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 .
Receipt of Application filed April 29, 2026, is acknowledged.
Response to Amendment
Claims 7, 9, 13-15, 24, 26, 27, 29, 31, 32, and 34-36 have been amended.
Claims 1-6, 12, 16-23, 25, and 33 have been canceled. Claim 37 is new. Claims 7-11, 13-15, 24, 26-32, and 34-37 are pending and are provided to be examined upon their merits.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 29, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. A response is provided below in bold where appropriate.
Applicant argues 35 USC 112(a), starting pg. 12 of Arguments:
Claims 7-11, 13-15, 24, and 26-36 Comply with 4 112(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 notes that claim 33 is canceled, and therefore, the rejection of claim 33 is moot. Applicant respectfully traverses the rejection of claims 7-11, 13-15, 24, 26-32, and 34-36.
Claim 7, as amended, recites, in part:
A system for centralized monitoring of a plurality of users, comprising:
at least one processor;
a computing device communicatively connected to the at least one processor;
a plurality of sensors operably connected to the at least one processor, the plurality of sensors being configured to monitor locations of a plurality of medical equipment in a clinical environment; and
memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor,
cause the at least one processor to perform operations comprising:
receiving, from a first sensor associated with a support device and during a first time period, first user data comprising a first location of a first user of the plurality of users, wherein:
the first user is supported by the support device, and
the first location corresponds to a location of the support device; ...
determining medical equipment is required to perform the first action;
receiving, from a second sensor of the plurality of sensors, second data indicating a second location of the medical equipment;
determining, based on the first location of the first user and the second location, that the medical equipment is within a threshold distance from the first user;
determining, based at least in part on the medical equipment being within the threshold distance from the first user, an ordering for performing the first action and a second action associated with a second user of the plurality of users;
causing the computing device to provide a listing of actions via a user interface
indicating, in accordance with the ordering, the first action and the second action;
receiving, from a third sensor of the plurality of sensors and during a second time period, third data comprising information indicating a change in location of the medical equipment; ...
causing the computing device to:
modify the listing of actions, provided via the user interface, in accordance with the change in the ordering, and
provide an update indicative of the change in the ordering and the change in location of the medical equipment.
The Office Action alleges that "[t]he 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." (Office Action, pp. 7-8). Applicant respectfully disagrees. In particular, and as discussed during the interview, the Specification describes that "medical equipment includes a RTLS tag that emits a wireless signal ... [t]he wireless signal may be received by RTLS sensors located at predetermined locations in the clinical environment," and "[t]he workflow system may determine the location of the medical equipment based on the signal(s) from the RTLS sensors." (Specification, para. [0055]). Thus, Applicant respectfully submits that "near field communication with tags" does not preclude a determination "of a location greater than a distance" as the Office alleges.
Respectfully, the above is not taught in Applicant’s specification. There is no support offered by Applicant that RTLS tags inherently provide location beyond a threshold distance.
Additionally, as also discussed during the interview, the Specification also describes that the "workflow system may initially determine that the medical equipment is outside the vicinity of the patient," and a provider may "order the medical equipment to be brought to the vicinity of the patient" (Specification, para. [0061]) and "the location data may indicate the location of equipment within a clinical environment." (Specification, para. [0080]).
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, as shown above. Applicant respectfully submits that these amendments render the § 112(a) rejections moot. For example, claim 7, as amended, does not recite determining "the medical equipment is greater than a threshold distance from the first user," which is objected-to in the Office Action.
Noted.
Further, the Office Action alleges that "an alarm is related to a patient, not change in ordering or change in location of equipment," with respect to pending claim 7. (Office Action, page 10). Applicant respectfully notes that claim 7, as amended, recites "provid[ing] an update indicative of the change in the ordering and the change in location of the medical equipment." The Specification, throughout, describes such updates. For example, the Specification describes that "the workflow report may be updated based on changes in location of the medical equipment." (Specification, para. [0060]).
Noted.
Independent claims 24 and 32, although different in scope from independent claim 7, have been amended similarly to claim 7 discussed above. For reasons similar to those presented above with respect to claim 7, Applicant respectfully submits that amended independent claims 24 and 32 also overcome the outstanding rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests that the Office withdraw the § 112(a) rejections of claims 7-11, 13-15, 24, 26-32, and 34-36.
The prior rejections for the most part are withdrawn. However, the amendments have caused new rejections. For example, first and second sensors have been defined in the specification with specific meanings. Third and fourth sensors are not taught.
Further, and as pointed out above by the Applicant, the only way location is determined is by using the RTLS tags, where the sensors in the environment determine the locations of the tags.
From Applicant’s 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.” [0055]
From Fig. 1, ref. 132 and 134 of Applicant’s specification…
PNG
media_image1.png
212
316
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, the medical equipment includes a RTLS tag that emits wireless signals, and RTLS sensors located in the environment receive the signals from the tags. There is no teaching of receiving from a sensor a location of a patient. An RTLS sensor detects the location of a tag.
Also from Applicant’s specification…
“The workflow system 108 may further generate the workflow report 202 based, at least in part, on location data 214 received from the RTLS sensors 134. The location data 214 may indicate the location of equipment within a clinical environment. The workflow system 108 may determine whether the location of the equipment is located within the vicinity of the patient 104 (e.g., within a threshold distance of the patient 104, within a room of the patient 104, etc.). In various cases, the workflow system 108 may indicate whether the equipment is located within the vicinity of the patient 104 in the workflow report 202.” [0080]
From Applicant’s claim 24…
“receiving, from a first sensor associated with a support device and during a first time period, first user data comprising a first location of a first user of the plurality of users, wherein:”
The above is not taught in the specification. The sensor that provides the location is an RTLS sensor located in the environment that detects a RTLS tag. Also. the first sensor is not part of the support device.
New Claim 37
Applicant respectfully requests entry, consideration, and allowance of new claim 37.
There is neither antecedence for “the respective predetermined location of the second sensor…” nor teaching of “second data includes an identification of the medical equipment.”
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.”
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, 26-32, and 34-37 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 recited “receiving, from a first sensor associated with a support device and during a first time period, first user data comprising a first location of a first user of the plurality of users, wherein: the first user is supported by the support device, and…” where there is no teaching of first sensor associated with a support device.
From Applicant’s specification regarding first sensor:
“The workflow system 108 may generate the workflow report 202 based, at least in part, on first sensor data 206 and second sensor data 208. The first sensor data 206 may be obtained from the medical device 128 monitoring the patient 104. The second sensor data 208 may be obtained from one or more sensors integrated into the support device 114 of the patient 104. Thus, the first sensor data 206 and/or second sensor data 208 may be indicative of a real-time condition of the patient 104, such as a parameter of the patient 104 sampled at a particular frequency (e.g., every 30 seconds, every minute, etc.). In some cases, the first sensor data 206 and the second sensor data 208 are not stored in the EMR system 112.” [0078]
From Fig. 2, ref. 128 (Medical Device) and 206 (First Sensor Data)…
PNG
media_image2.png
336
360
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, first sensor data is from medical device (ref. 128) and not from support device (ref. 114).
Claim 7 recited “receiving, from a first sensor associated with a support device and during a first time period, first user data comprising a first location of a first user of the plurality of users, wherein:…” where there is no teaching of receiving from a first sensor location information.
From Applicant’s specification regarding sensor and location:
“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.” [0055]
From Fig. 1, ref. 132 and 134…
PNG
media_image1.png
212
316
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, the medical equipment includes a RTLS tag that emits wireless signals, and RTLS sensors located in the environment receive the signals from the tags. There is no teaching of receiving from a sensor a location of a patient. An RTLS sensor detects the location of a tag.
Also from Applicant’s specification…
“The workflow system 108 may further generate the workflow report 202 based, at least in part, on location data 214 received from the RTLS sensors 134. The location data 214 may indicate the location of equipment within a clinical environment. The workflow system 108 may determine whether the location of the equipment is located within the vicinity of the patient 104 (e.g., within a threshold distance of the patient 104, within a room of the patient 104, etc.). In various cases, the workflow system 108 may indicate whether the equipment is located within the vicinity of the patient 104 in the workflow report 202.” [0080]
Claim 7 recites “receiving, from a second sensor of the plurality of sensors, sensor data indicating a second location of the medical equipment;…” where there is no teaching of receiving from a second sensor medical equipment location.
