DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 20 January 2026 has been entered.
Status
This Office Action is in response to the communication filed on 20 January 2026. Claims 3, 9-10, 13, 18, and 23 have been canceled currently or previously, claims 1-2, 8, 16-17, 22, and 24-25 have been amended, and new claims 27-31 have been added. Therefore, claims 1-2, 4-8, 11-12, 14-17, 19-22, and 24-31 are pending and presented for examination.
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
A summary of the Examiner’s Response to Applicant’s amendment:
Applicant’s amendment does not overcome the rejection(s) under 35 USC § 101; therefore, the Examiner maintains the rejection(s) while updating phrasing in keeping with current examination guidelines.
Applicant’s amendment overcomes, in a manner, the rejection(s) under 35 USC §§ 102 and/or 103; therefore, the Examiner places new grounds of rejection.
Applicant’s arguments are found to be not persuasive; please see the Response to Arguments below.
Claim Interpretation
The Examiner notes that the independent claims recite “sequentially and selectively” opening or closing drawers or trays”. The term “sequentially” apparently merely means to open one drawer/tray after a previous drawer/tray had been opened – see, e.g., Applicant ¶ 0054. The term “selectively” apparently merely means the selection of a drawer or tray to open or close.
The Examiner notes the claim 8 recites “one or more plug-in components in the medical station”, where “plug-in” could be in reference to a software plug-in, such as “plug-and-play” functionality (see, e.g., Applicant ¶¶ 0032 and 0037 indicating software plug-ins), or “plug-in” could be referencing a device that can be either electrically plugged into an electric outlet, or (apparently) a device or tool that is merely placed in a drawer or enclosure (see, e.g., Applicant ¶¶ 0036, “operable shortly after plugging them into power outlets”, and/or 0032 and 0037 indicating hardware plug-ins).
However, Applicant ¶ 0050 defines that “Plug-in components 270 are physical components added to a medical station 140 to expand functionality to the medical station 140. Plug-in components 270 may include a digital stethoscope, a digital dermatoscope, a pap smear kit, an electrocardiogram machine (e.g., EKG machine), an ultrasound device, a spirometer, a retinoscope, a blood draw kit, treatment kits (e.g., a cryo-gun, an ear lavage kit, a surgery kit, and the like), exercise materials (such as resistance bands), food and drinks, merchandise, prescription medicine, over-the-counter medicine, educational or informative materials, and the like.
It is noted that several or many (even most) of the indicated “Plug-in components” do not appear to require an electrical source for plugging in (e.g., “a pap smear kit, … a spirometer, a retinoscope, a blood draw kit, treatment kits (e.g., a cryo-gun, an ear lavage kit, a surgery kit, and the like), exercise materials (such as resistance bands), food and drinks, merchandise, prescription medicine, over-the-counter medicine, educational or informative materials”. Therefore, the most reasonable interpretation of “one or more plug-in components” is apparently anything that can be placed in the medical station – including merely non-electrical, manually operated devices and printed materials.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-8, 11-12, 14-17, 19-22, and 24-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The independent claims 1 recite “sequentially and selectively opening or closing each of the drawers or trays of different dimensions” (at claim 1), “to sequentially and selectively open or close the drawers or trays of different dimensions (at claim 16), and “sequentially and selectively open or close each of the drawers or trays of different dimensions” (at claim 24). As such, the claims now apparently indicate selectively opening or closing drawers/trays with the requirement that the drawers or trays necessarily be “of different dimensions” – i.e., a determination of the drawer or tray size appears required so that drawers or trays that are of different dimensions are opened (and not just drawers or trays of the same dimension). Applicant does not appear to indicate any specific support, or even an allegation that no new matter has been added by the amendment. The closest, and only, support Appears to be Applicant ¶ 0046 saying that “Some of the drawer assemblies may have different sizes (e.g., height and width) to facilitate the user to identify the right drawer assembly for use and accommodate tools of different dimensions.” The other indications of size or dimension are regarding the medical station overall, a patient’s body dimensions, or “allowing third-party entities to … specifying drawer requirements (such as a size, temperature control, power requirements, and the like) for providing medicine, treatments, testing equipment or other medical or wellness equipment to an individual”. The specification indicates that the drawer or tray MIGHT be of different dimensions, but not that the selective opening or closing considers dimension or size. Therefore, there is a lack of support for a requirement that the drawers or trays that are opened or closed be “of different dimensions” when selectively opened.
