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 .
Response to Amendment
In the amendment filed on February 25, 2026, the following has occurred: claim(s) 1-2, 8-9, 17, 22, 26-27, 30 have been amended. Now, claim(s) 1-27, 29-30 are pending.
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.
Claim(s) 1-27, 29-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-16: Step 2A Prong One
Claim 1 recites:
detect a plurality of environmental events and conditions about the operating room in near real-time that affect a risk of airborne microbial contamination in the operating room and to produce electrical signal corresponding to the plurality of environmental events and conditions;
receive the electrical signals produced by the sensor array and compare the corresponding plurality of environmental events and conditions with an airborne infection-reduction protocol associated with the operating room, wherein the airborne infection-reduction protocol comprises a plurality of environmental quality indicators that combine to quantify the risk of airborne microbial contamination based on:
a level of microbial contamination, and
a determination of microorganisms gathered within an environmental biome in the operating room;
an indicator in the operating room, the indicator being operable to issue a human- perceptible indication as a function of a degree to which the plurality of environmental events and conditions are determined to be compliant with the airborne infection-reduction protocol
These limitations, as drafted given the broadest reasonable interpretation, but for the recitation of generic computer components, encompass managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions), which is a subgrouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. For example, but for “a sensor array comprising a plurality of sensors, wherein the plurality of sensors includes a microbial detector configured to detect airborne microorganisms in near real time, wherein each sensor of the sensor array is:”, “electrical signals”, the “detect” function in the context of this claim encompasses a person observing environmental events and conditions about the operating room that affect a risk of airborne microbial infection in the operating room and notifying that the plurality of environmental events or conditions have occurred. Similarly, but for “a monitoring server”, “the electrical signals”, “the sensor array” language, the “receive” and “compare” functions in the context of this claim encompasses a person obtaining information about an operating room, and comparing the plurality of environmental events and conditions from the operating room to an airborne infection-reduction protocol. Finally, but for “an indicator” language, the “issue” function in the context of this claim encompasses a person issuing an indication that the plurality of environmental events and conditions are compliant with the airborne infection-reduction protocol. But for the recitation of generic computer components, such manual steps encompass Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, as the manual steps could be accomplished by a physician, a nurse, an observer, or a person in a similar position.
Claims 2-16 incorporate the abstract idea identified above and recite additional limitations that expand on the abstract idea, but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the recitation of generic computer components, claims 2-6 further describe the generic computer components and further defines the comparing step. Similarly, but for the recitation of generic computer components, claims 7 and 15-16 further describe the generic computer components and sending an electrical signal. Similarly, but for the recitation of generic computer components, claims 8-11 further describe the sensor array. Similarly, but for the recitation of generic computer components, claims 12-13 further define the indicator and identifying a rule of the airborne infection-reduction protocol being violated. Finally, but for the recitation of generic computer components, claim 14 further defines the airborne infection-reduction protocol. Therefore, these claims merely further define generic computer components that are utilized to follow rules or instructions. Therefore, these claims recite limitations that fall into the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.
Claims 1-16: Step 2A Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the remaining elements amount to no more than general purpose computer components programmed to perform the abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because “electrical signals”, “a monitoring server”, “an indicator” are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., “As with captured image data, the signals resulting from any of the other set of sensors (60) may be provided to the processor (100) via a wired or wireless connection to the communication device (102). In some implementations, one or more of the in-room context or environmental sensors within the set of sensors (60) may be integrated with one another as placeable sensor modules. In some implementations, the ORMS (50) is a self-contained unit which includes a number of built-in and remote but wireless sensors that may be placed.” (Specification on p. 15), “The monitoring server (80) may include one or more servers (e.g., local physical servers, virtual servers, cloud servers, or other computing environments) that are configured to provide the processor (100) with data and other computing resources to assist in the analysis of data produced by the sensor array (60); to receive, store, and directly process sensor data; or both. As an example, sensor data may include images and/or video captured from within the operating room that is analyzed using machine vision to identify certain objects, people, or other characteristics (e.g., whether a surgeon is wearing a mask and gloves). Analysis for machine vision may be performed by the processor (100), the monitoring server (80), or both.” (Specification on p. 5-6), and “An alert indicator (106) may be one or more of a visual display (e.g., the local display (21)), a light indicator, a sound indicator, or another device operable to provide a human-perceptible notification that can alert personnel to the detected circumstances.” (Specification on p. 5)) The dependent claims further recite generic computer components: “object recognizer” in claim 2, “object recognizer” and “a predictive modeling engine” in claim 3, “the sensor array”, “a temperature sensor”, and “a humidity sensor” in claim 8, “an air pressure sensor” in claim 9, “air velocity sensor” in claim 10, “a door position sensor” in claim 11, “a sensor that does not capture video” in claim 15, “a proximity sensor, a door position sensor, a radio frequency identification reader, and a BLUETOOTH device” in claim 16. As set forth in the MPEP 2106.04(d) "merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer" is an example of when an abstract idea has not been integrated into a practical application.
Additionally, the claims recite “a sensor array comprising a plurality of sensors, wherein the plurality of sensors includes a microbial detector configured to detect airborne microorganisms in near real time, wherein each sensor of the sensor array is:”, “wherein the positioning of each sensor of the sensor array is based on the airborne infection-reduction protocol”, amount to no more than generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. As set forth in, MPEP 2106.05(h), merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, is an example of when an abstract idea has not been integrated into a practical application.
Claims 1-16: Step 2B
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer configured to perform above identified functions amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. See Alice 573 U.S. at 223 ("mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention".)
Receiving and transmitting data over a network (i.e., receiving and communicating data or signals) has been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of a general-purpose computer (see MPEP2106.05(d)) and buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc.,765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014)).
Additionally, generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (See MPEP 2016.05(h) and Affinity Labs of Texas v. DirectTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 120 USP12d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
Claims 17-27, 29: Step 2A Prong One
Claim 17 recites:
detects a plurality of conditions, events, or information in near real-time within an operating room about the operating room, and is positioned around the operating room;
store a protocol dataset that defines an airborne infection-reduction protocol operating as a function of a plurality of environmental quality indicators that combine to quantify a risk of airborne microbial contamination, the plurality of environmental quality indicators comprising air velocity, temperature, particle count, and microbial contamination in the operating room;
during a procedure performed in the operating room, receive a procedure dataset from the sensor array as an electrical signal, wherein the procedure dataset comprises data produced by at least one sensor in the sensor array;
display based on the procedure dataset;
generate a risk picture for the operating room based on the procedure dataset, wherein the risk picture characterizes the risk of airborne microbial contamination in one or more areas of the operating room;
based on the procedure dataset, identify one or more protocol violations of the airborne infection-reduction protocol, said identifying comprising: evaluating the set of air flow data as a function of the airborne infection- reduction protocol to determine whether airflow is insufficient, and evaluating the set of environmental quality data as a function of the airborne infection-reduction protocol to determine whether an environmental quality index is insufficient; and
in response to the one or more protocol violations, perform a response action selected from a response group consisting of: providing a human-perceptible notification of the one or more protocol violations; updating the risk picture based on the one or more protocol violations; and updating and re-displaying the dashboard interface based on the one or more protocol violations
These limitations, as drafted given the broadest reasonable interpretation, but for the recitation of generic computer components, encompass managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions), which is a subgrouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. For example, but for “a processor and a memory” and “a sensor array in communication with the processor and memory, wherein each sensor of the sensor array…” language, the “detect” function in the context of this claim encompasses a person observing events or conditions that affect a risk of infection and notifying that the events or conditions have occurred. Similarly, “the memory” language, the “store” function in the context of this claim encompasses a person storing an airborne infection-reduction protocol operating as a function of a plurality of environmental quality indicators that combine to quantify a risk of airborne microbial contamination. Similarly, “the processor”, “the sensor array”, and “at least one sensor in the sensor array” language, the “receive” function in the context of this claim encompasses a person receiving a procedure dataset. Similarly, “the processor”, “a dashboard interface via the display”, and “an electrical signal” language, the “display” function in the context of this claim encompasses a person showing another person the information. Similarly, “the processor” language, the “generate” function in the context of this claim encompasses a person determining a risk based on the procedure dataset. Similarly, “the processor” language, the “identify” and “perform” functions in the context of this claim encompasses a person identifying a protocol violation of the airborne infection-reduction protocol, and responding with an action. But for the recitation of generic computer components, such manual steps encompass Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, as the manual steps could be accomplished by a physician, a nurse, an observer, or a person in a similar position.
Claims 18-27, 29 incorporate the abstract idea identified above and recite additional limitations that expand on the abstract idea, but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the recitation of generic computer components, claims 18, 20- 22, and 26-27, 29 further describe the sensor array and identifying protocol violations. Similarly, but for the recitation of generic computer components, claims 19 and 25 further describe the dashboard interface. Similarly, but for the recitation of generic computer components, claim 23 describes storing a dataset relating to the operating room and determining risk based on the operating room dataset. Finally, but for the recitation of generic computer components, claim 24 describes providing another person with a human-perceptible sensor placement guide. Therefore, these claims merely further define generic computer components that are utilized to follow rules or instructions. Therefore, these claims recite limitations that fall into the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.
Claims 17-27, 29: Step 2A Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the remaining elements amount to no more than general purpose computer components programmed to perform the abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because “a processor and a memory”, “a sensor array in communication with the processor and memory, wherein each sensor of the sensor array…”, “a dashboard interface via the display”, and “an electrical signal” (i.e., "As with captured image data, the signals resulting from any of the other set of sensors (60) may be provided to the processor (100) via a wired or wireless connection to the communication device (102). In some implementations, one or more of the in-room context or environmental sensors within the set of sensors (60) may be integrated with one another as placeable sensor modules. In some implementations, the ORMS (50) is a self-contained unit which includes a number of built-in and remote but wireless sensors that may be placed." (Specification on p. 15), "A local display (21) may be proximate to the ORMS (50) and operable by the processor (100) to display interfaces and information to users of the ORMS (50). A user interface device (108) may be proximate to the ORMS (50) and operable by a user to provide user inputs to the ORMS (50). The user interface device (108) may be, for example, a mouse, keyboard, touchscreen display (e.g., the local display (21)), voice activation, or one or more other interface devices. User-facing portions of the ORMS (50) that may be present within an operating room (e.g., the local display (21), the user interface device (108)) may be adapted for use in sterile environments, which may include sterile coverings or coatings, specialized interface devices that are usable with gloves or voice, or other features. An alert indicator (106) may be one or more of a visual display (e.g., the local display (21)), a light indicator, a sound indicator, or another device operable to provide a human- perceptible notification that can alert personnel to the detected circumstances." (Specification in p. 5).) The dependent claims further recite generic computer components:" a temperature sensor; a humidity sensor; an air pressure sensor; an airflow sensor; a door opening sensor; an air velocity sensor; a door position sensor; an occupancy sensor; an occupant position detector; a carbon dioxide sensor and infrared beam trip counter; a camera; a proximity sensor; a near-real- time bio aerosol pathogen detector; an RFID transceiver; a video sensor, comprising a video capture device", "a video processor", "a particle count sensor", and "a microbial count sensor" in claim 18, "the dashboard interface" in claim 19, "the sensor array comprises a set of one or more cameras, a set of one or more door position sensors, a set of one or more proximity sensors, and a set of one or more air velocity sensors" in claim 20, "the set of one or more cameras", "the set of one or more door position sensors", and "the set of one or more air velocity sensors" in claim 21, "a set of locator sensors" in claim 22, "the sensor array comprises one or more proximity sensors" in claim 26, "one or more cameras" and "a machine vision process" in claim 27, and "one or more door position sensors" in claim 29. As set forth in the MPEP 2106.04(d) "merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer" is an example of when an abstract idea has not been integrated into a practical application.
Claims 17-27, 29: Step 2B
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer configured to perform above identified functions amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. See Alice 573 U.S. at 223 ("mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention".)
Receiving and transmitting data over a network (i.e., receiving and communicating data or signals) has been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of a general-purpose computer (see MPEP2106.05(d)) and buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc.,765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014)).
Additionally, generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (See MPEP 2016.05(h) and Affinity Labs of Texas v. DirectTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 120 USP12d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
Therefore, whether considered alone or in combination, the additional elements do not
amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 30: Step 2A Prong One
Claim 30 recite(s):
positioned in the operating room, and configured to detect a plurality of environmental events and conditions in the operating room in near real-time that affect a risk of airborne microbial contamination in the operating room and to produce electrical signals corresponding to the detected plurality of environmental events and conditions;
receive the electrical signals produced by the sensor array and compare the corresponding plurality of environmental events and conditions with an airborne infection-reduction protocol associated with the operating room, wherein the airborne infection-reduction protocol operates as a function of a plurality of environmental quality indicators that combine to quantify the risk of airborne microbial contamination;
an indicator in the operating room, the indicator being operable to issue a human- perceptible indication as a function of a degree to which the plurality of environmental events and conditions are determined to be compliant with the airborne infection-reduction protocol; wherein the airborne infection-reduction protocol operates as a function of a plurality of environmental events and conditions in a plurality of distinct air quality zones defined within the operating room; and
wherein the determination of compliance of the plurality of environmental events and conditions with the airborne infection-reduction protocol is different for each of the plurality of air quality zones
These limitations, as drafted given the broadest reasonable interpretation, but for the recitation of generic computer components, encompass managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions), which is a subgrouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. For example, but for “a sensor array comprising a plurality of sensors, wherein the plurality of sensors includes a microbial detector configured to detect airborne microorganisms, wherein each sensor of the sensor array is:”, “electrical signals”, the “detect” function in the context of this claim encompasses a person observing environmental events and conditions about the operating room that affect a risk of airborne microbial infection in the operating room and notifying that the plurality of environmental events or conditions have occurred. Similarly, but for “a monitoring server”, “the electrical signals”, “the sensor array” language, the “receive” and “compare” functions in the context of this claim encompasses a person obtaining information about an operating room, and comparing the plurality of environmental events and conditions from the operating room to an airborne infection-reduction protocol. Finally, but for “an indicator” language, the “issue” function in the context of this claim encompasses a person issuing an indication that the plurality of environmental events and conditions are compliant with the airborne infection-reduction protocol. But for the recitation of generic computer components, such manual steps encompass Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, as the manual steps could be accomplished by a physician, a nurse, an observer, or a person in a similar position.
Claim 30: Step 2A Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the remaining elements amount to no more than general purpose computer components programmed to perform the abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because “electrical signals”, “a monitoring server”, “an indicator” are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., “As with captured image data, the signals resulting from any of the other set of sensors (60) may be provided to the processor (100) via a wired or wireless connection to the communication device (102). In some implementations, one or more of the in-room context or environmental sensors within the set of sensors (60) may be integrated with one another as placeable sensor modules. In some implementations, the ORMS (50) is a self-contained unit which includes a number of built-in and remote but wireless sensors that may be placed.” (Specification on p. 15), “The monitoring server (80) may include one or more servers (e.g., local physical servers, virtual servers, cloud servers, or other computing environments) that are configured to provide the processor (100) with data and other computing resources to assist in the analysis of data produced by the sensor array (60); to receive, store, and directly process sensor data; or both. As an example, sensor data may include images and/or video captured from within the operating room that is analyzed using machine vision to identify certain objects, people, or other characteristics (e.g., whether a surgeon is wearing a mask and gloves). Analysis for machine vision may be performed by the processor (100), the monitoring server (80), or both.” (Specification on p. 5-6), and “An alert indicator (106) may be one or more of a visual display (e.g., the local display (21)), a light indicator, a sound indicator, or another device operable to provide a human-perceptible notification that can alert personnel to the detected circumstances.” (Specification on p. 5)) As set forth in the MPEP 2106.04(d) "merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer" is an example of when an abstract idea has not been integrated into a practical application.
Additionally, the claims recite “a sensor array comprising a plurality of sensors, wherein the plurality of sensors includes a microbial detector configured to detect airborne microorganisms, wherein each sensor of the sensor array is:”, “wherein the positioning of each sensor of the sensor array is based on the airborne infection-reduction protocol;”, amount to no more than generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. As set forth in, MPEP 2106.05(h), merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, is an example of when an abstract idea has not been integrated into a practical application.
Claim 30: Step 2B
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer configured to perform above identified functions amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. See Alice 573 U.S. at 223 ("mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention".)
Receiving and transmitting data over a network (i.e., receiving and communicating data or signals) has been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of a general-purpose computer (see MPEP 2106.05(d)) and buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc.,765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014)).
Additionally, generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (See MPEP 2016.05(h) and Affinity Labs of Texas v. DirectTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 120 USP12d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 7-8, 13, 15, 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wellig (U.S. Patent Pre-Grant Publication No. 2021/0027882) in view of Olsen et al. (U.S. Patent Pre-Grant Publication No. 2019/0117812).
As per independent claim 1, Wellig discloses an operating room monitoring system for use, at least in part, within an operating room to reduce risks of infections, comprising
a sensor array comprising a plurality of sensors, wherein the plurality of sensors includes a microbial detector configured to detect airborne microorganisms in near real time (See Paragraphs [0002], [0037]: One or more conditions of the defined procedure may be dependent, at least in part, on a sensed condition of an environmental sensor, which the Examiner is interpreting an environmental sensor to encompass a microbial detector configured to detect airborne microorganisms in near real time as HAI and SSI infections can be transmitted in multiple ways, including, but not limited to, surface contamination, airborne particulates and aspiration ([0002]), and when combined with Olsen below the Examiner maintains that the combination teaches a sensor array comprising a plurality of sensors, wherein the plurality of sensors includes a microbial detector configured to detect airborne microorganisms in near real time), wherein each sensor of the sensor array is:
positioned around the operating room (See Paragraphs [0016], [0020]-[0022]: The location sensor may be part of a number of distributed beacons that can be used to identify the location of a wearable device and/or user device, which the Examiner is interpreting distributed beacons to encompass sensors positioned around the operating room (See Paragraph [0016])), and
configured to detect a plurality of environmental events and conditions about the operating room in near real-time that affect a risk of airborne microbial contamination in the operating room and to produce electrical signals corresponding to the plurality of environmental events and conditions (See Paragraphs [0015]-[0016], [0024]-[0030], [0036]-[0038]: HAI and SSI infections (HAI and SSI infections can be transmitted by airborne particulates) can be reduced by following strict procedures (reduce the risk of infection ([0025])), and a location sensor, wearable device, and an environmental sensor can be used to identify the location of people and a procedural compliance module that includes one or more defined procedures that should be performed in a particular room of a facility in order to reduce the risk of infection, which the Examiner is interpreting the location sensor, wearable device, and an environmental sensor to encompass a sensor array, interpreting the procedural compliance module to encompass detect a plurality of environmental events and conditions);
a monitoring server configured to receive the electrical signals produced by the sensor array and compare the corresponding plurality of environmental events and conditions with an airborne infection-reduction protocol associated with the operating room (See Paragraphs [0018]-[0019], [0032]-[0036]: At least one of the conditions of the defined procedure may be a predefined movement of the person at the defined procedure location, which the Examiner is interpreting the defined procedure to encompass an infection-reduction protocol associated with the operating room, identifying that at least one of the conditions of the defined procedure is met to encompass compare the corresponding plurality of environmental events and conditions with an infection-reduction protocol associated with the operating room), wherein the airborne infection-reduction protocol comprises a plurality of environmental quality indicators that combine to quantify the risk of airborne microbial contamination based on:
a level of microbial contamination, and
a determination of microorganisms gathered within an environmental biome in the operating room;
an indicator in the operating room, the indicator being operable to issue a human-perceptible indication as a function of a degree to which the plurality of environmental events and conditions are determined to be compliant with the airborne infection-reduction protocol (See Paragraphs [0035]-[0044]: The system may identify the location of the person and determine if the person is making a predefined movement substantially simultaneously, and an alert can notify the wearer of the wearable device, which the Examiner is interpreting the alert to the wearer to encompass issue a human-perceptible indication as a function of a degree to which the plurality of environmental events and conditions when combined with Olsen below); and
wherein the positioning of each sensor of the sensor array is based on the airborne infection-reduction protocol (See Paragraphs [0015], [0022]: The location sensor may be positioned centrally in a room and configured to transmit one or more signals throughout an entire room as the HAI and SSI infections can occur by airborne particulates, which the Examiner is interpreting to encompass the claimed portion as the procedures are focused on reducing HAI and SSI infections.)
While Wellig discloses the system for a monitoring server configured to receive the electrical signals produced by the sensor array and compare the corresponding environmental events and conditions with an airborne infection-reduction protocol associated with the operating room, Wellig may not explicitly teach wherein the airborne infection-reduction protocol comprises a plurality of environmental quality indicators that combine to quantify the risk of airborne microbial contamination based on:
a level of microbial contamination, and
a determination of microorganisms gathered within an environmental biome in the operating room.
Olsen teaches a system for a monitoring server configured to receive the electrical signals produced by the sensor array and compare the corresponding environmental events and conditions with an airborne infection-reduction protocol associated with the operating room, wherein the airborne infection-reduction protocol comprises a plurality of environmental quality indicators that combine to quantify the risk of airborne microbial contamination (See Paragraph [0025]: The thresholds may be user-configurable, depending on the cleaning specifications or parameters, which the Examiner is interpreting the cleaning specifications or parameters to encompass the airborne infection-reduction protocol comprises a plurality of environmental quality indicators that combine to quantify the risk of airborne microbial contamination) based on:
a level of microbial contamination (See Paragraph [0026]: The activity data is used to generate a contamination map that includes hot spots, which the Examiner is interpreting the hot spots to encompass a level of microbial contamination), and
a determination of microorganisms gathered within an environmental biome in the operating room (See Paragraph [0025]: The thresholds may be user-configurable, depending on the cleaning specifications or parameters, and the contamination map may be able to differentiate between different types of objects, surfaces, and contaminants based on sensor data, and may signify these differences via different colors or other visual indicators, which the Examiner is interpreting different types of contaminants to encompass a determination of microorganisms gathered within an environmental biome in the operating room.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed to modify the system of Wellig to include the airborne infection-reduction protocol comprises a plurality of environmental quality indicators that combine to quantify the risk of airborne microbial contamination based on: a level of microbial contamination, and a determination of microorganisms gathered within an environmental biome in the operating room as taught by Olsen. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Wellig with Olsen with the motivation of provide safer, more accurate disinfection systems (See Detailed Description of Olsen in Paragraph [0019].)
As per claim 2, Wellig/Olsen discloses the system of claim 1 as described above. Wellig further teaches wherein: the sensor array further comprises an object recognizer configured to identify particular objects in the operating room (See Paragraphs [0018]-[0023]: The location sensor may identify a position of an object); and the comparing by the monitoring server operates as a function of an output of the object recognizer (See Paragraphs [0018]-[0025], [0032]-[0036]: The location sensor may identify a position of an object, and at least one of the conditions of the defined procedure may be a predefined movement of the person at the defined procedure location.)
As per claim 7, Wellig/Olsen discloses the system of claim 1 as described above. Wellig further teaches wherein the electrical signals produced by the sensor array comprise an environmental condition signal that characterizes present environmental conditions in the operating room (See Fig. 3, Paragraphs [0037]-[0042]: One or more conditions of the defined procedure may be dependent, at least in part, on a sensed condition of an environmental sensor); and further comprising an environmental monitor configured to receive the environmental condition signal and to issue an indication via the indicator when at least a portion of the environmental conditions in the operating room fail to comply with the airborne infection-reduction protocol (See Fig. 3, Paragraphs [0037]-[0042]: One or more conditions of the defined procedure may be dependent, at least in part, on a sensed condition of an environmental sensor, and an alert can be sent to the wearer to alert the user.)
As per claim 8, Wellig/Olsen discloses the system of claims 1 and 7 as described above. Wellig further teaches wherein: the sensor array further comprises a temperature sensor that produces a measurement of temperature in the operating room and a humidity sensor that produces a measurement of humidity in the operating room (See Paragraph [0038]: Environmental sensors may include VOC sensors, temperature sensors, humidity sensors, luminance sensors (e.g., occupancy sensors), microphone sensors, etc.); and the environmental condition signal indicates the measurement of temperature and the measurement of humidity (See Fig. 3, Paragraphs [0037]-[0038]: The environmental sensors may include, VOC sensors, temperature sensors, humidity sensors, luminance sensors, microphones, etc.)
As per claim 13, Wellig/Olsen discloses the system of claim 1 as described above. Wellig further teaches wherein the indicator presents exception information in association with each indication, where the exception information is based on a violation of the airborne infection- reduction protocol because of a particular event (See Paragraphs [0034]- [0036]: The defined procedure may considered to be violated if conditions are not met, which the Examiner is interpreting conditions to encompass violation of the airborne infection- reduction protocol because of a particular event.)
As per claim 15, Wellig/Olsen discloses the system of claim 1 as described above. Wellig further teaches wherein identifying of a particular event and condition from the plurality of environmental events and conditions is triggered as a function of a signal from a particular sensor in the sensor array, where the particular sensor is a sensor that does not capture video (See Paragraphs [0032]-[0038]: Movement can be captured by a wearable device and transmitted to the location sensor or the computing device, which the Examiner is interpreting the wearable device to encompass a particular sensor is a sensor that does not capture video.)
As per independent claim 30, Wellig discloses an operating room monitoring system for use, at least in part, within an operating room to reduce risks of infections, comprising:
a sensor array comprising a plurality of sensors, wherein the plurality of sensors includes a microbial detector configured to detect airborne microorganisms (See Paragraphs [0002], [0037]: One or more conditions of the defined procedure may be dependent, at least in part, on a sensed condition of an environmental sensor, which the Examiner is interpreting an environmental sensor to encompass a microbial detector configured to detect airborne microorganisms in near real time as HAI and SSI infections can be transmitted in multiple ways, including, but not limited to, surface contamination, airborne particulates and aspiration ([0002]), and when combined with Olsen below the Examiner maintains that the combination teaches a sensor array comprising a plurality of sensors, wherein the plurality of sensors includes a microbial detector configured to detect airborne microorganisms), wherein each sensor of the sensor array is:
positioned in the operating room (See Paragraphs [0016], [0020]-[0022]: The location sensor may be part of a number of distributed beacons that can be used to identify the location of a wearable device and/or user device, which the Examiner is interpreting distributed beacons to encompass sensors positioned around the operating room (See Paragraph [0016])), and
configured to detect a plurality of environmental events and conditions in the operating room in near real-time that affect a risk of airborne microbial contamination in the operating room and to produce electrical signals corresponding to the detected plurality of environmental events and conditions (See Paragraphs [0015]-[0016], [0024]-[0030], [0036]-[0038]: HAI and SSI infections (HAI and SSI infections can be transmitted by airborne particulates) can be reduced by following strict procedures (reduce the risk of infection ([0025])), and a location sensor, wearable device, and an environmental sensor can be used to identify the location of people and a procedural compliance module that includes one or more defined procedures that should be performed in a particular room of a facility in order to reduce the risk of infection, which the Examiner is interpreting the location sensor, wearable device, and an environmental sensor to encompass a sensor array, interpreting the procedural compliance module to encompass detect a plurality of environmental events and conditions);
a monitoring server configured to receive the electrical signals produced by the sensor array and compare the corresponding plurality of environmental events and conditions with an airborne infection-reduction protocol associated with the operating room (See Paragraphs [0018]-[0019], [0032]-[0036]: At least one of the conditions of the defined procedure may be a predefined movement of the person at the defined procedure location, which the Examiner is interpreting the defined procedure to encompass an infection-reduction protocol associated with the operating room, identifying that at least one of the conditions of the defined procedure is met to encompass compare the corresponding plurality of environmental events and conditions with an infection-reduction protocol associated with the operating room), wherein the airborne infection-reduction protocol operates as a function of a plurality of environmental quality indicators that combine to quantify the risk of airborne microbial contamination;
an indicator in the operating room, the indicator being operable to issue a human- perceptible indication as a function of a degree to which the plurality of environmental events and conditions are determined to be compliant with the airborne infection-reduction protocol (See Paragraphs [0035]-[0044]: The system may identify the location of the person and determine if the person is making a predefined movement substantially simultaneously, and an alert can notify the wearer of the wearable device, which the Examiner is interpreting the alert to the wearer to encompass issue a human-perceptible indication as a function of a degree to which the plurality of environmental events and conditions when combined with Olsen below);
wherein the positioning of each sensor of the sensor array is based on the airborne infection-reduction protocol (See Paragraphs [0015], [0022]: The location sensor may be positioned centrally in a room and configured to transmit one or more signals throughout an entire room as the HAI and SSI infections can occur by airborne particulates, which the Examiner is interpreting to encompass the claimed portion as the procedures are focused on reducing HAI and SSI infections.)
While Wellig discloses the system for a monitoring server configured to receive the electrical signals produced by the sensor array and compare the corresponding plurality of environmental events and conditions with an airborne infection-reduction protocol associated with the operating room, Wellig may not explicitly teach wherein the airborne infection-reduction protocol operates as a function of a plurality of environmental quality indicators that combine to quantify the risk of airborne microbial contamination;
wherein the airborne infection-reduction protocol operates as a function of a plurality of environmental events and conditions in a plurality of distinct air quality zones defined within the operating room; and
wherein the determination of compliance of the plurality of environmental events and conditions with the airborne infection-reduction protocol is different for each of the plurality of air quality zones.
Olsen teaches a system for a monitoring server configured to receive the electrical signals produced by the sensor array and compare the corresponding plurality of environmental events and conditions with an airborne infection-reduction protocol associated with the operating room, wherein the airborne infection-reduction protocol operates as a function of a plurality of environmental quality indicators that combine to quantify the risk of airborne microbial contamination (See Paragraph [0025]: The thresholds may be user-configurable, depending on the cleaning specifications or parameters, which the Examiner is interpreting the cleaning specifications or parameters to encompass the airborne infection-reduction protocol comprises a plurality of environmental quality indicators that combine to quantify the risk of airborne microbial contamination);
wherein the airborne infection-reduction protocol operates as a function of a plurality of environmental events and conditions in a plurality of distinct air quality zones defined within the operating room (See Paragraph [0025]: The thresholds may be user-configurable, depending on the cleaning specifications or parameters, and the contamination map may be able to differentiate between different types of objects, surfaces, and contaminants based on sensor data, and may signify these differences via different colors or other visual indicators, which the Examiner is interpreting different types of objects or surfaces to encompass a plurality of distinct air quality zones defined within the operating room); and
wherein the determination of compliance of the plurality of environmental events and conditions with the airborne infection-reduction protocol is different for each of the plurality of air quality zones (See Paragraphs [0020], [0025]: The thresholds may be user-configurable, depending on the cleaning specifications or parameters, which the Examiner is interpreting cleaning specification to encompass determination of compliance of the plurality of environmental events and conditions, and the different areas of the room identified on the contamination map to encompass the airborne infection-reduction protocol is different for each of the plurality of air quality zones.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed to modify the system of Wellig to include the airborne infection-reduction protocol operates as a function of a plurality of environmental quality indicators that combine to quantify the risk of airborne microbial contamination; wherein the airborne infection-reduction protocol operates as a function of a plurality of environmental events and conditions in a plurality of distinct air quality zones defined within the operating room; and wherein the determination of compliance of the plurality of environmental events and conditions with the airborne infection-reduction protocol is different for each of the plurality of air quality zones as taught by Olsen. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Wellig with Olsen with the motivation of provide safer, more accurate disinfection systems (See Detailed Description of Olsen in Paragraph [0019].)
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wellig (U.S. Patent Pre-Grant Publication No. 2021/0027882) in view of Olsen et al. (U.S. Patent Pre-Grant Publication No. 2019/0117812) in further view of Huang et al. (U.S. Patent Pre- Grant Publication No. 2009/0110236).
As per claim 3, Wellig/Olsen discloses the system of claims 1-2 as described above. Wellig further teaches wherein:
an event identifier identifies particular events involving the foreground objects (See Paragraphs [0020]-[0022], [0038]-[0039]: A commissioning process is performed to teach the system the stationary objects in the room as well as to identify the defined procedure locations, which the Examiner is interpreting teaching the system the stationary objects in the room as well as to identify the defined procedure locations to encompass an event identifier identifies particular events involving the foreground objects when combined with Huang's identification of foreground objects and background objects.)
While Wellig/Olsen discloses the system as described above, Wellig/Olsen may not explicitly teach wherein: the object recognizer implements a predictive modeling engine;
the object recognizer distinguishes between foreground objects and background objects.
Huang teaches a system wherein: the object recognizer implements a predictive modeling engine (See Paragraphs [0028]-[0031]: The updated tracking prediction model may be used to obtain a final tracking result such as the location of the object, which the Examiner is interpreting the updated tracking prediction model to encompass a predictive modeling engine);
the object recognizer distinguishes between foreground objects and background objects (See Paragraphs [0025]-[0026]: The independent objects are classified as background objects and foreground objects.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed to modify the system of Wellig/Olsen to include the object recognizer implements a predictive modeling engine, the object recognizer distinguishes between foreground objects and background objects as taught by Huang. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Wellig/Olsen with Huang with the motivation of improving object detection accuracy (See Detailed Description of the Preferred Embodiments of Huang in Paragraph [0025].)
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wellig (U.S. Patent Pre-Grant Publication No. 2021/0027882) in view of Olsen et al. (U.S. Patent Pre-Grant Publication No. 2019/0117812) in view of Huang et al. (U.S. Patent Pre- Grant Publication No. 2009/0110236) in further view of Boisvert et al. (U.S. Patent Pre- Grant Publication No. 2020/0227159).
As per claim 4, Wellig/Olsen discloses the system of claims 1-2 and Wellig/Olsen/Huang discloses the system of claim 3 as described above. Wellig/Olsen/Huang may not explicitly teach wherein the foreground objects include medical equipment.
Boisvert teaches a system wherein the foreground objects include medical equipment (See Paragraphs [0058]-[0061]: A first dedicated space in which the conditions may be manipulated to reduce the risk of infection, the operating room may include equipment for performing the procedure, which the Examiner is interpreting the equipment for performing the procedure to encompass medical equipment, and when interpreted to encompass foreground objects when combined with Huang's disclosure of identifying foreground objects.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed to modify the system of Wellig/Olsen/Huang to include the foreground objects include medical equipment as taught by Boisvert. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Wellig/Olsen/Huang with Boisvert with the motivation of improve healthcare hygiene and/or indoor environmental conditions (See Background of Boisvert in Paragraph [0003].)
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wellig (U.S. Patent Pre-Grant Publication No. 2021/0027882) in view of Olsen et al. (U.S. Patent Pre-Grant Publication No. 2019/0117812) in view of Huang et al. (U.S. Patent Pre- Grant Publication No. 2009/0110236) in further view of Barral et al. (U.S. Patent Pre-Grant Publication No. 2018/0065248).
As per claim 5, Wellig/Olsen discloses the system of claims 1-2 and Wellig/Olsen/Huang discloses the system of claim 3 as described above. Wellig/Olsen/Huang may not explicitly teach wherein the airborne infection- reduction protocol specifies one or more zones in the operating room where foreground objects are not to be located.
Barral teaches a system wherein the airborne infection- reduction protocol specifies one or more zones in the operating room where foreground objects are not to be located (See Paragraphs [0022], [0034]: Identification and tracking of steps of a medical procedure enable medical procedure system to enforce a "no-fly zone" for medical tools over a patient's anatomy, which the Examiner is interpreting the patient's anatomy to encompass a zone in the operating room and the "no-fly zone" to encompass where foreground objects are not to be located.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed to modify the system of Wellig/Olsen/Huang to include the airborne infection- reduction protocol specifies one or more zones in the operating room where foreground objects are not to be located as taught by Barral. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Wellig/Olsen/Huang with Barral with the motivation of addressing issues with disobeying required preconditions (See Background Information of Barral in Paragraphs [0003]-[0004].)
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wellig (U.S. Patent Pre-Grant Publication No. 2021/0027882) in view of Olsen et al. (U.S. Patent Pre-Grant Publication No. 2019/0117812) in view of Huang et al. (U.S. Patent Pre- Grant Publication No. 2009/0110236) in further view of Derenne et al. (U.S. Patent Pre- Grant Publication No. 2012/0075464).
As per claim 6, Wellig/Olsen discloses the system of claims 1-2 and Wellig/Olsen/Huang discloses the system of claim 3 as described above. Wellig/Olsen/Huang may not explicitly teach wherein the airborne infection-reduction protocol distinguishes whether a human is properly wearing a mask.
Derenne teaches a system wherein the airborne infection-reduction protocol distinguishes whether a human is properly wearing a mask (See Paragraphs [0040]-[0041]: A video monitoring system may detect whether personal protection equipment is being used - such as masks, gowns, gloves, and the like - by personnel who enter the room, and the video monitoring system may be used to help ensure that patient care protocols are properly followed, which the Examiner is interpreting patient care protocols to encompass infection-reduction protocol.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed to modify the system of Wellig/Olsen/Huang to include the airborne infection- reduction protocol distinguishes whether a human is properly wearing a mask as taught by Derenne. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Wellig/Olsen/Huang with Derenne with the motivation of improving patient care (See Summary of the Information of Derenne in Paragraph [0003].)
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wellig (U.S. Patent Pre-Grant Publication No. 2021/0027882) in view of Olsen et al. (U.S. Patent Pre-Grant Publication No. 2019/0117812) in further view of Kirschman (U.S. Patent Pre- Grant Publication No. 2018/0264391).
As per claim 9, Wellig/Olsen discloses the system of claims 1 and 7 as described above. Wellig/Olsen may not explicitly teach wherein the sensor array further comprises an air pressure sensor that produces a measurement of air pressure at a point in the operating room; and the environmental condition signal indicates the measurement of air pressure.
Kirschman teaches a system wherein the sensor array further comprises an air pressure sensor that produces a measurement of air pressure at a point in the operating room (See Paragraph [0084]: An air pressure sensor associated with the air purifier may also be used to measure increases in pressure which correlate to air cleaning element contamination); and the environmental condition signal indicates the measurement of air pressure (See Paragraphs [0084], [0091]: An air pressure sensor associated with the air purifier may also be used to measure increases in pressure which correlate to air cleaning element contamination, and the sensor may incorporate at least one of a remote signal to create, sense, or input the physical data and parameters into the inventory and data collection system.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed to modify the system of Wellig/Olsen to include the sensor array further comprises an air pressure sensor that produces a measurement of air pressure at a point in the operating room; and the environmental condition signal indicates the measurement of air pressure as taught by Kirschman. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Wellig/Olsen with Kirschman with the motivation of monitoring and improving air quality in an environment (See Background of the Invention of Kirschman in Paragraph [0001].)
Claims 10-12, 16-21, 23-27, 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wellig (U.S. Patent Pre-Grant Publication No. 2021/0027882) in view of Olsen et al. (U.S. Patent Pre-Grant Publication No. 2019/0117812) in further view of Boisvert et al. (U.S. Patent Pre-Grant Publication No. 2020/0227159).
As per claim 10, Wellig/Olsen discloses the system of claims 1 and 7 as described above. Wellig/Olsen may not explicitly teach wherein:
the sensor array further comprises an air velocity sensor that produces a measurement of airflow at a point in the operating room; and
the environmental condition signal further indicates the measurement of air flow.
Boisvert teaches a system wherein:
the sensor array further comprises an air velocity sensor that produces a measurement of airflow at a point in the operating room (See Paragraphs [0044]-[0046]: The data from the sensors may be analyzed for conditions that increase a risk of infection to a patient, some conditions that may increase a risk of infection include, low air velocity, and high air velocity, which the Examiner is interpreting identification of high and low air velocity to encompass a measurement of airflow at a point in the operating room); and
the environmental condition signal further indicates the measurement of air flow (See Paragraphs [0044]-[0046]: Air velocity level is used to detect a condition of an elevated risk of infection in a particular room, which the Examiner is interpreting the condition of an elevated risk of infection in a particular room to encompass the environmental condition signal.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed to modify the system of Wellig/Olsen to include the sensor array further comprises an air velocity sensor that produces a measurement of airflow at a point in the operating room; and the environmental condition signal further indicates the measurement of air flow as taught by Boisvert. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Wellig/Olsen with Boisvert with the motivation of improve healthcare hygiene and/or indoor environmental conditions (See Background of Boisvert in Paragraph [0003].)
As per claim 11, Wellig/Olsen discloses the system of claims 1 and 7 as described above. Wellig/Olsen may not explicitly teach wherein the sensor array further comprises a door position sensor.
Boisvert teaches a system wherein the sensor array further comprises a door position sensor (See Paragraphs [0034]-[0035], [0053]: Sensors may include light switches and door sensors, the frequency of doors being opened can be identified, which the Examiner is interpreting door sensors to encompass a door position sensor.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed to modify the system of Wellig/Olsen to include the sensor array further comprises a door position sensor as taught by Boisvert. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Wellig/Olsen with Boisvert with the motivation of improve healthcare hygiene and/or indoor environmental conditions (See Background of Boisvert in Paragraph [0003].)
As per claim 12, Wellig/Olsen discloses the system of claim 1 as described above. Wellig/Olsen may not explicitly teach wherein the indicator presents a quality gauge configured to provide, based upon data from the sensor array, information relating to air quality within one or more portions of the operating room.
Boisvert teaches a system wherein the indicator presents a quality gauge configured to provide, based upon data from the sensor array, information relating to air quality within one or more portions of the operating room (See Paragraphs [0058]-[0059]: The operating room may include additional air quality sensors, and the air quality sensors can identify a high particle count that can indicate a need to replace a filter, or take further action.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed to modify the system of Wellig/Olsen to include the indicator presents a quality gauge configured to provide, based upon data from the sensor array, information relating to air quality within one or more portions of the operating room as taught by Boisvert. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Wellig/Olsen with Boisvert with the motivation of improve healthcare hygiene and/or indoor environmental conditions (See Background of Boisvert in Paragraph [0003].)
As per claim 16, Wellig/Olsen discloses the system of claims 1 and 15 as described above. Wellig/Olsen may not explicitly teach wherein the particular sensor is selected from a group consisting of a proximity sensor, a door position sensor, a radio frequency identification (RFID) reader, and a BLUETOOTH device.
Boisvert teaches a system wherein the particular sensor is selected from a group consisting of a proximity sensor, a door position sensor, a radio frequency identification (RFID) reader, and a BLUETOOTH device (See Paragraphs [0020]-[0023], [0034]: Different sensors can be used including, proximity sensors, a door sensor, and the access control system may include RFID sensors, and BLUETOOTH devices can be communicated with.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed to modify the system of Wellig/Olsen to include the particular sensor is selected from a group consisting of a proximity sensor, a door position sensor, a radio frequency identification (RFID) reader, and a BLUETOOTH device as taught by Boisvert. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Wellig/Olsen with Boisvert with the motivation of improve healthcare hygiene and/or indoor environmental conditions (See Background of Boisvert in Paragraph [0003].)
As per independent claim 17, Wellig discloses an operating room monitoring system, comprising:
a processor and a memory (See Paragraphs [0027]-[0028] The computing device may include a processor and a memory);
a sensor array in communication with the processor and memory, wherein each sensor of the sensor array:
detects a plurality of conditions, events, or information in near real-time within an operating room about the operating room (See Paragraphs [0015]-[0016], [0024]-[0030], [0036]-[0038]: HAI and SSI infections (HAI and SSI infections can be transmitted by airborne particulates) can be reduced by following strict procedures, and a location sensor, wearable device, and an environmental sensor can be used to identify the location of people and a procedural compliance module that includes one or more defined procedures that should be performed in a particular room of a facility in order to reduce the risk of infection, which the Examiner is interpreting the location sensor, wearable device, and an environmental sensor to encompass a sensor array, interpreting the procedural compliance module to encompass detect a plurality of events, conditions, or information), and
is positioned around the operating room (See Paragraphs [0016], [0020]-[0022]: The location sensor may be part of a number of distributed beacons that can be used to identify the location of a wearable device and/or user device, which the Examiner is interpreting distributed beacons to encompass sensors positioned around the operating room (See Paragraph [0016])); and
a display (See Paragraphs [0027]: The user interface of the computing device may be a display or other means for allowing a user to interact with the computing device);
wherein the memory is configured to store a protocol dataset that defines an airborne infection-reduction protocol (See Paragraph [0032]: All of the defined procedures, regardless of the room type to which they apply, may be stored in the same database) operating as a function of a plurality of environmental quality indicators that combine to quantify a risk of airborne microbial contamination, the plurality of environmental quality indicators comprising air velocity, temperature, particle count, and microbial contamination in the operating room;
wherein the sensor array comprises:
one or more air velocity sensors that together produce a set of air flow data in the operating room, and
one or more environmental sensors that together produce a set of environmental quality data, the environmental sensors comprising:
a temperature sensor (See Paragraph [0037]: Environmental sensors can include temperature sensors),
a particle counter, and
a microbial detector configured to detect airborne microorganisms;
wherein the positioning of each sensor of the sensor array is based on the airborne infection-reduction protocol (See Paragraphs [0015], [0022]: The location sensor may be positioned centrally in a room and configured to transmit one or more signals throughout an entire room as the HAI and SSI infections can occur by airborne particulates, which the Examiner is interpreting to encompass the claimed portion as the procedures are focused on reducing HAI and SSI infections); and
wherein the processor is configured to: during a procedure performed in the operating room, receive a procedure dataset from the sensor array as an electrical signal, wherein the procedure dataset comprises data produced by at least one sensor in the sensor array (See Paragraphs [0031]-[0032]: The user device may be configured to receive messages from the location sensor and/or the computing device regarding a procedure that is expected to be performed in a particular room, and each defined procedure may include one or more conditions that must be met for the defined procedure to be considered correctly completed, which the Examiner is interpreting identifying corrected completion of a defined procedure to encompass during a procedure performed in the operating room);
display a dashboard interface via the display based on the procedure dataset (See Paragraphs [0027], [0031]-[0032]: The user interface of the computing device may be a display or other means for allowing a user to interact with the computing device, and the user device may be configured to receive messages from the location sensor and/or the computing device regarding a procedure that is expected to be performed in a particular room);
generate a risk picture for the operating room based on the procedure dataset, wherein the risk picture characterizes the risk of airborne microbial contamination in one or more areas of the operating room (See Paragraphs [0025], [0028], [0040]-[0042]: The procedural compliance module may include one or more defined procedures that should be performed in a particular room of a facility in order to reduce the risk of infection, and the system can be configured to determine whether or not the conditions of the defined procedure have been met, if the conditions have not been met an alert is sent, which the Examiner is interpreting the procedural compliance module to encompass a risk picture for the operating room based on the procedure dataset);
based on the procedure dataset, identify one or more protocol violations of the airborne infection-reduction protocol (See Paragraphs [0025], [0028], [0040]- [0042]: The system can be configured to determine whether or not the conditions of the defined procedure have been met, if the conditions have not been met an alert is sent, and an alert may remind the user to perform the defined procedure as the procedure was not performed), said identifying comprising:
evaluating the set of air flow data as a function of the airborne infection-reduction protocol to determine whether airflow is insufficient, and
evaluating the set of environmental quality data as a function of the airborne infection-reduction protocol to determine whether an environmental quality index is insufficient; and
in response to the one or more protocol violations, perform a response action selected from a response group consisting of:
providing a human-perceptible notification of the one or more protocol violations (See Paragraphs [0025], [0028], [0040]-[0042]: The system can be configured to determine whether or not the conditions of the defined procedure have been met, if the conditions have not been met an alert is sent, and an alert may remind the user to perform the defined procedure as the procedure was not performed);
updating the risk picture based on the one or more protocol violations (See Paragraphs [0040]-[0042]: A heat map of a custodian can be analyzed and scored to determine if the custodian has met the procedural guidelines, if the custodian score is below a threshold, which the Examiner is interpreting analyzed and scored to determine if the custodian has met the procedural guidelines to encompass updating the risk picture based on the one or more protocol violations as the risk of infection could be reduced, but not reduced to a sufficient extent); and
updating and re-displaying the dashboard interface based on the one or more protocol violations (See Paragraphs [0027], [003 l]-[0032], [0040]-[0042]: The user interface of the computing device may be a display or other means for allowing a user to interact with the computing device, and the user device may be configured to receive messages from the location sensor and/or the computing device regarding a procedure that is expected to be performed in a particular room, and the alert can be sent to the user's user device or wearable device, which the Examiner is interpreting the alert can be sent to the user's user device or wearable device to encompass updating and re-displaying the dashboard interface based on the one or more protocol violations.)
