DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 08/18/2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
In the amendment filed 07/18/2025 at least the following occurred: Claims 1, 10, 21, 25, and 29 were amended. Claims 1-3, 6, 10-12, 14, 16, 21-31 are presented for examination.
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3, 6, 11-12, 21-24, 26-27, and 29-31 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0095196 to Waterson in view of WO 02/096339 to Gallant in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0253837 to Cashman in view of CN 201865369 U to Yu in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2009/0300988 to Bem further in view of WO 2004/035095 A1 to Barro.
As per claim 1, Waterson teaches a method, comprising:
detecting, by a computing device (see: Waterson, Fig. 1 and 5; and paragraph 19, 82-85, 104-108, and 143-144, is met by a cabin management system in network communication with a medical call center’s processing system and remote terminal by which a user/patient may bi-directionally communicate by videoconference to a medical professional including a processing system and a remote terminal), a person entering a privacy chamber the privacy chamber (see: Waterson, Fig. 1 and 4, ele. 132 and 142; Fig. 7A, ele. 726 and 708; and paragraph 85, 93-95, 99-100, 124-126, 131, 169, and 191-193, is met by determining the availability of the tele-health cabin, a presence detector to determine the presence of a patient, and performing sanitization such as with an ultraviolet light and sanitization device which may operate to detect an unsanitary condition and provide sanitization of telehealth cabin) having a floor and a door (see: Waterson, Fig. 1; and paragraph 85 and 93, is met by tele-health cabin with a floor and a door);
measuring a weight of the person by a scale and receiving sensor data about the person by the computing device (see: Waterson, Fig. 1, and paragraph 85, 88, 104, and 166, is met by scale located which may operate to determine and communicate weight information);
Waterson fails to specifically teach changing, by the computing device, the door to an opaque state that obscures a view to the person and…altering, by the computing device with a communication signal, the door from the opaque state upon completing the communication session; however, Gallant teaches a privacy window that can be activated by a patient or a caregiver to change the window from transparent to opaque to prevent viewing through window, where the window is changeable between a transparent state and a non-transparent state (see: Gallant, Fig. 1-4, ele. 78; and page 8, lines 31-32, page 10, lines 13-14, page 19, lines 13-22).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the tele-health cabin door as taught by Waterson to include a privacy window that can be activated by a patient or a caregiver to change the window from transparent to opaque to prevent viewing through window, where the window is changeable between a transparent state and a non-transparent state, as taught by Gallant with the motivation of providing safety, privacy, and security (see: Gallant, page 19, lines 13-22).
Waterson and Gallant fail to specifically teach a floor cavity such that the scale is integrable with the floor cavity, and the communication session being hosted within a cloud environment; however, Cashman teaches a weight scale that can be partially or fully embedded in the floor panel of a medical kiosk such that it is built into the floor (see: Cashman, paragraph 47, 136, and 187), and videoconferencing using a connection to servers through portals that are cloud based (see: Cashman, paragraph 66-67 and 150).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the tele-health cabin floor and scale and videoconferencing as taught by Waterson and Gallant such that the weight scale is partially or fully embedded in the floor panel of the medical kiosk such that it is built into the floor and the videoconferencing uses a connection to servers through portals that are cloud based as taught by Cashman with the motivation of measuring the patient’s weight and displaying information about the weight of a user to the user and/or medical provider (see: Cashman, paragraph 27, 47, 136, and 187) and/or the motivation of supporting integrated videoconferencing software for live patient-clinician interaction via an internet connection (see: Cashman, paragraph 150).
Though Waterson teaches the user or patient may enter personal information associated with desired medical treatment via a touch screen provided via terminal, and door may be closed and locked via automatic door lock (see: Waterson, Fig. 7A and 7C; and paragraph 65, 109, 172, 198-199, 202, and 286) and an automatic door lock, determination of presence of a patient, instructing patient to leave (see: Waterson, Fig. 1, Fig. 7C-D, ele. 742 and 764, and paragraph 133, 166, 172, 192, 198-199, 201, and 209), Waterson fails to specifically teach the following limitations met by Yu as cited:
locking the door automatically upon initiating a communication session over a network with an electronic device associated with a healthcare professional, and (see: Yu, paragraph 6, 10, and 24, is met by a booth with a door with a lock, and if the consultation button is pressed for inquiry or help, automatically locking the door);
and unlocking the door automatically upon completing the communication session (see: Yu, paragraph 6, 10, and 24, is met by a booth with a door with a lock, where, after a consultation operation is finished or after ten minutes, through automatic lock, lock is opened); and
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the tele-health cabin including door with automatic door lock, as taught by Waterson, Gallant, and Cashman, such that a booth with a door with a lock, and if the consultation button is pressed for inquiry or help, automatically locking the door, and where, after a consultation operation is finished or after ten minutes, through automatic lock, lock is opened, as taught by Yu, with the motivation of guaranteeing personal privacy, property, and life safety of a payee (see: Yu, paragraph 24).
