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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/26/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive because they improperly isolate individual excerpts from Pinter while ignoring the reference as a whole and the explicit teachings that collectively disclose the claimed invention.
With respect to independent claim 1, Applicant argues that Pinter fails to disclose “moving the robotic device to a location proximate the patient in response to determining that the patient is experiencing or has experienced the acute health event.” This characterization is based on an unduly narrow reading of Pinter.
Pinter expressly teaches that the telepresence device processes patient diagnostic information to determine whether a harmful medical condition exists. para [0041] states: “The results of the one or more diagnostic activities may be processed by the telepresence device 510 and/or a computer system external to the telepresence device 510... to determine whether a potentially harmful condition exists with the patient.” This directly teaches the claimed determination that the patient is experiencing an acute health event.
Pinter further teaches that the telepresence device may receive real-time telemetry data and dynamically alter movement behavior in response to patient condition. para [0046] states: “the telepresence device 510 may be configured to receive real-time telemetry data and dynamically adjust its route.” A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that dynamically adjusting the route based on incoming telemetry indicating a potentially harmful condition necessarily includes redirecting movement toward the patient associated with that condition. Applicant attempts to distinguish “dynamic route adjustment” from “moving in response to an acute event,” but this is a distinction without substantive difference. If telemetry indicates a harmful condition and the robot changes its route accordingly, that movement is plainly in response to the detected event.
Applicant’s argument improperly treats Pinter’s autonomous rounds disclosure in isolation from its event-driven response disclosures. Pinter does not merely disclose passive routine monitoring. para [0042] teaches: “In response to determining that a potentially harmful condition exists, the telepresence device 510 and/or the computer system may perform one or more actions responsive to the potentially harmful condition.” Thus, Pinter expressly links condition detection with responsive system action.
Further, para [0043] teaches that the telepresence device receives medical data from patient monitors and may receive instructions including diagnostic activities, thresholds, response actions, and monitoring frequency adjustments. para [0043] states: “The telepresence device 510 may be able to receive medical data... from a patient monitor...” and further: “The medical data may include instructions... thresholds for evaluating the results... actions to perform in response...” This reinforces that the system is responsive to specific patient conditions rather than limited to predetermined patrols.
Applicant’s reliance on Pinter’s stroke embodiment is similarly unpersuasive. The fact that one embodiment involves visiting a patient and then diagnosing stroke does not disclaim or negate the separate teachings of telemetry-driven dynamic routing and condition-responsive actions. A prior art reference must be considered for all that it fairly teaches, not limited to a single embodiment.
Applicant also argues that Pinter teaches movement toward a care provider rather than movement toward the patient. This is incomplete. para [0041] expressly teaches autonomous navigation to patients: “The healthcare facility map 560... may be used by a telepresence device 510 to autonomously navigate to a plurality of patients in turn to check the patients...” para [0046] further teaches dynamically modifying that route based on telemetry. When read together with para [0041] and para [0042], Pinter teaches moving the robotic device toward a patient in response to a detected harmful condition.
Applicant’s attempt to attack para [0054] and para [0030] individually is misplaced because the rejection is properly based on the combined teachings of the reference. A reference need not disclose the claimed invention in ipsissimis verbis. The proper inquiry is whether the reference as a whole teaches the claimed subject matter to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding the limitation “gathering... physiological data from the patient after moving...”, Pinter expressly teaches this. para [0047] states: “The telepresence device 610 may use the image sensor 611 to measure one or more patient characteristics, such as a physiological characteristic...” para [0048] further teaches telemetry gathering from patient monitors. Thus, Pinter teaches gathering physiological data using onboard sensors.
Regarding the limitation “confirming... based on the additional physiological data,” para [0050] teaches combining telemetry data and sensor-derived physiological observations to evaluate whether a harmful condition exists. para [0054] further teaches that a sepsis alarm may be triggered only upon a combination of multiple indications from telemetry and the robot’s own imaging systems. This is precisely confirmatory analysis based on additional physiological data.
