DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment/Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on January 30, 2026 with respect to independent claims 1, 15, and 16 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-8, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Higgins (US 20220040035 A1, hereinafter “Higgins”) in view of Pugsley (US 20210205180 A1, hereinafter “Pugsley”) further in view of Cafer (US 20080244453 A1, hereinafter “Cafer”) further in view of Clarkson (US 20210313027 A1, hereinafter “Clarkson”).
Regarding claim 1:
Higgins teaches:
A medical information processing apparatus comprising processing circuitry (Higgins: ¶3, "According to embodiments of the present disclosure, systems for, methods for, and computer program products tracking a cardiac resuscitation procedure are provided"; Higgins: ¶49, "As shown in FIG. 8, computer system/server 12 in computing node 10 is shown in the form of a general-purpose computing device. The components of computer system/server 12 may include, but are not limited to, one or more processors or processing units 16, a system memory 28, and a bus 18 coupling various system components including system memory 28 to processor 16").
configured to:
acquire an input signal relating to at least one of a treatment and an examination for a subject (Higgins: ¶47, "FIG. 6 illustrates a flowchart 600 of a method for cardiac resuscitation timing according to embodiments of the present disclosure. At 602, one or more timers and a plurality of inputs are displayed on a first device. The plurality of inputs include patient health data, patient interventions, and medical events. At 604, the one or more timers, a feed of the medical events, and the patient interventions are displayed on a second device. At 606, one or more selections of the plurality of inputs are received from a user. At 608, a recommended cardiac resuscitation step is determined based on the user selections. At 610, the display on the second device is updated based on the one or more user selections and the recommendation");
specify, based on the acquired input signal, a treatment or examination that was executed, and a treatment or examination that is to be next executed (Higgins: ¶47, ". . .At 610, the display on the second device is updated based on the one or more user selections and the recommendation"; Higgins:¶39, "FIGS. 4A-4E illustrate various displays for tracking cardiac resuscitation events according to embodiments of the present disclosure. FIG. 4A shows an exemplary HUD 400 that may be displayed on an external display for broadcasting relevant information to a healthcare team performing a resuscitation. For example, the HUD includes a timer 402 for total elapsed time, a timer 404 for the last time a pulse was checked, a timer 406 for last pressor administration, a timer 408 for CPR pause, a timer 410 for code helper, an indication 412 of the resuscitation goal, and other information 414 such as chest compression fraction (CCF), number of pressors administered, number of shocks administered, and number of resuscitation cycles performed. In various embodiments, indications of initial and/or last heart rhythm may also be displayed (e.g., asystole). In various embodiments, the HUD 400 further includes a panel 416 displaying additional information . . .");
display a time relating to the treatment or examination to be next executed, and a kind of the executed treatment or examination (Higgins: ¶37, "FIG. 3G and FIG. 3H show exemplary data models of the present disclosure. In various embodiments, events that can be logged may include any of the following: CPR start/stop, Pulse/rhythm checks, Medication administrations, Procedures, Airway access, IV access, 10 access, Ultrasound, Point of care testing, and/or Defibrillation. In various embodiments, a data model for a generic event is included with multiple parameters as well as child events that inherit from this generic class. In various embodiments, the child events may be specialized. In various embodiments, the events may be broken up into categories, as shown in FIG. 3G. In various embodiments, not all events need rigorous time tracking, though some do and may display visual or generate audio indicators when the events are time sensitive. Some examples of time sensitive events include pulse check alerts (every 2 minutes), vasopressor administration (typically epinephrine, every 3-5 minutes), anti-arrhythmic administration, and CPR interruption timers. In various embodiments, simulation events may be included for training/teaching purposes"; Higgins: ¶32, ". . .In various embodiments, transient interruption in compressions may be displayed. In various embodiments, a countdown timer and/or AV alert may be displayed if a long compression pause has occurred").
NOTE 1A: Higgins teaches displaying visual indicators when the events are time sensitive such as pulse check alerts every 2 minutes, and vasopressor administration such as epinephrine every 3-5 minutes. In addition, in reference to Higgins FIG. 4A, inside the code assist panel 416, the word "Epinephrine" (treatment to be next executed since it has to be administered every 3-5 minutes) is associated with a timer @ 01:10 as shown in the image. Higgins also teaches a countdown timer if a long compression pause has occurred (treatment to be next executed is continuing the long compression).
