DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 3, 2023, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed September 30, 2025, with respect to independent claims 1, 7, and 12 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Thus, applicant’s arguments pertaining to dependent claims 2-6, 8-11, and 14-20 are moot as well.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1, 2, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pacey et. al (US 20110178373 A1, hereinafter Pacey) in view of Schobel et. al (US 20190388302 A1, hereinafter Schobel) and Givens et. al (US 10368785 B2, hereinafter Givens).
Regarding claim 1, Pacey discloses a method of operation for a telemedicine management system (Fig. 1, 104, Pacey), the method comprising: requesting, by the telemedicine management system, a real time streaming protocol connection (“Other features of the example Telemedicine Base Unit may include but are not limited to streaming video and multi-directional audio through an integrated wireless network interface.” Pacey [0025]) with a portable medical device (“The communication management system 130 is configured to receive an indication of an attached device” Pacey [0021]; Fig. 1, 102); receiving, by the telemedicine management system and from the portable medical device, a video data (“The telemedicine base unit enables multi-directional communication of audio, video, data and other graphical symbols between a remote care site and the user of the base unit.” Pacey [0014]); generating, by the telemedicine management system, a videoconference between a first user interface of a first device (“The telemedicine base unit enables multi-directional communication of audio, video, data and other graphical symbols between a remote care site and the user of the base unit.” Pacey [0014]; “The example video laryngoscope is connected to the example telemedicine unit and the example telemedicine unit displays the view from the camera mounted on the example video laryngoscope.” Pacey [0015]); and displaying, by the telemedicine management system, a video stream from the video data in the videoconference (“Other features of the example Telemedicine Base Unit may include but are not limited to streaming video and multi-directional audio through an integrated wireless network interface.” Pacey [0025]).
Pacey does not expressively teach “wherein the portable medical device comprises at least two cameras, wherein a first camera of the at least two cameras comprises an otoscopic lens, and wherein a second camera of the at least two cameras comprises a video scope” and “and a second user interface of a second device.”
However, Schobel does teach wherein the portable medical device comprises at least two cameras, wherein a first camera of the at least two cameras comprises an otoscopic lens, and wherein a second camera of the at least two cameras comprises a video scope (“For example, useful biometric instruments include those selected from cameras, video scopes…More specifically, the device for measuring biometrics may be is selected from electroencephalogram (EEG) machines…otoscopes…multi-purpose cameras…and combinations thereof.” Schobel [0083]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the telemedicine base apparatus (as taught by Pacey) with the otoscope (as taught by Schobel). The rationale to do so is to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of providing increased accessibility to medical professionals to remote patients.
Additionally, Givens does teach and a second user interface of a second device (“responsive to the second access request, electronically providing a second session and a second user interface, different from the first user interface, that is customized based on second access permissions for the second user over the web portal,” Givens [0007]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Pacey, in view of Schobel, with Givens so as to account for both a local and remote user across a network for a given telemedicine conference.
Regarding claim 2, Pacey, in view of Schobel and Givens, discloses the method of claim 1, wherein in response to the generating the videoconference, a first display of the first user interface includes the video stream (“The telemedicine base unit enables multi-directional communication of audio, video, data and other graphical symbols between a remote care site and the user of the base unit.” Pacey [0014]) and a second video stream, the video stream corresponding to the video data, the second video stream corresponding to a second video data (“third-party online multimedia communications service provider 310, which may be, e.g., a consumer videoconferencing service provider such as WebEx, VSee and Evisit, or Vidyo” Givens [0058]) from a camera (“At the same time, webcams 350 and 360, communicatively coupled to computers 370 and 380 used by audiologist 40 and patient 50, respectively, may transmit multimedia communications between audiologist 40 and patient 50 over the Internet” Givens [0058]; Fig. 8, 40 (multiple audiologists)) of the second device (“responsive to the second access request, electronically providing a second session and a second user interface, different from the first user interface, that is customized based on second access permissions for the second user over the web portal,” Givens [0007]).
