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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/02/2026 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
Claim 24 has an incorrect claim status identifier.
In light of the amendments, claims 11-15 and 17-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
In light of the amendments, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
In light of the amendments, claims 11-15, 18-19, 21-23, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
In light of the amendments, claims 17, 20, 24-31, and 33 do not have art rejections.
Notice to Applicant
In the amendment dated 03/02/2026, the following has occurred: claims 11 and 24 have been amended; claims 12-15, 17-23, and 25-33 have remained unchanged; claims 1-10 and 16 are canceled; and no new claims have been added.
Claims 11-15 and 17-33 are pending.
Effective Filing Date: 04/27/2016
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. 101 Rejections:
Applicant argues that the previous arguments are maintained. Examiner maintains his previous responses to these arguments.
35 U.S.C. 103 Rejections:
Applicant argues with respect to the newly-amended limitations. These limitations have been addressed by the updated 103 rejection section with additional art.
Status Identifiers for Claims
Under 37 C.F.R. 1.121 each amendment document must include status identifiers indicating the current status of each of the claims in the application. Examiner notes that the amendment document filed 03/02/2026 includes an incorrect status identifier for claim 24 (should be “Currently Amended”). While the current amendments have been entered for consideration, all further amendments to the claims must comply with the requirements set forth in 37 C.F.R. 1.121. Future such issues will accordingly result in a notice of non-compliance.
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 11-15 and 17-33 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. Claims 11 and 24 recite a limitation involving prompts being presented to a user in a descending order of severity and Applicant directed Examiner to paragraphs [0009] and [0083] of the specification for support for this. These paragraphs however do not support this. These paragraphs describe treating people in descending order of injury severity, and not presenting prompts in a descending order of severity. For example, the initial question might ask how many people are injured, but that type of question is not determined as a “severe” question nor a question corresponding to a high level of severity. The specification lacks description for this and does not discuss how certain questions are more severe than others, nor does the specification provide such examples, leading Examiner to question whether Applicant had possession over the claimed invention at the time of filing.
Claims 12-15, 17-23, and 25-33 are rejected based on their dependencies on claims 11 and 24.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 11-15 and 17-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claims 11-15, 17-23, and 31-32 are drawn to a system and claims 24-30 and 33 are drawn to a method, each of which is within the four statutory categories. Claims 11-15 and 17-33 are further directed to an abstract idea on the grounds set out in detail below. As discussed below, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional computer elements, which are recited at a high level of generality, provide conventional computer functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A:
Prong One:
Claim 11 recites a medical system, comprising:
a) a plurality of medical instruments and supplies including at least two different ones of a tourniquet, gauze, a CPR face shield, a pressure dressing, a chest seal, a burn dressing, a splint, an ice pack, hand cleanser, an emergency blanket, a bandage, a pair of gloves, shears, and medication;
b) a portable case configured to contain therein the plurality of medical instruments and supplies; and
c) a computing device configured to:
1) present a series of prompts to a non-patient user regarding medical triage of a patient being treated by the non-patient user using one or more of the plurality of medical instruments and supplies, the series of prompts being presented to the non-patient user in descending order of severity,
2) receive a patient type input in reply to at least one of the prompts that is indicative of a choice by the non-patient user of a type of the patient,
3) receive a patient assessment input in reply to at least one of the prompts that is indicative of an assessment by the non-patient user of a medical condition of the patient,
4) after the receipt of the patient type input and after the receipt of the patient assessment input, select automatically, one or more of the plurality of medical instruments and supplies, the selection being a customized selection based at least in part on the received patient type input and the received patient assessment input, and
5) present automatically to the non-patient user at least one of the prompts presented after the receipt of the patient type input and after the receipt of the patient assessment input;
wherein the at least one of the prompts presented automatically after the receipt of the patient type input and after the receipt of the patient assessment input includes an instruction to use the one or more of the plurality of medical instruments and supplies that were selected automatically by the computing device, the instruction including a location of the one or more of the plurality of medical instruments and supplies stored within the portable case.
Claim 11 recites, in part, performing the steps of 1) present a series of prompts to a user regarding medical triage of a patient being treated by the user using one or more of the plurality of medical instruments and supplies, the series of prompts being presented to the non-patient user in descending order of severity, 2) receive a patient type input in reply to at least one of the prompts that is indicative of a choice by the user of a type of the patient, 3) receive a patient assessment input in reply to at least one of the prompts that is indicative of an assessment by the user of a medical condition of the patient, 4) after the receipt of the patient type input and after the receipt of the patient assessment input, select automatically, one or more of the plurality of medical instruments and supplies, the selection being a customized selection based at least in part on the received patient type input and the received patient assessment input, and 5) present automatically to the non-patient user at least one of the prompts presented after the receipt of the patient type input and after the receipt of the patient assessment input; wherein the at least one of the prompts presented automatically after the receipt of the patient type input and after the receipt of the patient assessment input includes an instruction to use the one or more of the plurality of medical instruments and supplies that were selected automatically by the computing device, the instruction including a location of the one or more of the plurality of medical instruments and supplies stored within the portable case. These steps correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, more particularly, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including following rules or instructions). For example, the present claim describes a customization of treatment based on gathered information. Independent claim 24 recites similar limitations and is also directed to an abstract idea under the same analysis.
Depending claims 12-15, 17-23, and 25-33 include all of the limitations of claims 11 and 24, and therefore likewise incorporate the above described abstract idea. Depending claim 17 adds the additional steps of “receive an application input that is indicative of the selected one or more of the plurality of medical instruments and supplies being unable to be applied according to the information, and in response to receipt of the application input, present a second instruction to use a second one or more of the plurality of medical instruments and supplies” and “present a graphical depiction of the selected one or more of the plurality of medical instruments and supplies to assist the non-patient user in finding the selected one or more of the plurality of medical instruments and supplies in the portable case” and claim 31 adds the additional steps of “receive an input from the user indicating that the patient is one of the plurality of patients” and “present a series of prompts to the user regarding medical triage of a remainder of the plurality of patients being treated by the user to allow the user to concurrently treat the plurality of patients using one or more of the plurality of medical instruments and supplies”. Additionally, the limitations of depending claims 12-15, certain elements of claim 17, 18-23, 25-30, and 32-33 further specify elements from the claims from which they depend on without adding any additional steps. These additional limitations only further serve to limit the abstract idea. Thus, depending claims 12-15, 17-23, and 25-33 are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as independent claims 11 and 24 (Step 2A (Prong One): YES).
Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of – using a) a plurality of medical instruments and supplies including at least two different ones of a tourniquet, gauze, a CPR face shield, a pressure dressing, a chest seal, a burn dressing, a splint, an ice pack, hand cleanser, an emergency blanket, a bandage, a pair of gloves, shears, and medication, b) a portable case configured to contain therein a plurality of medical instruments and supplies, and c) a computing device, where the computing device is one of c1) secured to the case (from claim 24) and c2) a user device that is not secured to the case (from claim 24) to perform the claimed steps.
The a) plurality of medical instruments and supplies including at least two different ones of a tourniquet, gauze, a CPR face shield, a pressure dressing, a chest seal, a burn dressing, a splint, an ice pack, hand cleanser, an emergency blanket, a bandage, a pair of gloves, shears, and medication and b) portable case in these steps generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as medical treatments, see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Furthermore, the c) computing device with c1) or c2) in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic components performing generic computer functions) such that it amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (see: Applicant’s specification, paragraph [0410] where there is a general purpose computer, see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which amount to limitations consistent with the additional elements in the independent claims. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation and do not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A (Prong Two): NO).
Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a) a plurality of medical instruments and supplies including at least two different ones of a tourniquet, gauze, a CPR face shield, a pressure dressing, a chest seal, a burn dressing, a splint, an ice pack, hand cleanser, an emergency blanket, a bandage, a pair of gloves, shears, and medication, b) a portable case configured to contain therein a plurality of medical instruments and supplies, and c) a computing device, where the computing device is one of c1) secured to the case and c2) a user device that is not secured to the case to perform the claimed steps amounts to no more than a general linking to a particular technological environment and mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component that does not offer “significantly more” than the abstract idea itself because the claims do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of any computer itself, or provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. It should be noted that the claims do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the Specification recites mere generic computer components, as discussed above that are being used to apply certain method steps of organizing human activity. Specifically, MPEP 2106.05(f) and MPEP 2106.05(h) recite that the following limitations are not significantly more:
Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2360, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (MPEP § 2106.05(f)); and
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, e.g., a claim describing how the abstract idea of hedging could be used in the commodities and energy markets, as discussed in Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 595, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (2010) or a claim limiting the use of a mathematical formula to the petrochemical and oil-refining fields, as discussed in Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-90, 198 USPQ 193, 197-98 (1978) (MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
The a) plurality of medical instruments and supplies including at least two different ones of a tourniquet, gauze, a CPR face shield, a pressure dressing, a chest seal, a burn dressing, a splint, an ice pack, hand cleanser, an emergency blanket, a bandage, a pair of gloves, shears, and medication and b) portable case generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The following represent an example that courts have identified as generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (e.g. see MPEP 2106.05(h)): Limiting the abstract idea data to a portable case with instruments, because limiting application of the abstract idea to the case with instruments is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, e.g. see Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A.
Furthermore, the current invention customizes prompts based on received data using c) a computing device with c1) or c2), thus the computing device is adding the words “apply it” with mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component or a general linking to a particular technological environment cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible (Step 2B: NO).
Claims 11-15 and 17-33 are therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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 11-15, 18-19, 21-23, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2014/0372137 to Tryon et al. in view of U.S. Patent No. 9,596,991 to Choi et al. further in view of “Intelligent First Aid Kit Talks You Through Any Emergency” to Levenstein and further in view of U.S. 2004/0098409 to Kelleher et al.
As per claim 11, Tryon et al. teaches a medical system, comprising:
--a computing device (see: paragraph [0029] where there is a computing device) configured to:
--present a series of prompts to a user regarding medical triage of a patient being treated by the user using one or more of the plurality of medical instruments and supplies, (see: paragraph [0061] where a question is being sent. Also see paragraph [0062] where an answer is being received. Also see: paragraph [0063] where another question is asked after an answer is received. A series of questions are being presented which help determine the type of patient and their health condition. The patient here could be treated using instruments/supplies (eye drops) as the patient is being self-treated as addressed in paragraph [0060])
--receive a patient type input in reply to at least one of the prompts that is indicative of a choice by the user of a type of the patient, (see: paragraph [0061] where a question is being sent. Also see paragraph [0062] where an answer is being received. Also see: paragraph [0063] where another question is asked after an answer is received. A type of patient (based on their age) is being determined here based on the prompts)
--receive a patient assessment input in reply to at least one of the prompts that is indicative of an assessment by the user of a medical condition of the patient, (see: paragraph [0061] where a question is being sent. Also see paragraph [0062] where an answer is being received. Also see: paragraph [0063] where another question is asked after an answer is received. A patient assessment input is being received in the form of answers to questions such as questions/answers related to fever temperature, etc.) and
--present automatically to the user, at least one of the prompts presented after the receipt of the patient type input and after the receipt of the patient assessment input (see: paragraph [0061] where a question is being sent and presented to the user. Also see paragraph [0062] where an answer is being received. Also see: paragraph [0063] where another question is asked after an answer is received. Prompts are being customized for the user here based on the received answers as the system here can direct the user to contact their doctor immediately, etc.).