Claims 2, 4-8, 11-12, 14-15, 17, 19-22, and 25-31 depend from claims 1, 16, and 24, but do not resolve the above issues and inherit the deficiencies of the parent claim(s); therefore claims 2, 4-8, 11-12, 14-15, 17, 19-22, and 25-31 are also lacking written description support.
Dependent claim 8 recites “validating presence of one or more plug-in components in the medical station”; however, the Examiner has searched for the concepts of validating (or even determining) the presence of components tools or supplies, but does not find it. Applicant does not appear to indicate any specific support, or even an allegation that no new matter has been added by the amendment. The only apparent indications related to presence in the medical station appear generally related to the presence of the patient – not components. Although the specification indicates tools may be available in general (see, e.g., Applicant ¶¶ 0037, 0053-0054, etc.), there does not appear to be any indication of validating or confirming the presence of a component such that, for example, it may be available for use.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-2, 4-8, 11-12, 14-17, 19-22, and 24-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Please see the following Subject Matter Eligibility (“SME”) analysis:
For analysis under SME Step 1, the claims herein are directed to a method (claims 1-2, 4-8, 11-12, 14-15, and 27-31), a medical station (i.e., a system or manufacture) (claims 16-17 and 19-22), and a non-transitory computer-readable medium (claims 24-26), which would be classified under one of the listed statutory classifications (SME Step 1=Yes).
For analysis under revised SME Step 2A, Prong 1, independent claim 1 recites a method of operating a medical station, comprising: receiving input associated with a patient to determine the patient’s authorization to access the medical station; selectively enabling the patient to enter an interior of the medical station responsive to determination that the patient has authorization to access the medical station; receiving selection from the patient on a first application to be launched on the medical station; presenting a sequence of questions to the patient by the first application; receiving signals from one or more sensors in the medical station but external to drawers or trays responsive to launching of the first application; and sequentially and selectively opening or closing each of the drawers or trays of different dimensions automatically by having the first application operate a corresponding one of and sequentially opening drawers or trays by operating actuators in the medical station in a timed manner in accordance with presenting of corresponding ones of the questions to grant the patient access to medical tools or components relevant to the corresponding ones of the questions.
Independent claims 16 and 24 are analyzed similarly to claim 1 since claim 16 is directed to a medical station, comprising: an interface device for receiving input associated with a patient’s authorization to access the medical station; a restricted entrance configured to selectively enable the patient to enter an interior of the medical station; actuators; drawers or trays operable by the actuators; and a computing device configured to perform, or allow to be performed, the same or similar activities as at claim 1 above, and claim 24 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing instructions thereon, the instructions when executed by a processor cause the processor to perform the same or similar activities as at claim 1 above.
The dependent claims (claims 2, 4-15, 17, 19-22, and 25-26) appear to be encompassed by the abstract idea of the independent claims since they merely indicate receiving a control signal to open the drawers or trays (claims 2, 17, and 25), a visual indicator associated with the opened drawers or trays (claims 4, 19, and 26), presenting applications accessible to the patient based on authorization (claims 5 and 20), storing an additional, different tool or component and restricting access it based on a different application (claims 6 and 21), the first and second applications associated with different providers (claim 7), receiving applications remotely via a network and installing them when predetermined requirements are met (claims 8-9 and 22), the requirements indicating availability of a tool or component (claim 10), opening or unlocking a door to enter the medical station (claim 11), measuring the patient using sensors (claim 12), collecting information on a patient or treatment and sending it for analysis (claim 14),and/or updating a patient medical record (claim 15).
The underlined portions of the claims are an indication of elements additional to the abstract idea (to be considered below).
The claim elements may be summarized as the idea of authorized access to a medical station, tools, applications and/or components; however, the Examiner notes that although this summary of the claims is provided, the analysis regarding subject matter eligibility considers the entirety of the claim elements, both individually and as a whole (or ordered combination). This idea is within the Certain methods of organizing human activity (e.g. … commercial or legal interactions such as agreements, contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities/behaviors, or business relations; and/or managing personal behavior or relationships between people such as social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) grouping(s) of subject matter:
Therefore, the claims are found to be directed to an abstract idea.
