow report and a patient with a lowest risk at the bottom of the GUI.” [0048]
Therefore, an alarm is related to a patient, not change in ordering or change in location of equipment.
Claim 24 has a similar problem.
Claim 9 has “determining a status of the first user based on predicting, based on the first user data or the third data, that the first user will be sleeping during a third time period, wherein the alert further indicates that the first user is predicted to be unavailable during the third time period” where there is no teaching of alert indicates first user is predicted to be unavailable during the third time period. Alert is interpreted as some kind of indication.
Claim 13 recites “receiving input requesting relocation of the medical equipment to an additional location associated with a third patient” where there is no teaching of input with relocation of equipment to an additional location is taught in the specification.
Claim 13 recites “determining, based on second sensor data received from the sensor of the medical equipment, that the medical equipment is at the additional location” where no teaching of determining base on second sensor of equipment at additional location can be found in the specification.
Claim 13 recites “causing an additional alert requesting the relocation of medical equipment…” where there is no teaching of alert requesting relocation of equipment. Claims 14, 15, 26, 27, 29, 31, and 34-36 have a similar problem as they recite the use of “alert” that is not taught in the specification. Applicant’s specification never teaches “alert” and it only teaches “alarm” in two places, para. [0033] and [0048]. For examination purposes, this is interpreted as a message.
Claims 8-11, 13-15, 26-31, 33-36 are further rejected as they depend from their respective independent claim.
Examiner Request
The Applicant is requested to indicate where in the specification there is support for amendments to claims should Applicant amend. The purpose of this is to reduce potential 35 U.S.C. §112(a) or §112 1st paragraph issues that can arise when claims are amended without support in the specification. The Examiner thanks the Applicant in advance.
Prior Art
A prior art search was conducted but does not result in a prior art rejection at this time. The best prior art to date is Pub. No. US 2015/0302539 to Mazar et al. which teaches many of the claimed elements but does not teach greater than a threshold distance and determining, in real time, and based on a change in the location [of equipment], a change in the ordering for performing the first action or the second action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH BARTLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-5230. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 7:30 - 4:00 EST.
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.
/KENNETH BARTLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3684