DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/23/2026 has been entered.
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In light of the amendments, some of the previous 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections have been withdrawn while some remain.
In light of the amendments, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Notice to Applicant
In the amendment dated 08/06/2026, the following has occurred: claim 17 has been amended; claims 1-16 remain canceled; claims 18-39 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 with respect to the distinction between the information being used. Examiner withdraws these claim rejections. The claims remain rejected however for a lack of the metes and bounds on the limitation “does not store information concerning the identity of the healthcare professional carrying the identification device”. Information that is related to the person who is carrying the device, including a code or a generic identifier, can be information concerning the identity of the healthcare professional as it is being used to link the device with the professional and their identity.
35 U.S.C. 103 Rejections:
Applicant argues with respect to certain limitations and the previous rejection. Examiner now relies on the Colburn et al. reference to teach these elements in the claims.
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 claim 17 (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(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 17-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “does not store information concerning the identity of the healthcare professional carrying the identification device”. The metes and bounds of this limitation are unclear, and accordingly, claim 17 has been deemed indefinite. For example, information that is related to the person who is carrying the device, including a code or a generic identifier, can be information concerning the identity of the healthcare professional as it is being used to link the device with the professional and their identity. Concerning is a broadening term, thus any information which is being used to link a random/anonymous/pseudonymous identification device with a healthcare professional can be construed as information concerning their identity. Examiner is interpreting that the claim limitation means information that is atypical for identification such as using a pseudonymous code as opposed to using their name, etc.
Claims 18-39 are rejected based on their dependency on claim 17.
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:
--at least one specific, predetermined identification device or an identification device of a predetermined form, or type, configured to be carried by 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) wherein the healthcare professional carrying the identification device has an identity, (see: paragraph [0111] where the professional has an identity and an RFID tag which includes an identification string) and wherein the identification device does not store information concerning the identity of the healthcare professional carrying the identification device; (see: paragraph [0111] where the RIFD tag stores a personal identification string, an institution identification string, a job type, etc. The RFID here does not store information concerning the identity of the patient here, only a personal identification string. Also see: paragraph [0138] where there is an assignment of an RFID bade to an MW)
--a reading device programmed to gather information, including the information that the healthcare professional is carrying the specific, predetermined identification device or the identification device of the predetermined form, or type, (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 serves to assign the healthcare professional to a group of people out of multiple different groups of people, (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.) and programmed to provide the gathered information; (see: paragraphs [0035] and [0059] where the reader serves to provide the gathered information to servers. Also see: paragraph [0050] where there is uploading of information to a centralized database)
--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) --a medical apparatus, comprising one or more treatment apparatuses for treating a patient, one or more diagnostic apparatuses for examining the patient; and
2) --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,
3) --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, 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 and preventing access to the area or room upon a determination that the authorization has not been granted.
Robinson et al. teaches:
1) --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 1) 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. 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 Colburn 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., making the results predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143).
Miller et al. teaches:
2) --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)
3) --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) 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 and preventing access 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 2) 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 3) 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, 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 and preventing access 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. 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., 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., 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., 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., 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., 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., 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., 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., 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., 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., 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.
Claims 22-23 and 32-33 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 applied to claim 17 and further in view of U.S. 2019/0095636 to Subramanian Jayaraman et al.
As per claim 22, Colburn et al., Robinson et al., and Miller et al. in combination teaches the system of claim 19, see discussion of claim 19. The combination may not further, specifically teach wherein the reading device is programmed to compare the captured information, which was especially captured and transmitted from the identification device, with information stored in the reading device or in a storage device of the medical treatment system.
Subramanian Jayaraman et al. teaches:
--wherein the reading device is programmed to compare the captured information, which was especially captured and transmitted from the identification device, with information stored in the reading device or in a storage device of the medical treatment system (see: paragraph [0033] where there is a comparison of the access card parameters and health parameters with the stored information to determine normal values for that particular user).
One of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to have wherein the reading device is programmed to compare the captured information, which was especially captured and transmitted from the identification device, with information stored in the reading device or in a storage device of the medical treatment system as taught by Subramanian Jayaraman et al. in the system as taught by Colburn et al., Robinson et al., and Miller et al. in combination with the motivation(s) of providing access to a user based on their health condition (see: paragraph [0002] of Subramanian Jayaraman et al.).