For analysis under revised SME Step 2A, Prong 2, the above judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements do not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception when evaluated individually and as a combination. The additional elements are a medical station, comprising: an interface device; a restricted entrance; one or more actuators; a drawer or a tray operable by the one or more actuators; sensors producing signals responsive to launching of the first application; and opening/closing drawers/trays automatically by the first application, and a computing device configured to perform, or allow to be performed, activities (at claims 1 and/or 16), and a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing instructions thereon, the instructions when executed by a processor cause the processor (at claim 24). These additional elements do not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or technical field, effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (there is no medical disease or condition, much less a treatment or prophylaxis for one), implement the judicial exception with, or by using in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (there is no transformation/reduction of a physical article), and/or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generically linking use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
The claims appear to merely apply the judicial exception, include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. The additional elements appear to merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception and/or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
For analysis under SME Step 2B, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, as indicated above, are merely “[a]dding the words ‘apply it’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp.” that MPEP § 2106.05(I)(A) indicates to be insignificant activity
There is no indication the Examiner can find in the record regarding any specialized computer hardware or other “inventive” components, but rather, the claims merely indicate computer components which appear to be generic components and therefore do not satisfy an inventive concept that would constitute “significantly more” with respect to eligibility.
The individual elements therefore do not appear to offer any significance beyond the application of the abstract idea itself, and there does not appear to be any additional benefit or significance indicated by the ordered combination, i.e., there does not appear to be any synergy or special import to the claim as a whole other than the application of the idea itself.
The dependent claims, as indicated above, appear encompassed by the abstract idea since they merely limit the idea itself; therefore the dependent claims do not add significantly more than the idea.
Therefore, SME Step 2B=No, any additional elements, whether taken individually or as an ordered whole in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, including analysis of the dependent claims.
Please see the Subject Matter Eligibility (SME) guidance and instruction materials at https://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/subject-matter-eligibility, which includes the latest guidance, memoranda, and update(s) for further information.
NOTICE
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 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-2, 4-7, 11-12, 14-17, 19-22, 24-26, and 28-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Waterson et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0348177, hereinafter Waterson) in view of Waskin et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0061095, hereinafter Waskin) .
Claim 1: Waterson discloses a method of operating a medical station (see Waterson at least at, e.g., ¶ 0017, “a tele-health services cabin includes a medical device station … [that] includes an enclosure having a wall, where an opening is formed in the enclosure wall”; citation hereafter by number only), comprising:
receiving input associated with a patient to determine the patient’s authorization to access the medical station (0063, “Users may initiate tele-health service using an e-check-in terminal located external to tele-health cabins. A user may insert a card device into an e-check-in terminal positioned on the exterior of the tele-health cabin”, 0107, “User or patient may initiate access to medical care via terminal 116. Terminal 116 may be located and accessed external to tele-health cabin 106. User or patient may insert access card into card terminal 120 in order to gain access to tele-health cabin 106”);
selectively enabling the patient to enter an interior of the medical station responsive to determination that the patient has authorization to access the medical station (0063, “a user may enter personal medical information via a touch screen in response to an electronic questionnaire provided via a terminal device”, 0064, “Following completion of an electronic form provided via an e-check-in terminal, a user may be advised to enter tele-health cabin for services”, ;
receiving selection from the patient on a first application to be launched on the medical station (0066, “After entering a tele-health cabin, users/patients may sit on a seat located in front of a video conference device. Video conference device may be located on a wall adjacent to the entrance door. A user/patient may insert a card device associated with the video phone for initiating a video communications link with an MCC”, 0170, “Interface unit 410 may operate to provide control of and communications with various electronic equipment and sensors associated with tele-health cabin”);
presenting a sequence of questions to the patient by the first application (0066, “After entering a tele-health cabin, users/patients may sit on a seat located in front of a video conference device…. A medical practitioner may then query the user/patient with questions associated with their medical condition. Furthermore, medical practitioner may request user/patient to create physical contact to their person with one or more tele-health devices provided via the tele-health cabin. Devices connected to the user/patient may communicate information via a communications link”);
receiving signals from one or more sensors in the medical station but external to drawers or trays responsive to launching of the first application (0066, “After entering a tele-health cabin, users/patients may sit on a seat located in front of a video conference device. Video conference device may be located on a wall adjacent to the entrance door” and “medical practitioner may request user/patient to create physical contact to their person with one or more tele-health devices provided via the tele-health cabin. Devices connected to the user/patient may communicate information via a communications link”, 0092, “Cabin management system 134 may operate to communicate with devices and sensors associated with tele-health cabin 106 and may communicate information with MCC 104. Air management device 136 may operate to manage sanitization of tele-health cabin 106. Light device 138 may operate to provide illumination of tele-health cabin 106”, 0096, “EKG equipment portion 150 may operate to determine and communicate electrical heart activity information. Blood pressure cuff 152 may operate to determine and communicate blood pressure information”); and
grant the patient access to medical tools or components relevant to the corresponding ones of the questions (0066, “A user/patient may insert a card device associated with the video phone for initiating a video communications link …. A medical practitioner may then query the user/patient with questions associated with their medical condition. Furthermore, medical practitioner may request user/patient to create physical contact to their person with one or more tele-health devices provided via the tele-health cabin” – granting access).