Regarding “generating an output,” para [0042] expressly teaches alerting local or remote care providers, and para [0038] teaches an alert module configured to notify care providers.
Accordingly, Pinter teaches every limitation of independent claim 1.
Applicant asserts that independent claims 13, 14, and 15 are patentable for the same reasons. This argument is likewise unpersuasive because those claims merely recast the same functional limitations in apparatus, system, and computer-readable medium formats.
For claim 13, Pinter teaches:
processing circuitry: para [0038], test evaluation module / alert module
robotic movement: para [0041], para [0046]
sensors gathering physiological data: para [0047], para [0048]
confirming adverse condition: para [0041], para [0050]
generating output: para [0042], para [0038]
For claim 14, Pinter teaches the claimed means-plus-function structure through the telepresence network architecture, diagnostic modules, sensors, autonomous navigation capability, and alert modules.
For claim 15, para [0030] expressly teaches: “Embodiments may also be provided as a computer program product, including a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium having stored thereon instructions...” coupled with the functional modules disclosed in para [0038].
Because independent claims 13–15 mirror claim 1 in different statutory form, Applicant’s arguments fail for the same reasons.
Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive, and the rejection of claims 1, 13, 14, and 15, as well as dependent claims 2–12 and 16–20, is maintained.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21-22, and 24 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-7, 11-17 and 20, 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pinter et al (US 2014/0139616).
Claim 1, Pinter teaches “A method comprising:”
para [0037]: “FIG. 1 is a schematic diagram of a telepresence network 100 comprising a plurality of telepresence devices 130.”
“determining, by processing circuitry of the robotic device, that a patient is experiencing or has experienced an acute health event;”
para [0041]: “The results of the one or more diagnostic activities may be processed by the telepresence device 510 and/or a computer system external to the telepresence device 510 (e.g., the server 110) to determine whether a potentially harmful condition exists with the patient.”
para [0054]: “If an individual characteristic and/or plurality of characteristics are indicative of sepsis, the telepresence device 810 may take responsive action including triggering an alarm...”
“moving the robotic device to a location proximate the patient in response to determining that the patient is experiencing or has experienced the acute health event;”
para [0041]: “The healthcare facility map 560 and/or a digital representation of the map 560 may be used by a telepresence device 510 to autonomously navigate to a plurality of patients in turn to check the patients...”
para [0018]: “the telepresence device may automatically perform rounds and check on patients with a predetermined frequency”
“gathering, by a sensor of the robotic device, physiological data from the patient after moving the robotic device to the location proximate the patient;”
para [0047]: “The telepresence device 610 may use the image sensor 611 to measure one or more patient characteristics, such as a physiological characteristic, of the patient 650.”
para [0048]: “the telepresence device 610 may determine a measurement of a physiological characteristic by receiving telemetry data from a patient monitor 630.”
“confirming, by the processing circuitry, that the patient is experiencing or has experienced the acute health event based on the additional physiological data;”
para [0050]: “pallor, fluid level, fluid color, temperature symmetry... may be combined with telemetry data to evaluate whether a potentially harmful condition exists.”
para [0054]: “the telepresence device 810 may trigger a sepsis alarm only if there are a combination of multiple indications, such as one or more indications from a networked telemetry device along with one or more indications from the telepresence device's own imaging systems.”
“and generating an output in response to confirming that the patient is experiencing or has experienced the acute health event.”
para [0042]: “The one or more actions may include archiving the results of the one or more diagnostic activities, alerting a local care provider, alerting a remote care provider...”
para [0051]: “If a potentially harmful condition is detected, an action responsive to the potentially harmful condition may be performed...”
Claim 2, “The method of claim 1, further comprising receiving a message from a medical device attached to the patient.”
para [0048]: “the telepresence device 610 may use a wireless network to request the telemetry data from the patient monitor 630”
para [0043]: “The telepresence device 510 may be able to receive medical data... from a patient monitor”
Claim 4, “wherein the message received from the medical device includes initial physiological data.”
para [0048]: “the telepresence device 610 may determine a measurement of a physiological characteristic by receiving telemetry data from a patient monitor 630.”