However, Higgins does not disclose that the timer associated with Epinephrine in FIG. 4A is the remaining time to administer the next epinephrine treatment. Thus, Higgins does not teach the analogous art Pugsley teaches: display a remaining time relating to the treatment or examination to be next executed.
Pugsley teaches to display a remaining time relating to the treatment or examination to be next executed (Pugsley: ¶180, "In other embodiments, the device and systems disclosed herein can together or independently display or alert a subject visually or via an auditory feature of (1) the elapsed time since the last dose from a specific drawer was taken; (2) the time remaining until the next scheduled dose for a subject; . . .")
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Higgins to display a remaining time (epinephrine timer in reference to Fig. 4A) to administer the next dose of epinephrine (or any other treatment) without delay, (relating to the treatment or examination to be next executed, and a kind of the executed treatment or examination) as vasopressor administration (typically epinephrine, every 3-5 minutes) is a time sensitive event (Higgins: ¶37). Additionally, the combination of Higgins and Pugsley allows for a more reliable monitoring of subjects (Pugsley: ¶3).
Although Higgins teaches logging of events based on user input such as treatments administered, pulse check, etc (Higgins: ¶34) including an execution time point of the executed treatment or examination (Higgins: ¶ 38, started, startTime of logged events), however still, The combination of Higgins and Pugsley still fails to disclose: display a timeline indicating a status of the treatment or examination, including an execution time point of the executed treatment or examination.
The analogous art Cafer teaches:
display a timeline indicating a status of the treatment or examination, (Cafer: ¶11, "An iconic event timeline for conveying to a user the occurrence of events during a period of time. The iconic event timeline includes a timeline area having an axis representing an interval of time, and a plurality of graphical icons positioned along the axis. Whenever graphical icons representing the same event or class of event occur along the timeline, they occur along the same plane parallel to the axis of the timeline")
including an execution time point of the executed treatment or examination (Cafer: ¶30, “Timeline area 12 spans a timeline of interest and displays one or more event icons 18 along, for example, a length of timeline area 12. Event icons 18 represent events of interest occurring during the time period represented by timeline area 12. These events of interest may, for example, include significant medical or personal events, . . . a pill or other medicament may represent the initiation of a prescribed medical treatment. Likewise, a graphical icon approximating a first-aid symbol may be utilized to indicate a hospital visit.”),
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Higgins, Pugsley, and Cafer to display a timeline as taught by Cafer, of logged medical events as taught by Higgins and Pugsley, and configure Higgin’s system to include: to display a timeline indicating a status of a treatment or an examination, including an execution time point of the executed treatment or examination to allow for quick and easily understood conveying of historical information to an individual (Cafer: ¶10).
However still, the combination of Higgins, Pugsley, and Cafer still fails to teach: wherein at least a part of the timeline of the treatment or examination and at least a part of the remaining time relating to the treatment or examination are displayed by a same color, and a different color is used for respective different treatments or examinations.
The analogous art Clarkson teaches using:
a different color is used for respective different treatments or examinations (Clarkson: ¶50, “In another preferred embodiment, the system 400 may use indicia to modify a patterned timeline 505 in a way such that it conveys additional information to a healthcare professional . . . the color in which the medical events 439 are highlighted on said patterned timeline . . . medical events 439 may be highlighted with a certain color based on the type of symptom the patient received treatment for. For instance, medical events 439 highlighted in red may represent medical events 439 in which a patient was treated for symptoms pertaining to cardiovascular disease. . . highlight medical events 439 based on the type of treatment received by the patient, which may be based on information obtained by the system 400 when parsing the files of a patient within the HER prior to the creation of the medical event 439. For instance, a medical event 439 may be highlighted in purple about a patterned timeline 505 to quickly convey to a doctor that a patient received chemotherapy on a particular date.”; NOTE: Red is respective for cardiovascular disease treatment, Purple is respective for chemotherapy treatment.).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Higgins, Pugsley, Cafer, and Clarkson that a different color is used for respective different treatments or examinations.
The reason for doing so is to “to quickly convey to a doctor” a medical event relating to a patient, and to convey additional information to a healthcare professional (Clarkson: ¶50).
However still, the combination of Higgins, Pugsley, Cafer, and Clarkson still fails to teach: wherein at least a part of the timeline of the treatment or examination and at least a part of the remaining time relating to the treatment or examination are displayed by a same color.
It would have been an obvious design choice between applying a same or different color to the timeline and remaining time relating to the treatment or examination to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include: wherein at least a part of the timeline of the treatment or examination and at least a part of the remaining time relating to the treatment or examination are displayed by a same color.