Waterson, however, does not appear to explicitly disclose sequentially and selectively opening or closing each of the drawers or trays of different dimensions automatically by having the first application operate a corresponding one of actuators in the medical station in a timed manner in accordance with presenting of corresponding ones of the questions to grant access. Where Waterson discloses “the medical device may be mounted on a movable arm of the bracket. The movable arm may be controlled remotely by a computer in the micro clinic or by a computer in a remote hospital medical call center. In another embodiment, the movable arm may be programmed to automatically retract or extend after a predetermined period of time has elapsed” (Waterson at 0213) and “the first movable arm may automatically retract and rotate the blood glucose monitor 810 after a predetermined time has elapsed to dispose the used test strip 830 in the waste bin 820 below the blood glucose monitor 810” (Waterson at 0228) – indicating sequentially and selectively opening access to a medical device such as the glucose monitor and then the waste bin. Waterson further discloses “A medical practitioner may then query the user/patient with questions associated with their medical condition. Furthermore, medical practitioner may request user/patient to create physical contact to their person with one or more tele-health devices provided via the tele-health cabin. Devices connected to the user/patient may communicate information via a communications link” (Waterson at 0066 – indicating accessing tools or components timed as corresponding to the questions) and “the medical device is mounted on the first movable arm in a horizontal plane in the enclosure” (Waterson at 0019, see also 0212, 0215), this possibly might not be considered a drawer or tray. Waskin, though, teaches “a medical enclosure. The medical enclosure includes a frame defining an enclosure adapted for storing medical supplies, and at least one door connected to the frame …. An electronic controller is integrated within the enclosure, the electronic controller being programmed and operating to: receive credentials from a user, compare the credentials with a list of authorized user credentials stored in a database, unlock the latch to permit the door to be opened by the user from the closed position to the open position” (Waskin at 0005), where “The management system 400 in the illustrated embodiment utilizes a Bluetooth® communication protocol for short-range exchange of information and data between various portions of the system, but other types of wireless communication may be used. More specifically, the management system 400 includes a Bluetooth® radio chip 402 that can contain typical components such as a microprocessor and non-volatile flash memory—to retain the last updated data in the event of power loss or a loss of communication—that contains the personalized employee rules for access to drawers and doors of a cabinet” (Waskin at 0037). Waskin further teaches that “If a user fails to open the compartment before the period expires, for example, after 15 seconds, the compartment may be locked again requiring a re-authentication by the user. The other compartments may remain closed. In one embodiment, only one compartment can be opened at any one time. For example, the system may include sensors providing information indicative that all other doors are closed before any one door is unlocked and allowed to open” (Waskin at 0029), further teaching (in addition to the disclosure of Waterson) the sequential and selective opening of compartments. Therefore, the Examiner understands and finds that to selectively open or close each of the drawers or trays is applying a known technique to a known device, method, or product ready for improvement to yield predictable results so as to only grant access to authorized and credentialed users.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine or modify the medical device station of Waterson with the drawer access of Waskin in order to selectively open or close each of the drawers or trays so as to only grant access to authorized and credentialed users.
The rationale for combining in this manner is that to selectively open or close each of the drawers or trays is applying a known technique to a known device, method, or product ready for improvement to yield predictable results so as to only grant access to authorized and credentialed users as explained above.