As per claim 23, Colburn et al., Robinson et al., Miller et al., and Subramanian Jayaraman et al. in combination teaches the system of claim 22, see discussion of claim 22. Subramanian Jayaraman et al. further teaches wherein the information stored in the reading device or in a storage device of the medical treatment system comprises biometric data or signatures (see: paragraph [0033] where biometric information of an individual’s health parameters are being stored for comparison).
The motivations to combine the above-mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 22, and incorporated herein.
As per claim 32, Colburn et al., Robinson et al., and Miller et al. in combination teaches the system of claim 17, see discussion of claim 17. The combination may not further, specifically teach wherein the activities are or comprise actuating, operating, or using the medical apparatus.
Subramanian Jayaraman et al. teaches:
--wherein the activities are or comprise actuating, operating, or using the medical apparatus (see: paragraph [0041] where access to use a device (medical apparatus) is being managed using access cards).
One of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to have wherein the activities are or comprise actuating, operating, or using the medical apparatus as taught by Subramanian Jayaraman et al. in the system as taught by Colburn et al., Robinson et al., and Miller et al. in combination with the motivation(s) of providing access to a user based on their health condition (see: paragraph [0002] of Subramanian Jayaraman et al.).
As per claim 33, Colburn et al., Robinson et al., Miller et al., and Subramanian Jayaraman et al. in combination teaches the system of claim 32, see discussion of claim 32. Subramanian Jayaraman et al. further teaches wherein the activities are for an intended use of the medical apparatus (see: paragraph [0041] where access to use a device (medical apparatus) is being managed using access cards. The activities are for an intended use of the devices within the room).
The motivations to combine the above-mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 32, and incorporated herein.
Claims 24-25 and 28 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 applied to claim 20, and further in view of U.S. 2022/0215951 to Johannesson et al.
As per claim 24, Colburn 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. teaches to compare the personal information with information stored in the reading device or in a storage device of the medical treatment system (see: paragraph [0026] where there is a comparison of the image data with a database (information stored in a storage device of the system)).
The motivations to combine the above-mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 17, and incorporated herein.
Colburn et al., Robinson et al., and Miller et al. in combination may not further, specifically teach wherein in order to gather the information the reading device is programmed to request personal information from the healthcare professional.
Johannesson et al. teaches:
--wherein in order to gather the information the reading device is programmed to request personal information from the healthcare professional (see: paragraph [0022] where there is a request to access medical processes).
One of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to have wherein in order to gather the information the reading device is programmed to request personal information from the healthcare professional as taught by Johannesson et al. in the system as taught by Colburn et al., Robinson et al., and Miller et al. in combination with the motivation(s) of improving handling cybersecurity for medical devices accessed remotely (see: paragraph [0006] of Johannesson et al.).
As per claim 25, Colburn et al., Robinson et al., Miller et al., and Johannesson et al. in combination teaches the system of claim 24, see discussion of claim 24. Miller et al. further teaches wherein the reading device is programmed to determine the identity of the healthcare professional based on the result of a comparison (see: paragraph [0026] where there is a comparison and the result of the comparison is a determination of identity of a user).
The motivations to combine the above-mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 17, and incorporated herein.
As per claim 28, Colburn et al., Robinson et al., and Miller et al. in combination teaches the system of claim 27, see discussion of claim 27. The combination may not, further, specifically teach wherein the treatment apparatus is an apparatus for acute, chronic renal replacement therapy or for continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT).
Johannesson et al. teaches:
--wherein the treatment apparatus is an apparatus for acute, chronic renal replacement therapy or for continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) (see: paragraph [0034] where there devices for renal therapy).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute wherein the treatment apparatus is an apparatus for acute, chronic renal replacement therapy or for continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) as taught by Johannesson et al. for the treatment devices as disclosed by Colburn et al., Robinson et al., and Miller et al. in combination since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, with the difference being the substitution of the elements. In the present case, the combination of Colburn et al., Robinson et al., and Miller et al. already teaches of a treatment device thus it would be obvious to replace this device with another type of treatment device and obtain predictable results of using a treatment device. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted the one known element for the other to produce a predictable result (MPEP 2143).
Claims 26 and 36-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U 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 applied to claim 20, and further in view of U.S. 2003/0037065 to Svab.