The reason for doing so is for visual consistency and minimize confusion when a healthcare professional is looking at a display. This quickly conveys to the healthcare professional that the timeline they are looking at corresponds to a specific treatment such as a purple timeline corresponding to a chemotherapy treatment as taught by Clarkson.
Regarding method claim 15,
method claim 15 is drawn to the method corresponding to the operations of using same as claimed in apparatus claim 1. Therefore, method claim 15 corresponds to the operations in the apparatus of claim 1, and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
Regarding CRM claim 16,
CRM claim 16 is drawn to the CRM corresponding to the operations of using same as claimed in the apparatus of claim 1. Therefore, CRM claim 16 corresponds to the operations in the apparatus of claim 1, and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
Regarding claim 3, depending on claim 1,
The combination of Higgins, Pugsley, Cafer, and Clarkson teaches:
The medical information processing apparatus according to Claim 1,
Higgins further teaches:
wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to update the remaining time, based on the input signal, in a case where an identical treatment or examination to the treatment or examination, the remaining time of which is displayed, is executed once again (Higgins: ¶47, "FIG. 6 illustrates a flowchart 600 of a method for cardiac resuscitation timing according to embodiments of the present disclosure. At 602, one or more timers and a plurality of inputs are displayed on a first device. The plurality of inputs include patient health data, patient interventions, and medical events. At 604, the one or more timers, a feed of the medical events, and the patient interventions are displayed on a second device. At 606, one or more selections of the plurality of inputs are received from a user. At 608, a recommended cardiac resuscitation step is determined based on the user selections. At 610, the display on the second device is updated based on the one or more user selections and the recommendation").
NOTE 3A: As discussed in the rejection of claim 1, the combination of Higgins and Pugsley teaches displaying a remaining time until the next dose of the epinephrine (which is described as time sensitive and be administered in 3-5 minute intervals (Higgins: ¶37)). Therefore, in a case where an identical treatment or examination to the treatment or examination is executed (such as the user selecting/system recommending an epinephrine treatment), such as an epinephrine treatment every 3-5 minutes, the timers are updated at step 610 accordingly to show an updated remaining time to next epinephrine treatment (identical treatment since the last treatment was an epinephrine treatment).
It would also have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Higgins, Pugsley, Cafer , and Clarkson and include: updating the remaining time, based on the input signal in a case where an identical treatment or examination to the treatment or examination, the remaining time of which is displayed, is executed once again.
The reason for doing so is to reduce medical error while increasing the accuracy and fidelity of information transitioned in situations when transition of care is needed (Higgins: ¶17-21).
Regarding claim 4, depending on claim 1,
The combination of Higgins, Pugsley, Cafer, and Clarkson teaches:
The medical information processing apparatus according to Claim 1,
Higgins further teaches:
wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to display an elapsed time from the execution time point of the executed treatment or examination (Higgins: ¶39, "FIGS. 4A-4E illustrate various displays for tracking cardiac resuscitation events according to embodiments of the present disclosure. FIG. 4A shows an exemplary HUD 400 that may be displayed on an external display for broadcasting relevant information to a healthcare team performing a resuscitation. For example, the HUD includes a timer 402 for total elapsed time, a timer 404 for the last time a pulse was checked, a timer 406 for last pressor administration, a timer 408 for CPR pause, a timer 410 for code helper, an indication 412 of the resuscitation goal, and other information 414 such as chest compression fraction (CCF), number of pressors administered, number of shocks administered, and number of resuscitation cycles performed. In various embodiments, indications of initial and/or last heart rhythm may also be displayed (e.g., asystole).
It would also have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Higgins, Pugsley, Cafer , and Clarkson and include: display an elapsed time from an execution time point of the executed treatment or examination.
The reason for doing so is to reduce medical error while increasing the accuracy and fidelity of information transitioned in situations when transition of care is needed (Higgins: ¶17-21).
Regarding claim 6, depending on claim 1,
The combination of Higgins, Pugsley, Cafer, and Clarkson teaches:
The medical information processing apparatus according to Claim 1,
Higgins further teaches:
wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to update a content of the treatment or examination to be next executed, in accordance with a number of times of the executed treatment or examination (Higgins: ¶41, "In various embodiments, the system may provide recommendations via the panel 416, such as recommended medications and/or doses. Recommended next steps in the resuscitation procedure may be recommended based on values such as the total elapsed time (and/or any other timer), CCF, number of administered medications, number of administered shocks, and/or cycles. In various embodiments, the system may use a cognitive system to provide the recommendations. In various embodiments, the cognitive system may be trained on data from previous resuscitations and/or data from the standard of care. In various embodiments, the cognitive system may include a neural network).
NOTE 6A: At Higgins step 610, the display on the second device is updated based on the one or more user selections and the recommendation (Higgins: ¶47), therefore updating the content of the treatment or examination to be next executed.
It would also have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Higgins, Pugsley, Cafer , and Clarkson and include: to update a content of the treatment or examination to be next executed, in accordance with a number of times of the executed treatment or examination.
The reason for doing so is to reduce medical error while increasing the accuracy and fidelity of information transitioned in situations when transition of care is needed (Higgins: ¶17-21).
Regarding claim 7, depending on claim 1,
The combination of Higgins, Pugsley, Cafer, and Clarkson teaches:
The medical information processing apparatus according to Claim 1,
However, Higgins fails to teach wherein the input signal is a speech input, and the processing circuitry is further configured to display, based on the speech signal, an icon on a timeline, the icon indicating an execution time point of the executed treatment or examination
Cafer further teaches:
wherein the input signal is a speech input, and the processing circuitry is further configured to display, based on the speech signal, an icon on a timeline, the icon indicating an execution time point of the executed treatment or examination. (Cafer: ¶52, “. . .Further alternatives for placing event icons 504 include placement using a specialized keyboard (such as, for example, the Optimus.TM. keyboard described below), via the use of voice recognition software, or via any other suitable means of placing and appropriate event icon 504 at an appropriate location along patient history graph 502”; Cafer: ¶30, “Timeline area 12 spans a timeline of interest and displays one or more event icons 18 along, for example, a length of timeline area 12. Event icons 18 represent events of interest occurring during the time period represented by timeline area 12. These events of interest may, for example, include significant medical or personal events, world events, or any other event of interest to a user of the present invention. It is preferred that for each individual event represented by individual event icons 18, a different graphical icon is used as an event icon 18. For example, in the case of a medical timeline a graphical icon that approximates a pill or other medicament may represent the initiation of a prescribed medical treatment (note: execution time point). Likewise, a graphical icon approximating a first-aid symbol may be utilized to indicate a hospital visit (note: execution time point). Any suitable image may be used for any given graphical icon 18 or class of graphical icons 18”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Higgins, Pugsley, Cafer , and Clarkson and include and implement wherein the input signal is a speech input to allow medical professional to use their hands to focus treating patients instead of using their hands to make touch gestures on a screen to log events, and the processing circuitry displays, based on the speech signal, an icon on a timeline, the icon indicating an execution time point of the executed treatment or examination.
The reason for doing so is to allow for quick and easily understood conveying of historical information to an individual (Cafer: ¶10).
Regarding claim 8, depending on claim 1,
The combination of Higgins, Pugsley, Cafer, and Clarkson teaches:
The medical information processing apparatus according to Claim 1,
Higgins further teaches:
wherein in a case where the treatment or examination to be next executed is executed outside an allowable range based on, as a reference, an assumed time instant of the treatment or examination to be next executed, the processing circuitry is further configured to display a message confirming whether or not a process is without a problem (Higgins: ¶40, "As shown in FIG. 4E, an alert is displayed over the screen indicating that a Long CPR pause has occurred. In various embodiments, predetermined alerts may be set to warn healthcare providers when certain thresholds are passed. For example, when the CPR pause timer passes a certain threshold (e.g., 30 seconds), an alert may pop up on the screen and/or a sound may be used to warn the healthcare providers performing the resuscitation. In another example, if the CCF drops below a predetermined threshold, an alert may pop up on the screen and/or a sound may be used to warn the healthcare providers performing the resuscitation. In various embodiments, the system may provide recommended courses of action (e.g., administration of a medication, defibrillation, chest compressions, etc.) if a threshold is passed thereby triggering an alert").
NOTE 8A: The displayed alert "LONG CPR PAUSE" in Higgins FIG. 4E confirms that a process is "not" without a problem.
It would also have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Higgins, Pugsley, Cafer , and Clarkson and include: wherein in a case where the treatment or examination to be next executed is executed outside an allowable range based on, as a reference, an assumed time instant of the treatment or examination to be next executed, the processing circuitry displays a message confirming whether or not a process is without a problem.
The reason for doing so is to reduce medical error while increasing the accuracy and fidelity of information transitioned in situations when transition of care is needed (Higgins: ¶17-21).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Higgins in view of Pugsley further in view of Cafer further in view of Clarkson further in view of Choi et al. (US 20230325980 A1, hereinafter “Choi”).
Regarding claim 5, depending on claim 1,
The combination of Higgins and Pugsley teaches:
The medical information processing apparatus according to Claim 1,
wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to execute switching between a first display screen displaying the remaining time relating to the treatment or examination to be next executed, and the kind of the executed treatment or examination (see claim 1 rejection), and a second display screen indicating time-series data of a vital sign (Pugsley: ¶128, "Doctors and nurses can also have a digital dashboard that can show a history of a patient's vital sign data and drug dispenses. The medical professional-side device may take the form of a software application, user interface, or App, installed on an electronic device. The device can be a portable electronic device"),
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement multiple display screens to include: a first display screen displaying the remaining time relating to the treatment or examination to be next executed, and the kind of the executed treatment or examination, and a second display screen indicating time-series data of a vital sign.
The reason for doing so is to allow medical professionals to efficiently monitor a patient’s vital signs while keeping track of the treatment procedure.
However the combination of Higgins, Pugsley, Cafer, and Clarkson does not teach: the processing circuitry switches the first display screen to the second display screen, in a case where a specific input signal is acquired.
The analogous art Choi teaches:
the processing circuitry is configured to switch the first display screen to the second display screen, in a case where a specific input signal is acquired (Choi: ¶106, "According to a user input (e.g., touch or tap) for selecting the recommendation button 417 on the first screen 410, the first screen 410 may be switched to the second screen 420, and a UI area indicated by reference numeral 425 may be displayed within the second screen 420”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Higgins, Pugsley, Cafer, Clarkson and Choi and include: the processing circuitry switches the first display screen to the second display screen, in a case where a specific input signal is acquired.
The reason for doing so is to allow medical professionals to freely switch between tracking treatment procedures and view patient’s vital signs when only a single screen is available and to not overwhelm the user with information.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Higgins in view of Pugsley further in view of Cafer further in view of Clarkson, further in view of Broselow (US 20130253946 A1, hereinafter “Broselow”).
Regarding claim 9, depending on claim 1,
The combination of Higgins, Pugsley, Cafer, and Clarkson teaches:
The medical information processing apparatus according to Claim 1,
Although Higgins teaches a flowchart along a guideline (to the left of the flowchart including the CPR quality information, etc.) relating to the treatment or examination for the subject in parallel (See Fig. 1A), the above combination still fails to teach: wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to display a flowchart along a guideline relating to the treatment or examination for the subject in parallel.
The analogous art Broselow teaches:
wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to display a flowchart along a guideline relating to the treatment or examination for the subject in parallel. (Broselow: ¶44, "FIG. 7 is a representation of a diagnosis and treatment guide displaying a treatment flowchart according to an embodiment of the invention"; Broselow: ¶74, "FIG. 7 shows a flowchart for diagnosis and treatments of specific symptoms 118, as well as referenced medications which link to the medication selection 110 (note: the medication selection is a guideline relating to the treatment or examination for the subject in parallel with the flowchart)"; Broselow: ¶68, "The most common option would be to simply select the medication 110, at which point a grid is displayed for that particular weight range 112 and inapplicable doses 114 are whited out or otherwise hidden. It is then a simple matter of selecting the dosage 115 at which point an administration flowchart 118 or prescription guide 128 for example can be displayed. Another option is to select a diagnosis or treatment guide 116 based on known symptoms, a flowchart showing next steps 118 can be displayed. If a medication is required, a link to the medication selection screen may be provided 110”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention combine Higgins, Pugsley, Cafer, Clarkson , and Broselow and include: wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to display a flowchart along a guideline relating to the treatment or examination for the subject in parallel.
The reason for doing so is to allow medical professionals see an overview of the treatment process and provide important and relevant guidelines of the treatment procedure.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Higgins in view of Pugsley further in view of Cafer further in view of Clarkson further in view of Gilham (US 20110227739 A1, hereinafter “Gilham”).
Regarding claim 10, depending on claim 1,
The combination of Higgins, Pugsley, Cafer, and Clarkson teaches:
The medical information processing apparatus according to Claim 1, a first display screen displaying the remaining time relating to the treatment or examination to be next executed, and the kind of the executed treatment or examination.