Regarding claim 5, Pacey, in view of Schobel and Givens, discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving, by the telemedicine management system, a temperature data of a user from the portable medical device (“For example the health status monitoring system may link, using a Bluetooth connection, with a system monitoring a patient's body temperature” Pacey [0020]); and transmitting, by the telemedicine management system, the temperature data from the first user interface of the first device (“Telemedicine Facilitation System ("TFS") 132 (e.g., a code module/component), one or more medical devices 102 that provide a medical output (e.g. video feeds, vital signs, EKG signals, and/or other physiological outputs from a patient), one or more remote care units 106 (e.g. computers, video conferencing devices, portable devices and/or any device capable of transmitting and receiving audio/video either directly or indirectly to the telemedicine base unit” Pacey [0018]; “The example telemedicine base unit transmits video and audio information to the remote care site.” Pacey [0015]) to the second user interface of the second device (“responsive to the second access request, electronically providing a second session and a second user interface, different from the first user interface, that is customized based on second access permissions for the second user over the web portal,” Givens [007]).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pacey et. al (US 20110178373 A1, hereinafter Pacey), in view of Schobel et. al (US 20190388302 A1, hereinafter Schobel) and Givens et. al (US 10368785 B2, hereinafter Givens), and further in view of Espinosa et. al (US 20150261930 A1, hereinafter Espinosa).
Regarding claim 3, Pacey, in view of Schobel and Givens, discloses the method of claim 1.
Pacey, in view of Schobel and Givens, does not expressively teach “wherein the video data is transmitted through a filter.”
However, Espinosa does teach wherein the video data is transmitted through a filter (“The system configuration module (210) includes a filter to capture audio, video and data (212).” Espinosa [0047]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Pacey, in view of Schobel and Givens, with Espinosa so as to improve the quality of video data during a telemedicine appointment. Espinosa acknowledges that there is a desire to optimize the video data during a telemedicine appointment to provide the best medical assistance for the patient.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pacey et. al (US 20110178373 A1, hereinafter Pacey), in view of Schobel et. al (US 20190388302 A1, hereinafter Schobel) and Givens et. al (US 10368785 B2, hereinafter Givens), and further in view of Katz (US 20010031044 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Pacey, in view of Schobel and Givens, discloses the method of claim 1.
Pacey, in view of Schobel and Givens, does not expressively teach “wherein, in response to a user pressing a button on the portable medical device, a frame from the video data transmitted in the videoconference freezes.”
However, Katz does teach wherein, in response to a user pressing a button on the portable medical device, a frame from the video data transmitted in the videoconference freezes (“A push button switch 93 serves as an interrupt for locking onto the current display (high quality freeze frame) for closer observation or to record data and in some cases higher resolution images for closer observation at a later time, for example, by use of a video printer. In addition, another toggle switch 95 controls tilting camera operations and a push button 97 advances the freeze frame for subsequent observation or reverses it back to a dynamic display.” Katz [0086]). The term “dynamic display” referring to a video embodiment i.e. video conference.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Pacey, in view of Schobel and Givens, with Katz so as to provide “for closer observation or to record data and in some cases higher resolution images for closer observation at a later time” (Katz [0086]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pacey et. al (US 20110178373 A1, hereinafter Pacey), in view of Schobel et. al (US 20190388302 A1, hereinafter Schobel) and Givens et. al (US 10368785 B2, hereinafter Givens), and further in view of Claus (US 20090190808 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Pacey, in view of Schobel and Givens, discloses the method of claim 1.
Pacey, in view of Schobel and Givens, does not expressively teach “wherein in response to a user varying a magnification of a camera of the portable medical device, the magnification of the video data being transmitted from the first user interface of the first device to the second user interface of the second device is varied accordingly.”
However, Claus does teach wherein in response to a user varying a magnification of a camera of the portable medical device, the magnification of the video data being transmitted from the first user interface of the first device to the second user interface of the second device is varied accordingly (Fig. 9, 902-904 (Claus)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Pacey, in view of Schobel and Givens, with Claus so as to improve the ability to “accurately determine the size of the object under observation” (Claus [0005]). Claus acknowledges that there is a need to do so and provides a mechanism that accurately showcases the magnification level of an image data relative to time.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pacey et. al (US 20110178373 A1, hereinafter Pacey) in view of Schobel et. al (US 20190388302 A1, hereinafter Schobel), and further in view of Arbel et. al (US 20230266819 A1, hereinafter Arbel).
Regarding claim 7, Pacey discloses a control system for a portable medical device, comprising: a processor (“The TBU 104 includes a processor 112” (Pacey [0018])); and a tangible, non-transitory memory configured to communicate with the processor, the tangible, non-transitory memory having instructions stored thereon that, in response to execution by the processor, cause the processor to perform operations comprising (“local memory 116, and a communication component 120. The components of the illustrated TFS 132 provide various logic (e.g. code, instructions, etc.) and/or services related to the operation of the TBU 104, and provide the instructions that when executed receive output data from the medical devices 102 and manage a multidirectional communication with the remote care units 106.” Pacey [0018]): commanding, by the processor and through a transmitter, a first video data from a first camera of the portable medical device be transmitted to a telemedicine management system, in response to the first video data being transmitted, the first video data is sent through the telemedicine management system to a remote user device (“TBU 104, and provide the instructions that when executed receive output data from the medical devices 102 and manage a multidirectional communication with the remote care units 106. Pacey [0018]); and commanding, by the processor and through the transmitter, a second video data from the second camera be transmitted to the telemedicine management system, in response to the second video data being transmitted, wherein the second video data is sent through the telemedicine management system to the remote user device (“TBU 104, and provide the instructions that when executed receive output data from the medical devices 102 and manage a multidirectional communication with the remote care units 106. Pacey [0018]).
Pacey does not expressively teach “wherein, the first video camera comprises an otoscopic lens and a second camera comprises a video scope; receiving, by the processor, an indication that the second camera has been selected.”
However, Schobel does teach wherein the first camera comprises an otoscopic lens and a second camera comprises a video scope (“For example, useful biometric instruments include those selected from cameras, video scopes…More specifically, the device for measuring biometrics may be is selected from electroencephalogram (EEG) machines…otoscopes…multi-purpose cameras…and combinations thereof.” Schobel [0083]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the telemedicine base apparatus (as taught by Pacey) with the otoscope (as taught by Schobel). The rationale to do so is to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of providing increased accessibility to medical professionals to remote patients.
Additionally, Arbel does teach receiving, by the processor, an indication that a second camera has been selected (“simultaneously directs a second set of electromagnetic frequencies from the sample under the microscope to a second camera that captures images depicting a field of view the user is viewing” Arbel [0022]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Pacey, in view of Schobel, with Arbel so as to improve the user experience of manually switching the cameras of the electronic device. Arbel acknowledges that there is a need to do so and provides a mechanism that obtains a switching instruction by tracking the gaze of the user, thereby improving the user experience.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pacey et. al (US 20110178373 A1, hereinafter Pacey) in view of Schobel et. al (US 20190388302 A1, hereinafter Schobel) and Arbel et. al (US 20230266819 A1, hereinafter Arbel), and further in view of Kenoyer et. al (US 20030048353 A1, hereinafter Kenoyer).
Regarding claim 8, Pacey, in view of Schobel and Arbel, discloses the control system of claim 7, wherein the operations further comprise: receiving, by the processor, a first set of the second video data (“a Telemedicine Facilitation System ("TFS") 132 (e.g., a code module/component), one or more medical devices 102 that provide a medical output (e.g. video feeds, vital signs, EKG signals, and/or other physiological outputs from a patient), one or more remote care units 106 (e.g. computers, video conferencing devices, portable devices and/or any device capable of transmitting and receiving audio/video either directly or indirectly to the telemedicine base unit” Pacey [0018]).
Pacey, in view of Schobel and Arbel, does not expressively teach “and receiving, by the processor, a second set of the second video data having a different magnification from the first set of the second video data.”
However, Kenoyer does teach receiving, by the processor, a second set of the second video data having a different magnification from the first set of the second video data (“Advantageously, the present invention has the ability to generate a whole image of a conferencing site while zooming a view from any arbitrary section of the whole image.” Kenoyer [0040]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Pacey, in view of Schobel and Arbel, with Kenoyer so as to improve the fluidity of adjusting acoustics relative to a speaker’s position.
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pacey et. al (US 20110178373 A1, hereinafter Pacey) in view of Schobel et. al (US 20190388302 A1, hereinafter Schobel) and Arbel et. al (US 20230266819 A1, hereinafter Arbel), and further in view of Katz (US 20010031044 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Pacey, in view of Schobel and Arbel, discloses the control system of claim 7.
Pacey, in view of Schobel and Arbel, does not expressively teach “wherein the operations further comprise freezing, by the processor, a frame of the second video data in response to a button being depressed on the portable medical device.”
However, Katz does teach wherein the operations further comprise freezing, by the processor, a frame of the second video data in response to a button being depressed on the portable medical device (“A push button switch 93 serves as an interrupt for locking onto the current display (high quality freeze frame) for closer observation or to record data and in some cases higher resolution images for closer observation at a later time, for example, by use of a video printer. In addition, another toggle switch 95 controls tilting camera operations and a push button 97 advances the freeze frame for subsequent observation or reverses it back to a dynamic display.” Katz [0086]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Pacey, in view of Schobel and Arbel, with Katz so as to provide “for closer observation or to record data and in some cases higher resolution images for closer observation at a later time” (Katz [0086]).
Regarding claim 10, Pacey, in view of Schobel, Arbel, and Katz, discloses the control system of claim 9, wherein in response to the freezing the frame, a frozen frame is sent through the telemedicine management system to the remote user device (“A push button switch 93 serves as an interrupt for locking onto the current display (high quality freeze frame) for closer observation or to record data and in some cases higher resolution images for closer observation at a later time.” Katz [0086]).
Regarding claim 11, Pacey, in view of Schobel and Arbel, discloses the control system of claim 7.
Pacey, in view of Schobel and Arbel, does not expressively teach “wherein the operations further comprise freezing, by the processor, a frame of the first video data in response to a button being depressed on the portable medical device.”
However, Katz does teach wherein the operations further comprise freezing, by the processor, a frame of the first video data in response to a button being depressed on the portable medical device (“A push button switch 93 serves as an interrupt for locking onto the current display (high quality freeze frame) for closer observation or to record data and in some cases higher resolution images for closer observation at a later time, for example, by use of a video printer. In addition, another toggle switch 95 controls tilting camera operations and a push button 97 advances the freeze frame for subsequent observation or reverses it back to a dynamic display.” Katz [0086]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Pacey, in view of Schobel and Arbel, with Katz so as to provide “for closer observation or to record data and in some cases higher resolution images for closer observation at a later time” (Katz [0086]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pacey et. al (US 20110178373 A1, hereinafter Pacey) in view of Schobel et. al (US 20190388302 A1, hereinafter Schobel).
Regarding claim 12, Pacey discloses a telemedicine system, comprising: a portable medical device (“one or more remote care units 106 (e.g. computers, video conferencing devices, portable devices)” Pacey [0018]) including a first camera (“The example telemedicine base unit transmits video and audio information to the remote care site and receives through a wired or wireless connection video and/or audio connection operating instructions that enables a user to operate the example video laryngoscope to perform an intubation procedure.” Pacey [0015]; Fig. 1, 106; the video from 1 remote care site is from the first camera), a second camera (Fig. 1, 106; second Remote Care Unit (Pacey)); the video from the second care unit would come from the second camera), and a transmitter (“portable devices and/or any device capable of transmitting.” Pacey [0018]); and a telemedicine management system (Fig. 1, 104 (Pacey)) configured for electronic communication with the portable medical device, the telemedicine management system configured to: receive, by the telemedicine management system and through a first device, video data from one of the first camera and the second camera (Fig. 2, 102 (Pacey)); and transmit, by the telemedicine management system, the video data (“portable devices and/or any device capable of transmitting.” Pacey [0018]) to a second device (Fig. 1, 106; second Remote Care Unit (Pacey)).
Pacey does not expressively teach “wherein the first camera comprises an otoscopic lens and the second camera comprises a video scope.”
However, Schobel does teach wherein the first camera comprises an otoscopic lens and a second camera comprises a video scope (“For example, useful biometric instruments include those selected from cameras, video scopes…More specifically, the device for measuring biometrics may be is selected from electroencephalogram (EEG) machines…otoscopes…multi-purpose cameras…and combinations thereof.” Schobel [0083]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the telemedicine base apparatus (as taught by Pacey) with the otoscope (as taught by Schobel). The rationale to do so is to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of providing increased accessibility to medical professionals to remote patients.
Regarding claim 13, Pacey, in view of Schobel, discloses the telemedicine system of claim 12, wherein the telemedicine management system is further configured to: transmit audio from the first device to the second device (“The telemedicine base unit enables multi-directional communication of audio, video, data and other graphical symbols between a remote care site and the user of the base unit.” Pacey [0014]; Fig. 1, 106 (first and second Remote Care Unit are connected)); and transmit audio from the second device to the first device (“The telemedicine base unit enables multi-directional communication of audio, video, data and other graphical symbols between a remote care site and the user of the base unit.” Pacey [0014]; Fig. 1, 106 (first and second Remote Care Unit are connected)).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pacey et. al (US 20110178373 A1, hereinafter Pacey) in view of Schobel et. al (US 20190388302 A1, hereinafter Schobel), and further in view of Katz (US 20010031044 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Pacey, in view of Schobel, discloses the telemedicine system of claim 12.
Pacey, in view of Schobel, does not expressively teach “wherein: the portable medical device comprises a first push button configured to freeze a frame of the first camera, and the video data associated with the first camera is frozen in response to the first push button being depressed.”
However, Katz does teach the portable medical device comprises a first push button configured to freeze a frame of the first camera, and the video data associated with the first camera is frozen in response to the first push button being depressed (“A push button switch 93 serves as an interrupt for locking onto the current display (high quality freeze frame) for closer observation or to record data and in some cases higher resolution images for closer observation at a later time.” Katz [0086]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Pacey, in view of Schobel, with Katz so as to provide “for closer observation or to record data and in some cases higher resolution images for closer observation at a later time” (Katz [0086]).
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pacey (US 20110178373 A1) in view of Schobel et. al (US 20190388302 A1, hereinafter Schobel), and further in view of Kenoyer et. al (US 20030048353 A1, hereinafter Kenoyer).
Regarding claim 15, Pacey, in view of Schobel, discloses the telemedicine system of claim 12.
Pacey, in view of Schobel, does not expressively teach “wherein the video scope is configured for fixed focus magnification of an object.”
However, Kenoyer does teach wherein the video scope is configured for fixed focus magnification of an object (“Rotation of the camera about the horizontal axis is referred to as "panning", while rotation about the vertical axis is referred to as "tilting." As such, devices for rotating the camera about the horizontal and vertical axis are commonly referred to as "pan/tilt positioning devices." Further, to capture an image or view that is of a particular interest, such as the image of a speaking conference participant, a conventional video camera would require a set of zoom lenses for performing zooming functions, resulting in a "pan/tilt/zoom" ("PZT") camera.” Kenoyer [0005]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Pacey, in view of Schobel, with Kenoyer so as to improve the fluidity of adjusting acoustics relative to a speaker’s position.
Regarding claim 16, Pacey, in view of Schobel and Kenoyer, discloses the telemedicine system of claim 15, further comprising a management system (“The communication management system 130 is configured to transmit (e.g. forward, send, communicate, etc.) the output signals from the attached medical devices 102 and various inputs related to the TBU 104 to the remote medical sites 106 and to receive medical instructions on how to operate the attached medical device from the remote medical sites 106.” Pacey [0019]), configured for electronic communication with the first and the second camera (“An example Telemedicine Base Unit includes a camera capable of photographs and video. The example Telemedicine Base Unit (TBU) is further capable of recording, displaying, and streaming videos taken from a camera on a medical device.” Pacey [0024]). The first camera being the TBU’s camera, and the second camera being the one attached to the portable medical device).