Claim 5, “wherein determining that the patient is experiencing or has experienced an acute health event is based on the initial physiological data.”
para [0050]: “telemetry data may be combined with telemetry data to evaluate whether a potentially harmful condition exists.”
para [0041]: “to determine whether a potentially harmful condition exists with the patient.”
Claim 6, “wherein receiving the initial physiological data comprises receiving the initial physiological data via a computing device communicatively coupled with the medical device.”
para [0048]: “the telepresence device 610 may use a wireless network to request the telemetry data from the patient monitor 630 and/or to request the telemetry data from a computer system coupled to the patient monitor 630 (e.g., an EMR system).”
Claim 7, “wherein the computing device comprises a mobile phone or a tablet.”
para [0037]: “A plurality of control devices 120, such as laptops, tablets, smart phones, and the like...”
Claim 11, “wherein the location is a first location, the method further comprising determining a second location of the patient based on thermal sensing before moving the robotic device to the first location proximate the patient.”
para [0057]: “the telepresence device 1010 may determine the location of the patient 1050 using the thermal camera 1012”
Claim 12, “wherein moving the robotic device comprises moving the robotic device to the location where the patient is within a direct line of sight of the robotic device.”
para [0047]: “FIG. 6 is a perspective view of a telepresence device 610 performing one or more diagnostic activities on a patient 650 using an image sensor 611.”
The use of the image sensor directed toward the patient teaches positioning the patient within view of the robotic device.
Claim 13, Pinter teaches “A robotic device comprising:”
para [0019]: “a remote telepresence device may include a telepresence robot configured to move within a medical facility”
“processing circuitry configured to determine whether a patient is experiencing or has experienced an acute health event;”
para [0041]: “to determine whether a potentially harmful condition exists with the patient.”
“a motor configured to move the robotic device to a location proximate the patient;”
para [0041]: “telepresence device 510 to autonomously navigate to a plurality of patients”
“and a sensor configured to gather physiological data from the patient,”
para [0047]: “The telepresence device 610 may use the image sensor 611 to measure one or more patient characteristics”
“wherein processing circuitry is further configured to:”
para [0038]: “a test evaluation module 217 may be configured to receive results from one or more tests and determine the existence of an adverse condition based on the results”
“confirm whether the patient is experiencing or has experienced the acute health event based on the physiological data;”
para [0050]: “may be combined with telemetry data to evaluate whether a potentially harmful condition exists.”
“and generate an output in response to confirming that the patient is experiencing or has experienced the acute health event.”
para [0038]: “an alert module 218 may be configured to notify one or more care providers of the adverse condition”
Claim 14, Pinter teaches “A system comprising:”
para [0037]: “FIG. 1 is a schematic diagram of a telepresence network 100 comprising a plurality of telepresence devices 130.”
“means for determining that a patient is experiencing or has experienced an acute health event;”
para [0041]: “to determine whether a potentially harmful condition exists with the patient.”
“means for moving a robotic device to a location proximate the patient;”
para [0041]: “telepresence device 510 to autonomously navigate to a plurality of patients”
“means for gathering physiological data from the patient;”
para [0047]: “measure one or more patient characteristics, such as a physiological characteristic”
“means for confirming that the patient is experiencing or has experienced the acute health event based on the physiological data;”
para [0054]: “If an individual characteristic and/or plurality of characteristics are indicative of sepsis”
“and means for generating an output in response to confirming that the patient is experiencing or has experienced the acute health event.”
para [0042]: “alerting a local care provider, alerting a remote care provider”
Claim 15, Pinter teaches “A device comprising a computer-readable medium having executable instructions stored thereon...”
para [0030]: “Embodiments may also be provided as a computer program product, including a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium having stored thereon instructions that may be used to program a computer system...”
“determine that a patient is experiencing or has experienced an acute health event;”
para [0041]: “to determine whether a potentially harmful condition exists with the patient.”