Waterson, Gallant, Cashman, and Yu fail to specifically teach the following limitations met by Bem as cited:
displaying an indication on the door that the privacy chamber is occupied (see: Bem, Fig. 5; and paragraph 7, 22, and 24, is met by, on stall which automatically locks the door when the stall is occupied and unlocks the door when a presence of the person is detected near an inner activation sensor, the outside of the stall door having a digital display such as a liquid crystal display (LCD) or other type of digital display for displaying a textual message ("vacant", "occupied", or "out of order"), where any illumination devices may be utilized to display the textual message),,
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the door, as taught by Waterson, Gallant, Cashman, and Yu, such that the outside of the stall door having a digital display such as a liquid crystal display (LCD) or other type of digital display for displaying a textual message such as "vacant" or "occupied", as taught by Bem, with the motivation of providing an indication as to if the stall is vacant or occupied, so that if the stall is occupied, the door is locked fully closed and the occupancy status indicator provides an indication that the stall is occupied (see: Bem, paragraph 23).
Waterson teaches determining the availability of the tele-health cabin, a presence detector to determine the presence of a patient, and performing sanitization such as with an ultraviolet light and sanitization device which may operate to detect an unsanitary condition and provide sanitization of telehealth cabin (see: Waterson, Fig. 1 and 4, ele. 132 and 142; Fig. 7A, ele. 726 and 708; and paragraph 85, 93-95, 99-100, 124-126, 131, 169, and 191-193), but Waterson fails to specifically teach the following limitations met by Barro as cited:
activating a purification device to sanitize an interior area of the privacy chamber upon determining using a movement detector that the person has left the interior area and the interior area is vacant (see: Barro, page 3, lines 14-18; page 4, lines 5-19; and page 6, lines 7-8, is met by a cubicle with detectors able to detect the presence of a person in the cubicle and UV lamps at a suitable frequency (germicidal lamps) which are capable of destroying or at least reducing the bacterial load of the environment in question, and where closure of the door activates the UV lamps, and the activation of sensor(s) interrupts the power supply to the UV lamps and permit the activation of the lamps only when said environments are not occupied by persons).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify tele-health cabin presence detector and ultraviolet light sanitization device, as taught by Waterson, Gallant, Cashman, Yu, and Bem, such that detectors are able to detect the presence of a person and permit the activation of the UV lamps only when an environment is not occupied by persons, as taught by Barro, with the motivation of preventing the accidental irradiation of a user present in a cubicle (see: Barro, page 4, lines 11-15).
As per claim 2, Waterson, Gallant, Cashman, Yu, Bem, and Barro teach the invention as claimed, see discussion of claim 1, and further teach:
searching and matching the person with the healthcare professional that is available for the communication session (see: Waterson, paragraph 53, 66, 78-79, and 202, is met by user may be advised to wait for the next available consultation, where the consultations are with doctors, nurses and other qualified health care providers, and then a consultation may be initiated between user/patient located in tele-health cabin and medical professional associated with a medical call center).
As per claim 3, Waterson, Gallant, Cashman, Yu, Bem, and Barro teach the invention as claimed, see discussion of claim 1, and further teach:
further comprising transmitting data produced by sensor blocks coupled to the scale using a communication cable (see: Waterson, Fig. 1, and paragraph 53, 85, 88, 104, 143, 166, and 188, is met by scale located which may operate to determine and communicate weight information via a communication channel including wires).
As per claim 6, Waterson, Gallant, Cashman, Yu, Bem, and Barro teach the invention as claimed, see discussion of claim 1, and further teach:
displaying an image of the healthcare professional on a display within the interior area (see: Waterson, paragraph 87, is met by video display may operate to present video information to a user/patient located internal to the tele-health cabin).
Waterson fails to specifically teach displaying the weight and healthcare professional image concurrently on the display in the interior area; however, Cashman teaches an interior display screen to view one or more medical providers and also display other or addition information such as general medical information, output or examination results, and information being displayed or entered by the user (see: Cashman, paragraph 11, 47, 59, 136, and 187).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the tele-health cabin video display as taught by Waterson, Gallant, Cashman, Yu, Bem, and Barro such that the interior display screen to view one or more medical providers and also display other or addition information such as general medical information, output or examination results, and information being displayed or entered by the user as taught by Cashman with the motivation of providing medical services, diagnoses, health, and/or wellness advice to individuals in a convenient desirable timely and cost effective manner (see: Cashman, paragraph 7).
As per claim 11, Waterson, Gallant, Cashman, Yu, Bem, and Barro teach the invention as claimed, see discussion of claim 1, and further teach:
reading, by the computing device, information about the person from a card using a documentation receiving device within the privacy chamber (see: Waterson, paragraph 68, is met by user/patient medical details retrieved from the card device may be presented on a terminal geographically located at the medical call center).
As per claim 12, Waterson, Gallant, Cashman, Yu, Bem, and Barro teach the invention as claimed, see discussion of claim 1, and further teach:
requesting, by the computing device, the person to input insurance information prior to initiating the communication session (see: Waterson, paragraph 65-66 and 90-92, is met by e-check-in by inserting a card such as an insurance card).
Claims 21-24, 26-27, and 29-31 repeat the subject matter of claims 1-3, 6, and 11-12, which have been shown to be fully disclosed by the cited prior art in the rejections above; as such, claims 21-24, 26-27, and 29-31 are rejected here for the same reasons given in the above rejections of claims 1-3, 6, and 11-12, which are incorporated herein.
Claims 10 and 25 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0095196 to Waterson in view of WO 02/096339 to Gallant in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0253837 to Cashman in view of CN 201865369 U to Yu in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2009/0300988 to Bem in view of WO 2004/035095 A1 to Barro further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2010/0309007 to Goldsmith.
As per claim 10, Waterson, Gallant, Cashman, Yu, Bem, and Barro teach the invention as claimed, see discussion of claim 1, and further teach:
wherein the network includes any one of a wired network, a wireless network, and an internet network (see: Waterson, paragraph 106-108, 135, and 179, is met by satellite or terrestrial communications networks)
Waterson, Gallant, Cashman, Yu, Bem, and Barro fail to specifically teach the following limitations met by Goldsmith as cited:
and the indication is a projected message that is digital (see: Goldsmith, paragraph 16, is met by a projection beam emanates from a message sending device whereby a message is projected upon the surface any door).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the door and digital display, as taught by Waterson, Gallant, Cashman, and Yu, so as to be from a projection beam emanated from a message sending device whereby a message is projected upon the surface said door, as taught by Goldsmith, with the motivation of ensuring that messages cannot be missed and are seen by the person to whom they are directed (see: Goldsmith, paragraph 5).
Claim 25 repeat the subject matter of claim 10, which has been shown to be fully disclosed by the cited prior art in the rejections above; as such, claim 25 is rejected here for the same reasons given in the above rejections of claim 10, which are incorporated herein.
Claims 14 and 28 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0095196 to Waterson in view of WO 02/096339 to Gallant in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0253837 to Cashman in view of CN 201865369 U to Yu in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2009/0300988 to Bem in view of WO 2004/035095 A1 to Barro further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2011/0114744 to Ricciardi.
As per claim 14, Waterson, Gallant, Cashman, Yu, Bem, and Barro n teach the invention as claimed, see discussion of claim 1, and further teach:
wherein the purification device emits one of ultraviolet light (see: Waterson, Fig. 1 and 4, ele. 132 and 142; and paragraph 85, 93-95, 99-100, 124-126, 131, 169, and 191-193, is met performing sanitization such as with an ultraviolet light and sanitization device which may operate to detect an unsanitary condition and provide sanitization of telehealth cabin)
Waterson, Gallant, and Cashman fail to specifically teach and ultrasound; however, Ricciardi teaches ultrasound or ultrasonic transducers (see: Ricciardi, paragraph 13, 28, 185, 187, 229, 233, 366).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the tele-health cabin video sanitization device as taught by Waterson, Gallant, Cashman, Yu, Bem, and Barro so as to include ultrasound or ultrasonic transducers as taught by Ricciardi with the motivation of the sanitization, disinfection, high-level disinfection, or sterilization of one or more areas and the surfaces in those areas (see: Ricciardi, paragraph 28).