However, The combination of Higgins, Pugsley, Cafer, and Clarkson teaches: does not teach: wherein in a case where a specific situation occurs in regard to at least either the subject or a situation in a room, the processing circuitry is further configured to execute switching to a second display screen relating to a work flow different from a first display screen.
The analogous Gilham teaches:
The medical information processing apparatus according to Claim 1, wherein in a case where a specific situation occurs in regard to at least either the subject or a situation in a room, the processing circuitry is further configured to execute switching to a second display screen relating to a work flow different from a first display screen (Gilham: ¶53, "In yet another embodiment, there is only one display and applications can take all of the screen area but surrender control during an "event of significance" (note: specific situation). In this case, it is possible that a caregiver is running a software application and hiding/covering some or all of the monitor's real-time vital information when a patient's status changes. In such cases, in one embodiment, the monitor is enabled to minimize all applications for certain types of patient events. Thus, certain events (alarms of a certain type or priority) automatically minimize all applications thus displaying the monitoring message (note: a second display screen relating to a work flow)"; Gilham: ¶54, "Persons of ordinary skill in the art should appreciate that an "event of significance" could be a plurality of predefined states/scenarios/thresholds/rules. In one embodiment, an "event of significance" is user defined (such as, for example, Heart rate >140 bpm, Systolic blood pressure >150 or <90). In another embodiment, an "event of significance" is defined by an arbitrarily complex set of rules to define when non-critical applications should surrender to the real-time monitor. In yet another embodiment, the "event of significance" is based on alarm status (such as: any alarm, any high priority alarm, and any medium or higher priority alarm). In still yet another embodiment, the "event of significance" is capable of being overruled by a user. Thus, a user may override and run an application by deciding that an alarm is actually not real").
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Higgins, Pugsley, Cafer, Clarkson, and Gilham and include: wherein in a case where a specific situation occurs in regard to at least either the subject or a situation in a room, the processing circuitry is further configured to execute switching to a second display screen relating to a work flow different from a first display screen displaying the remaining time relating to the treatment or examination to be next executed, and the kind of the executed treatment or examination.
The reason for doing so is because the multi-purpose display as taught by Gilham that can be partially under a user's control but not supersede or compromise critical functions, such as the display of key monitored physiological parameters or issuance of alarms in relation to monitored events. The multi-purpose display enables a single physical display unit to perform multiple functions, thereby avoiding taking up excessive hospital room space by additional display units, while not undermining, sacrificing, or compromising the core function of a physiological display (Gilham: ¶6).
Regarding claim 11, depending on claim 10,
The combination of Higgins, Pugsley, Cafer, Clarkson, and Gilham teaches:
The medical information processing apparatus according to Claim 10,
Higgins further teaches:
wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to reset a count of the remaining time relating to the treatment or examination, or to update a count display in such a manner as to continue the count of the remaining time, in accordance with a kind of the specific situation, in a case of switching the first display screen to the second display screen (Higgins: ¶47, "FIG. 6 illustrates a flowchart 600 of a method for cardiac resuscitation timing according to embodiments of the present disclosure. At 602, one or more timers and a plurality of inputs are displayed on a first device. The plurality of inputs include patient health data, patient interventions, and medical events. At 604, the one or more timers, a feed of the medical events, and the patient interventions are displayed on a second device. At 606, one or more selections of the plurality of inputs are received from a user. At 608, a recommended cardiac resuscitation step is determined based on the user selections. At 610, the display on the second device is updated based on the one or more user selections and the recommendation").
NOTE 11A: In an effort to offload cognitive burden, real time analysis of all events is performed and compared to known guidelines to suggest next steps that should be undertaken with regards to the resuscitation. These steps are combined with the ongoing time sensitive data to ensure recommendations only appear when appropriate time intervals have occurred (Higgins: ¶28). Since Higgins recommendations are based on real-time analysis of events, the remaining time (see claim 1 rejection) associated with the recommendations are still updated at Higgins step 610, where the recommendation is in accordance with a kind of the specific situation (Higgins: ¶28, real time analysis of all events is performed and compared to known guidelines to suggest next steps), the remaining time is updated at Higgins step 610 even in a case of switching the first display screen to the second display screen since the applications are only minimized as taught by Gilham.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Higgins, Pugsley, Cafer, Clarkson, and Gilham and include: to reset a count of the remaining time relating to the treatment or examination, or to update a count display in such a manner as to continue the count of the remaining time, in accordance with a kind of the specific situation, in a case of switching the first display screen to the second display screen.
