DETAILED ACTION
The Amendments and Remarks filed on 07/27/2026 have been considered. The Applicants have cancelled claims 5, 8-9 and 18-19. Claims 1-4, 6-7, 10-17 and 20 as amended are pending in the application.
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 .
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 7, 11-13, 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gross U.S. Publication 2019/0286844, and further in view of Barksdale et al. U.S. Publication 2012/0246678 (hereinafter “Barksdale”).
Referring to claim 1, Gross teaches a method for controlling the display of a medical device connected to a patient (presentation device, i.e. bedside patient monitor 30, connected to the patient shown in Figure 1) (Gross: paragraph [0024]), comprising:
detecting the presence of a non-patient target user within a predetermined distance of the medical device (detecting a user, i.e. a doctor in proximity to the presentation device) (Gross: paragraphs [0021] and [0030]);
measuring distance between the target user and the medical device (measure the distance between the doctor and the presentation device) (Gross: paragraph [0030]);
automatically adjusting content displayed on a display of the medical device according to the measured distance between the target user and the medical device (adjust display aspects of the content to adapt to the distance) (Gross: paragraphs [0021], [0030] and [0037]) including at least one of:
automatically changing an amount of patient treatment-specific information displayed on the display corresponding to the measured distance between the target user and the medical device (adjust display aspects including font size and amount of displayed information, i.e. medical record of patient, to adapt to the viewing distance) (Gross: paragraphs [0022], [0030] and [0037]); and
automatically changing at least one font size of the patient treatment-specific information displayed on the display corresponding to the measured distance between the target user and the medical device (adjust display aspects including font size and amount of displayed information, i.e. medical record of patient, to adapt to the viewing distance) (Gross: paragraphs [0022], [0030] and [0037]).
However, although Gross teaches automatically changing an amount of patient treatment-specific information displayed on the display and at least one font size of the patient treatment-specific information displayed on the display corresponding to the measured distance between the target user and the medical device, Gross fails to explicitly teach displaying more information as the measured distance decreases and less information as the measured distance increases; and decreasing the at least one font size as the measured distance decreases and increasing the at least one font size as the measured distance increases. Similar to Gross, Barksdale also teaches adjusting the amount of information displayed and a font size of the displayed information corresponding to the measured distance between a user and a target device (modify the amount of information and the font size of the text relative to the distance of the viewer from the device screen) (Barksdale: paragraphs [0002] and [0012]). In addition, Barksdale teaches displaying more information as the measured distance decreases and less information as the measured distance increases (modify the amount of information displayed relative to the distance of the viewer from the device screen; for example: when the user is closer in distance, more information is displayed as shown in Figure 4A and when the user is farther in distance, less information is displayed as shown in Figure 4B) (Barksdale: paragraphs [0012] and [0036]-[0040]); and decreasing the at least one font size as the measured distance decreases and increasing the at least one font size as the measured distance increases (the father the user is from the device screen, the larger the font of the text on the UI) (Barksdale: paragraphs [0012] and [0035]-[0040]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify automatically changing an amount of patient treatment-specific information displayed on the display and at least one font size of the patient treatment-specific information displayed on the display corresponding to the measured distance between the target user and the medical device, as taught by Gross, to specifically include Barksdale’s teaching of displaying more information as the measured distance decreases/less information as the measured distances increases and decreasing the font size as the measured distance decreases/increasing the font size as the measured distance increases. One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to provide a scalable user interface that increases readability of the information displayed on the UI at various distances (Barksdale: paragraphs [0001], [0012] and [0039]).
Referring to claim 2, Gross, as modified by Barksdale, teaches method according to claim 1, comprising measuring the distance between the target user and the medical device using at least one of the group of methods comprising sensing by millimeter wave radar, an infrared sensor, an ultrasonic sensor and an image acquisition device (sensors employing infrared, ultrasound, etc.) (Gross: paragraph [0026]).
