DETAILED ACTION
This office action is responsive to communication(s) filed on 1/26/2024.
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 .
Foreign Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claims Status
Claims 1-18 are pending and are currently being examined.
Claims 1 and 17-18 are independent.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: Calculating And Displaying Operating Room Graphics Based On Activity In One Or More Operating Rooms.
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.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because it is directed to software per se. Although claim 18 mentions that “a program” is “for causing a computer” to function a certain way, the claim itself is not directed to a computer, but to the “program”, which is software per se, and not a “process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter”, and therefore not eligible under 101.
Furthermore, Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Representative claim 1 recites the abstract idea of mental processes, e.g., with the aid of pencil and paper. The claim is directed to calculating an amount of activity in “entire operating rooms” or “each medical staff member” “on a basis of operating room information including an operating room camera image”, and generating “operating room graphics including graphics indicating a temporal change in the amount of activity in the entire operating rooms, and medical staff graphics including graphics indicating each medical staff member, the medical staff graphics visually changing with the amount of activity”. Each of these activities can be done in the human mind, or in human mind with the aid of pencil and paper. E.g., the mind can calculate activity amount on the basis of a human looking a photograph(s) of operating room activities [an operation room camera image], can generate a graph/sketch on paper representing the activities, and can adjust the graph/graphics on the paper based on amount of activity [graphics visually changing with the amount of activity].
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because “A medical information processing system comprising…a calculation unit that” and “a generation unit that” performs the functions/steps mentioned above, this amount to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). As such, these are limitation that are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Note that herein, “a medical information processing system” is interpreted as being a physical computer. The Instant Specification (as published) mentions that the “information processing system” is a “device such as a server or a personal computer (PC)”, ¶ 38. Although a server can be interpreted as software, the reference to the server as being “device such as a server or a personal computer (PC)”, is interpreted as limiting the system to be being a physical computer.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer and merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea are both not indicative of a practical application (2A:Prong Two) or indicative of significantly more (2B) that the abstract idea.
Claims 2-6 further recite the abstract idea of mental processes, and are rejected using similar rational as claim 1. Even the concept of superimposing graphics on an image can be done with a pencil/pen and paper, e.g., by drawing graphics/graph onto an image on paper.
Claims 7-16 further includes “display control unit” for performing the abstract idea, one or more screens for the displaying the graphics, and/or changing background of the screen(s). The additional limitations about to limitations that further reflect mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer and merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, and/or that simply further recite the abstract idea. For instance, a screen might be a paper screen with or without different background color(s) or other non-computer screen (aiding the implementation of the mental processes – abstract idea) or could simply applying computer language (presuming that “screen” is a computer screen) to the abstract idea. As such, these claims are also not patentable under 101, for similar reasons as explained for claim 1.
Claims 17 and 18 are directed to a method and program for implementing functions/steps of claim 1 and are rejected for similar reasons.
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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 5, 17 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Azevedo-Coste; Christine et. al (Non-Patent Literature, hereinafter Azevedo – “Tracking Clinical Staff Behaviors in an Operation Room”, 2019) in view of Naruse; Masato et al. (hereinafter Naruse – US 20220406448 A1).
Independent Claim 1:
Azevedo teaches:
A medical information processing system comprising: (Herein, “a medical information processing system” is interpreted as being a physical computer. The Instant Specification (as published) mentions that the “information processing system” is a “device such as a server or a personal computer (PC)”, ¶ 38. Although a server can be interpreted as software, the reference to the server as being “device such as a server or a personal computer (PC)”, is interpreted as limiting the system to be being a physical computer. Azevedo teaches hardware and software for accomplishing the functions, Abstract in Page 1)
a calculation unit that calculates an amount of activity in [an] entire operating room[…] (A system combining motion capture (MOCAP) and inertial door sensors inherently reflects calculating "an amount of activity" by quantifying both individual staff movements and door events. The MOCAP system tracks staff presence and displacement, while door sensors record entries and exits, providing a comprehensive dataset for analyzing overall activity levels in [an] entire operating room[…], based on camera image of the room, See Abstract on Pages 1-2. Furthermore, a calculation unit is implied, since the claimed function is accomplished, and the function is necessarily accomplished using a unit, e.g., program module or sub-module and/or hardware. The same rationale is used for the other units below. Herein, the examiner interprets “calculates an amount of activity” as including any type of level or form calculation, e.g., calculating whether there is activity or not)
and an amount of activity of each medical staff member, (Quantification of each staff member’s activity, see Pages 7 and 12 and fig. 6 in Page 9. The scenario inherently reflects the amount of activity for each medical staff member because it uses motion capture (MOCAP) data to record and quantify their movement patterns and cumulative displacement during surgery. This provides an objective, data-driven measure of each individual's physical activity within the operating room. )
on a basis of operating room information including an operating room camera image; (e.g., using eight-optical camera, Page 2. An optical motion capture system uses data from image sensors in cameras to triangulate the 3D position of reflective markers attached to medical staff. This process allows the system to track the movement of individual staff members and calculate their activity based on this positional data derived from the camera images)
and a generation unit that generates operating room graphics including graphics indicating a temporal change in the amount of activity in the entire operating room[…], (the processing of MOCAP data to track the movements of different staff members throughout a surgery reflects a system that generates operating room graphics, including those indicating temporal changes in activity. The process involves collecting MOCAP data as input, analyzing the movements and cumulative displacements of individuals over the entire surgical duration [temporal], and generating figures to visualize these patterns and changes, Page 7 and figs 6-7 on Pages 9-10)
and medical staff graphics including graphics indicating each medical staff member, the medical staff graphics visually changing with the amount of activity. (see the different color changes representing the amount of times the activity in that region of the room for each of in the three staff-specific 2D displacements maps of figure 6, Page 9. Similarly, the cumulative distance graphics for each staff member in figure 7, Page 10, and the different color/shape and shades of graphics representing the quantification of individual staff members in figure 8, see Pages 8 and 10. See page 12 for quantification)
Azevedo does not appear to expressly teach, but Naruse teaches:
that the amount of activity is reflective of activity in a plurality of “rooms” (activities of a plurality of operating rooms are listed in a timeline, and the change of activities [amount of activity the in a plurality of “rooms”], e.g., no activity to ongoing activities, fig. 23 and ¶ 230, and the “entire hospital” can manage the surgery team and equipment according to progress of the surgery in “each operating room” [entire operating rooms], ¶¶ 226 and 243. E.g., the Staff Station’s graph on the right, includes operating room activities to the left, at, and to the right of a vertical thick solid line that represents the current time and intersects with the current activities, ¶¶ 197 and 270, and figs. 19 and 30)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Azevedo to include that the amount of activity is reflective of activity in a plurality of “rooms”, as taught by Naruse.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve usability and functionalities of the system to allow surgical management based on activities in each operating room, Naruse ¶ 226.
Claim 4:
The rejection of claim 3 is incorporated. Azevedo-Naruse further teaches:
wherein the graph indicates amounts of past […] activity in each operating room, (the displacements [activity] can be analyzed over specific periods to better understand the behaviors, as illustrated in Figure 8, see Page 8. Here, the verbs and subjects indicate that an event has already occurred [past activity] and is now being studied to understand it better.)
Azevedo does not appear to expressly teach, but Naruse also teaches:
that the graph also indicates “present, and future” activity (an activity graph can include past, “present, and future” activities, ¶¶ 197 and 270, and figs. 19 and 30. The Staff Station’s graph on the right, includes activities to the left, at, and to the right of a vertical thick solid line that represents the current time and intersects with the current activities, ¶¶ 197 and 270, and figs. 19 and 30 ).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the system of Azevedo to include that the graph also indicates “present, and future” activity as taught by Naruse.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to enhance the system by adding the functionalities of managing operating room using a wider range of temporal data from different periods, e.g., for facilitating scheduling tasks, Naruse ¶¶ 229 and 231, and providing means to view a time-series of information, e.g., alerts information, for a number of purposes, including confirmation of surgery content, improvement of surgery, etc., Naruse ¶¶ 307 and 321.
Claim 5:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Azevedo-Naruse further teaches:
wherein the operating room graphics includes graphics indicating a medical operation progress status (that a motion capture technology can be used to determine the actual progress of a surgery, Naruse ¶ 201, and displays the surgery progress information, Naruse ¶ 71).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the system of Azevedo to include wherein the operating room graphics includes graphics indicating a medical operation progress status, as taught by Naruse.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the functionalities and usability of the system by providing information usable for management functions such scheduling/rescheduling based on the progress status, Naruse ¶ 290.
Independent Claims 17 and 18:
Claim(s) 17-18 are directed to a method and program for accomplishing the functions of the system in claim 1, and are rejected using similar rationale(s).
Claim(s) 2 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Azevedo (“Tracking Clinical Staff Behaviors in an Operation Room”, 2019) in view of Naruse (US 20220406448 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cohrt; Henning (hereinafter Cohrt – US 20170322715 A1).
Claim 2:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Azevedo-Naruse further teaches:
wherein, in the operating room graphics, the graphics indicating a temporal change in the amount of activity in the entire operating rooms is superimposed on [a representation of] the operating room. (Azevedo’s displacement quantification on the map [superimposed on a representation] of the operating room is reflected on Figure 8 of Page 10. See discussion on Azevedo Page 8. See claim 1’s mapping using Naruse for “rooms”)
Azevedo does not appear to expressly teach, but Cohrt teaches:
that the representation on which the graphics are superimposed is a “camera image” (overlying [superimposing] management information on a video feed [camera image], ¶¶ 2 and 4. A video feed is considered a "camera image" because a video is fundamentally a rapid sequence of individual static images, also known as frames, captured by a camera's image sensor.).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the system of Azevedo to include that the representation on which the graphics are superimposed is a “camera image”, as taught by Cohrt.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the usability and functionalities of the system by allowing “intuitive visualization of status” related to activities in the operating room environment, Cohrt ¶ 23.
Claim 3:
The rejection of claim 2 is incorporated. Azevedo-Naruse-Cohrt further teaches:
wherein, in the operating room graphics, a graph indicating a temporal change in an amount of activity in each operating room is superimposed on a camera image of each corresponding operating room. (In Azevedo, the example of this displacement quantification on the map of the operating room [a graph indicating a temporal change] is reflected on Figure 8 of Page 10. See discussion on Azevedo Page 8. See claim 1’s mapping, as explained for Naruse teaches activities of a plurality of operating rooms are listed in a timeline, and the change of activities [amount of activity the in a plurality of “rooms”], e.g., no activity to ongoing activities, fig. 23 and ¶ 230 , and the “entire hospital” can manage the surgery team and equipment according to progress of the surgery in “each operating room” [entire operating rooms], ¶¶ 226 and 243. See modification in claim 2 by Cohrt, which teaches “is superimposed on a camera image of each corresponding operating room”)
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Azevedo (NPL, “Tracking Clinical Staff Behaviors in an Operation Room”, 2019) and Naruse (US 20220406448 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gupta; Rakesh Kumar (hereinafter Gupta – US 20100221693 A1).
Claim 6:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Azevedo-Naruse further teaches:
wherein the medical staff graphics includes medical staff icons representing the respective medical staff members, and the medical staff icons have different display forms (Azevedo in Page 9 and fig. 8, icons include different shape-color combinations, for different staff members)
Azevedo does not appear to expressly teach, but Gupta teaches:
that the different display forms are in accordance with roles of the respective medical staff members (roles of members in a group are differentiated with different icons, ¶ 82 and fig. 11).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Azevedo to include that the different display forms are in accordance with roles of the respective medical staff members, as taught by Gupta.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the usability of the system by allowing the visual identification of the roles held by the members, Gupta ¶ 82.
Claim(s) 7, 8 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Azevedo (NPL, “Tracking Clinical Staff Behaviors in an Operation Room”, 2019) and Naruse (US 20220406448 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ito; Toru et al. (hereinafter Ito – US 20110083092 A1).
Claim 7:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Azevedo further teaches:
further comprising a display control unit that controls display of a screen including at least one of the operating room graphics or the medical staff graphics.
Azevedo does not appear to expressly teach, but Ito teaches:
further comprising a display control unit that controls display of a screen including at least one of the operating room graphics or the medical staff graphics (the concept of a conventional display control unit that receives user inputs and manages output of visual information to a display device, ¶¶ 2-3).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the Azevedo of system to include further comprising a display control unit that controls display of a screen including at least one of the operating room graphics or the medical staff graphics, as taught by Ito.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to provide display of the graphics in Azevedo using conventional equipment, Ito ¶¶ 2-3.
Claim 8:
The rejection of claim 7 is incorporated. Azevedo, as modified, does not appear to expressly teach, but Naruse further teaches:
wherein the display control unit displays a first screen including graphics indicating a temporal change in the amount of activity in the entire operating rooms, (activities of a plurality of operating rooms are listed in a timeline [first screen], and the change of activities [temporal change in the amount of activity], e.g., no activity to ongoing activities, Naruse fig. 23 and ¶ 230 , and can be used to support an “entire hospital” [entire operating rooms], Naruse ¶¶ 227 and 243)
a second screen including graphics indicating a temporal change in an amount of activity in a target operating room (when a specific surgery plan bar, which is assigned to a specific operating room, is tapped, a detailed display for that selected surgery is displayed, Naruse ¶ 234 and Naruse fig. 24)
and graphics indicating an amount of activity of each medical staff member in the target operating room, (Azevedo teaches the amount of activity . Each of the rectangles are different members of the surgical team, e.g., G3 is an anesthesiologist and G4 rectangles are nurses, Naruse ¶ 237 and Naruse figs. 24 and 26, and the mark icons, e.g., circle, triangle, and X marks represent any arbitrary items, such as staff status [amount of activity], such as working or on break, Naruse ¶ 263 and Naruse fig. 26)
or a third screen including graphics indicating an amount of activity of a target medical staff member (this limitation is optional, and not mapped to prior art).
Claim 16:
The rejection of claim 8 is incorporated. Naruse further teaches:
wherein the display control unit displays the first screen, the second screen, or the third screen in a switching manner, (when a specific surgery plan bar, which is assigned to a specific operating room, is tapped, a detailed display [second screen] for that selected surgery is displayed, Naruse ¶ 234 and Naruse fig. 24, so at least the second screen is displayed “in a switching manner”)
or displays the first screen, the second screen, and the third screen in one screen. (this limitation is optional and not directly mapped to the prior art(s))
Claim(s) 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Azevedo (“Tracking Clinical Staff Behaviors in an Operation Room”, 2019) in view of Naruse (US 20220406448 A1) and Ito (US 20110083092 A1), as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Cohrt (US 20170322715 A1) and Hallerstrom Sjostedt; Svante Magnus Ulfstand et al. (hereinafter Hallerstrom – US 20140351713 A1).
Claim 9:
The rejection of claim 8 is incorporated. Azevedo further teaches:
wherein, on the first screen, a [representation] of an operating room and medical staff icons representing the respective medical staff members in the operating room are provided for [the] operating room, (for “first screen” see Naruse for claim 8. Azevedo teaches that the processing of MOCAP data to track the movements of different staff members throughout a surgery reflects a system that generates operating room graphics, including those indicating temporal changes in activity. The process involves collecting MOCAP data as input, analyzing the movements and cumulative displacements of individuals [medical staff icons representing the respective medical staff members] over the entire surgical duration and generating figures to visualize these patterns and changes, Page 7 and figs 6-8 on Pages 9-10.)
a graph indicating a temporal change in the amount of activity in [the] operating room is superimposed on a [representation] of [the] operating room, (Azevedo’s displacement quantification on the map [superimposed on a representation] of the operating room is reflected on Figure 8 of Page 10. See discussion on Azevedo Page 8. the processing of MOCAP data to track the movements of different staff members throughout a surgery reflects a system that generates operating room graphics, including those indicating temporal changes in activity. The process involves collecting MOCAP data as input, analyzing the movements and cumulative displacements of individuals over the entire surgical duration [temporal change], and generating figures to visualize these patterns and changes, Azevedo Page 7 and figs 6-7 on Pages 9-10)
Azevedo does not appear to expressly teach, but Cohrt teaches:
that the representation is a “camera image” and the graph is “superimposed on” the camera image (overlying management information on a video feed [camera image], ¶¶ 2 and 4. A video feed is considered a "camera image" because a video is fundamentally a rapid sequence of individual static images, also known as frames, captured by a camera's image sensor.).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the system of Azevedo to include that the representation is a “camera image” and the graph is “superimposed on” the camera image”, as taught by Cohrt.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the functionalities and usability of the system by allowing “intuitive visualization of status” related to activities in the operating rooms Cohrt ¶ 23.
Azevedo does not appear to expressly teach, but Hallerstrom teaches:
and a background of the [representation] of [the] operating room has a display form depending on the amount of activity in [the] operating room (visually distinguishing different activity levels based on background color, ¶¶ 47 and 52-53 and figs. 5a-5b).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the system of Azevedo to include and a background of the [representation] of [the] operating room has a display form depending on the amount of activity in [the] operating room, as taught by Hallerstrom.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the functionalities of and user experience offered by the system, e.g., by the visual different the different activity levels in the rooms, Hallerstrom ¶¶ 52-53 and 84.
Azevedo-Naruse-Cohrt further teaches:
that the representation, graph, and background is for “each” or “each corresponding” operating room In Naruse, activities of a plurality of operating rooms are listed in a timeline, and the change of activities [amount of activity the in a plurality of “rooms”], e.g., no activity to ongoing activities, fig. 23 and ¶ 230, and the “entire hospital” can manage the surgery team and equipment according to progress of the surgery in “each operating room” [entire operating rooms], ¶¶ 226 and 243. E.g., the Staff Station’s graph on the right, includes operating room activities to the left, at, and to the right of a vertical thick solid line that represents the current time and intersects with the current activities, ¶¶ 197 and 270, and figs. 19 and 3 . Video images of each of the operation rooms, Naruse ¶ 298 and fig. 31. It was well within the capabilities of a person having ordinary skill in the art to have realized that in implemented the view of each video graphics on each room for achieving the benefits mentioned in above combinations. Namely, for improving the system by allowing “intuitive visualization of status” related to activities in the operating rooms Cohrt ¶ 23 and for improving the functionalities and usability of the system by providing information usable for management functions such scheduling/rescheduling based on the progress status, Naruse ¶ 290.)
Claim 10:
The rejection of claim 9 is incorporated. Hallerstrom further teaches:
wherein the medical staff icons visually change with the amounts of activity of the respective medical staff members. (displaying icons that are more demanding or less demanding of attention based on activity levels, ¶¶ 48 and 76 and fig. 7c. it was well within the capabilities of a person having ordinary skill in the art to have realized that further incorporating such concepts into Azevedo would lead to the same benefit mentioned above for claim 9, improved functionalities of and user experience offered by the system, e.g., by the visual different the different activity levels in the rooms, Hallerstrom ¶¶ 52-53 and 84)
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Azevedo (“Tracking Clinical Staff Behaviors in an Operation Room”, 2019) in view of Naruse (US 20220406448 A1), Ito (US 20110083092 A1), Cohrt (US 20170322715 A1) and Hallerstrom (US 20140351713 A1), as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Gupta (US 20100221693 A1).
Claim 11:
The rejection of claim 9 is incorporated. Azevedo further teaches that staff icons include different shape-color combinations for different staff members, Page 9 and fig. 8.
Azevedo does not appear to expressly teach, but Gupta teaches:
wherein the display forms of the medical staff icons vary with roles of the respective medical staff members. (roles of members in a group are differentiated with different icons, ¶ 82 and fig. 11)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the system of Azevedo to include wherein the display forms of the medical staff icons vary with roles of the respective medical staff members, as taught by Gupta.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the usability of the system by allowing the visual identification of the roles held by the members, Gupta ¶ 82.
Claim(s) 12-13 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Azevedo (“Tracking Clinical Staff Behaviors in an Operation Room”, 2019) in view of Naruse (US 20220406448 A1) and Ito (US 20110083092 A1), as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Cohrt (US 20170322715 A1) and Hallerstrom (US 20140351713 A1).
Claim 12:
The rejection of claim 8 is incorporated. Claim 12 recites:
wherein, on the second screen, one or a plurality of camera images of the target operating room, a graph indicating a temporal change in the amount of activity in the target operating room, (similar to claim 9’s “wherein, on the first screen, a camera image of an operating room…, a graph indicating a temporal change in the amount of activity in each operating room is superimposed on a camera image of each corresponding operating room”)
medical staff icons representing the respective medical staff members in the target operating room, (similar to claim 9’s “and medical staff icons representing the respective medical staff members in the operating room are provided for each operating room”),
[…] and a screen background has a display form that depends on the amount of activity in the target operating room. (similar to claim 9’s “and a screen background has a display form that depends on the amount of activity in the target operating room”)
The abovementioned limitations of claim 12 are similar to the limitations in of claim 9 and are rejected over Azevedo-Naruse-Ito-Cohrt-Hallerstrom using similar rationale.
Unlike claim 9, claim 12 also includes the limitation addressed below.