As per claim 26, Colburn et al., Robinson et al., and Miller et al. in combination teaches the system of claim 17, see discussion of claim 17. The combination may not further, specifically teach comprising an issuing and/or collection terminal programmed to create, write, and/or read an identification device which is to be carried by the healthcare professional, by transferring information to the identification device to allow or prohibit the one or more activities with or on the medical apparatus and/or the one or more movements of the healthcare professional in the vicinity of the medical in a time-limited and/or spatially limited manner.
Svab teaches:
--comprising an issuing and/or collection terminal programmed to create, write, and/or read an identification device which is to be carried by the healthcare professional, by transferring information to the identification device (see: paragraphs [0033] and [0043] where there is a writing device used to write information to the smart card, creating readable information by the reader. The card is to be carried by the provider here as explained in paragraph [0007]) to allow or prohibit the one or more activities with or on the medical apparatus and/or the one or more movements of the healthcare professional in the vicinity of the medical in a time-limited and/or spatially limited manner (this limitation is intended use, but the spatially-limited manner is taught in the independent claim).
One of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to comprise an issuing and/or collection terminal programmed to create, write, and/or read an identification device which is to be carried by the healthcare professional, by transferring information to the identification device to allow or prohibit the one or more activities with or on the medical apparatus and/or the one or more movements of the healthcare professional in the vicinity of the medical in a time-limited and/or spatially limited manner as taught by Svab in the system as taught by Colburn et al., Robinson et al., and Miller et al. in combination with the motivation(s) of effectively and efficiently modernizing health care administration (see: paragraph [0006] of Svab).
As per claim 36, Colburn et al., Robinson et al., and Miller et al. in combination teaches the system of claim 19, see discussion of claim 19. The combination may not further, specifically teach comprising a writing device programmed to write or overwrite information on the identification device, creating information readable by the reading device.
Svab teaches:
--comprising a writing device programmed to write or overwrite information on the identification device, creating information readable by the reading device (see: paragraphs [0033] and [0043] where there is a writing device used to write information to the smart card, creating readable information by the reader).
One of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to comprise a writing device programmed to write or overwrite information on the identification device, creating information readable by the reading device as taught by Svab in the system as taught by Colburn et al., Robinson et al., and Miller et al. in combination with the motivation(s) of effectively and efficiently modernizing health care administration (see: paragraph [0006] of Svab).
As per claim 37, Colburn et al., Robinson et al., Miller et al., and Svab in combination teaches the system of claim 36, see discussion of claim 36. Svab further teaches wherein the writing device is programmed to write or overwrite information contactlessly (see: paragraph [0043] where there is a contactless process which uses an antenna for writing information).
The motivations to combine the above-mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 36, and incorporated herein.
As per claim 38, Colburn et al., Robinson et al., and Miller et al. in combination teaches the system of claim 17, see discussion of claim 17. The combination may not further, specifically comprising a writing device, programmed for writing or overwriting information on the authorization device, which serves to allow or prohibit the one or more activities with or on the medical apparatus and/or the one or more movements of the healthcare professional in the vicinity of the medical apparatus.
Svab et al. teaches:
--comprising a writing device, programmed for writing or overwriting information on the authorization device, (see: paragraphs [0033] and [0043] where there is a writing device used to write information to the smart card, creating readable information by the reader) which serves to allow or prohibit the one or more activities with or on the medical apparatus and/or the one or more movements of the healthcare professional in the vicinity of the medical apparatus (this limitation is intended use, but taught in the independent claim).
One of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention have found it obvious to comprise a writing device, programmed for writing or overwriting information on the authorization device, which serves to allow or prohibit the one or more activities with or on the medical apparatus and/or the one or more movements of the healthcare professional in the vicinity of the medical apparatus as taught by Svab et al. in the system as taught by Colburn et al., Robinson et al., and Miller et al. in combination with the motivation(s) of effectively and efficiently modernizing health care administration (see: paragraph [0006] of Svab).
As per claim 39, Colburn et al., Robinson et al., Miller et al., and Svab et al. in combination teaches the system of claim 38, see discussion of claim 38. Svab et al. further teaches wherein the writing device is programmed to write or overwrite information contactlessly (see: paragraph [0043] where there is a contactless process which uses an antenna for writing information).
The motivations to combine the above-mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 38, and incorporated herein.
Conclusion
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