The reason for doing so is to reduce medical error while increasing the accuracy and fidelity of information transitioned in situations when transition of care is needed (Higgins: ¶17-21).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Higgins in view of Pugsley further in view of Cafer further in view of Clarkson further in view of Tasaki et al. (US 20240371372 A1, hereinafter “Tasaki”).
Regarding claim 12, depending on claim 1,
The combination of Higgins, Pugsley, Cafer, and Clarkson teaches:
The medical information processing apparatus according to Claim 1,
However, the combination of Higgins, Pugsley, Cafer, and Clarkson does not teach: wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: generate confirmation information for re-acquiring the input signal in a case where the input signal is incapable of being acquired, and output the confirmation information by a synthesized voice.
The analogous art Tasaki teaches:
wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: generate confirmation information for re-acquiring the input signal in a case where the input signal is incapable of being acquired, and output the confirmation information by a synthesized voice (Tasaki: ¶80, "If the voice processing does not complete normally from the state of the display screen shown in FIG. 14, the first dialogue system 112 outputs a control signal to the display control unit 130 indicating that voice recognition has failed. The display control unit 130 displays the animation 71 of the gray waveform at the position of the animation 73 in the display screen of FIG. 14. The occupant can thus confirm from the display on the display 10 that voice recognition has failed. In the case of a voice recognition failure, voice such as “please input voice again” may be output to prompt the occupant to speak");
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine to combine Higgins, Pugsley, Cafer, Clarkson, and Tasaki and include: generate confirmation information for re-acquiring the input signal in a case where the input signal is incapable of being acquired, and output the confirmation information by synthesized voice.
The reason for doing so is to allow medical professionals to remain hands free and still able to interact with a monitoring system and to provide more attention to patients.
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Higgins in view of Pugsley further in view of Cafer further in view of Clarkson further in view of Ji et al. (US 20110313774 A1, hereinafter “Ji”).
Regarding claim 13, depending on claim 1,
The combination of Higgins, Pugsley, Cafer, and Clarkson teaches:
The medical information processing apparatus according to Claim 1, wherein the input signal is a speech input (NOTE: See the rejection of claim 7)
Although Higgins teaches timers (assumed time instant of a treatment or examination to be next executed)associated with medical events with time sensitivity such as intervals of epinephrine administration (every 3-5 minutes), pulse checks, etc. (Higgins: ¶37-39, also see claim 1 rejection). Higgins also teaches audio/visual alerts related to medical events (Higgins: 20, 25, 28, 32, 37, 40); and although Cafer teaches speech input, however still, the combination of Higgins, Pugsley, Cafer, and Clarkson fails to teach the processing circuitry is further configured to speech-recognize the speech input to obtain a speech recognition result; calculate a difference between a time instant at which the speech recognition result was acquired and an assumed time instant of the treatment or examination to be next executed; generate confirmation information if the calculated difference is within a threshold; the confirmation information indicating information as to whether or not the speech input is designation of the treatment or examination to be next executed, and display the confirmation information on a screen.
Ji also teaches:
wherein the input signal is a speech input (Ji: ¶36, ". . .The voice-recognition application 112 receives the spoken phrase 42 as an input. . ."),
Ji further teaches:
the processing circuitry is further configured to:
speech-recognize the speech input to obtain a speech recognition result (Ji: ¶36, ". . ."The voice-recognition application 112 may then perform a speech-to-phoneme conversion 114 and output a listing 116 of phonemes that corresponds to the spoken phrase 42.. . ."; Ji: ¶42, "The health server 22 also receives the spoken phrase 42 from the user's communications device 40. The user's communications device 40 also has a processor 80 (e.g., ".mu.P"), application specific integrated circuit (ASIC), or other component that also executes the client-side binding application 72 stored in a memory 82. The client-side binding application 72 may again cooperate with the binding application 52 to send the spoken phrase 42 to the address associated with the health server 22. The spoken phrase 42 may also include a time stamp 84. The time stamp 84 may be added by the client-side binding application 72, or the time stamp 84 may be added by the binding application 52 upon receipt at the health server 22";);
calculate a difference between a time instant at which the speech recognition result was acquired and an assumed time instant of the treatment or examination to be next executed (Ji teaches calculating a difference between a time instant at which the speed recognition result was acquired and a time-stamped sensor measurement (a treatment or examination to be next executed) and compares the difference in time to a (threshold) window of time (Ji: ¶31, ". . .The binding application 52 determines a difference 90 in time between the time-stamped spoken phrase 42 and the time-stamped sensor measurement 32. The binding application 52 compares the difference 90 in time to a window 92 of time. . .");