While Wellig discloses the system wherein the memory is configured to store a protocol dataset that defines an airborne infection-reduction protocol, Wellig may not explicitly teach operating as a function of a plurality of environmental quality indicators that combine to quantify a risk of airborne microbial contamination, the plurality of environmental quality indicators comprising air velocity, temperature, particle count, and microbial contamination in the operating room;
wherein the sensor array comprises:
one or more air velocity sensors that together produce a set of air flow data in the operating room, and
one or more environmental sensors that together produce a set of environmental quality data, the environmental sensors comprising:
a particle counter, and
a microbial detector configured to detect airborne microorganisms.
Olsen teaches a system wherein the memory is configured to store a protocol dataset that defines an airborne infection-reduction protocol operating as a function of a plurality of environmental quality indicators that combine to quantify a risk of airborne microbial contamination (See Paragraph [0025]: The thresholds may be user-configurable, depending on the cleaning specifications or parameters, which the Examiner is interpreting the cleaning specifications or parameters to encompass an airborne infection-reduction protocol operating as a function of a plurality of environmental quality indicators that combine to quantify a risk of airborne microbial contamination), the plurality of environmental quality indicators comprising air velocity, temperature, particle count, and microbial contamination (See Paragraph [0026]: The activity data is used to generate a contamination map that includes hot spots, which the Examiner is interpreting the hot spots to encompass microbial contamination) in the operating room;
wherein the sensor array comprises:
one or more air velocity sensors that together produce a set of air flow data in the operating room, and
one or more environmental sensors that together produce a set of environmental quality data, the environmental sensors comprising:
a particle counter, and
a microbial detector configured to detect airborne microorganisms ((See Paragraph [0026]: The activity data is used to generate a contamination map that includes hot spots, which the Examiner is interpreting the hot spots to encompass a microbial detector configured to detect airborne microorganisms when combined with Wellig’s disclosure of HAI and SSI infections can be transmitted in multiple ways, including, but not limited to, surface contamination, airborne particulates and aspiration ([0002]).)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed to modify the system of Wellig to include the memory is configured to store a protocol dataset that defines an airborne infection-reduction protocol operating as a function of a plurality of environmental quality indicators that combine to quantify a risk of airborne microbial contamination, the plurality of environmental quality indicators comprising microbial contamination in the operating room; wherein the sensor array comprises: one or more air velocity sensors that together produce a set of air flow data in the operating room, and one or more environmental sensors that together produce a set of environmental quality data, the environmental sensors comprising: a particle counter, and a microbial detector configured to detect airborne microorganisms as taught by Olsen. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Wellig with Olsen with the motivation of provide safer, more accurate disinfection systems (See Detailed Description of Olsen in Paragraph [0019].)
While Wellig/Olsen discloses the system wherein the memory is configured to store a protocol dataset that defines an airborne infection-reduction protocol operating as a function of a plurality of environmental quality indicators that combine to quantify a risk of airborne microbial contamination, the plurality of environmental quality indicators comprising temperature, and microbial contamination in the operating room;
wherein the sensor array comprises:
one or more environmental sensors that together produce a set of environmental quality data, the environmental sensors comprising:
a temperature sensor, and
a microbial detector configured to detect airborne microorganisms, Wellig/Olsen may not explicitly teach wherein the memory is configured to store a protocol dataset that defines an airborne infection-reduction protocol operating as a function of a plurality of environmental quality indicators that combine to quantify a risk of airborne microbial contamination, the plurality of environmental quality indicators comprising air velocity, and particle count in the operating room;
wherein the sensor array comprises:
one or more air velocity sensors that together produce a set of air flow data in the operating room, and
one or more environmental sensors that together produce a set of environmental quality data, the environmental sensors comprising:
a particle counter,
based on the procedure dataset, identify one or more protocol violations of the airborne infection-reduction protocol, said identifying comprising:
evaluating the set of air flow data as a function of the airborne infection-reduction protocol to determine whether airflow is insufficient, and
evaluating the set of environmental quality data as a function of the airborne infection-reduction protocol to determine whether an environmental quality index is insufficient.
Boisvert teaches a system wherein the memory is configured to store a protocol dataset that defines an airborne infection-reduction protocol operating as a function of a plurality of environmental quality indicators that combine to quantify a risk of airborne microbial contamination, the plurality of environmental quality indicators comprising air velocity, temperature, particle count, and microbial contamination in the operating room;
wherein the sensor array comprises:
one or more air velocity sensors that together produce a set of air flow data in the operating room (See Paragraphs [0044]- [0046]: Air velocity level is used to detect a condition of an elevated risk of infection in a particular room), and
one or more environmental sensors that together produce a set of environmental quality data, the environmental sensors comprising:
a temperature sensor,
a particle counter (See Paragraph [0057]-[0060]: A high particle count may indicate a need to replace a filter, increase an air changeover rate, decrease an air changeover rate, etc. which the Examiner is interpreting the particle counters identifying a high particle count to encompass a particle counter), and
a microbial detector configured to detect airborne microorganisms;
based on the procedure dataset, identify one or more protocol violations of the airborne infection-reduction protocol, said identifying comprising:
evaluating the set of air flow data as a function of the airborne infection-reduction protocol to determine whether airflow is insufficient (See Paragraphs [0058]-[0059]: The operating room may include additional air quality sensors, and the air quality sensors can identify a high particle count that can indicate a need to replace a filter, or take further action, which the Examiner is interpreting a high particle count indicates a need to replace a filter to encompass an airflow is insufficient), and
evaluating the set of environmental quality data as a function of the airborne infection-reduction protocol to determine whether an environmental quality index is insufficient (See Paragraphs [0058]-[0059]: The operating room may include additional air quality sensors, and the air quality sensors can identify a high particle count that can indicate a need to replace a filter, or take further action, which the Examiner is interpreting a high particle count indicates a need to replace a filter to encompass an environmental quality index is insufficient.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed to modify the system of Wellig/Olsen to include the sensor array comprises: one or more air velocity sensors that together produce a set of air flow data in the operating room ; one or more environmental sensors that together produce a set of environmental quality data, the environmental sensors comprising: a particle counter; and based on the procedure dataset, identify one or more protocol violations of the airborne infection-reduction protocol, said identifying comprising: evaluating the set of air flow data as a function of the airborne infection-reduction protocol to determine whether airflow is insufficient, and evaluating the set of environmental quality data as a function of the airborne infection-reduction protocol to determine whether an environmental quality index is insufficient as taught by Boisvert. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Wellig/Olsen with Boisvert with the motivation of improve healthcare hygiene and/or indoor environmental conditions (See Background of Boisvert in Paragraph [0003].)
As per claim 18, Wellig/Olsen/Boisvert discloses the system of claim 17 as described above. Wellig further teaches wherein the sensor array further comprises one or more of:
a humidity sensor (See Paragraph [0038]: Environmental sensors may include VOC sensors, temperature sensors, humidity sensors, luminance sensors (e.g., occupancy sensors), microphone sensors, etc.);
an air pressure sensor;
an airflow sensor;
a door opening sensor;
a door position sensor;
an occupancy sensor (See Paragraph [0038]: Environmental sensors may include VOC sensors, temperature sensors, humidity sensors, luminance sensors (e.g., occupancy sensors), microphone sensors, etc.);
an occupant position detector;
a carbon dioxide sensor and infrared beam trip counter;
a camera;
a proximity sensor;
a near-real-time bio aerosol pathogen detector;
an RFID transceiver;
a video sensor, comprising
a video capture device that produces a video stream, and
a video processor that detects one or more conditions, events, or information within the operating room based on the video stream.
As per claim 19, Wellig/Olsen/Boisvert discloses the system of claim 17 as described above. Wellig/Olsen may not explicitly teach wherein the dashboard interface displays three or more interface elements selected from the element group consisting of:
an environmental quality index gauge;
a door status;
a door activity indicator;
a zone traffic indicator;
a dew point temperature indicator;
a room temperature indicator;
a room pressure indicator;
a room humidity indicator; and
a particle count indicator.
Boisvert teaches a system wherein the dashboard interface (See Paragraphs [0037]-[0041]: The user interface may be a physical user interface that is accessible at the elevated risk determination system, and may include a display) displays three or more interface elements selected from the element group consisting of:
an environmental quality index gauge (See Paragraph [0034]: The conditions in a room can be monitored, which can include biohazard detection, which the Examiner is interpreting the biohazard detection to encompass an environmental quality index gauge);
a door status (See Paragraph [0034]: The sensors may include limit switches and door sensors to encompass a door status as an option for the “Reason for Alert” from Fig. 5);
a door activity indicator (See Paragraph [0034]: The sensors may include limit switches and door sensors to encompass a door activity indicator as an option for the “Reason for Alert” from Fig. 5);
a zone traffic indicator (See Fig. 5: Reason for Alert indicates “Elevated Traffic in Room”, which the Examiner is interpreting to encompass a zone traffic indicator);
a dew point temperature indicator (See Paragraphs [0057]-[0060]: The operating room may include dew point sensors and temperature sensors, and data can be taken from these sensors and trended, monitored, displayed, and/or analyzed in real time and viewable display);;
a room temperature indicator (See Paragraphs [0057]-[0060]: The operating room may include dew point sensors and temperature sensors, and data can be taken from these sensors and trended, monitored, displayed, and/or analyzed in real time and viewable display);
a room pressure indicator (See Paragraph [0034]: The sensors may include active pressure monitors to encompass a room pressure indicator as an option for the “Reason for Alert” from Fig. 5);
a room humidity indicator (See Fig. 5: Reason for Alert indicates “Elevated Humidity”, which the Examiner is interpreting to encompass a room humidity indicator); and
a particle count indicator (See Paragraph [0057]-[0060]: A high particle count may indicate a need to replace a filter, increase an air changeover rate, decrease an air changeover rate, etc. which the Examiner is interpreting the particle counters identifying a high particle count to encompass a particle count indicator.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed to modify the system of Wellig/Olsen to include the dashboard interface displays three or more interface elements selected from the element group consisting of: an environmental quality index gauge; a door status; a door activity indicator; a zone traffic indicator; a dew point temperature indicator; a room temperature indicator; a room pressure indicator; a room humidity indicator; and a particle count indicator as taught by Boisvert. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Wellig/Olsen with Boisvert with the motivation of improve healthcare hygiene and/or indoor environmental conditions (See Background of Boisvert in Paragraph [0003].)
As per claim 20, Wellig/Olsen/Boisvert discloses the system of claim 17 as described above. Wellig/Olsen may not explicitly teach wherein the sensor array further comprises a set of one or more cameras, a set of one or more door position sensors, and a set of one or more proximity sensors.
Boisvert teaches a system wherein the sensor array further comprises a set of one or more cameras (See Paragraph [0034]: Cameras can be utilized with the sensor combinations), a set of one or more door position sensors (See Paragraph [0034]: Other sensors may include limit switches and door sensors), and a set of one or more proximity sensors.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed to modify the system of Wellig/Olsen to include the sensor array comprises a set of one or more cameras and a set of one or more door position sensors as taught by Boisvert. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Wellig/Olsen with Boisvert with the motivation of improve healthcare hygiene and/or indoor environmental conditions (See Background of Boisvert in Paragraph [0003].)
As per claim 21, Wellig/Olsen/Boisvert discloses the system of claims 17 and 20 as described above. Wellig/Olsen may not explicitly teach wherein:
the set of one or more cameras are positioned within the operating room to provide, in an aggregate, substantially unobstructed field of view of the operating room;
a door position sensor in the set of one or more door position sensors is positioned at each door of the operating room; and
each air velocity sensor in the set of one or more air velocity sensors is positioned within a flow path of artificially circulated air within the operating room.
Boisvert teaches a system wherein:
the set of one or more cameras are positioned within the operating room to provide, in an aggregate, substantially unobstructed field of view of the operating room (See Fig. 6 and Paragraphs [0034]-[0035]: Cameras can be utilized with the sensor combinations, and the camera can be positioned in the operating room to view the room);
a door position sensor in the set of one or more door position sensors is positioned at each door of the operating room (See Paragraphs [0021], [0034]: The sensor/devices may be limit switches located on doors of the building, which the Examiner is interpreting the door sensors and limit switches located on doors to encompass positioned at each door of the operating room); and
each air velocity sensor in the set of one or more air velocity sensors is positioned within a flow path of artificially circulated air within the operating room (See Fig. 6 and Paragraphs [0058]: The operating room may include a plurality of velocity sensors, and the velocity sensors are near air handling vents.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed to modify the system of Wellig/Olsen to include the set of one or more cameras are positioned within the operating room to provide, in aggregate, substantially unobstructed field of view of the operating room, a door position sensor in the set of one or more door position sensors is positioned at each door of the operating room, and each air velocity sensor in the set of one or more air velocity sensors is positioned within a flow path of artificially circulated air within the operating room as taught by Boisvert. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Wellig/Olsen with Boisvert with the motivation of improve healthcare hygiene and/or indoor environmental conditions (See Background of Boisvert in Paragraph [0003].)
As per claim 23, Wellig/Olsen/Boisvert discloses the system of claim 17 as described above. Wellig further teaches wherein the processor is further configured to: store an operating room dataset that indicates:
ideal positions for each of a plurality of pieces of medical equipment within the operating room (See Paragraphs [0038]-[0041]: The defined procedures have been stored, the system may be used to monitor for procedural compliance, the location sensor may identify stationary objects (furniture, etc.) and moving objects (e.g., people, carts, etc.), which the Examiner is interpreting stationary objects to encompass a plurality of pieces of medical equipment and procedural compliance to encompass ideal positions),
ideal positions for each of one or more personnel within the operating room (See Paragraphs [0038]-[0041]: The defined procedures have been stored, the system may be used to monitor for procedural compliance, the location sensor may identify stationary objects (furniture, etc.) and moving objects (e.g., people, carts, etc.), which the Examiner is interpreting moving objects to encompass each of one or more personnel and procedural compliance to encompass ideal positions), and
positions of a set of static features of the operating room (See Paragraphs [0038]-[0041]: The defined procedures have been stored, the system may be used to monitor for procedural compliance, the location sensor may identify stationary objects (furniture, etc.) and moving objects (e.g., people, carts, etc.), which the Examiner is interpreting stationary objects to encompass a set of static features), and
generate the risk picture based on the operating room dataset (See Paragraphs [0038]-[0041]: The system may identify the location of the person and determine if the person is making a predefined movement substantially simultaneously, which the Examiner is interpreting the determination to encompass generate the risk picture.)
As per claim 24, Wellig/Olsen/Boisvert discloses the system of claims 17 and 23 as described above. Wellig further teaches wherein the processor s further configured to provide a human-perceptible sensor placement guide based on the set of static features, wherein the sensor placement guide indicates an ideal position for each sensor of the sensor array within the operating room (See Fig. 7 and Paragraphs [0037]-[0038]: When the location sensor is installed, a commissioning process is performed to teach the system the stationary objects as well as to identify the defined procedure locations, which the Examiner is interpreting the location sensor is installed in the defined procedure locations to encompass indicates an ideal position for each sensor of the sensor array within the operating room.)
As per claim 25, Wellig/Olsen/Boisvert discloses the system of claim 17 as described above. Wellig/Olsen may not explicitly teach wherein the dashboard interface displays the risk picture and an air change rate.
Boisvert teaches a system wherein the dashboard interface displays the risk picture and an air change rate (See Paragraphs [0045], [0055]: The elevated infection risk alert may present the risk along a scale of risk and some conditions that may increase a risk of infection include low air changes per hour (ACH).)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed to modify the system of Wellig/Olsen to include the dashboard interface displays the risk picture and an air change rate as taught by Boisvert. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Wellig/Olsen with Boisvert with the motivation of improve healthcare hygiene and/or indoor environmental conditions (See Background of Boisvert in Paragraph [0003].)
As per claim 26, Wellig/Olsen/Boisvert discloses the system of claim 17 as described above. Wellig/Olsen may not explicitly teach wherein:
the sensor array further comprises one or more proximity sensors that collectively produce a set of proximity data; and
the processor is further configured to, when identifying one or more protocol violations, evaluate the set of proximity data in view of the airborne infection-reduction protocol to determine whether a risk zone incursion has occurred, the risk zone incursion being associated with a particular subset of the space within the operating room.
Boisvert teaches a system wherein:
the sensor array further comprises one or more proximity sensors that collectively produce a set of proximity data (See Paragraph [0020]: The one or more sensors or devices may include proximity sensors); and
the processor is further configured to, when identifying one or more protocol violations, evaluate the set of proximity data in view of the airborne infection-reduction protocol to determine whether a risk zone incursion has occurred, the risk zone incursion being associated with a particular subset of the space within the operating room (See Paragraphs [0048]-[0052]: The controller may receive infection risk compliance parameters for each of the different room types such that the building management system may be controlled in accordance with the room type when an elevated infection risk occurs in the particular room, the infection risk compliance parameters may be specific to a particular patient or type of patient, if a high-infection-risk patient is present in a room (e.g. open wound, weak immune system, etc.), a user may input this information to the controller, and the rules may cause the controller to control the environment in that room differently than if a low-infection- risk patient, which the Examiner is interpreting the infection risk compliance parameters to encompass determine whether a risk zone incursion has occurred.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed to modify the system of Wellig/Olsen to include the sensor array further comprises one or more proximity sensors that collectively produce a set of proximity data; and the processor is further configured to, when identifying one or more protocol violations, evaluate the set of proximity data in view of the airborne infection-reduction protocol to determine whether a risk zone incursion has occurred, the risk zone incursion being associated with a particular subset of the space within the operating room as taught by Boisvert. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Wellig/Olsen with Boisvert with the motivation of improve healthcare hygiene and/or indoor environmental conditions (See Background of Boisvert in Paragraph [0003].)
As per claim 27, Wellig/Olsen/Boisvert discloses the system of claim 17 as described above. Wellig/Olsen may not explicitly teach wherein:
the sensor array further comprises one or more cameras that together produce a set of image data; and
the processor is further configured to, when identifying one or more protocol violations:
perform a machine vision process on the set of image data to identify a set of objects within the operating room, and
evaluate positions of the set of objects based on the airborne infection-reduction protocol to determine whether a violation of the airborne infection-reduction protocol has occurred.
Boisvert teaches a system wherein:
the sensor array further comprises one or more cameras that together produce a set of image data (See Paragraphs [0021], [0028], [0034], [0059]-[0060]: The operating room may further include one or more context or image sensors, and the data from the sensors may be recorded and analyzed, which the Examiner is interpreting the data from the image sensors to encompass a set of image data); and
the processor is further configured to, when identifying one or more protocol violations:
perform a machine vision process on the set of image data to identify a set of objects within the operating room (See Paragraphs [0021], [0028], [0034], [0059]-[0060]: The processing unit may identify a risk of infection based on the sensor data, which the Examiner is interpreting the processing unit to encompass a machine vision process), and
evaluate positions of the set of objects based on the airborne infection-reduction protocol to determine whether a violation of the airborne infection-reduction protocol has occurred (See Paragraphs [0021], [0028], [0034], [0059]-[0060]: The sensor data may be trended, monitored, displayed, and/or analyzed in real time and viewable on the display, which the Examiner is interpreting the sensor data can be analyzed to encompass evaluate positions of the set of objects.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed to modify the system of Wellig/Olsen to include the sensor array further comprises one or more cameras that together produce a set of image data; and the processor is further configured to, when identifying one or more protocol violations: perform a machine vision process on the set of image data to identify a set of objects within the operating room, and evaluate positions of the set of objects based on the airborne infection-reduction protocol to determine whether a violation of the infection-reduction protocol has occurred as taught by Boisvert. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Wellig/Olsen with Boisvert with the motivation of improve healthcare hygiene and/or indoor environmental conditions (See Background of Boisvert in Paragraph [0003].)
As per claim 29, Wellig/Olsen/Boisvert discloses the system of claim 17 as described above. Wellig/Olsen may not explicitly teach wherein:
the sensor array further comprises one or more door position sensors that produce a set of door position data; and
the processor is further configured to, when identifying one or more protocol violations:
evaluate the set of door position data as a function of the airborne infection-reduction protocol to determine whether an excessive number of door openings has occurred, and
evaluate the set of door position data as a function of the airborne infection-reduction protocol to determine whether an excessive cumulative duration of door opening events has occurred.
Boisvert teaches a system wherein:
the sensor array further comprises one or more door position sensors that produce a set of door position data (See Paragraphs [0021], [0034]: The sensor/devices may be limit switches located on doors of the building, which the Examiner is interpreting the door sensors and limit switches located on doors to encompass door position sensors); and
the processor is further configured to, when identifying one or more protocol violations:
evaluate the set of door position data as a function of the airborne infection-reduction protocol to determine whether an excessive number of door openings has occurred (See Paragraph [0053]: If there is elevated traffic in a room (e.g., more people than expected and/or doors opening or than expected), which the Examiner is interpreting more people than expected and/or doors opening or than expected to encompass determine whether an excessive number of door openings has occurred), and
evaluate the set of door position data as a function of the airborne infection-reduction protocol to determine whether an excessive cumulative duration of door opening events has occurred (See Paragraphs [0053]-[0056]: If there is elevated traffic in a room (e.g., more people than expected and/or doors opening or than expected), which the Examiner is interpreting more people than expected and/or doors opening or than expected to encompass determine whether an excessive cumulative duration of door opening events has occurred.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed to modify the system of Wellig/Olsen to include the sensor array further comprises one or more door position sensors that produce a set of door position data; and the processor is further configured to, when identifying one or more protocol violations: evaluate the set of door position data as a function of the airborne infection-reduction protocol to determine whether an excessive number of door openings has occurred, and evaluate the set of door position data as a function of the airborne infection-reduction protocol to determine whether an excessive cumulative duration of door opening events has occurred as taught by Boisvert. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Wellig/Olsen with Boisvert with the motivation of improve healthcare hygiene and/or indoor environmental conditions (See Background of Boisvert in Paragraph [0003].)
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wellig (U.S. Patent Pre-Grant Publication No. 2021/0027882) in view of Olsen et al. (U.S. Patent Pre-Grant Publication No. 2019/0117812) in further view of Derenne et al. (U.S. Patent Pre-Grant Publication No. 2012/0075464).
As per claim 14, Wellig/Olsen discloses the system of claim 1 as described above. Wellig/Olsen may not explicitly teach wherein the airborne infection-reduction protocol is a function of information retrieved from an electronic medical record for a patient scheduled to be operated upon in the operating room.
Derenne teaches a system wherein the airborne infection-reduction protocol is a function of information retrieved from an electronic medical record for a patient scheduled to be operated upon in the operating room (See Paragraphs [0062]-[0065]: The patient can be identified by facial recognition which may then be used for determining which medical records certain information should be forwarded, and the system may be used to help ensure that patient care protocols used by a healthcare facility are followed.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed to modify the system of Wellig/Olsen to include the infection-reduction protocol is a function of information retrieved from an electronic medical record for a patient scheduled to be operated upon in the operating room as taught by Derenne. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Wellig/Olsen with Derenne with the motivation of improving patient care (See Summary of the Information of Derenne in Paragraph [0003].)
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wellig (U.S. Patent Pre-Grant Publication No. 2021/0027882) in view of Olsen et al. (U.S. Patent Pre-Grant Publication No. 2019/0117812) in view of Boisvert et al. (U.S. Patent Pre-Grant Publication No. 2020/0227159) in further view of Derenne et al. (U.S. Patent Pre-Grant Publication No. 2012/0075464).
As per claim 22, Wellig/Olsen/Boisvert discloses the system of claim 17 as described above. Wellig/Olsen/Boisvert may not explicitly teach wherein:
each identifier of a set of identifiers is placed on a piece of medical equipment in the operating room; and
the sensor array further comprises a set of locator sensors, wherein the set of locator sensors is collectively operable to produce data indicating a position of each of the set of locators within the operating room.
Derenne teaches a system wherein:
each identifier of a set of identifiers is placed on a piece of medical equipment in the operating room (See Paragraph [0110]: Object identification may be accomplished by detecting identifiers positioned on the object); and
the sensor array further comprises a set of locator sensors, wherein the set of locator sensors is collectively operable to produce data indicating a position of each of the set of locators within the operating room (See Paragraphs [0047], [0110]-[0117]: The system may monitor the cleaning process by first identifying individuals who enter a given area and may determine the location of a mop or other utensil held by the cleaning person, which the Examiner is interpreting determine the location of a mop or other utensil held by the cleaning person to encompass data indicating a position of each of the set of locators within the operating room.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed to modify the system of Wellig/Olsen/Boisvert to include each identifier of a set of identifiers is placed on a piece of medical equipment in the operating room, and the sensor array further comprises a set of locator sensors, wherein the set of locator sensors is collectively operable to produce data indicating a position of each of the set of locators within the operating room as taught by Derenne. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Wellig/Olsen/Boisvert with Derenne with the motivation of improving patient care (See Summary of the Information of Derenne in Paragraph [0003].)
Response to Arguments
In the Remarks filed on February 25, 2026, the Applicant argues that the newly amended and/or added claims overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection(s), 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection(s), and 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection(s). The Examiner acknowledges that the newly added and/or amended claims overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection(s). However, the Examiner does not acknowledge that the newly added and/or amended claims overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection(s) and 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection(s).
The Applicant argues that:
(1) claim 1 recites a system having three quite concrete (that is, not abstract) components, and Claim 1 does not recite subject matter that falls into any of the three enumerated groupings of abstract ideas. The Office Action did not first establish "what the Applicant invented and the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim as a whole," so the rejection under 35 USC § 101 did not meet the requirements of MPEP 2106.04(a) and should be withdrawn. Further, it is respectfully submitted that the claims do not recite subject matter that falls into any of the three enumerated groupings. Looking at the actual claim elements, claim 1 does not recite any method of organizing human activity, that is, of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, as the Office Action alleged without identifying any claim text that actually describes any sort of "organizing human activity" (Office Action, page 6). For example, nothing in the claim speaks to modifying or directing human behavior. While a claim element may involve an abstract concept, none of the elements of Claim 1 recite any of these enumerated abstract concepts, and the claim as a whole is not directed to any of these enumerated abstract concepts. As such, Claim 1 does not recite ineligible subject matter, and the analysis should terminate at Prong 1 of Step 2A. Claims 17 and 30, the other independent claims rejected under 35 USC § 101, likewise and at least for analogous reasons, do not recite ineligible subject matter, and the analysis of those claims should terminate at Prong 1 of Step 2A as well. Accordingly, claims 1-27, 29, and 30 are patent-eligible under Prong 1 of Step 2A. The Office Action's analysis of what remains of claim 1 after excluding several physical elements for which a human mind has no substitute does not negate this. Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the 35 USC§ 101 rejection. In addition, to the extent claims 1-27, 29, and 30 might incorrectly be characterized as reciting an enumerated abstract idea, Claim 1, Claim 17, and Claim 30 each recite additional elements that integrate any identified judicial exception into a practical application. Although Claim 1, Claim 17, and Claim 30 do not recite matter that falls into the three enumerated groupings, Applicant addresses the subsequent arguments for consideration should the Office maintain an incorrect determination that Claim 1, Claim 17, or Claim 30 recite ineligible subject matter under Prong 1 of Step 2A analysis;
(2) claims that recite an abstract concept but include additional elements that provide an improvement in existing technology or a technical field are eligible under § 101. MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1). It is respectfully submitted that amended claim 1, viewed as a whole, integrates the alleged "judicial exception into a practical application" that "will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the [alleged] judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception." Id Specifically, the features of Applicant's invention recited in claim 1 provide a technical solution to the technical problem of minimizing airborne bacterial contamination of a patient in an operating room. The recited system includes several sensors, including a microbial detector, specific configurations, and specific technical responses to detection of environmental events and conditions, all customized for the operating room and used in conjunction with a plurality of environmental quality indicators of an infection-reduction protocol that is specific to the operating room to quantify the airborne risk of microbial contamination. To the extent any underlying abstract idea is identified, the claims recite a practical application of such idea by reciting a specific way (positioning environmental sensors around an operating room based on an airborne infection-reduction protocol associated with the operating room, the airborne infection-reduction protocol comprising a plurality of environmental quality indicators that combine to quantify the airborne risk of microbial contamination, producing electrical signals corresponding to a plurality of detected events and conditions, comparing the plurality of events and conditions against the airborne infection-reduction protocol, and indicating the level of compliance with the airborne infection-reduction protocol) to solve the problem of minimizing airborne bacterial contamination, which amounts to significantly more than just applying any abstract concept on a generic computer. Finally, and importantly, the system necessarily involves detection of various events and conditions of distinct sources that may occur simultaneously, may not be perceptible by a human, and cannot be practically performed by the human mind, especially in near-real time during a medical procedure. These are significant and substantial limitations, making it clear that this is not "a drafting effort designed to monopolize" "a person obtaining information about an operating room, and comparing the plurality of environmental events and conditions from the operating room to an airborne infection-reduction protocol" as argued in the Office Action. It is respectfully submitted that at least these above-cited elements of the system according to Applicant's claim 1 integrate any alleged judicial exception into a practical application, imposing meaningful limits that prevent any monopolization of the alleged judicial exception. As such, it is respectfully submitted that claim 1 is patent-eligible under Prong 2 of Step 2A, at least because the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Claims 17 and 30 also recite many of the same elements recited by Claim 1 and also integrates any alleged judicial exception into a practical application. All dependent claims are believed to be patent-eligible for the same or analogous reasons as the independent claim from which each depends. For at least the above-cited reasons, claims 1-27, 29, and 30 are patent-eligible under Prong 2 of Step 2A. Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the 35 USC § 101 rejection;
(3) even if the amended claims are determined to be directed to an abstract idea, and it is decided that they do not include additional elements that provide an improvement in existing technology or a technical field, Applicant respectfully submits that the claims include elements that are significantly more than the abstract idea and are thus statutory under Step 2B. The 2019 PEG states, "It is possible that a claim does not integrate a recited judicial exception is nonetheless patent eligible ... because the additional elements recited in the claims provided 'significantly more' than the recited judicial exception (e.g., because the additional elements were unconventional in combination)." (Emphasis added.) Here, Applicant respectfully submits that the recited features, in combination, perform unconventional and non-routine functions that amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. The combination of elements, particularly the claimed approach of positioning sensors around an operating room according to an airborne infection-reduction protocol associated with the operating room, the airborne infection-reduction protocol comprising a plurality of environmental quality indicators that combine to quantify the airborne risk of microbial contamination, detecting a plurality of events and conditions about the operating room using the sensors in near real-time, comparing the plurality of events and conditions to the airborne infection-reduction protocol, and indicating the level of compliance with the airborne infection-reduction protocol, is not well-understood, routine, or conventional in the field of contamination control. This unique combination of steps supports an inventive concept that, if necessary, transforms the claims into patent-eligible subject matter. Based on this additional rationale, Applicant submits that claim 1 recites significantly more than any alleged abstract idea. Claims 17 and 30 recite similar features, and for at least the same reasons given above in the discussion of amended claim 1, it also recites significantly more than any alleged abstract idea. All dependent claims are believed to be eligible for the same or similar reasons as the independent claim from which each depends. In conclusion, Applicant respectfully submits that claims 1-27, 29, and 30 are directed to patent-eligible subject matter, as they recite a specific technological improvement in airborne infection risk detection, integrate any abstract ideas into a practical application, and recite significantly more than any alleged abstract idea. Applicant requests reconsideration and the withdrawal of the rejection under 35 USC§ 101;
(4) Applicant notes first that § 35 U.S.C. §102(b)(l)(A) excludes from use as prior art any "disclosure made 1 year or less before the effective filing date of a claimed invention ... if- (A) the disclosure was made by the inventor or joint inventor or by another who obtained the subject matter disclosed directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor " Now, in Boisvert was filed on January 11, 2019, and Wellig was filed on July 25, 2019. For some time prior to Boisvert' s filing date, Applicant and Honeywell International Inc. ("Honeywell"), the applicant on both the Wellig and Boisvert applications, were in discussions over an agreement ("Agreement") between the parties. (See the Declaration of Damon Greeley Under 37 CFR 1.132, dated May 7, 2025 ("First Greeley Declaration"), submitted along with the response to the earlier Office Action dated December 09, 2024, ,i 5). Before discussions over the Agreement began, the inventors of the present Application had conceived all the Previously Presented Subject Matter. (First Greeley Declaration, ,i 6). The inventors of the present Application disclosed the Previously Presented Subject Matter, directly or indirectly, to one or more of Honeywell, the named inventor of the Wellig Reference, and the named inventors of the Boisvert Reference, (First Greeley Declaration, ,i 7), and the Previously Presented Subject Matter had not been conceived by Honeywell, nor the named inventor of the Wellig Reference, nor the named inventors of the Boisvert Reference before learning about it, directly or indirectly, from the inventors of the present Application, (First Greeley Declaration, ,i 8). Thus, the Previously Presented Subject Matter was obtained, directly or indirectly, by Honeywell, the inventor of the Wellig Reference, and the inventors of the Boisvert Reference from the inventors of the present Application prior to the filings of Wellig and Boisvert. (Id). Therefore, the Wellig Reference and the Boisvert Reference are excepted from qualifying as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102 because, at least as to the Previously Presented Subject Matter, the subject matter was "made by ... another who obtained the subject matter disclosed directly or indirectly from ... a joint inventor." (See 35 U.S.C. §102(b)(1)(A));
(5) the Office Action presented two arguments against the effectiveness of the First Greeley Declaration, namely, that the First Greeley Declaration was "deficient as there is no explanation of the substance of the discussions of an agreement" and that "there is a large disconnect between the Applicant's supposed conceived subject matter and Wellig or Boisvert obtaining the claimed subject matter from the Applicant. (Office Action, pg. 73). Applicant traverses these arguments. The agreement was merely mentioned in the First Greeley Declaration as context for the connection between Applicant (and their inventors) and Honeywell (and their inventors)-the agreement bears no weight in the §102(b)(l)(A) analysis. As to the alleged "disconnect," the First Greeley Declaration stated quite directly that Honeywell and the inventors on the Wellig and Boisvert references obtained the "Subject Matter" (herein called the "Previously Presented Subject Matter") including everything the Office cited those references for, from Applicant, (First Greeley Declaration, ,i 7), so there is no "disconnect" whatsoever, let alone a "large disconnect." Accordingly, the First Greeley Declaration was not deficient, and both the Wellig and Boisvert references are disqualified from being cited against the Previously Presented Subject Matter. Further, to account for the slightly different text of the currently presented claims (in view of the present claim amendments), Applicant presents with this paper another Declaration of Damon Greeley (the "Second Greeley Declaration") that presents the current claim language with evidence that the Honeywell inventors (on the Wellig and Boisvert references) derived all the Derived Subject Matter from Applicant's inventors as well. Since the Wellig Reference and the Boisvert Reference are not prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(l)(A), they cannot be cited for the Derived Subject Matter to reject claims 1-27, 29, and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. For at least this reason, all the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 should be withdrawn;
(6) under MPEP § 2143.03, in order to establish a prima facie case of obviousness, the Office must give due consideration to all of the limitations of a claim. Obviousness rejections "cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness." KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). Accordingly, for at least the reasons set forth below, Applicant respectfully submits that the combined art of record fails to render any of the present claims obvious under this standard. Applicant submits that the art of record fails to teach, suggest, or otherwise render obvious all the limitations recited in each independent claim, 1, 17, and 30. For instance, Wellig in combination with Olsen (Wellig/Olsen) fails to teach or suggest certain limitations of amended claim 1, which are substantially mirrored in amended claims 17 and 30, such as that "the plurality of sensors includes a microbial detector configured to detect airborne microorganisms in near real-time." As noted on page 43 of the Office Action, Wellig does not teach a microbial detector. Wellig is also silent as to airborne microbial contamination. The Office introduced Olsen, which is directed to systems that map contamination to guide cleaning personnel or robots, as allegedly teaching the microbial detector. (Office Action, pg. 44.) The Office interpreted Olsen's "hot spots" to encompass "a level of microbial contamination," (Office Action, pg. 22), and Olsen's "different types of contaminants" to encompass "a determination of microorganisms gathered within an environmental biome in the operating room," (Office Action, pg. 23). These interpretations are improper because they stretch Olsen's surface contamination mapping far beyond its actual disclosure. The "hot spots" of Olsen are defined as "areas that should be cleaned" based on "physically [being] touched one or more times by a person, exposed to fluids, or objects that have been moved." (Olsen, [0025].) Moreover, Olsen only teaches that the hot spots are measured using thresholds that relate to "activity for an area of the room [such as] a minimum time that a person [occupies or touches] a surface or object [or] a minimum number of contacts between a person and a surface" (Olsen, [0025].) In other words, Olsen determines the hot spots as a function of the amount of times something (e.g., surface, object) is contacted, which is not detecting microbes at all, and is not "detect[ing] airborne microorganisms," and is nothing like the recited near-real-time airborne microorganism detection that the recited microbial detector claimed can detect. Olsen's sensors "may include, but are not limited to, an infrared sensor, a depth-sensing camera, a laser scanner, a three dimensional motion sensor, a two dimensional motion sensor[], an ultraviolet sensor, a thermal imager, and a time-of-flight depth sensor." (Olsen, [0020].) None of these sensors are capable of detecting or identifying microorganisms. Olsen's activity data "may include a location and size of a person's contact with a surface in the room, an amount of time a person has contacted the surface, movement of objects within the room, movement of liquids in the room, [and] changes in properties of objects and surfaces in the room." (Olsen, [0023] et seq.) This describes tracking physical contact and movement, not biological organisms;
(7) Olsen's system presumes that surfaces touched by humans are contaminated; it does not actually detect or measure contamination. This is fundamentally different from "a determination of microorganisms gathered within an environmental biome" as recited in claim 1. Olsen addresses surface contamination for cleaning purposes, explaining that "hospital rooms ... are disinfected after every use to kill any remaining harmful bacteria and viruses in order to prevent the spread of infection and disease." (Olsen, [0002].) Olsen's system tracks physical contact between people and surfaces to identify surfaces that were touched, not whether or what microorganisms are present in the air. Olsen does not cure the deficiency of Wellig for at least these reasons. Additionally, Olsen does not teach the new limitations introduced in the amended claims because Olsen is at best limited to mapping surface contamination. (See Olsen, [0037].) In other words, Olsen cannot detect airborne microorganisms in near real-time, as recited in the amended claims. In addition, the Office relies on Wellig' s defined procedures as allegedly teaching the recited airborne infection-reduction protocol. (Office Action, pg. 15.) However, Wellig's defined procedures cannot reasonably be considered an airborne infection-reduction protocol as recited in the present Application because Wellig' s defined procedures are those "that are to be performed by a person in one or more rooms of [a] facility" and are focused on monitoring a person's procedural compliance by tracking the location of a person in the one or more rooms. (Wellig, [0032].) In contrast, an airborne infection-reduction protocol in the present claims comprises a plurality of environmental quality indicators that combine to quantify the risk of airborne microbial contamination, which (1) cannot be performed by a person and (2) have a different focus (quantifying a risk of microbial contamination versus tracking the location of a person). Finally, quantifying the risk of airborne microbial contamination in the present Application requires an integrated assessment where multiple environmental quality indicators work together to quantify airborne contamination risk. Wellig/Olsen does not teach this integrated approach-they teach simple threshold-based alerts for individual parameters. Accordingly, Wellig/Olsen neither discloses nor suggests nor motivates a combination to achieve the methods and systems being claimed by Applicant. Applicant further submits that, even in combination with Wellig/Olsen and in combination with each other, Huang, Boisvert, Barral, Derenne, and Kirschman fail to make up for this deficiency of Wellig/Olsen. Moreover, the Office has not articulated a rationale as to why a person having ordinary skill in the art would have modified the teachings of the combined art of record to include the above-noted limitations. While the Office Action alleged that one of ordinary skill in the art "would have been motivated to modify Wellig with Olsen with the motivation of provid[ing] safer, more accurate disinfection systems," a disinfection system as taught by Olsen is not the same as quantifying a risk of airborne microbial contamination. Therefore, one could not be motivated to combine the cited references to achieve the combination in present claims 1, 17, and 30. In addition, combining these references would require changing Wellig's core purpose (personnel procedural compliance) to incorporate Olsen's purpose (surface cleaning verification) and extrapolate that into an airborne microbial contamination detection system, which would be a fundamental change in purpose and design, rendering the combination impermissible. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that the combined art of record fails to render present claims 1, 17, and 30 obvious in accordance with MPEP § 2143. Since the dependent claims depend from claim 1 or claim 17, and since the combined art of record fails to render amended independent claims 1 and 17 obvious by failing to teach or render obvious all of the limitations of amended claims 1 and 17 in the recited combinations, the combined art of record also fails to render dependent claims 2-16, 18-27, and 29 obvious in accordance with MPEP § 2143. Furthermore, claims 2-16, 18-27, and 29 include additional limitations beyond those recited in amended claims 1 and 17, thus forming independent bases for non-obviousness. Applicant therefore respectfully requests that the rejections of claims 1-27, 29, and 30 be withdrawn.
In response to argument (1), the Examiner does not find the Applicant’s argument(s) persuasive. The Examiner maintains that the claims encompass managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions), which is a subgrouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. The Examiner maintains that the Applicant’s claims, interpreted under broadest reasonable interpretation, encompasses a person observing events or conditions that affect a risk of infection and notifying that the events or conditions have occurred, a person storing an airborne infection-reduction protocol operating as a function of a plurality of environmental quality indicators that combine to quantify a risk of airborne microbial contamination, a person receiving a procedure dataset, a person showing another person the information, a person determining a risk based on the procedure dataset, and a person identifying a protocol violation of the airborne infection-reduction protocol, and responding with an action. The Applicant’s claims encompass following rules or instructions, which is a subgrouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, and the Examiner maintains that the Applicant’s claims recite an ordered list of instructions for a person to follow. The Examiner maintains that the Applicant’s claims recite an abstract idea. The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection(s) stand.
In response to argument (2), the Examiner does not find the Applicant’s argument(s) persuasive. The Examiner does not acknowledge that the claims solve a technical problem of minimizing airborne bacterial contamination of a patient in an operating room. The Applicant’s claimed invention is similar to mere automation of manual processes, such as using a generic computer to process an application for financing a purchase, Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055, 123 USPQ2d 1100, 1108-09 (Fed. Cir. 2017) or speeding up a loan-application process by enabling borrowers to avoid physically going to or calling each lender and filling out a loan application, LendingTree, LLC v. Zillow, Inc., 656 Fed. App'x 991, 996-97 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (non-precedential), which the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality. The Examiner maintains that the additional element of “wherein the positioning of each sensor of the sensor array is based on the airborne infection-reduction protocol;”, amount to no more than generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. As set forth in, MPEP 2106.05(h), merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, is an example of when an abstract idea has not been integrated into a practical application. The Examiner maintains that the system involves generic computer components, and using a computer configured to perform above identified functions amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. See Alice 573 U.S. at 223 ("mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention".) The Examiner maintains that the claims include elements that are significantly more than the abstract idea. The Examiner does not acknowledge that the recited features, in combination, perform unconventional and non-routine functions that amount to significantly more than an abstract idea as the elements recite protocols or instructions that a person could follow. The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection(s) stand.
In response to argument (3), the Examiner does not find the Applicant’s argument(s) persuasive. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer configured to perform above identified functions amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. See Alice 573 U.S. at 223 ("mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention".) Receiving and transmitting data over a network (i.e., receiving and communicating data or signals) has been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of a general-purpose computer (see MPEP2106.05(d)) and buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc.,765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). Additionally, generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (See MPEP 2016.05(h) and Affinity Labs of Texas v. DirectTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 120 USP12d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). The Examiner maintains that the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. The Examiner maintains that the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection(s) stand.
In response to argument (4), the Examiner does not find the Applicant’s argument(s) persuasive. The Examiner finds the Second Declaration by Greeley to be deficient as there is no explanation of the substance of the discussions of an agreement. The Examiner does not acknowledge that § 35 U.S.C. §102(b)(l)(A) applies to this application as it is not clear that the disclosure was made by the inventor or joint inventor or by another who obtained the subject matter disclosed directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor. The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection(s) stand.
In response to argument (5), the Examiner does not find the Applicant’s argument(s) persuasive. In the Response to Argument(s) section of the Office Action mailed September 30, 2025 on. p. 73, the Examiner responded to the Applicant’s Declaration from May 9, 2025 as deficient. The Examiner further responded to the Applicant’s argument with “Applicant describes there was discussion with Honeywell over a type of agreement, but there is very limited information on this agreement. Applicant describes that they have conceived of various subject matter and that the subject matter was obtained from the Applicant, however there is a large disconnect between the Applicant’s supposed conceived subject matter and Wellig or Boisvert obtaining the claimed subject matter from the Applicant.” The Second Declaration of Greeley does not provide more information on the agreement, only that there were discussions over an agreement for some time prior to January 11, 2019, but the Second Declaration lacks detail of the discussions over the agreement. The lack of detail of discussion over the agreement provides the disconnect. The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection(s) stand.
In response to argument (6), the Examiner does not find the Applicant’s argument(s) persuasive. The Examiner maintains that the prior art that has been combined above would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. The Examiner maintains that the newly amended claimed portion of “the plurality of sensors includes a microbial detector configured to detect airborne microorganisms in near real time” in independent claim 1 is taught by Wellig in Paragraphs [0002], [0037]: One or more conditions of the defined procedure may be dependent, at least in part, on a sensed condition of an environmental sensor, which the Examiner is interpreting an environmental sensor to encompass a microbial detector configured to detect airborne microorganisms in near real time as HAI and SSI infections can be transmitted in multiple ways, including, but not limited to, surface contamination, airborne particulates and aspiration ([0002]). The Examiner maintains that the combination of Wellig/Olsen teaches the newly amended claimed portions of “the plurality of sensors includes a microbial detector configured to detect airborne microorganisms” as described above in the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection(s). The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection(s) stand.
In response to argument (7), the Examiner does not find the Applicant’s argument(s) persuasive. The Examiner maintains that the combination of Wellig/Olsen teaches the newly amended claimed portions of “the plurality of sensors includes a microbial detector configured to detect airborne microorganisms” as described above in the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection(s). Wellig describes in Paragraphs [0002], [0037] that one or more conditions of the defined procedure may be dependent, at least in part, on a sensed condition of an environmental sensor, which the Examiner is interpreting an environmental sensor to encompass a microbial detector configured to detect airborne microorganisms in near real time as HAI and SSI infections can be transmitted in multiple ways, including, but not limited to, surface contamination, airborne particulates and aspiration. The Applicant’s Specification in p. 3 describes “The levels of microbial contamination and determination of the specific microorganisms gathered within the environmental biome are the sources of those found in surgical site infections ("SSIs").”, which the Examiner interprets that “a determination of microorganisms gathered within an environmental biome” is a number, level, or threshold of microorganisms that describes contamination levels. The Examiner maintains that Wellig/Olsen’s disclosure of threshold-based alerts for individual parameters encompasses the newly added claimed portions. Wellig describes a method and system for monitoring procedural compliance of staff in a facility (Paragraphs [0004]-[0006]), this monitoring is carried out by sensors and a computing device. The Examiner maintains that Wellig’s description of the procedural compliance module that monitors a person in order to reduce the risk of infection teaches “quantifying a risk of microbial contamination” as Wellig is aware of levels of risks of infection. The Examiner maintains that the combination of Wellig/Olsen and in combination with Huang, Boisvert, Barral, Derenne, and Kirschman encompass the newly amended claims 1-27, 29, and newly added independent claim 30. The Examiner maintains that the prior art that has been combined above would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. The Examiner does not acknowledge that Wellig’s core purpose would be changed if a person would incorporate Olsen’s purpose as it would be obvious to combine personnel procedural compliance with surface cleaning verification. The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection(s) stand.
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 Bennett S Erickson whose telephone number is (571)270-3690. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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.
/Bennett Stephen Erickson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3683