Referring to claim 4, Gross, as modified by Barksdale, teaches the method according to claim 2, in which the step of detecting the target user comprises determining a change of position of a candidate user within a predetermined distance of the medical device and designating the candidate user as the target user when the distance between the candidate user and the medical device is decreasing, indicating that the candidate user is moving toward the medical device (a real time location service dynamically tracks the user’s location, which can be closer or farther away from a presentation device; a user is determined in proximity to the presentation device when the distance between the user and the presentation device decreases, i.e. when a user is within 5 meters of the device or when the user moves from outside of a room to entering the inside of the room where the device is located) (Gross: paragraphs [0021], [0026], [0028], [0030], [0036]-[0037] and [0042]).
Referring to claim 7, Gross, as modified by Barksdale, teaches the method according to claim 2, further comprising:
acquiring a facial image of a candidate user within a predetermined distance of the medical device (the user can gain access/log in to a presentation device via video-based facial recognition) Gross: paragraphs [0021], [0026] and [0035]); and
designating the candidate user as the target user when the facial image corresponds to a prestored image that is stored in a facial image library (using log-in techniques such as video-based facial recognition to identify a user from the user database) (Gross: paragraphs [0021], [0026] and [0035]).
Referring to claim 11, Gross, as modified by Barksdale, teaches the method according to claim 1, further comprising determining which of a plurality of candidate users located within the predetermined distance of the medical device is the target user (multiple users can be present in the room with the presentation device; prioritization rules for prioritizing for display content of the instances of the first user vs. other users) (Gross: paragraphs [0023] and [0038]).
Claims 12-13, 15 and 17 recite an electronic device embodiment comprising essentially the same limitations as those recited in the method embodiment of claims 1-2, 4 and 7 respectively. Therefore, the limitations of claims 12-13, 15 and 17 are rejected similarly to the rejection of the limitations of claims 1-2, 4 and 7 respectively.
Claim(s) 3 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gross U.S. Publication 2019/0286844, and further in view of Barksdale et al. U.S. Publication 2012/0246678 (hereinafter “Barksdale”), as applied to claims 2 and 12 above, and further in view of Clark et al. U.S. Publication 2021/0090545 (hereinafter “Clark”).
Referring to claim 3 and claim 14, Gross and further in view of Barksdale (hereinafter the “combination of Gross/Barksdale”) teaches all of the limitations as applied to claims 2 and 12 above. However, although the combination of Gross/Barksdale teaches detecting the presence of a user within a predetermined distance of the medical device (detecting a user, i.e. a doctor in proximity to the presentation device) (Gross: paragraphs [0021] and [0030]), the combination of Gross/Barksdale fails to explicitly teach determining a dwell time of a candidate user within a predetermined distance of the medical device and designating the candidate user as the target user when the dwell time exceeds a predetermined time threshold. Similar to the combination of Gross/Barksdale, Clark also teaches using a sensor to detect a user (camera 104 can detect the presence of a person) (Clark: paragraphs [0019]-[0022] and [0054]-[0055]). In addition, Clark teaches determining a dwell time of a candidate user within a predetermined distance of the medical device (detect a person within a threshold distance of the camera for a threshold period of time) (Clark: paragraphs [0021]-[0022] and [0055]) and designating the candidate user as the target user when the dwell time exceeds a predetermined time threshold (for example, presence of the person is detected if the person is within five feet of the camera for ten seconds or longer) (Clark: paragraphs [0021]-[0022] and [0055]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the detection of the presence of a target user within a predetermined distance of the medical device taught by the combination of Gross/Barksdale to further include designating a detected candidate user as the target user when the dwell time of the candidate user within the predetermined distance exceeds a time threshold, as taught by Clark. One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to detect a user that actually intends to interact with the device, instead of users that may be merely walking by the device (Clark: paragraph [0020]).
Claim(s) 6, 10, 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gross U.S. Publication 2019/0286844, and further in view of Barksdale et al. U.S. Publication 2012/0246678 (hereinafter “Barksdale”), as applied to claims 1-2 and 12 above, and further in view of Parikh et al. U.S. Publication 2021/0132769 (hereinafter “Parikh”).
Referring to claim 6 and claim 16, the combination of Gross/Barksdale teaches all of the limitations as applied to claims 2 and 12 above. However, although the combination of Gross/Barksdale teaches detecting the presence of a user within a predetermined distance of the medical device (detect a user within proximity of the presentation device) (Gross: paragraphs [0021] and [0030]), the combination of Gross/Barksdale fails to explicitly teach: measuring, relative to the medical device, an orientation angle of a candidate user; and designating the candidate user as the target user when the orientation angle of the candidate user satisfies a preset angular orientation condition. Similar to the combination of Gross/Barksdale, Parikh also teaches adjusting the content of a display in response to detecting a user (waking up a display when a user is detected) (Parikh: paragraphs [0099] and [0290]). In addition, Parikh teaches: measuring, relative to the device, an orientation angle of a candidate user (determining a user’s face orientation when a user is present) (Parikh: paragraphs [0099], [0290] and [0299]-[0302]); and designating the candidate user as the target user when the orientation angle of the candidate user satisfies a preset angular orientation condition (the present user is determined to be engaged with the device if the face orientation is within a first level) (Parikh: paragraphs [0099], [0290] and [0299]-[0302]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the detection of a target user within a predetermined distance of the medical device taught by the combination of Gross/Barksdale to include the use of an orientation angle of a user satisfying a present angular orientation condition to detect a target user, as taught by Parikh. One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to provide more accuracy in managing a display device; this combination also improves power and performance by only turning on the display when a face orientation of the user indicates that he/she is facing the device, indicating that the user is engaged with the device (Parikh: paragraphs [0290] and [0298]).
Referring to claim 10 and claim 20, the combination of Gross/Barksdale teaches all of the limitations as applied to claims 1 and 12 above. However, although the combination of Gross/Barksdale teaches measuring a distance between the user and the medical device and adjusting the display of the medical device according to the measured distance between the user and the medical device (determining that a user is in proximity to the presentation device and adjusting display aspects of the displayed content according to the distance of the user from the presentation device) (Gross: paragraphs [0021]-[0022], [0030] and [0037]), in which the medical device is one of a plurality of medical devices (devices 30 and 32 shown in Figure 1) (Gross: paragraph [0024]), the combination of Gross/Barksdale fails to explicitly teach: determining which one of the plurality of medical devices is a primary medical device for the target user; and adjusting the display of not only the primary medical device but also of at least one other of the plurality of medical devices. Similar to the combination of Gross/Barksdale, Parikh also teaches adjusting the display of a device based on detecting a target user (changing the brightness of a display device based on user presence and attentiveness detection) (Parikh: paragraphs [0284] and [0306]-[0309]). In addition, Parikh teaches the device is one of a plurality of devices (for example, Figure 28A shows a plurality of devices such as device 2812 and device 2820) (Parikh: paragraphs [0284] and [0306]-[0309]); determining which one of the plurality of medical devices is a primary medical device for the target user (determining which one of device 2812 and 2820 is the primary device, i.e. the device that the user is facing) (Parikh: paragraphs [0306]-[0309]); and adjusting the display of not only the primary medical device but also of at least one other of the plurality of medical devices (the display of the first device 2812 that the user is facing is adjusted by increasing the brightness to full/default brightness and the display of the second device 2820 is adjusted by reducing/dimming the brightness) (Parikh: paragraphs [0306]-[0309] and [0376]; this is further shown in Figures 28A-28B). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the adjustment of content displayed on a display of the medical devices according to the measured distance between the user and the medical device taught by the combination of Gross/Barksdale to include adjusting the display of a plurality of devices including a determined primary device, as taught by Parikh. One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to manage multiple displays devices in a cohesive manner while allowing each display device to be changed individually (Parikh: paragraph [0284]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim rejections 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.
The prior art made of record on form PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant is required under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(c) to consider these references fully when responding to this action. The documents cited therein (US20180369039, US20100053069 and US9672588) have similar teachings of automatically adjusting content displayed on a device according to a distance between a target user and the device.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TING ZHOU LEE whose telephone number is (571). The examiner can normally be reached on Monday 9am-1pm, Tuesday .
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kieu Vu can be reached on (571) 27. 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.
/TING Z LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2171
