DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This communication is in response to the amendment filed on 8/22/25. Claims 1-2, 6-8, 10-24 are pending. Claims 10-18 have been withdrawn from further consideration. Claims 1-2, 6-8, and 19-24 will be examined on the merits.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 11/19/22 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein in the non-patent literature section has not been considered.
Specification
The objection to the specification/abstract is hereby withdrawn in response to the replacement abstract filed 8/22/25.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-2, 6-8, and 19-24 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 1 recites “to display actions associated with the treatment that are at a first confidentiality level and the first outer room graphical user interface operable to display actions associated with the treatment that are at a second confidentiality level, the second confidentiality level great than the first confidentiality level.”
The Examiner understands the claim language to mean that there is a distinction between the levels of information which can be accessed with a first and second level of confidentiality. It is noted that the claim has been further amended to recite “associated with a privacy of a patient.”
However, the different levels of confidentiality are not defined in in the claims, and the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree. Moreover, the specification does not provide examples of the types of information included with the first and second confidentiality levels. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the differences and which data would qualify for either.
Claims 1-2, 6-8, and 19-24 and 19-24 inherit the deficiencies of claim 1 through dependency, and are therefore also rejected.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6-7, and 19-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crane (US 5,748,907) in view of Vojan et al (US 20230211183 A1).
Claim 1 Crane teaches a Patient and Room Status Sequencing Management system, comprising:
a server operable to dynamically sequence actions associated with a room status treatment sequence for a patient; (Master Processor: col. 9, lines 45-50; col. 12, lines 25-32; col. 13, lines 25-52; Fig. 15 )
a first inner room graphical user interface in communication with the server; (col. 23, lines 11-20; col. 26, lines 1-16- test room displaying test to be performed for patient; Fig. 12) wherein the first inner room graphical user interface is operable to display each action of a sequence of actions associated with a room status treatment sequence for a patient, the room status treatment sequence for the patient is one of a multitude of room status treatment sequences (col. 17, lines 5-10-scheduling status displayed; col. 25, lines 15-20-patient and employee status; col. 31, lines 1-20-displaying the status/status change of the patient displayed, status of tests performed displayed on patient displayed; See also col. 29, lines 60-col. 30 lines 2 for status of room, patient and employee updated by the server and stored)
a first outer room graphical user interface in communication with the server, the first outer room graphical user interface and the first inner room graphical user interface associated with a single treatment room, the first inner room graphical user interface operable to display actions associated with the treatment (col. 25, line 60-col. 26, line 1-diagnostic room displaying test room for the patient) and
a dashboard graphical user interface in communication with the server and remote from the treatment room, the dashboard graphical user interface operable to display data associated with at least the first outer room graphical user interface. (coordinator display: col. 25, lines 49-56-displaying diagnostic room, and instructs patient to proceed to the selected room; col. 26, lines )
Crane discloses the system of claim 1 substantially as claimed. Crane further discloses that the inner/outer room display different information to/for the patient, (i.e. the first inner room graphical user interface operable to display actions associated with the treatment that are at a first confidentiality level and the first outer room graphical user interface operable to display actions associated with the treatment that are at a second confidentiality level-col. 23, lines 15-20-test room data displayed; diagnostic room; col. 25, lines 50-56; col. 26, lines 35-54-display room for patient to next precede (pharmacy, coordinator, test room)
Crane does not expressly disclose a system wherein there are differential confidentiality levels (i.e. the rooms have a first and second confidentiality levels, wherein the second confidentiality level is greater than the first confidentiality level.
Vojan discloses a patient information system for providing differential access and for displaying information regarding patient treatment based levels of access allowed by user credentials. (par. 76-the analytics server 110 may adjust what the user is able to view, adjust, and control based on the user's authorization level… if a medical technician were to sign-in to the console monitors 150 the analytics server 110 may only allow the medical technician to see the treatment plan. The analytics server 110 may conceal the patient's medical information that is not relevant to the radiation treatment from the medical technician.)
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Crane with the teaching of Vojan to provide differential access/ confidentiality in the display of patient data. One would have been motivated to include this feature to ensure HIPAA compliance while allowing parties to access the information they need to facilitate patient care.
Claim 1 has been amended to further recite: each action displaying a multiple of choices depicted by a multiple of buttons on the first inner room graphical user interface.
Crane does not expressly disclose but Vojan teaches a system, wherein the action comprises a multiple of choices depicted by a multiple of buttons.(fig. 4D; par. 255- display graphical indicator 427D representing a safety feature associated with the treatment room. Safety features associated with the treatment room can include closing the door of the treatment room before the treatment is commenced, locking the position of the couch in the treatment room, hanging the pendant in the treatment room; par. 265- The progress indicator 434D may be displayed on the bottom of the page 400d horizontally. The analytics server indicates the current stage of the workflow 4341D (e.g., Stage Two, Room Setup). The current stage of the workflow is emphasized, for example, by the analytics server because the server displays the current stage of the workflow 4341D in a different color (e.g., white) from the other stages of the workflow (e.g., grey))
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the system of Crane with the teaching of Vojan to include multiple of choices depicted by a multiple of buttons on first inner room graphical user interface.. One would have been motivated to include this feature to facilitate the input of information into the system and to provide an easy visual indication regarding status of certain tasks in the treatment process. (Vojan: par. 31)
Claim 1 further recites “the first outer room graphical user interface displaying the status of the room in response to an input to the inner room graphical user interface.”
Crane discloses a system including multiple rooms (i.e. inner and outer rooms associated with a treatment) as explained. Crane does not expressly disclose, but Vojan teaches a system in which the status on one room GUI is provided in response to an input to another graphical user interface. (par. 262-263: a third party (e.g., a different technician, nurse, doctor) or the user (e.g., walking from the treatment room to a console) may interact with the console (as described in FIGS. 10A-10D) to indicate to the analytics server to proceed to Stage Two of the workflow (e.g., Room Setup) in FIG. 4 (the page 400d) (Par. 262)… the GUIs described as being displayed on the console monitors and the GUIs described as being displayed within the treatment room may be in-sync, such that accessing patient information (e.g., opening a patient file) in the treatment room ensures that data displayed on the console monitor is updated accordingly, and vice versa. This method also prevents opening of different (and sometimes incompatible) files at different location (Par. 263); See also par. 265 for status tracking and display according to the completion of workflow stages)
At the time of the effective filing date of the application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the system of Crane with the teaching of Vojan to include the first outer room graphical user interface displaying the status of the room in response to an input to the inner room graphical user interface. As suggested by Vojan, one would have been motivated to include this feature to ensures that data displayed on the corresponding monitors is updated accordingly, and vice versa. (par. 263)
Claim 2 Crane and Vojan in combination teach the system as recited in claim 1, as explained in the rejection of claim 1. Crane does not expressly disclose, but Vojan teaches color change of a GUI or screen to indicate a status change in a process (par. 503: the analytics server may revise the status indicator of the graphical component 770 on the GUI, such as by changing the orange color to green or translucent. In another embodiment, when the technician moves the wrong accessory corresponding to the graphical indicator 774 away from the radiotherapy machine, the analytics server may revise the graphical indicator 774 by removing it, changing its color, shape, or any other manner that is visually distinct) At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the system of Crane with the teaching of Vojan to include the status of the room on the first outer room graphical user interface changing a color of an entire screen of the first outer room graphical user interface. One would have been motivated to include this feature to provide an easy visual indication that certain tasks in the treatment process have been completed. (Vojan: par. 31)
Claim 6. Crane and Vojan in combination teach the system as recited in claim 5, as explained. Crane does not expressly disclose a system, but Vojan teaches a system, wherein each of the multiple of buttons comprises an icon and text. (fig. 4D; par. 255- display graphical indicator 427D representing a safety feature associated with the treatment room. Safety features associated with the treatment room can include closing the door of the treatment room before the treatment is commenced, locking the position of the couch in the treatment room, hanging the pendant in the treatment room; par. 265- The progress indicator 434D may be displayed on the bottom of the page 400d horizontally. The analytics server indicates the current stage of the workflow 4341D (e.g., Stage Two, Room Setup). The current stage of the workflow is emphasized, for example, by the analytics server because the server displays the current stage of the workflow 4341D in a different color (e.g., white) from the other stages of the workflow (e.g., grey); Fig. 6F)
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the system of Crane with the teaching of Vojan to include multiple of buttons comprises an icon and text. One would have been motivated to include this feature to facilitate the input of information into the system and to provide an easy visual indication regarding status of certain tasks in the treatment process. (Vojan: par. 31)
Claim 7 Crane does not disclose, but Vojan teaches wherein each of the multiple of choices are the only choices available for that action in the sequence of actions. (Fig. 6F-6G; par. 473-474) At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the system of Crane with the teaching of Vojan with the motivation of facilitating the input of information into the system and to provide an easy visual indication regarding status of certain tasks in the treatment process. (Vojan: par. 31)
Claim 19 Crane and Vojan teach the system as recited in claim 1, as explained. Crane does not disclose, but Vojan teaches wherein the first outer room graphical user interface displays the status of the room in response to the input to the inner room graphical user interface in a manner identifiable from a distance, the status indicates at least whether an action associated with the treatment is completed. (par. 262-263: a third party (e.g., a different technician, nurse, doctor) or the user (e.g., walking from the treatment room to a console) may interact with the console (as described in FIGS. 10A-10D) to indicate to the analytics server to proceed to Stage Two of the workflow (e.g., Room Setup) in FIG. 4 (the page 400d) (Par. 262)… the GUIs described as being displayed on the console monitors and the GUIs described as being displayed within the treatment room may be in-sync, such that accessing patient information (e.g., opening a patient file) in the treatment room ensures that data displayed on the console monitor is updated accordingly, and vice versa. This method also prevents opening of different (and sometimes incompatible) files at different location (Par. 263); See also par. 265 for status tracking and display according to the completion of workflow stages: The current stage of the workflow is emphasized, for example, by the analytics server because the server displays the current stage of the workflow 4341D in a different color (e.g., white) from the other stages of the workflow (e.g., grey). The stages that have been completed 4342D, for example, are displayed in grey by the analytics server, in addition to stages preceding the current stage 4340D.)
At the time of the effective filing date of the application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the system of Crane with the teaching of Vojan. As suggested by Vojan, one would have been motivated to include this feature to ensures that data displayed on the corresponding monitors is updated accordingly, and vice versa. (par. 263)
Claim 20. Crane does not disclose, but Vojan teaches the system as recited wherein each action of the sequence of actions associated with the room status treatment sequence for the patient comprises the only choices available for that action in the sequence of actions. (Fig. 6A(602); 6F-6G; par. 313-315: the analytics server will display the next stage in the workflow when the patient identity is verified. For instance, the analytics server may verify the patient using biometric identification (e.g., fingerprint, iris recognition, retina scanning)…the analytics server will display the next stage in the workflow when the user performs one or more actions (e.g., uses one or more interactive buttons to advance to the next stage). At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the system of Crane with the teaching of Vojan with the motivation of facilitating the input of information into the system and to provide an easy visual indication regarding status of certain tasks in the treatment process. (Vojan: par. 31)
Claim 21 Crane does not disclose, but Vojan teaches the system as recited wherein each consecutive screen of the sequence of actions associated with the room status treatment sequence for the patient is self-explanatory. (par. 313-315: the analytics server will display the next stage in the workflow when the patient identity is verified. For instance, the analytics server may verify the patient using biometric identification (e.g., fingerprint, iris recognition, retina scanning)…the analytics server will display the next stage in the workflow when the user performs one or more actions (e.g., uses one or more interactive buttons to advance to the next stage). At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the system of Crane with the teaching of Vojan with the motivation of facilitating the input of information into the system and to provide an easy visual indication regarding status of certain tasks in the treatment process. (Vojan: par. 31)
Claim 22. Crane does not disclose, but Vojan teaches the system as recited wherein wherein each consecutive screen of the sequence of actions associated with the room status treatment sequence for the patient are the only choices available to them during that action such that there is no confusion associated with a room status treatment sequence for the patient. (See also par. 265 for status tracking and display according to the completion of workflow stages: The current stage of the workflow is emphasized, for example, by the analytics server because the server displays the current stage of the workflow 4341D in a different color (e.g., white) from the other stages of the workflow (e.g., grey). The stages that have been completed 4342D, for example, are displayed in grey by the analytics server, in addition to stages preceding the current stage 4340D; par. 313-315: the analytics server will display the next stage in the workflow when the patient identity is verified. For instance, the analytics server may verify the patient using biometric identification (e.g., fingerprint, iris recognition, retina scanning)…the analytics server will display the next stage in the workflow when the user performs one or more actions (e.g., uses one or more interactive buttons to advance to the next stage). At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the system of Crane with the teaching of Vojan with the motivation of facilitating the input of information into the system and to provide an easy visual indication regarding status of certain tasks in the treatment process. (Vojan: par. 31)
Claim 23. Crane does not disclose, but Vojan teaches the system as recited wherein the status of the room shown on the first outer room graphical user interface is integrated into the selections provided in the first inner room graphical user interface. (par. 262-263: a third party (e.g., a different technician, nurse, doctor) or the user (e.g., walking from the treatment room to a console) may interact with the console (as described in FIGS. 10A-10D) to indicate to the analytics server to proceed to Stage Two of the workflow (e.g., Room Setup) in FIG. 4 (the page 400d) (Par. 262)… the GUIs described as being displayed on the console monitors and the GUIs described as being displayed within the treatment room may be in-sync, such that accessing patient information (e.g., opening a patient file) in the treatment room ensures that data displayed on the console monitor is updated accordingly, and vice versa. This method also prevents opening of different (and sometimes incompatible) files at different location (Par. 263);par. 265- The progress indicator 434D may be displayed on the bottom of the page 400d horizontally. The analytics server indicates the current stage of the workflow 4341D (e.g., Stage Two, Room Setup). The current stage of the workflow is emphasized, for example, by the analytics server because the server displays the current stage of the workflow 4341D in a different color (e.g., white) from the other stages of the workflow (e.g., grey); Fig. 6F). At the time of the effective filing date of the application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the system of Crane with the teaching of Vojan. As suggested by Vojan, one would have been motivated to include this feature to ensures that data displayed on the corresponding monitors is updated accordingly, and vice versa. (par. 263)
Claim 24. Crane and Vojan teaches the system as recited in claim 1 as explained in the rejection of claim 1. Regarding the recitation of “ wherein the first outer room graphical user interface and the first inner room graphical user interface associated with the single treatment room are each located adjacent to a doorway of the treatment room,” these differences are only found in the non-functional descriptive material and are not functionally involved in any manipulative steps of the invention nor do they alter any recited structural elements; therefore, such differences do not effectively serve to patentably distinguish the claimed invention over the prior art. Any manipulative steps of the invention would be performed the same regardless of the specific data. Further, any structural elements remain the same regardless of the specific data. Thus, this descriptive material will not distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of patentability as the claimed invention fails to present a new and unobvious functional relationship between the descriptive material and the substrate, see In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401, 404 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994); In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1336, 70 USPQ2d 1862, 1863-64 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Another indication of the existence of non-functional descriptive material is that the content of the material is merely “directed towards conveying a message or meaning to a human reader independent of the supporting product.” Please see MPEP § 2111.05(I)(B).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crane (US 5,748,907) in view of Vojan et al (US 20230211183 A1) as applied to claim 7, and in further view of McClaren et al (US 20100305973 A1)
Claim 8 Crane and Vojan do not expressly disclose, but McClaren teaches including a timer function to indicate time remaining for a process/procedure on a system GUI (par. 116: display a countdown timer for indicating the time remaining for a medical procedure, and this information may be transmitted in real-time to a medical information management system) At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Crane and Vojan in combination with the teaching of McClaren to include the option of displaying a timer function. (i.e. at least one of the multiple of choices comprise a timer function that displays a time remaining on the first outer room graphical user interface and the first inner room graphical user interface.) One would have been motivated to include this feature to provide a simple visual indication regarding workflow progress and time to complete certain tasks in the treatment process.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/22/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
(A) Applicant argues that the Crane reference does not include both “an inner room graphical interface” and an “outer room graphical user interface” associated with a single treatment room.
In response to applicant's argument that the prior art does not disclose “an inner room graphical interface” and an “outer room graphical user interface,” in a system claim, the location of system components does not distinguish a claimed system or system component over the prior art, and is treated as intended use (i.e. intended placement of the system). A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
The prior art discloses discloses a first and second GUI associated with a treatment room, and addresses the claim limitation.
Additionally, the Applicant relies heavily on claim language which details the type of information displayed on the GUIs. However, it should be noted that details of the type of information which the GUIs are “operable to display” is descriptive material. As drafted, the information details do not distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of patentability.
Where a product merely serves as a support for printed matter, no functional relationship exists. These situations may arise where the claim as a whole is directed towards conveying a message or meaning to a human reader independent of the supporting product. For example, a hatband with images displayed on the hatband but not arranged in any particular sequence was found to only serve as support and display for the printed matter. See Gulack, 703 F.2d at 1386, 217 USPQ at 404.