“cause a motor to move a robotic device to a location proximate the patient;”
para [0041]: “telepresence device 510 to autonomously navigate to a plurality of patients”
“cause a sensor of the robotic device to gather physiological data from the patient;”
para [0047]: “use the image sensor 611 to measure one or more patient characteristics”
“confirm that the patient is experiencing or has experienced the acute health event based on the physiological data;”
para [0050]: “evaluate whether a potentially harmful condition exists.”
“and generate an output in response to confirming that the patient is experiencing or has experienced the acute health event.”
para [0038]: “an alert module 218 may be configured to notify one or more care providers”
Claim 16, “receive a message from a medical device attached to the patient, the message including initial physiological data.”
para [0048]: “receiving telemetry data from a patient monitor 630.”
Claim 17, “determine that the patient is experiencing or has experienced an acute health event based on the initial physiological data.”
para [0050]: “telemetry data may be combined... to evaluate whether a potentially harmful condition exists.”
Claim 20, “determine a second location of the patient based on thermal sensing before moving the robotic device to the first location proximate the patient.”
para [0057]: “the telepresence device 1010 may determine the location of the patient 1050 using the thermal camera 1012”
Claim 23. The method of claim 1, wherein the sensor of the robotic device comprises at least one of a camera, a thermometer, a microphone, a thermal sensor, a tactile sensor, radar, lidar, or an ultrasound sensor para [0011].
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.
Claim(s) 3, 8-10, 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pinter et al (US 2014/0139616), in view of Costantino US 11,309,083.
Claim 3
Pinter discloses receiving wireless communications including physiological data (e.g., para [0034], however does not disclose Bluetooth , Costantino discloses a Bluetooth health monitoring wearable device:
“a Bluetooth, battery powered, identification and monitoring device measuring pulse oximetry and heart rate…” col 5, lines 60-64; It would have been obvious to a POSITA to use Bluetooth, a known wireless communication method, in place of the unspecified wireless network in US ’616 to enable reliable short-range data exchange between wearable monitors and the robot.
Claim 8
Costantino teaches Wearable vital-sign accessory:
“…identification and monitoring device…” (worn on the patient)
col 5, lines 60-64; US ’616 uses bedside monitors. US ’083 teaches wearable patient monitors performing the same function of collecting vitals. POSITA would substitute or supplement with wearables to maintain monitoring continuity.
Claim 9
Constantino discloses “…communicated… via… cellular smart devices (such as smartphones)… connected, via cell towers and cyberspace to a central server.”
Col 6, lines 54-65; Since the phone belongs to and moves with the patient, POSITA would use smartphone positioning (GPS/cell triangulation) to determine the patient’s second location before dispatching the robot — a known and predictable function.
Claim 10
Constantino discloses “Interface 110 may be linked via… Bluetooth… to… mobile device 126…”; col 7, lines 60- col 8, lines 10; Bluetooth inherently supports signal strength-based proximity detection. POSITA would recognize using the signal from the wearable device to determine the patient’s location when positioning the robot.
Claim 18
Constantino teaches smart phone on col 6, lines 54-65; It would have been obvious to determine the smartphone’s location — standard practice in health/emergency monitoring — before robot movement, to direct the robot to the correct patient.
Claim 19
Constantino teaches Bluetooth communication with mobile devices
Col 6, lines 54-65 and col 7, lines 60-65; A POSITA would logically employ RF/Bluetooth signal strength or connection status as a means of determining the patient’s proximity, particularly where the robot does not yet have direct sensor visibility. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the wearable Bluetooth monitoring technology of Constantino with the autonomous telepresence robot system of Pinter to improve emergency detection, ensure monitoring continuity, and enhance patient localization. The combination applies known techniques to similar devices to achieve predictable results in emergency patient care
Conclusion
. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MASUD AHMED whose telephone number is (571)270-1315. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-8:30 PM PST with IFP.
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, Abby Lin can be reached at 571 270 3976. 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.
MASUD . AHMED
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3657A
/MASUD AHMED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights