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
The previous 112(f) claim interpretation remains.
In light of the amendments, the previous 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections have been withdrawn.
In light of the amendments, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
In light of the amendments, claims 17-21, 27, 29-31, and 34-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
In light of the amendments, claims 22-26, 28, 32-33, and 36-39 do not have art rejections.
Notice to Applicant
In the amendment dated 08/16/2026, the following has occurred: claim 17, 22, and 26 have been amended; claims 1-16 remain canceled; claims 18-21, 23-25, and 27-39 remain unchanged; and no new claims have been added.
Claims 17-39 are pending.
Effective Filing Date: 05/11/2020
Response to Arguments
Claim Interpretation:
Applicant respectfully disagrees with the previous claim interpretation, however there are no arguments to support this assertation. The previous 112(f) claim interpretation remains.
35 U.S.C. 112(b) Rejections:
Applicant amended the claims to overcome the previous 112(b) claim rejections. Examiner withdraws these rejections.
35 U.S.C. 103 Rejections:
Applicant argues with respect to the added limitations of the identification device where the device is interchangeable between people of the same group. This limitation has been addressed using additional art.
Claim Interpretation – 35 USC § 112(f)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: “a reading device” in at least claim 17 (page 7, lines 15-20 of the specification describes the corresponding structure), “a medical apparatus” in at least claims 27 and 28 (page 4, lines 15-20 of the specification describes the corresponding structure of this apparatus to be consisting of three apparatuses), “one or more treatment apparatuses” in at least claim 17 (page 21, lines 11-17 of the specification describes the corresponding structure), “one or more diagnostic apparatuses” in at least claim 17 (page 21, lines 19-26 of the specification describes the corresponding structure), “one or more medical clinic apparatuses” in at least claim 17 (page 22, lines 4-8 of the specification describes the corresponding structure), “an authorization device” in at least claim 17 (page 47, lines 14-20 of the specification describes the corresponding structure), and “an identification device” in at least claim 19 (page 17, lines 24-33 of the specification describes the corresponding structure).
Because this/these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The corresponding structure for each of these claim limitations are described above.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 17-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 17 recites “wherein the identification devices assigning the individuals to the group are interchangeable between the individuals of the group” but the specification does not recite this, leading Examiner to question whether Applicant had possession over the claimed invention at the time of filing.
Claims 18-39 are rejected based on their dependency on claim 18.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 17-21, 27, 29-31, and 34-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2014/0297371 to Colburn et al. in view of U.S. 2017/0004259 to Robinson et al. further in view of U.S. 2020/0372743 to Miller et al.
As per claim 17, Colburn et al. teaches a medical treatment system, comprising:
--a plurality of identification devices configured to be carried by individuals from a population of individuals including a healthcare professional, (see: paragraph [0111] where there is at least one identification device in the form of a RFID tag containing a personal identification string for each MW) wherein each identification device is configured to be carried by one individual from the population of individuals, (see: paragraph [0111] where each MW here carries a permanent worker-badge) wherein individuals belonging to a group carry identification devices assigning them to the group; (see: paragraph [0111] where there MWs here belong to the workers group and carrying the badge here indicates an assigning of that individual to the workers group)
--a reading device programmed to gather information, including information that the healthcare professional is carrying at least one identification device, (see: paragraph [0015] where there is a standoff reader configured to read a plurality of RFID tags. Also see: paragraph [0059] where there is a reading device to scan codes. Also see: FIG. 8 where there is sanitation data being gathered) which assigns the healthcare professional to the group; (see: paragraph [0111] where the data of the MW of the RFID serves to assign the MW to a job type such as a doctor or doctors, a nurse of nurses, an aide of aides, etc.)
--a medical apparatus, comprising one or more medical clinic apparatuses; (see: paragraph [0056] where there is a medical apparatus of a medical clinic apparatus of a sanitizer dispensing station/scrub station) and
--an authorization device for allowing or prohibiting one or more activities (see: paragraph [0047] where there is an authorization device which can allow or prohibit the interaction from occurring in the form of an authorization of access to proceed with the MP).
Though the embodiment above discusses the storing of the healthcare information in a limited manner, it is still supported in another embodiment. Colburn et al. further teach in another embodiment that:
--wherein the identification device does not store information concerning the identity of the individual carrying the identification device (see: paragraph [0059] where barcode readers or QR codes could be used for MW identification. These codes do not physically store the information concerning the identity of the patient).
Colburn et al. may not further, specifically teach:
1) --wherein the identification devices assigning the individuals to the group are interchangeable between the individuals of the group;
2) --a medical apparatus, comprising one or more treatment apparatuses for treating a patient, one or more diagnostic apparatuses for examining the patient; and
3) --an authorization device for allowing or prohibiting one or more activities with or on the medical apparatus and one or more movements of the healthcare professional in a vicinity of the medical apparatus depending on the information provided by the reading device and depending on a determination of whether an authorization has been granted to the healthcare professional,
4) --wherein the determination of whether the authorization has been granted to the healthcare professional includes determining whether all information gathered from the reading device fulfils predetermined requirements, including whether the healthcare professional has come into contact with a person who is infectious,
5) --wherein the one or more movements are those of the healthcare professional entering an area or stepping inside a room, and wherein the authorization device is configured to prohibit the one or more activities and the one or more movements by automatically locking a door to the area or room upon a determination that the authorization has not been granted.