Azevedo, as modified, does not appear to expressly teach, but Naruse further teaches:
that the screen displaying the graph includes an action element to be handled [….] are provided (that each staff may be assigned a checklist, which a number of items required [action element to be handled] for each operative method, ¶ 84, e.g., passing scalpels to a surgeon during the surgery, ¶ 44, and each responsible [in charge] member must check off each item of the checklist, ¶¶ 80 and 94 and figs. 8 and 13. Although the checklist graphics are not directly disclosed as being displayed with the activity graph/timeline, Naruse discloses both concepts separately, as pointed out above, and further mentioned that “the plurality of elements disclosed in the embodiments and the modifications described above may be combined as appropriate to form various disclosures”, ¶ 322).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the system of Azevedo to include that the screen displaying the graph includes an action element to be handled [….] are provided, as taught by Naruse.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the flexibility and usability of the system by allowing combination of surgical plan information in the same screen, Naruse ¶ 322, e.g., using a common split screen feature.
Azevedo, as modified, does not appear to expressly teach, but the examiner takes Official Notice that common knowledge teaches:
that the action element is to be handled “when an instruction is given to a medical staff member in the target operating room” (as mentioned above, Naruse discloses passing scalpels to a surgeon during the surgery, ¶ 44, and it was common knowledge that during surgeries, a surgeon will provide instructions to a nurse or other staff member to pass instruments to them, e.g., by saying “scalpel please”.).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the system of Azevedo to include that the action element is to be handled “when an instruction is given to a medical staff member in the target operating room”, as taught by Official Notice.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the practicality of the system by including action elements that are commonly used during surgery, see Official Notice.
Claim 13:
The rejection of claim 12 is incorporated. Hallerstrom further teaches:
wherein the medical staff icons visually change with the amounts of activity of the respective medical staff members. (Hallerstrom teaches displaying icons that are more demanding or less demanding of attention based on activity levels, ¶¶ 48 and 76 and fig. 7c. it was well within the capabilities of a person having ordinary skill in the art to have realized that further incorporating such concepts into Azevedo would lead to the same benefit mentioned above for claim 9, improved functionalities of and user experience offered by the system, e.g., by the visual different the different activity levels in the rooms, Hallerstrom ¶¶ 52-53 and 84)
Claim 15:
The rejection of claim 8 is incorporated. Claim 15 recites:
wherein, on the third screen, one or a plurality of camera images of an operating room in which a target medical staff member is present, (this is similar to claim 12’s “wherein, on the second screen, one or a plurality of camera images of the target operating room… respective medical staff members in the target operating room”)
a graph indicating a temporal change in an amount of activity of the target medical staff member, (similar to claim 12’s “a graph indicating a temporal change in the amount of activity in the target operating room, medical staff icons representing the respective medical staff members in the target operating room”)
and an action element to be handled when an instruction is given to the target medical staff member are provided, (similar to claim 12’s “and an action element to be handled when an instruction is given to a medical staff member in the target operating room are provided”)
and a screen background has a display form that depends on the amount of activity of the target medical staff member. (similar to claim 12’s “a screen background has a display form that depends on the amount of activity in the target operating room”)
The abovementioned limitations of claim 15 are similar to the limitations in of claim 12 and are rejected over Azevedo-Naruse-Ito-Cohrt-Hallerstrom using similar rationale.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Azevedo (“Tracking Clinical Staff Behaviors in an Operation Room”, 2019) in view of Naruse (US 20220406448 A1), Ito (US 20110083092 A1), Cohrt (US 20170322715 A1) and Hallerstrom (US 20140351713 A1), as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Gupta (US 20100221693 A1).
Claim 14:
The rejection of claim 12 is incorporated. Azevedo, as modified, does not appear to expressly teach, but Gupta teaches:
wherein the display forms of the medical staff icons vary with roles of the respective medical staff members. (roles of members in a group are differentiated with different icons, ¶ 82 and fig. 11)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the system of Azevedo to include wherein the display forms of the medical staff icons vary with roles of the respective medical staff members, as taught by Gupta.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the usability of the system by allowing the visual identification of the roles held by the members, Gupta ¶ 82.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Below is a list of these references, including why they are pertinent:
Almashor; Mahathir Bin Ahmad et al. US 20200320454 A1, is pertinent to claim 1 for disclosing an interactive resource plan visualization associated with a facility, Abstract and fig. 7.
Ottnad; Jens et al. US 20190244309 A1, is pertinent to claim 1 for disclosing analysis of motion profiles of persons that allows the deriving an optimum staff deployment plan, ¶ 68.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GABRIEL S MERCADO whose telephone number is (408)918-7537. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am-5pm (Eastern Time).
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, Matthew Ell can be reached at (571) 270-3264. 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.
/Gabriel Mercado/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2171