From Applicant’s specification regarding second sensor:
“The workflow system 108 may generate the workflow report 202 based, at least in part, on first sensor data 206 and second sensor data 208. The first sensor data 206 may be obtained from the medical device 128 monitoring the patient 104. The second sensor data 208 may be obtained from one or more sensors integrated into the support device 114 of the patient 104. Thus, the first sensor data 206 and/or second sensor data 208 may be indicative of a real-time condition of the patient 104, such as a parameter of the patient 104 sampled at a particular frequency (e.g., every 30 seconds, every minute, etc.). In some cases, the first sensor data 206 and the second sensor data 208 are not stored in the EMR system 112.” [0078]
From Fig. 2, ref. 114 (Support Device) and ref. 208 (Second Sensor Data)…
PNG
media_image2.png
336
360
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, the second sensor data is from the support device, not from medical equipment.
From Fig. 1, ref. 132 (Medical Equipment) and 134 (RTLS Sensors)…
PNG
media_image3.png
230
340
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim 7 recites “receiving, from a third sensor of the plurality of sensors and during a second time period, third data comprising information indicating a change in location of the medical equipment;…” where there is no teaching of “third sensor” and exactly what this is (e.g., medical device, support device, etc.). The specification only teaches first and second sensor. Claims 24 and 34 have a similar problem.
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 fourth sensor data received from a fourth sensor of the plurality of sensors, that the medical equipment is at the additional location” where no teaching of “fourth sensor” or determining based on fourth sensor of equipment at additional location can be found in the specification. Claim 24 has a similar problem.
Claim 32 recites “determining, based on receiving first sensor data from a first sensor of a plurality of sensors configured to monitor a signal from the equipment, a location of the equipment;…” where there is no teaching of receiving first sensor data from a first sensor a location of equipment.
From Applicant’s specification regarding sensor and location:
“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.” [0055]
From Fig. 1, ref. 132 and 134…
PNG
media_image1.png
212
316
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, the medical equipment includes a RTLS tag that emits wireless signals, and RTLS sensors located in the environment receive the signals from the tags. There is no teaching of receiving from a sensor a location of a patient. An RTLS sensor detects the location of a tag.
Also from Applicant’s specification…
“The workflow system 108 may further generate the workflow report 202 based, at least in part, on location data 214 received from the RTLS sensors 134. The location data 214 may indicate the location of equipment within a clinical environment. The workflow system 108 may determine whether the location of the equipment is located within the vicinity of the patient 104 (e.g., within a threshold distance of the patient 104, within a room of the patient 104, etc.). In various cases, the workflow system 108 may indicate whether the equipment is located within the vicinity of the patient 104 in the workflow report 202.” [0080]
Claim 37 recites “the second location of the medical equipment is based on the respective predetermined location of the second sensor, and the second data includes an identification of the medical equipment” where neither teaching of predetermined location of medical equipment based on the second sensor can be found in the written description nor “second data includes an identification of the medical equipment.
Applicant’s specification teaches sensors detecting tags on equipment (see para. [0055] and [0080] of the specification).
Claim 8-11, 13-15, 26-31, and 34-37 are further rejected as they depend from their respective independent claims 7, 24, and 32.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 7-11, 13-15, 24, 26-31, and 34-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 7 recites “receiving, from a third sensor of the plurality of sensors and during a second time period, third data comprising information indicating a change in location of the medical equipment;…” where there is no teaching of “third sensor” and exactly what this is (e.g., medical device, support device, etc.). Claims 24 and 34 have a similar problem.
Claim 13 recites “fourth sensor” where there is no teaching of “fourth sensor” and exactly what this is. The specification only teaches first and second sensor. Claim 24 has a similar problem.
Claim 37 recites “the second location of the medical equipment is based on the respective predetermined location of the second sensor,” where there is no antecedence for “the respective predetermined location of the second sensor.
Claim 8-11, 13-15, 26-31, and 35-37 are further rejected as they depend from their respective independent claims 7 and 24.
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
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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
Prosecution Insights