Another example in which a product merely serves as a support would occur for a deck of playing cards having images on each card. See In re Bryan, 323 Fed. App'x 898 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (unpublished). In Bryan the applicant asserted that the printed matter allowed the cards to be "collected, traded, and drawn"; "identify and distinguish one deck of cards from another"; and "enable[] the card to be traded and blind drawn". However, the court found that these functions do not pertain to the structure of the apparatus and were instead drawn to the method or process of playing a game. See also Ex parte Gwinn, 112 USPQ 439, 446-47 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1955), in which the invention was directed to a set of dice by means of which a game may be played. The claims differed from the prior art solely by the printed matter in the dice. The claims were properly rejected on prior art because there was no new feature of physical structure and no new relation of printed matter to physical structure. (See MPEP 2111.05(I)(B)).
(B) Applicant argues that the Crane reference does not disclose differential confidentiality levels.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
The Crane reference has not been relied upon to teach different levels of confidentiality. Crane does not expressly disclose a system wherein there are differential confidentiality levels (i.e. the rooms have a first and second confidentiality levels, wherein the second confidentiality level is greater than the first confidentiality level.
The Vojan reference has been relied upon to disclose a patient information system for providing differential access and for displaying information regarding patient treatment based levels of access allowed by user credentials. (par. 76-the analytics server 110 may adjust what the user is able to view, adjust, and control based on the user's authorization level… if a medical technician were to sign-in to the console monitors 150 the analytics server 110 may only allow the medical technician to see the treatment plan. The analytics server 110 may conceal the patient's medical information that is not relevant to the radiation treatment from the medical technician.)
As explained in the claim rejections, at the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Crane with the teaching of Vojan to provide differential access/ confidentiality in the display of patient data. One would have been motivated to include this feature to ensure HIPAA compliance while allowing parties to access the information they need to facilitate patient care. The combination of Crane in view of Vojan has been relied upon to address the claim limitations.
Moreover, as explained in the claim rejections under 35 USC 112(b), it is not clear what is encompassed by/ what distinguishes the first and second levels of confidentiality. The claims have been given the broadest reasonable interpretation, and art has been applied accordingly.
(C) Applicant argues that the Crane reference is drawn to non-treatment related issues, and that there is no motivation to combine the Crane and Vojan references.
In response, the Examiner disagrees with applicant’s characterization of the Crane reference. The system in Crane is in a medical facility for patient treatment (col. 9, lines 10-13; col. 20, lines 5-7: diagnostic treatment costs; medication costs; type of tests; col. 37, lines 19-30; Table 2, col. 41-Events performed include diagnostic testing; patient entering diagnostic room for diagnosis and treatment.) Applicant’s claimed invention recites displaying a sequence of actions associated with a room status treatment sequence for a patient. Information regarding patient workflow at a patient treatment facility, as in the Crane reference, is analogous art.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Additionally, the Vojan reference, with an effective filing date of December 30, 2020, discloses differential display of patient information to users based on the user’s authorization access (par. 76: may adjust what the user is able to view, adjust, and control based on the user's authorization level. For example, if a medical technician were to sign-in to the console monitors 150 the analytics server 110 may only allow the medical technician to see the treatment plan. The analytics server 110 may conceal the patient's medical information that is not relevant to the radiation treatment from the medical technician). As such, Examiner has provided a motivation to combine the Crane and Vojan references based upon knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not rely upon impermissible hindsight.
(D) Applicant argues that claim 8 is allowable for the same reasons as claims 1-7, and 9.
In response, the Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejections of claims 1-7 and 9 have been addressed in paragraphs A-C of the response to arguments, and are not persuasive. Therefore, the Applicant’s arguments regarding claim 8 are also deemed unpersuasive for the reasons set forth in paragraphs A-C of the response to arguments.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Xiao et al (US 20050060211 A1)-discloses coordinating the information regarding the status of rooms and patient care at a medical facility, and projecting the information on a magnetic whiteboard.
Binder et al (US 20240249025 A1)- discloses an integrated credential-based scalable communication system for providing remote access to a physical site. The system includes a dashboard in electronic communication with a server. The server is configured to receive an access request from a remote user, assign the remote user a credential having an access profile, and transmit an authorization request to the dashboard which displays it for approval by an authorizing agent. (par. 18: the system includes levels of access based on remoter user credentials that include at least one and, in some instances, more than two levels of credentialing in an access profile…the system provides for multiple levels of credentialing that include company level credentialing, hospital level credentialing, and in-suite level of credentialing; par. 20; par. 104-106: Levels of access that may be granted to a remote user based on the algorithm may include audio only, limited audio, visual or combination, partially screened/shielded audio, visual or combination, full audio visual access)
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 Rachel L Porter whose telephone number is (571)272-6775. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 10-6:30.
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.
/Rachel L. Porter/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3684