Regarding claim 17, Pacey, in view of Schobel and Kenoyer, discloses the telemedicine system of claim 16, wherein the management system comprises a direct device point-to-point communications setup (“The telemedicine base unit enables multi-directional communication of audio, video, data and other graphical symbols between a remote care site and the user of the base unit.” Pacey [0014]; “The telemedicine base unit communicates with remote medical sites through GSM, GPRS, CDMA, EV-DO, EDGE, DECT, IS-136/TDMA, iDEN, satellite bands, LAN, Military Networks, 3G, 4G and Wi-Fi Networks or any other audio/video link.” Pacey [0017]).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pacey (US 20110178373 A1) in view of Schobel et. al (US 20190388302 A1, hereinafter Schobel) and Kenoyer et. al (US 20030048353 A1, hereinafter Kenoyer), and further in view of Griggs et. al (US 20240056661 A1, hereinafter Griggs).
Regarding claim 18, Pacey, in view of Schobel and Kenoyer, discloses the telemedicine system of claim 16, wherein the management system is further configured for battery management (“The example Telemedicine Base Unit further optionally includes a three phase power management module. It includes a battery that may be charged through USB and/or a direct power supply.” Pacey [0026]).
Pacey, in view of Schobel and Kenoyer, does not expressively teach “and battery life feedback of the first camera and the second camera.”
However, Griggs does teach and battery life feedback of the first and second camera (“The image capture device 100 may include an LED or another form of indicator 106 to indicate a status of the image capture device 100 and a liquid-crystal display (LCD) or other form of a display 108 to show status information such as battery life, camera mode, elapsed time, and the like” Griggs [0027]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Pacey, in view of Schobel and Kenoyer, with Griggs so as to display and optimize the battery life of a camera during a telemedicine conference to provide the highest quality of video data without compromising on the device’s battery life consumption.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pacey (US 20110178373 A1) in view of Schobel et. al (US 20190388302 A1, hereinafter Schobel) and Kenoyer et. al (US 20030048353 A1, hereinafter Kenoyer), and further in view of Murphy (US 20160367194 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Pacey, in view of Schobel and Kenoyer, discloses the telemedicine system of claim 16.
Pacey, in view of Schobel and Kenoyer, does not expressively teach “wherein the management system is further configured for image management and store-and-forward options.”
However, Murphy does teach wherein the management system is further configured for image management and store-and-forward options (“The apparatus of the present invention may be used for remote medical practice (“telemedicine”) including store-and-forward, remote monitoring, real time interaction, remote diagnosis and remote treatment.” Murphy [0108]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Pacey, in view of Schobel and Kenoyer, with Murphy to optimize image quality during videoconferences for all participants.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pacey (US 20110178373 A1) in view of Schobel et. al (US 20190388302 A1, hereinafter Schobel) and Kenoyer et. al (US 20030048353 A1, hereinafter Kenoyer), and further in view of Kurtz et. al (US 20080297587 A1, hereinafter Kurtz).
Regarding claim 20, Pacey, in view of Schobel and Kenoyer, discloses the telemedicine system of claim 16.
Pacey, in view of Schobel and Kenoyer, does not expressively teach “wherein the management system is further configured to determine a first light level of the first camera and a second light level of the second camera.”
However, Kurtz does teach wherein the management system is configured to determine a first light level of the first camera and a second light level of the second camera (“Image quality can be managed using signals derivable from the ambient light detector 140 that is indicative of whether the ambient lighting is acceptable or not. For example, ambient light detector 140 can measure the ambient light level 200 in the local environment 415.” Kurtz [0125]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Pacey, in view of Schobel and Kenoyer, with Kurtz so as to improve the quality of the showcased image data. The management system’s ability to determine the light level of each respective camera is essential to displaying high-quality image data. Kurtz acknowledges this and ensures a standard of image quality by utilizing a set light threshold through an ambient light detector, thereby improving the quality of the image data.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAAD AHMED SYED whose telephone number is (571) 272-6777. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Duc Nguyen can be reached at (571) 272-7503. 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.
/SAAD AHMED SYED/Examiner, Art Unit 2691
/DUC NGUYEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2691