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 .
Response to Amendment
The following Office action in response to communications received April 9, 2026.
Applicant cancels claims 3 and 11. Applicant amends claims 1, 4-8, 10, and 12-22. Applicant adds new claims 23 and 24. Applicant presents claims 1, 4-8, 10, and 12-24 pending and addressed below.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims are sufficient to overcome the 35 USC § 102 rejections set forth in the previous office action dated December 10, 2025.
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, 4–7, 21, and 24 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. Based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claims as a whole, the claims are directed to non-statutory subject matter which do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because of the following analysis:
The claims are directed to a process and a machine and therefore fall within a statutory category. In particular, Claims 1, 4–7, 21, and 24 recite a “system” comprising an electronic whiteboard display, microphone, camera, processor, memory, and related components; Claims 8, 10, 12, 22, and 23 recite an “electronic whiteboard” with a screen, processor, microphone, camera, input device, transceiver, and memory; and Claims 13–20 recite a “computer-implemented method” performed by at least one processor associated with the electronic whiteboard.
Independent Claims 1, 8, and 13 are directed to an abstract idea consisting of electronically detecting which individuals are present in a patient’s room and tailoring the display of patient-related information on a whiteboard to those individuals, including dynamically sizing and switching content, to manage clinical interactions and information presentation.
Independent Claim 1 recites, in substance: “A system including an electronic whiteboard display, a microphone, and a camera in a patient room, with at least one processor and memory storing instructions to: identify a position of a first person in the room relative to the display based on audio and/or image data; dynamically determine a graphics or font size for first information based on the distance between the first person and the display; cause the display to present the first information at a first time; detect that a second person has entered the room based on audio and/or image data; and, at a second time and based on detecting the second person, cause the display to change from presenting the first information to presenting second information associated with the second person.”
Independent Claim 8 recites, in substance: “An electronic whiteboard with a screen, processor, microphone, camera, input device, transceiver, and memory storing instructions to: identify a position of a first person relative to the screen based on audio and/or image data; dynamically determine graphics or font size to present first information on the screen based on a distance between the screen and the first person; cause the screen to present the first information; detect, based on audio and/or image data, that a second person has entered the room; and, based on that detection, cause the screen to change from presenting the first information to presenting second information associated with the second person.”
Independent Claim 13 recites, in substance: “A computer-implemented method performed by a processor associated with an electronic whiteboard mounted in a patient room, including: identifying a position of a first person relative to a display based on audio and/or image data; dynamically determining a graphics or font size used to present first information based on a distance between the display and the first person; causing the display to present the first information with the determined size; detecting, based on audio and/or image data, that a second person has entered the room; and, based on that detection, causing the display to change from presenting the first information to presenting second information associated with the second person.”
The limitations of Claims 1, 8, and 13, as drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover the performance of:
Mental processes, including concepts performed in the human mind such as observing who is in a room, evaluating their role (patient vs. provider), judging what information is appropriate for each person, and deciding how prominently to display that information.
Certain methods of organizing human activity, including managing clinical workflows, personal behavior, and professional interactions in a patient-care setting by deciding which information to present to which participant (patient or provider), in what language, and when to switch between different types of clinical or administrative content.
Mathematical concepts, to the extent the claim language encompasses calculations or model-based determinations of distances, font sizes, or timers, such as computing a distance between a person and the display or determining a timer indicating elapsed time since a detected clinical condition.
But for the recitation of generic computer components, the claim steps are simply organizing and managing the presentation of patient-related and provider-related information in a hospital room, including observing room occupants, deciding what content is appropriate to show them, adjusting the prominence of that content (e.g., size), and switching content as different participants enter or leave.
The claims recite additional elements such as:
An electronic whiteboard display or screen in a patient room.
One or more microphones present in the room.
One or more cameras present in the room.
At least one processor or processors communicatively coupled to the display, microphone, camera, input device, transceiver, and other components.
Non-transitory processor-readable memory storing instructions executed by the processor(s).
A transceiver for communication with one or more electronic medical record (EMR) servers.
Database or record storage, such as EMR data associated with the patient and updates to EMR records.
Input device, touch sensor, and the ability to present different types of information (e.g., care provider identity, contact information, care schedules, vital signs, timers, tasks, diagnostic information, and discharge plans).
Sensors configured to detect vital signs, fluids, or medications administered to the patient.
These elements are recited at a high level of generality and merely use generic computer components to perform generic computer functions such as receiving and processing audio and image data, computing a position or distance, adjusting display parameters, detecting presence, sending and receiving data to/from EMR servers, and updating records. Looking to the specification as reasonably inferred from the claim context, these components are described at a high level of generality as conventional computing platforms, such as standard electronic displays, processors, memory, microphones, cameras, transceivers, and sensors, executing software instructions to receive data, determine positions and distances, present content in various formats, store and retrieve EMR data, and communicate with external systems. Such generic computing environments are routinely characterized as conventional under the USPTO’s subject-matter eligibility guidance.
The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not improve the functioning of a computer, network, model architecture, image-processing architecture, or any other underlying technology. The claims merely apply the abstract idea of tailoring information presentation for different people in a hospital room using conventional sensors, processors, displays, and EMR communications. For example, the claims do not recite any improvement to camera operation, microphone signal processing, display hardware, network protocols, memory structures, or EMR server functionality. Instead, the claims invoke these components in their ordinary, expected roles to collect data (audio, image, EMR, vitals), perform routine processing (detect presence, compute a distance, select content and font size, start timers), and present or transmit information. Such use of generic technology as a tool to perform an abstract process and link it to the clinical field of use is insufficient to qualify as a practical application of the judicial exception under Step 2A, Prong Two.
The ordered combination of claim elements adds nothing significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The use of generic processors, memory, microphones, cameras, transceivers, sensors, data storage, and user interfaces in their conventional configurations, to collect data about who is present in a room and to present corresponding information on an electronic whiteboard, reflects routine and conventional activity for implementing information-management concepts on standard computing infrastructure.
Any additional steps involving receiving or transmitting EMR data, updating EMR records, displaying timers, or adjusting font size and content based on the presence or identity of room occupants are recited at a high level of abstraction and amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity, such as data gathering, data processing, and presentation of results. As such, the claims do not recite an inventive concept sufficient to transform the underlying abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter.
It is worth noting that the above analysis already encompasses each of the current dependent claims (i.e., claims 4-7, 10, 12 and 14-24). Particularly, each of the dependent claims also fails to amount to “significantly more’ than the abstract idea since each dependent claim is directed to a further abstract idea, and/or a further conventional computer element/function utilized to facilitate the abstract idea.
Accordingly, none of the current claims implements an element—or a combination of elements—directed to an inventive concept (e.g., none of the current claims is reciting an element—or a combination of elements—that provides a technological improvement over the existing/conventional technology). These information characteristics do not change the fundamental analogy to the abstract idea groupings and when viewed individually or as a whole, they do not add anything substantial beyond the abstract idea. Furthermore, the combination of elements does not indicate a significant improvement to the functioning of a computer or any other technology. Therefore, the claims when taken as a whole are ineligible for the same reasons as the independent claims.
Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and therefore are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 4–8, 10, 12–24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as unpatentable over Robinson et al. (US 2014/0244298 A1) in view of Hoad-Reddick et al. (US 2020/0118655 A1), and further in view of Embree et al. (US 2020/0075140 A1), and further in view of Doyle, III et al. (US 9690538 B1).
Claim 1:
“A system, comprising an electronic whiteboard display mounted in a room associated with a patient; a microphone present in the room; a camera present in the room; at least one processor communicatively coupled to the electronic whiteboard display, the microphone, and the camera; and memory communicatively coupled to the at least one processor and storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform operations comprising: identifying a position, relative to the electronic whiteboard display, of a first person within the room, based on at least one of audio data captured by the microphone or image data captured by the camera; dynamically determining at least one of a graphics size or a font size used to present first information on the electronic whiteboard display, based on a distance between the electronic whiteboard display and the position of the first person relative to the electronic whiteboard display; causing, at a first time, the electronic whiteboard display to present the first information using the at least one of the graphics size or the font size; detecting, based on at least one of the audio data or the image data, that a second person has entered the room; and causing, at a second time, and based on detecting that the second person has entered the room, the electronic whiteboard display to change from presenting the first information to presenting second information associated with the second person.”
Robinson et al. teaches:
“an electronic whiteboard display mounted in a room associated with a patient.” Robinson et al. teaches “a display mounted adjacent a doorway of a room of a patient,” and further explains that the electronic room signs may additionally be located inside the patient rooms, thereby disclosing a patient-room display for presenting patient-related information, see paragraphs 0005 and 0024.
“at least one processor communicatively coupled to the electronic whiteboard display … and memory … storing instructions.” Robinson et al. teaches an electronic signage server programmed with listening service software that monitors network messages and controls the room sign to display information based on EMR and RTLS data, thereby disclosing processor- and memory-based control of the display, see paragraphs 0025–0029.
“causing, at a first time, the electronic whiteboard display to present the first information.” Robinson et al. teaches that the display shows patient-specific information including isolation control messages, allergies, falls-risk icons, issued orders, assigned caregivers, and other room/patient information, see paragraphs 0007–0012 and 0030–0034.
“causing … the electronic whiteboard display to change from presenting the first information to presenting second information.” Robinson et al. teaches that the displayed information is updated automatically in response to RTLS and EMR events, including when patients leave, rooms are cleaned, or alarms/transport requests occur, see paragraphs 0028–0029 and 0042–0049.
Robinson et al. fails to explicitly teach:
“a microphone present in the room.”
“a camera present in the room.”
“identifying a position, relative to the electronic whiteboard display, of a first person within the room, based on at least one of audio data captured by the microphone or image data captured by the camera.”
“dynamically determining at least one of a graphics size or a font size … based on a distance between the electronic whiteboard display and the position of the first person.”
“detecting … that a second person has entered the room” based on audio or image data.
“presenting second information associated with the second person” in the context of a dynamic patient whiteboard tailored to different users.
Hoad-Reddick et al. teaches:
“presenting second information associated with the second person.” Hoad-Reddick et al. teaches a “dynamic patient whiteboard” and teaches that “context information may be displayed … based upon a particular user identity,” thereby disclosing changing whiteboard content according to the identity or role of the user viewing or interacting with the whiteboard, see paragraphs 0033–0036 and 0051–0053.
“changing from presenting the first information to presenting second information associated with the second person.” Hoad-Reddick et al. teaches that the dynamic patient whiteboard may display different sets of data and tasks for different contexts or user groups and may update the whiteboard to reflect updated task status and user context, see paragraphs 0044–0046 and 0051–0054.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the dynamic user-context and user-identity whiteboard features taught by Hoad-Reddick et al. within the patient-room display system taught by Robinson et al. with the motivation of improving patient-room communication by presenting information tailored to the particular user or caregiver viewing the display, streamlining workflow, and updating displayed content automatically based on EMR data and user context.
Robinson et al. and Hoad-Reddick et al. fail to explicitly teach:
“a microphone present in the room.”
“a camera present in the room.”
“identifying a position … of a first person within the room” based on room-sensed data.
“dynamically determining … a graphics size or a font size” based on distance between the display and the person.
“detecting … that a second person has entered the room” based on room-sensed data.
Embree et al. teaches:
“a microphone present in the room.” Embree et al. teaches a charting system including “a microphone that may be configured to receive voice inputs from a caregiver,” and further teaches that the communication device may include a computer located in the patient room, a patient bed located in a patient room, or an audio station, see paragraphs 0006–0007 and 0015–0016.
“detecting … that a second person has entered the room.” Embree et al. teaches a locating system configured to notify the voice-to-text module that “the caregiver has entered the patient room,” and further teaches determining caregiver location within about three feet or less of an actual location using RTLS/UWB techniques, see paragraphs 0009–0013 and 0070–0076.
“identifying a position … of a first person within the room.” Embree et al. teaches determining the location of a caregiver tag within the healthcare facility, including within a patient room and within a threshold distance of room equipment, thereby disclosing position determination for a person in the room relative to system hardware, see paragraphs 0011–0013, 0064–0076, and 0079–0081.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the room-microphone and person-location / room-entry detection features taught by Embree et al. with the system taught by Robinson et al. and Hoad-Reddick et al. with the motivation of automatically identifying which caregiver is present in the patient room and triggering context-specific display updates without requiring manual identification or data entry, thereby improving speed, accuracy, and workflow efficiency in a patient-care environment.
Robinson et al., Hoad-Reddick et al. and Embree et al. fail to explicitly teach:
“a camera present in the room.”
“dynamically determining … a graphics size or a font size” based on distance between the display and the person.
Doyle, III et al. teaches:
“a camera present in the room.” Doyle, III et al. teaches the user input obtained by the input sensors may be from a variety of data input types, including, but not limited to, audio data, visual data, and biometric data. For example, the display device 1009 may be equipped with cameras capable of utilizing facial recognition techniques. In accordance with at least one embodiment, the display device 1009 may be equipped with eye-tracking cameras capable of detecting a user's focus. Although the data selection and filtering is depicted as being performed by interface layer module 928 on service provider 906, it is envisioned that at least a portion of the data selection and filtering may be performed on display device 1009, see Col 35 || 22-42, Col 37 Il 4-31 and Col 41 || 4-21.
“dynamically determining … a graphics size or a font size” based on distance between the display and the person.” Doyle, III et al. teaches in accordance with at least one embodiment, information presentation may be customized to account for a user context. In accordance with at least one embodiment, data regarding user requirements, such as clinical or demographic requirements, stored by the service provider may be used to filter and/or enhance information presentation. For example, a user's eyesight information may be used to determine the font size in which data is presented to that user. In this example, a hospital user with bad eyesight may be presented with information in a larger font, see Col 35 || 22-42, Col 37 Il 4-31 and Col 41 || 4-21.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the customizable real-time electronic whiteboard system taught by Doyle et al. with the system taught by Robinson et al., Hoad-Reddick et al. and Embree et al. with the motivation of providing the service provider identified information formatted in accordance with the set of user configuration settings, thereby the information to be presented may be optimally formatted and/or filtered based on the requirements of a set of users to be presented the information, see Col 53 || 1-6.
As per Claim 4, Robinson et al., Hoad-Reddick et al., Embree et al. and Doyle et al. teach:
“The system of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise: determining a language used by the first person, based on at least one of the audio data or user input provided by the first person via an input device; and causing, at the first time, the electronic whiteboard display to present the first information using the language.”
Hoad-Reddick et al. teaches user-specific contextual presentation and direct user input through SmartForms and dynamic interfaces, see paragraphs 0025–0028 and 0047–0054.
Embree et al. teaches receiving caregiver voice input through a microphone and converting that voice input into text for EMR processing, but does not expressly disclose determining the spoken language and driving whiteboard display language selection based on that determination. See paragraphs 0006–0010 and 0020–0027.
The obviousness of combining the teachings of Robinson et al., Hoad-Reddick et al., Embree et al. and Doyle et al. are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
Claim 5, Robinson et al., Hoad-Reddick et al., Embree et al. and Doyle et al. teach:
“The system of claim 1, wherein: the first person is a care provider treating the patient, the audio data indicates an update, by the care provider, to electronic medical record (EMR) data associated with the patient, and the instructions cause a transceiver of the system to transmit, to one or more EMR servers, the update to the EMR data associated with the patient based on the audio data.”
Embree et al. teaches:
“the audio data indicates an update, by the care provider, to electronic medical record (EMR) data associated with the patient.” Embree et al. teaches that a caregiver dictates vital signs and other clinical inputs into a microphone and that the processor converts the dictation into text for EMR entry, see paragraphs 0003–0009 and 0015–0017.
“the instructions cause a transceiver of the system to transmit, to one or more EMR servers, the update to the EMR data associated with the patient based on the audio data.” Embree et al. teaches initiating transmission of the converted text and vital signs data to an EMR computer and/or EMR server via the network, see paragraphs 0006, 0014–0015, and 0020–0026.
The obviousness of combining the teachings of Robinson et al., Hoad-Reddick et al., Embree et al. and Doyle et al. are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
Claim 6, Robinson et al., Hoad-Reddick et al., Embree et al. and Doyle et al. teach:
“The system of claim 1, further comprising: a transceiver configured to receive, from one or more electronic medical record (EMR) servers, EMR data associated with the patient; and a sensor configured to detect at least one of a vital sign of the patient, a fluid administered to the patient, or a medication administered to the patient, wherein the first information or the second information indicates a condition of the patient that is identified based on at least one of the EMR data, the vital sign, the fluid, or the medication.”
Robinson et al. teaches receiving EMR-driven patient information and displaying information indicative of patient condition, including icons specific to a medical condition of a patient, alarm icons from patient care equipment, and room/patient status information, see paragraphs 0005–0012 and 0041–0049.
Embree et al. teaches a vital sign monitor configured to obtain at least one vital sign from a patient and to display that vital sign, and teaches integration with EMR and patient-room equipment for charting such sensed information, see paragraphs 0006–0007 and 0015–0017.
The obviousness of combining the teachings of Robinson et al., Hoad-Reddick et al., Embree et al. and Doyle et al. are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
Claim 7, Robinson et al., Hoad-Reddick et al., Embree et al. and Doyle et al. teach:
“The system of claim 6 wherein: the condition comprises at least one of a cardiac arrest or a respiratory arrest of the patient, and the first information or the second information comprises a timer indicating an elapsed time since the condition was identified.”
Robinson et al. teaches patient alarm icons and heart-monitor alarm conditions indicating that a patient requires attention due to a heart attack or other heart-related ailment, see paragraph 0049.
The obviousness of combining the teachings of Robinson et al., Hoad-Reddick et al., Embree et al. and Doyle et al. are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
As per Claim 8, Claim 8 is directed to an electronic whiteboard. Claim 8 recites the same or substantially similar limitations as those addressed above for Claim 1 as taught by Robinson et al., Hoad-Reddick et al., Embree et al. and Doyle et al. Claim 8 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for Claim 1 respectively.
As per Claim 10, Robinson et al., Hoad-Reddick et al., Embree et al. and Doyle et al. teach:
“The electronic whiteboard of claim 8, the data being first data, wherein: the transceiver is further configured to periodically receive, from the one or more EMR servers, second data indicating a condition of the patient, and at least one of the first information or the second information indicates the condition of the patient.”
Robinson et al. teaches receiving EMR-driven information and displaying patient-condition information on the patient-room display, including icons/messages associated with the patient’s condition, see paragraphs 0005–0012 and 0041–0042.
Hoad-Reddick et al. teaches a dynamic patient whiteboard that accesses an EMR database concurrently with display and updates displayed whiteboard information in response to updated EMR task status and patient-specific data, see paragraphs 0051–0054.
The obviousness of combining the teachings of Robinson et al., Hoad-Reddick et al., Embree et al. and Doyle et al. are discussed in the rejection of claim 8, and incorporated herein.
As per Claim 12, Robinson et al., Hoad-Reddick et al., Embree et al. and Doyle et al. teach:
“The electronic whiteboard of claim 8, wherein the operations further comprise: determining, at a third time, and based on the at least one of the audio data or the image data that the first person and the second person have left the room; and based on determining that the first person and the second person have left the room: causing the screen to present third information; or causing the screen to enter a dormant state displaying an absence of information about the patient.”
Robinson et al. teaches that when the patient is transferred out of the room, icons and assigned-caregiver information are removed automatically from the sign under control of the server based on processed data streams, thereby disclosing changing the display to an absence of patient information when relevant persons/patient are no longer present, see paragraph 0045.
Embree et al. teaches room-entry and room-location determination for caregivers using RTLS, and thus suggests also determining when caregivers are no longer in the room, see paragraphs 0009–0013 and 0076.
The obviousness of combining the teachings of Robinson et al., Hoad-Reddick et al., Embree et al. and Doyle et al. are discussed in the rejection of claim 8, and incorporated herein.
As per Claim 13, Claim 13 is directed to a computer-implemented method. Claim 13 recites the same or substantially similar limitations as those addressed above for Claim 1 as taught by Robinson et al., Hoad-Reddick et al., Embree et al. and Doyle et al. Claim 13 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for Claim 1 respectively.
As per Claim 14, Robinson et al., Hoad-Reddick et al., Embree et al. and Doyle et al. teach:
“The computer-implemented method of claim 13, further comprising: identifying, by the processor, and based on at least one of an electronic medical record (EMR) of the patient or one or more vital signs of the patient, a condition of the patient; and causing, by the processor, and based on identifying the condition of the patient, the display of the electronic whiteboard to present data associated with the condition of the patient via the first information, the second information, or third information.”
Robinson et al. teaches displaying information associated with a patient condition, including condition-specific icons and alarm indicators, see paragraphs 0016 and 0049.
Embree et al. teaches obtaining vital signs from patient monitors and transmitting such information into EMR systems, see paragraph 0015.
The obviousness of combining the teachings of Robinson et al., Hoad-Reddick et al., Embree et al. and Doyle et al. are discussed in the rejection of claim 13, and incorporated herein.
As per Claim 15, Robinson et al., Hoad-Reddick et al., Embree et al. and Doyle et al. teach:
“The computer-implemented method of claim 14, wherein: the condition of the patient comprises at least one of cardiac arrest or respiratory arrest, and the data comprises a timer indicating an elapsed time since the condition was detected.”
Robinson et al. teaches heart-monitor alarm conditions, see paragraph 0049.
The obviousness of combining the teachings of Robinson et al., Hoad-Reddick et al., Embree et al. and Doyle et al. are discussed in the rejection of claim 13, and incorporated herein.
As per Claim 16, Robinson et al., Hoad-Reddick et al., Embree et al. and Doyle et al. teach:
“The computer-implemented method of claim 13, further comprising: receiving, by the processor, and via at least one of an input devices, the audio data, or the image data, an input signal from the first person or the second person; and updating an emergency medical record (EMR) of the patient based on the input signal.”
Hoad-Reddick et al. teaches receiving direct user input through SmartForms and automated incorporation of dictation content into EMR-linked workflows, see paragraphs 0025–0028 and 0053–0058.
Embree et al. teaches receiving caregiver voice input through a microphone and updating the patient’s EMR based on that input, see paragraphs 0006–0010 and 0020–0027.
The obviousness of combining the teachings of Robinson et al., Hoad-Reddick et al., Embree et al. and Doyle et al. are discussed in the rejection of claim 13, and incorporated herein.
As per Claim 17, Robinson et al., Hoad-Reddick et al., Embree et al. and Doyle et al. teach:
“The computer-implemented method of claim 16, further comprising: identifying, by the processor, a language of the input signal, wherein updating the EMR of the patient comprises updating the EMR based on the language.”
Doyle et al. teaches information presentation may be customized to account for a user context. In accordance with at least one embodiment, data regarding user requirements, such as clinical or demographic requirements, stored by the service provider may be used to filter and/or enhance information presentation. For example, a user's eyesight information may be used to determine the font size in which data is presented to that user. In this example, a hospital user with bad eyesight may be presented with information in a larger font. By way of further example, a user may have a language preference other than English. In this example, information might be presented in another language for that user, see Col 35 || 22-42, Col 37 Il 4-31 and Col 41 || 4-21.
The obviousness of combining the teachings of Robinson et al., Hoad-Reddick et al., Embree et al. and Doyle et al. are discussed in the rejection of claim 13, and incorporated herein.
As per Claim 18, Robinson et al., Hoad-Reddick et al., Embree et al. and Doyle et al. teach:
“The computer-implemented method of claim 16, wherein: the first person or the second person comprises a care provider, and receiving the input signal comprises detecting a voice of the care provider, via the audio data as the care provider is performing a treatment on the patient.”
Embree et al. teaches receiving caregiver voice input through a microphone in the patient room while the caregiver is present in the room and charting patient-related information based on the dictated voice input, see paragraphs 0003–0010 and 0015–0017.
The obviousness of combining the teachings of Robinson et al., Hoad-Reddick et al., Embree et al. and Doyle et al. are discussed in the rejection of claim 13, and incorporated herein.
As per Claim 19, Robinson et al., Hoad-Reddick et al., Embree et al. and Doyle et al. teach:
“The computer-implemented method of claim 13, wherein the first person is the patient, and the first information comprises at least one of an identity of a care provider of the patient, contact information associated with the care provider, an ambulation instruction, educational materials about a condition of the patient, a care schedule of the patient, or a game related to the condition of the patient.”
Robinson et al. teaches displaying assigned caregiver identity and contact information on the room display, see paragraphs 0012 and 0034.
Hoad-Reddick et al. teaches contextual display of patient-related information and user-tailored views, but does not expressly disclose a game related to the condition of the patient. See paragraphs 0022–0033 and 0042–0054.
The obviousness of combining the teachings of Robinson et al., Hoad-Reddick et al., Embree et al. and Doyle et al. are discussed in the rejection of claim 13, and incorporated herein.
As per Claim 20, Robinson et al., Hoad-Reddick et al., Embree et al. and Doyle et al. teach:
“The computer-implemented method of claim 13, wherein the second person is a care provider of the patient, and the second information comprises at least one of contact information of the patient, one or more care goals of the patient, a pain scale of the patient, one or more timers, diagnostic information about the patient, one or more tasks to be completed by the care provider, one or more conditions of the patient, one or more vital signs of the patient, or a discharge plan of the patient.”
Hoad-Reddick et al. teaches task lists, task status, dynamic patient whiteboards, forms, assessments, and condition/treatment information tailored to user role and patient context, see paragraphs 0022–0033, 0042–0054, and 0056–0063.
Embree et al. teaches vital signs and other clinical inputs being received and charted to the EMR from the patient room, see paragraphs 0003–0009 and 0015–0017.
The obviousness of combining the teachings of Robinson et al., Hoad-Reddick et al., Embree et al. and Doyle et al. are discussed in the rejection of claim 13, and incorporated herein.
As per Claim 21, Claim 21 adds that the input device comprises a touch sensor of the electronic whiteboard display, and the user input comprises textual user input provided to the electronic whiteboard display via the touch sensor. Robinson et al. teaches touch screen interaction with the display to reveal additional information and to mark room clean status, thereby teaching a touch-sensitive display input device. See paragraphs 0035 and 0044.
The obviousness of combining the teachings of Robinson et al., Hoad-Reddick et al., Embree et al. and Doyle et al. are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
As per Claim 22, Claim 22 adds that the position of the first person relative to the screen is determined based on a magnitude of a voice of the first person based on the audio data captured by the microphone. Embree et al. teaches microphone-based caregiver voice capture and room/proximity detection using RTLS, See paragraphs 0006–0010 and 0020–0027.
The obviousness of combining the teachings of Robinson et al., Hoad-Reddick et al., Embree et al. and Doyle et al. are discussed in the rejection of claim 8, and incorporated herein.
As per Claim 23, Claim 23 adds determining a language used by the first person based on the audio data or the user input and causing the screen to display the first information using the language.
Doyle et al. teaches information presentation may be customized to account for a user context. In accordance with at least one embodiment, data regarding user requirements, such as clinical or demographic requirements, stored by the service provider may be used to filter and/or enhance information presentation. For example, a user's eyesight information may be used to determine the font size in which data is presented to that user. In this example, a hospital user with bad eyesight may be presented with information in a larger font. By way of further example, a user may have a language preference other than English. In this example, information might be presented in another language for that user, see Col 35 || 22-42, Col 37 Il 4-31 and Col 41 || 4-21.
The obviousness of combining the teachings of Robinson et al., Hoad-Reddick et al., Embree et al. and Doyle et al. are discussed in the rejection of claim 8, and incorporated herein.
As per Claim 24 adds identifying a second position of the second person and dynamically changing the graphics size or font size of the second information based on a second distance between the display and the second position.
Doyle et al. teaches information presentation may be customized to account for a user context. In accordance with at least one embodiment, data regarding user requirements, such as clinical or demographic requirements, stored by the service provider may be used to filter and/or enhance information presentation. For example, a user's eyesight information may be used to determine the font size in which data is presented to that user. In this example, a hospital user with bad eyesight may be presented with information in a larger font. By way of further example, a user may have a language preference other than English. In this example, information might be presented in another language for that user, see Col 35 || 22-42, Col 37 Il 4-31 and Col 41 || 4-21.
The obviousness of combining the teachings of Robinson et al., Hoad-Reddick et al., Embree et al. and Doyle et al. are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed on April 9, 2026 with respect to arguments in the remarks, have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection necessitated by the new limitations added to claims 1, 4-8, 10, and 12-22.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Pub. No.: US 20150371516 A1 to Petersen et al.; Systems, devices, and processes may be related to determining the flow of information based on received physiological parameters. In one example, a computing device includes at least one processor and at least one module operable by the at least one processor to receive an indication of a physiological parameter representative of a physiological condition of a user and receive a request to output notification information. The at least one module may also be operable by the at least one processor to determine, based on the physiological parameter, whether to output the notification information and selectively output, based on the determination, the notification information.
Pub. No.: US 20190087603 A1 to Dror et al.; System and method for enabling patients to control access to their medical records are provided. Information identifying one or more medical care providers may be received. Further, a request may be provided to a user to grant permission to the one or more medical care providers to access at least part of a plurality of medical records of the patient. A response to the request may be received from the user. Based on the response, the permission to access the at least part of the plurality of medical records of the patient may be granted to at least part of the one or more medical care providers.
Pub. No.: US 20210267555 A1 to Janssen; A patient monitoring compliance management system. Patient monitoring may include a number of different physiological monitoring devices, sensors, etc. capable of monitoring cardiac, respiratory, neurologic, hemodynamic, pulse oximetry, etc. parameters such as but not limited to electrocardiography (ECG), peripheral capillary oxygen saturation (SpO2), respiration rate, temperature, blood pressures, entropy, blood glucose, and carbon dioxide. Patient monitoring compliance management system 100 may periodically query the systems and databases described herein (e.g., cardiology management system 150, CPOE 107, EMR 108, RIS 110, and protocols/standards system 111) to acquire updated information (e.g., patient information, protocols, etc.) for managing (e.g., forming, updating, etc.) the patient list and/or issuing notifications. The exemplary, non-limiting patient list 508 shown schematically by FIG. 5 includes a list of patient names 522, diagnoses/indications 524, ECG monitoring data 526, SpO2 monitoring data 528, time to connect and time to disconnect data 530, monitoring duration elapsed 532, percent monitored time with respect to the proper parameters used 534, time in alarm 544 (including time in a technical alarm state, time in an arrhythmia alarm state, and time in a limit alarm state), time in proximity 546 (which may indicate the amount of time a clinician or other care provider was in proximity to the patient), and percent monitoring efficiency 548 (which may include a percentage monitoring efficiency and a percentage of alarm time).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 EDWARD B WINSTON III whose telephone number is (571)270-7780. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 1030 to 1830.
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, Robert Morgan can be reached at (571) 272-6773. 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.
/E.B.W/ Examiner, Art Unit 3683
/ROBERT W MORGAN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3683
Prosecution Insights