generate confirmation information if the calculated difference is within a threshold (Ji: ¶60, "The flowchart continues with FIG. 18. If the difference in time is within the window of time (Block 350), then the sensor measurement is associated with the user (Block 352). If the difference in time is outside the window of time (Block 350), then the sensor measurement cannot be bound without further information, so the sensor measurement is stored in a database, along with the associated time stamp (Block 354). The spoken phrase is compared to a database storing commands (Block 356). A command is retrieved from the database that is associated to the spoken phrase (Block 358). The command may then be executed (Block 360)") and generates confirmation information (Ji; ¶63, "FIG. 21 is a schematic illustrating confirmation of binding, according to exemplary embodiments. As the previous paragraphs explained, the medical measurement device 20 sends the sensor measurement 32 to the health server 22. Here, though, the binding application 52 may perform a confirmation function to confirm that the binding is correct. The binding application 52 may cause the processor 50 in the health server 22 to send a confirmation message 600"),
the confirmation information indicating information as to whether or not the speech input is designation of the treatment or examination to be next executed, and display the confirmation information on a screen (Ji: ¶63, "FIG. 21 is a schematic illustrating confirmation of binding, according to exemplary embodiments. As the previous paragraphs explained, the medical measurement device 20 sends the sensor measurement 32 to the health server 22. Here, though, the binding application 52 may perform a confirmation function to confirm that the binding is correct. The binding application 52 may cause the processor 50 in the health server 22 to send a confirmation message 600. The confirmation message 600 may ask or prompt the user (who provided the spoken phrase 42) to verify the sensor measurement 32. As FIG. 21 illustrates, the confirmation message 600 may be sent to a communications address associated with the communications device 40 (via the communications network 24 illustrated in FIG. 1). The confirmation message 600 may be any electronic message, such as an email, instant message, or text message. The confirmation message 600 may also be an outbound call (telephone or Voice-over Internet Protocol). The confirmation message 600 may also be a notification sent via an outbound Interactive Voice Response (IVR) system. Regardless, the confirmation message 600 instructs the user at the communications device 40 to verify the sensor measurement 32. The client-side binding application 72 causes the processor 80 (operating in the communications device 40) to send a reply 602 that confirms or denies the sensor measurement 32. If the reply 602 confirms the sensor measurement 32, then the binding application 52 associates the sensor measurement 32 to the identified user who provided the spoken phrase 42. If the reply 602 denies or rejects the sensor measurement 32, then the binding application 52 declines to associate the sensor measurement 32 to the identified user of the spoken phrase 42");
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Higgins, Pugsley, Cafer, Clarkson, and Ji and include: the processing circuitry is further configured to speech-recognize the speech input to obtain a speech recognition result; calculate a difference between a time instant at which the speech recognition result was acquired and an assumed time instant of the treatment or examination to be next executed; generate confirmation information if the calculated difference is within a threshold; the confirmation information indicating information as to whether or not the speech input is designation of the treatment or examination to be next executed, and display the confirmation information on a screen.
The reason for doing so is to ensure that the system is receiving the correct information from a medical professional, and vice versa, to allow the medical professionals logging events via voice input to confirm whether the system properly receives the intended medical event input to reduce errors in medical treatments.
Regarding claim 14, depending on claim 13,
The combination of Higgins, Pugsley, Cafer, Clarkson and Ji teaches:
The medical information processing apparatus according to Claim 13,
However, the combination of Higgins, Pugsley, Cafer, Clarkson fails to teach wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to output the confirmation information by a synthetic voice.
Ji Further teaches:
wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to output the confirmation information by a synthetic voice (Ji: ¶63, ". . .The confirmation message 600 may also be an outbound call (telephone or Voice-over Internet Protocol). The confirmation message 600 may also be a notification sent via an outbound Interactive Voice Response (IVR) system. . .).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Higgins, Pugsley, Cafer, Clarkson, and Ji and include: to output confirmation information by synthetic voice.
The reason for doing so is to allow medical professionals focus their attention more on their patients instead of reading the confirmation message on a screen.
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 PATRICK GALERA whose telephone number is (571)272-5070. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 0800-1700 ET.
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, King Poon can be reached at 571-270-0728. 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.
/PATRICK P GALERA/Examiner, Art Unit 2617 /KING Y POON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2617
Prosecution Insights