Mullens et al. teaches:
1) --wherein the identification devices assigning the individuals to the group are interchangeable between the individuals of the group (see: column 1, line 61 to column 2, line 11 and column 5, line 65 to column 6, line 27 where there is assignment of cards to individuals and these cards are interchangeable as these cards have to be assigned to other individuals in the groups such as other customers/employees/supervisors).
One of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to have 1) wherein the identification devices assigning the individuals to the group are interchangeable between the individuals of the group as taught by Mullens et al. in the system as taught by Colburn et al. with the motivation(s) of controlling access to a room (see: column 1, lines 21-32 of Mullens et al.).
Robinson et al. teaches:
2) --a medical apparatus, comprising one or more treatment apparatuses for treating a patient, (see: paragraph [0006] where there is a medical apparatus comprising a treatment apparatus in the form of a computer used to treat a patient) one or more diagnostic apparatuses for examining the patient (see: paragraph [0006] where there is a diagnostic apparatus in the form of a computer).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include 2) a medical apparatus, comprising one or more treatment apparatuses for treating a patient and one or more diagnostic apparatuses for examining the patient as taught by Robinson et al. in the system of Colburn et al. and Mullens et al. in combination since the claimed invention is only a combination of these old and well known elements which would have performed the same function in combination as each did separately. In the present case the combination of Colburn et al. and Mullens et al. teaches of using a medical apparatus and adding more apparatus to the present apparatus would maintain the same functionality of Colburn et al. and Mullens et al. in combination, making the results predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143).
Miller et al. teaches:
3) --an authorization device for allowing or prohibiting one or more activities with or on the medical apparatus and one or more movements of the healthcare professional in a vicinity of the medical apparatus depending on the information provided by the reading device and depending on a determination of whether an authorization has been granted to the healthcare professional, (see: 58 of FIG. 4 and paragraph [0008] where there is an authorization device (digital door lock) to unlock and lock the door. Activities and movements within the room are being either allowed or prohibited using the lock system here based on authorization of a user. This is based on the information that is provided by the optical camera to identify the user)
4) --wherein the determination of whether the authorization has been granted to the healthcare professional includes determining whether all information gathered from the reading device fulfils predetermined requirements, including whether the healthcare professional has come into contact with a person who is infectious, (see: paragraph [0033] where the authorization determination here uses an assessment of whether the individual (the healthcare professional) has come into contact with an infectious person. This is a predetermined requirement)
5) --wherein the one or more movements are those of the healthcare professional entering an area or stepping inside a room, (see: paragraph [0019] where the user is seeking to enter through a door (stepping inside a room). The movement here that may be prevented is the movement going into the room) and wherein the authorization device is configured to prohibit the one or more activities and the one or more movements by automatically locking a door to the area or room upon a determination that the authorization has not been granted (see: 58 of FIG. 4 and paragraph [0008] where there is an authorization device (digital door lock) to unlock and lock the door based on the identity and the health status of the individual. The lock here is configured to prohibit activities and movements by locking a door to prevent access to an individual who has access revoked based on their health status).
One of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to use 3) an authorization device for allowing or prohibiting one or more activities with or on the medical apparatus and one or more movements of the healthcare professional in a vicinity of the medical apparatus depending on the information provided by the reading device and depending on a determination of whether an authorization has been granted to the healthcare professional and 4) wherein the determination of whether the authorization has been granted to the healthcare professional includes determining whether all information gathered from the reading device fulfils predetermined requirements, including whether the healthcare professional has come into contact with a person who is infectious, and 5) wherein the one or more movements are those of the healthcare professional entering an area or stepping inside a room, and wherein the authorization device is configured to prohibit the one or more activities and the one or more movements by automatically locking a door to the area or room upon a determination that the authorization has not been granted as taught by Miller et al. in the system as taught by Colburn et al., Mullens et al., and Robinson et al. in combination with the motivation(s) of preventing unauthorized access (see: paragraph [0043] of Miller et al.) as Colburn et al. already discusses authorized access of an MP.
As per claim 18, Colburn et al., Mullens et al., Robinson et al., and Miller et al. in combination teaches the system of claim 17, see discussion of claim 17. Miller et al. further teaches wherein the reading device is programmed to capture a movement profile, gait pattern, or gestures of the healthcare professional as information (see: paragraph [0023] where gestures are being tracked).
The motivations to combine the above-mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 17, and incorporated herein.