Tryon et al. may not further, specifically teach:
1) --a plurality of medical instruments and supplies including at least two different ones of a tourniquet, gauze, a CPR face shield, a pressure dressing, a chest seal, a burn dressing, a splint, an ice pack, hand cleanser, an emergency blanket, a bandage, a pair of gloves, shears, and medication;
2) --a portable case configured to contain therein the plurality of medical instruments and supplies;
3) --the series of prompts being presented to the non-patient user in descending order of severity;
4) --a user as a non-patient user;
5) --after the receipt of the patient type input and after the receipt of the patient assessment input, select automatically, one or more of the plurality of medical instruments and supplies, the selection being a customized selection based at least in part on the received patient type input and the received patient assessment input, and
6) --wherein the at least one of the prompts presented automatically after the receipt of the patient type input and after the receipt of the patient assessment input includes an instruction to use the one or more of the plurality of medical instruments and supplies that were selected automatically by the computing device, and
7) --the instruction including a location of the one or more of the plurality of medical instruments and supplies stored within the portable case.
Choi et al teaches:
5) --after the receipt of the patient type input and after the receipt of the patient assessment input, select automatically, one or more of the plurality of medical instruments and supplies, (see: FIG. 9 and column 12, lines 19-44 and column 13, lines 7-15 where there is automatic selection of medical instruments based upon the medical examination guide. The examination guide is also based on the answered survey and the answers contains a patient type (see: column 15, lines 26-38 where there is information of their gender, etc.) and a patient assessment input (see: column 10, lines 50-58 where there is an assessment input of symptom responses)) the selection being a customized selection based at least in part on the received patient type input and the received patient assessment input, (see: claim 1 where the selection is based on the survey responses. The survey responses include a patient type input (see: column 15, lines 26-38 where there is patient type information of their gender, etc.) and a patient assessment input (see: column 10, lines 50-58 where there is an assessment input of symptom responses)) and
6) --wherein the at least one of the prompts presented automatically after the receipt of the patient type input and after the receipt of the patient assessment input includes an instruction to use the one or more of the plurality of medical instruments and supplies that were selected automatically by the computing device (see: FIG. 12 and column 12, lines 19-44 where there is instructing of manipulation of the instrument via a prompt).
One of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to 5) after the receipt of the patient type input and after the receipt of the patient assessment input, select automatically, one or more of the plurality of medical instruments and supplies, the selection being a customized selection based at least in part on the received patient type input and the received patient assessment input and have 6) wherein the at least one of the prompts presented automatically after the receipt of the patient type input and after the receipt of the patient assessment input includes an instruction to use the one or more of the plurality of medical instruments and supplies that were selected automatically by the computing device as taught by Choi et al. in the system as taught by Tryon et al. with the motivation(s) of providing medical services without the help of a physician (see: column 1, lines 15-20 and column 3, lines 51-56 of Choi et al.).
Levenstein teaches:
1) --a plurality of medical instruments and supplies including at least two different ones of a tourniquet, gauze, a CPR face shield, a pressure dressing, a chest seal, a burn dressing, a splint, an ice pack, hand cleanser, an emergency blanket, a bandage, a pair of gloves, shears, and medication; (see: pages 3 and 4 where there are a plurality of medical instruments and supplies such as shears and gauze) and
2) --a portable case configured to contain therein the plurality of medical instruments and supplies; (see: pages 3 and 4 where there is a portable case holding supplies)
4) --a user as a non-patient user, (see: page 1 where the user is not a medical professional, and the kit is for home or workplace accidents) and
7) --the instruction including a location of the one or more of the plurality of medical instruments and supplies stored within the portable case (see: pages 1 and 2 where there are instructions for a location of a plurality of instruments within the case).
One of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to have 1) a plurality of medical instruments and supplies including at least two different ones of a tourniquet, gauze, a CPR face shield, a pressure dressing, a chest seal, a burn dressing, a splint, an ice pack, hand cleanser, an emergency blanket, a bandage, a pair of gloves, shears, and medication, 2) a portable case configured to contain therein the plurality of medical instruments and supplies, 4) a user as a non-patient user, and have 7) the instruction including a location of the one or more of the plurality of medical instruments and supplies stored within the portable case as taught by Levenstein in the system as taught by Tryon et al. and Choi et al. in combination with the motivation(s) of preventing life-threatening gaps between injury and arrival of a medical team (see: page 1 of Levenstein).
Kelleher et al. teaches:
3) --the series of prompts being presented to the user in descending order of severity (see: paragraph [0006] where there user here is prompted a series of questions in an order of importance which corresponds with an order of severity).
One of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to have 3) the series of prompts being presented to the user in descending order of severity as taught by Kelleher et al. in the system as taught by Tryon et al., Choi et al., and Levenstein in combination with the motivation(s) of improving documentation efficiency (see: paragraph [0005] of Kelleher et al.).
As per claim 12, Tryon et al., Choi et al., Levenstein, and Kelleher et al. in combination teaches the system of claim 11, see discussion of claim 11. Tryon et al. further teaches wherein the type of the patient indicates whether the patient is an adult or not (see: paragraph [0063] where there is a determination of a type of patient based on age).
As per claim 13, Tryon et al., Choi et al., Levenstein, and Kelleher et al. in combination teaches the system of claim 12, see discussion of claim 12. Tryon et al. further teaches wherein the non-patient user is not a trained medical professional; (see: page 1 where the user is not a trained medical professional)
--wherein, when the type of the patient indicates that the patient is an adult, the at least one of the prompts presented after the receipt of the patient type input and after the receipt of the patient assessment input is a first set of one or more prompts for treating the assessed medical condition of the patient; (see: paragraph [0063] where there are prompts which are dependent on age. Prompts can be different if you are an adult over 60) and
--wherein, when the type of the patient indicates that the patient is not an adult, the at least one of the prompts presented after the receipt of the patient type input and after the receipt of the patient assessment input is a second, different set of one or more prompts for treating the assessed medical condition of the patient (see: paragraph [0063] where there are prompts which are dependent on age. Prompts can be different if you are not an adult in between 2 months and 60 years old).
As per claim 14, Tryon et al., Choi et al., Levenstein, and Kelleher et al. in combination teaches the system of claim 11, see discussion of claim 11. Tryon et al. further teaches wherein the type of the patient is an age of the patient; (see: paragraph [0063] where there is a type of patient based on age)
--the medical condition includes an allergic reaction; (see: FIG. 9E and paragraph [0077] where there may be a condition of an allergic reaction) and
--the presented at least one of the prompts includes an instruction to use a type of medication, the type of medication being based on the age of the patient (see: paragraph [0078] where there is a prompt generated in response to a determination of condition where a solution is being honed in on. The solution here is based on all answers by the patient. This includes answers related to age. Also see: paragraph [0084] where the patient is reminded to take their medication. The reminder would be the solution and the solution includes medication).
Levenstein further teaches:
--the plurality of medical instruments and supplies comprises at least two types of medication; (see: page 4 where there are a plurality of medical supplies which comprise of at least 2 medications) and
--a type of medication among the at least two types of medication (see: page 5 where there are injury specific packs which would require certain medication from among other medication to be used to address each emergency).
The motivations to combine the above-mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 11, and incorporated herein.
As per claim 15, Tryon et al., Choi et al., Levenstein, and Kelleher et al. in combination teaches the system of claim 11, see discussion of claim 11. Tryon et al. teaches wherein the non-patient user is not a trained medical professional; (see: page 1 where the user is not a trained medical professional)
--the medical condition includes a need for a treatment; (see: paragraph [0060] where there is a medical condition where there is a need for an eye treatment)
--when the type of the patient indicates that the patient is an adult, the at least one of the prompts presented after the receipt of the patient type input and after the receipt of the patient assessment input is a first set of one or more prompts for performing a treatment on an adult; (see: paragraphs [0060] and [0063] where there is prompting based on the age of the patient. The prompting here can be related to a particular treatment such as applying eye drops)
--when the type of the patient indicates that the patient is a child, the at least one of the prompts presented after the receipt of the patient type input and after the receipt of the patient assessment input is a second set of one or more prompts for performing a treatment on a child; (see: paragraphs [0060] and [0063] where there is prompting based on the age of the patient. The prompting here can be related to a particular treatment such as applying eye drops) and
--when the type of the patient indicates that the patient is an infant, the at least one of the prompts presented after the receipt of the patient type input and after the receipt of the patient assessment input is a third set of one or more prompts for performing a treatment on an infant (see: paragraphs [0060] and [0063] where there is prompting based on the age of the patient. The prompting here can be related to a particular treatment such as applying eye drops).
Levenstein further teaches teach:
--a treatment as CPR (see: page 2 where there is a treatment for CPR in the form of a Breathing & CPR Pack).
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 CPR as taught by Levenstein for the treatment as disclosed by Tryon et al. and Choi 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 Tryon et al. and Choi et al. teaches of using prompts to query about a condition in order to apply a treatment, thus one could change which treatments are used and obtain predictable results of determining aspects about a patient and determining a treatment based on those aspects. 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).
As per claim 18, Tryon et al., Choi et al., Levenstein, and Kelleher et al. in combination teaches the system of claim 11, see discussion of claim 11. Tryon et al. further teaches wherein, when the type of the patient indicates that the patient is an adult, (see: paragraph [0063] where there is a questioning of an age of a patient and the solution is based on answers) the selected one or more of the plurality of medical instruments and supplies includes a different one or more of the plurality of medical instruments and supplies than when the type of the patient indicates that the patient is not an adult (see: paragraph [0063] where the solution can be different based on age. Also see: paragraph [0060] where there is a solution of eye drops and how to treat the symptoms. A different solution/prompt can be provided based on age).
As per claim 19, Tryon et al., Choi et al., Levenstein, and Kelleher et al. in combination teaches the system of claim 11, see discussion of claim 11. Tryon et al. further teaches wherein each of the series of prompts is presented via at least one of audio, video, and graphical user interface (GUI) display (see: FIGS. 9E and 9F where there is a display of prompts).
As per claim 21, Tryon et al., Choi et al., Levenstein, and Kelleher et al. in combination teaches the system of claim 11, see discussion of claim 11. Tryon et al. further teaches wherein the computing device includes a processor and a computer-readable media including instructions (see: paragraph [0038] where there is a processor and software which performs these functions) that, when executed by the one or more processors, are configured to cause the computing device to present the series of prompts, receive the patient type input, receive the patient assessment input, and customize the at least one of the prompts presented after the receipt of the patient type input and after the receipt of the patient assessment input (see: paragraphs [0061] – [0063] as in claim 11 where there are the above-mentioned steps which customize prompts based on the received information).
As per claim 22, Tryon et al., Choi et al., Levenstein, and Kelleher et al. in combination teaches the system of claim 21, see discussion of claim 21. Tryon et al. further teaches wherein the computing device includes a touchscreen configured to receive the patient type input by touch and the patient assessment input by touch (see: paragraph [0050] where there is a touch screen to receive information from a patient).
As per claim 23, Tryon et al., Choi et al., Levenstein, and Kelleher et al. in combination teaches the system of claim 21, see discussion of claim 21. Tryon et al. further teaches wherein the computing device includes a laptop computer, a desktop computer, a personal digital assistant, a tablet computer, or a phone (see: paragraph [0029] where there is a laptop as the computing device).
As per claim 32, Tryon et al., Choi et al., Levenstein, and Kelleher et al. in combination teaches the system of claim 11, see discussion of claim 11. Choi et al. further teaches wherein the non-patient user is not a trained medical professional; (see: column 1, lines 50-67 where there is self-examination. The user here is not trained as it may be the patient. The user being a non-patient user was taught in independent claim 11) and
--the automatically presented at least one of the prompts is based at least in part on the non-patient user not being a trained medical professional (see: column 12, lines 19-44 where there is presentation of how to manipulate the instruments. This is for the patient as it is a self-examination. The user being a non-patient user was taught in independent claim 11).
The motivations to combine the above-mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 11, and incorporated herein.
No Art Rejections
Claims 17, 20, 24-31, and 33 do not have art rejections.
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