Claim 28 repeats the subject matter of claim 14, which has been shown to be fully disclosed by the cited prior art in the rejections above; as such, claim 28 is rejected here for the same reasons given in the above rejections of claim 14, which are incorporated herein.
Claim 16 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0095196 to Waterson in view of WO 02/096339 to Gallant in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0253837 to Cashman in view of CN 201865369 U to Yu in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2009/0300988 to Bem in view of WO 2004/035095 A1 to Barro further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2006/0122470 to Schulz.
As per claim 16, Waterson, Gallant, Cashman, Yu, Bem, and Barro teach the invention as claimed, see discussion of claim 1, and while Waterson teaches a scale (see: Waterson, Fig. 1, and paragraph 85, 88, 104, and 166) and body mass index (BMI) (see: Waterson, paragraph 118), Waterson fails to specifically teach the following limitations met by Schulz as cited:
reading by the scale one of a body mass index, a body fat percentage, a body water percentage (see: Schulz, Fig. 1, ele. 160; Fig. 4-5; and paragraph 14, 26, 28, and 47-48, is met by measuring device for measuring raw anthropometric data pertaining to a subject such as weight, and displaying the subject’s BMI using the anthropometric data).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the tele-health cabin scale and BMI as taught by Waterson, Gallant, Cashman, Yu, Bem, and Barro such that the scale measurements are utilized to calculate and display the subject’s BMI as taught by Ricciardi with the motivation allowing subjects to intuitively and visually correlate a derived anthropometric measure with its underlying controllable raw anthropometric measure to empower recipients of the information by giving them a practical means of tracking, monitoring and reaching health and wellness goals (see: Schulz, paragraph 12).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments from the response filed on 07/18/2025 have been fully considered and will be addressed below in the order in which they appeared.
In the remarks, Applicant argues in substance that (1) the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections should be withdrawn because “Waterson at most discuss having a sanitization device 132 and a presence detector used during a consultation session. However, nowhere does Waterson explicitly or implicitly discuss the particular feature of "activating a purification device to sanitize an interior area of the privacy chamber upon determining using a movement detector that the person has left the interior area and the interior area is vacant" as recited by amended claim 1…Furthermore, Gallant does not even discuss "altering, by the computing device with a communication signal, the door from the opaque state and unlocking the door automatically upon completing the communication session." (Emphasis added). Regarding viewing Waterson with Gallant, the combination also cannot reasonably discuss or suggest "changing, by the computing device, the door to an opaque state that obscures a view to the person, locking the door automatically upon initiating a communication session over a network with an electronic device associated with a healthcare professional, and displaying an indication on the door that the privacy chamber is occupied" as recited by amended claim 1. Thus, Waterson in view of Gallant at least do not discuss this feature of amended claim 1. Second, Gallant fails to discuss "changing, by the computing device, the door to an opaque state that obscures a view to the person, locking the door automatically upon initiating a communication session over a network with an electronic device associated with a healthcare professional" as recited by amended claim 1. Instead, Gallant discusses having a medical session locally with a patient in a patient room as illustrated in FIG. 2 when utilizing the window 78. There is no implicit or explicit discussion in Gallant of "a privacy chamber" as recited by amended claim 1. In other words, the system architecture between amended claim 1 and Gallant is fundamentally different.”
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 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 – see Application of prior art Yu, Bem, Barro, and Goldsmith. As per Gallant’s lack of teaching a “privacy chamber”, the claim broadly recites the chamber, which is met by Gallant’s modular patient room and the window is taught as being for privacy – a modular patient room with a window for privacy meets the broad limitations as claimed. It is futher noted that the chamber’s intended use of privacy 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found on the attached PTO-892 form, including:
CA 2627110 A1 to Brow (see entire document).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT A SOREY whose telephone number is (571)270-3606. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 8am to 5pm.
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, Fonya Long can be reached on (571) 270-5096. 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.
/ROBERT A SOREY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3682