As per claim 19, Colburn et al., Mullens et al., Robinson et al., and Miller et al. in combination teaches the system of claim 17, see discussion of claim 17. Colburn et al. further teaches wherein the identification device is configured to be worn on the body of the healthcare professional (see: paragraph [0059] where there is a worn badge).
As per claim 20, Colburn et al., Mullens et al., Robinson et al., and Miller et al. in combination teaches the system of claim 19, see discussion of claim 19. Colburn et al. further teaches wherein the identification device includes a card, an identification tag, a bracelet, an implant, clothing, a visual aid, shoes, graphic prints, active or passive transponders, and/or a hand-held device (see: paragraph [0059] where there is an access card/badge).
As per claim 21, Colburn et al., Mullens et al., Robinson et al., and Miller et al. in combination teaches the system of claim 20, see discussion of claim 20. Colburn et al. further teaches wherein the card comprises a chip or magnetic card (see: FIG. 3A and paragraph [0074] where there is a RFID tag/chip).
As per claim 27, Colburn et al., Mullens et al., Robinson et al., and Miller et al. in combination teaches the system of claim 17, see discussion of claim 17. Robinson et al. further teaches wherein the treatment apparatus is or comprises an infusion pump, a ventilator, an extracorporeal blood treatment apparatus, in particular a dialysis apparatus, hemodialysis apparatus, hemofiltration apparatus or hemodiafiltration apparatus (see: paragraph [0035] where an IV pump may be brought into the room and have a token. The pump can communicate with the computer which is the treatment apparatus, thus the communication with the pump may be considered as part of the apparatus).
The motivations to combine the above-mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 17, and incorporated herein.
As per claim 29, Colburn et al., Mullens et al., Robinson et al., and Miller et al. in combination teaches the system of claim 17, see discussion of claim 17. Robinson et al. further teaches wherein the one or more diagnostic apparatuses comprises an X-ray device, a computer tomograph, a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), an ultrasound device, a device for endoscopy, a device for impedance measurement, a device for thermography, a gamma camera and/or another device for diagnosis (see: paragraph [0006] where there is another device for diagnosis in the form of a computer).
The motivations to combine the above-mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 17, and incorporated herein.
As per claim 30, Colburn et al., Mullens et al., Robinson et al., and Miller et al. in combination teaches the system of claim 29, see discussion of claim 29. Robinson et al. further teaches wherein the one or more diagnostic apparatuses is programmed to use imaging methods (see: paragraphs [0034] and [0035] where the computer is using/displaying imaging from the imaging device in the patient’s room).
The motivations to combine the above-mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 17, and incorporated herein.
As per claim 31, Colburn et al., Mullens et al., Robinson et al., and Miller et al. in combination teaches the system of claim 17, see discussion of claim 17. Robinson et al. further teaches wherein the one or more medical clinic apparatuses comprises a screen for medical monitoring, an ECG device, a medical refrigerator or a medical cooling compartment, and/or a storage device for storing disposable medical articles and/or medical instruments (see: paragraph [0010] where the computer is the apparatus which includes the medical apparatus. The computer here has a screen for medical monitoring).
The motivations to combine the above-mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 17, and incorporated herein.
As per claim 34, Colburn et al., Mullens et al., Robinson et al., and Miller et al. in combination teaches the system of claim 17, see discussion of claim 17. Miller et al. further teaches wherein the movements are or encompass, respectively, the healthcare professional approaching the medical apparatus, moving away from the medical apparatus, passing, entering, leaving, and staying in the vicinity of the medical apparatus by the healthcare professional (see: paragraph [0019] where the movement is related to entering the vicinity of the medical apparatus via entering the room. Entering is reflective of the moving within the vicinity of the contents of the room, where the contents of the room being that of a medical apparatus was taught in the independent claim).
The motivations to combine the above-mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 17, and incorporated herein.
As per claim 35, Colburn et al., Mullens et al., Robinson et al., and Miller et al. in combination teaches the system of claim 17, see discussion of claim 17. Miller et al. further teaches wherein the vicinity of the medical apparatus is or comprises, a predetermined and/or monitored area or a predetermined and/or monitored clinic room, an entrance area, a generally accessible area, an area which may only be entered with authorization, an area in which being present defines a beginning and/or end of work, one or more treatment rooms, one or more monitoring rooms, a room containing the medical apparatus, and/or a route from one to the other of the aforementioned rooms (see: paragraph [0019] where the movement is related to entering the vicinity of the medical apparatus via entering the room. Entering is reflective of the moving within the vicinity of the contents of the room, where the contents of the room being that of a medical apparatus was taught in the independent claim. The vicinity is the room defined by the entrance).
The motivations to combine the above-mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 17, and incorporated herein.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Steven G.S. Sanghera whose telephone number is (571)272-6873. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00 (alternating Fri).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shahid Merchant can be reached on 571-270-1360. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/STEVEN G.S. SANGHERA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3684
Prosecution Insights