Where Waterson and/or Waskin do not appear to explicitly disclose that the sequentially and selectively opened or closed drawers or trays are necessarily of different dimensions, Waterson teaches the enclosure itself may be sized according to the needs – “tele-health cabins may be of sufficient size to accommodate up to two persons” (Waterson at 0054), and at least “the cleaning chamber 910 may include a fixed vertical cylinder of a sufficient dimension to fully accommodate the medical instrument 930 to be decontaminated” (Waterson at 0236) – indicating that there may be either multiple cleaning chambers from which one is selected according to the size of the medical instrument, or that the cleaning chamber may be sized to accommodate any or all medical devices that may need decontamination. In either instance, the access location (i.e., a drawer or tray, according to the combination above) would or can be of various sizes or dimensions so as to accommodate the available devices and the sequential and selective opening or closing would then include drawers or trays of different dimensions. Waskin further teaches “The first shelf 108 is positioned halfway between the top 104 and the bottom 106 of the medical cabinet 100, but other locations can be used depending on the size of the cabinet and the size of the supplies that will be stored therein” (Waskin at 0014) and “the first compartment 148 may include any number of shelves in any number of sizes and shapes” (Waskin at 0015) – also indicating drawer/tray dimensions of various sizes. The Examiner notes that there are only two possibilities: 1) either the drawers or trays that are opened or closed are each of the same size or dimension, or 2) the drawers or trays opened or closed are each of different dimensions, and each of these options has the same reasonable expectation of success. Therefore, the Examiner understands and finds that to open or close drawers or trays of different dimensions would be obvious to try since choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success so as to accommodate tools of various sizes and dimensions.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine or modify the medical device station of Waterson in view of Waskin according to the only two available options explained above in order to open or close drawers or trays of different dimensions so as to accommodate tools of various sizes and dimensions.
The rationale for combining in this manner is that to open or close drawers or trays of different dimensions would be obvious to try since choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success so as to accommodate tools of various sizes and dimensions as explained above.
Claim 2: Waterson in view of Waskin discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
receiving control signals generated by the first application to sequentially and selectively open or close the drawers or trays (Waterson at 0200, “At step 742, a determination may be performed to determine if user/patient has presented card device to card terminal 124 (FIG. 1). For a determination of a user/patient presenting card device to card terminal 124 (FIG. 1) in step 742, an instructional video may be presented to user/patient via video terminal 144 (FIG. 1) in a step 744”, 0201, “At step 746, a consultation may be initiated between user/patient located in tele-health cabin 106 (FIG. 1) and medical professional associated with MCC 104 (FIG. 1)”, 0157, “An ultrasonic sensor 114 embedded in the ceiling of the tele-health cabin 106 is activated by the medical professional at the MCC 104 and measures the user's/patient's seated height when the user/patient first sits on the seat 146”).
Claim 4: Waterson in view of Waskin discloses the method of claim 2, further comprising sequentially turning on visual indicators associated with the sequentially opened drawers or trays responsive to receiving the control signals (Waskin at 0042, “when an ID card is presented and read by the RFID device …. A red and green LED plus tone (not shown) or another visual or audible indication may signal to the user if the card is valid” – since the signal is also used to open the drawer or tray per the combination above, the visual indicator is associated with the drawer or tray).
Claim 5: Waterson in view of Waskin discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
storing a plurality of applications in the medical station (0170, “Interface unit 410 may operate to provide control of and communications with various electronic equipment and sensors associated with tele-health cabin 106 (FIG. 1). Non-limiting examples of equipment include video codec, keypad and card terminals”);
determining a subset of applications accessible by the patient according to the patient’s authorization to access the subset of applications including the first application (0063, “A user may insert a card device into an e-check-in terminal positioned on the exterior of the tele-health cabin. Furthermore, a user may enter personal medical information via a touch screen in response to an electronic questionnaire provided via a terminal device. Furthermore, a user may operate to use a code reader located near the e-check-in terminal in order to scan codes located on their prescription containers. Furthermore, prescription information may be stored on a user's/patient's card device”); and
presenting the subset of applications to the patient for selection (0063, “A user may insert a card device into an e-check-in terminal positioned on the exterior of the tele-health cabin. Furthermore, a user may enter personal medical information via a touch screen in response to an electronic questionnaire provided via a terminal device. Furthermore, a user may operate to use a code reader located near the e-check-in terminal in order to scan codes located on their prescription containers. Furthermore, prescription information may be stored on a user's/patient's card device”).
Claim 6: Waterson in view of Waskin discloses the method of claim 5, further comprising:
storing an additional medical tool or component different from the medical tools or components in the medical station (0060, “cabins may be equipped with a multiplicity of devices for measuring a user's/patient's vital signs. Non-limiting examples of devices for measuring vital signs include blood pressure, temperature and weight”, 0118, “During a videophone call a medical practitioner may request a user/patient orient second camera 164 for viewing portions of a user's/patient's skin or other body features and the patient may use monitor 166 to position camera 164 to the correct place. Furthermore, a medical practitioner may request a user/patient attach vital signs monitoring (VSM) devices the user/patient. Non-limiting examples of VSM devices include blood pressure cuff 152, temperature monitor 156, oximeter 158, spirometer 160, and glucose monitor 162. VSM devices may be stored in cabinet 154”); and
restricting access to the additional medical tool or component to operation of a second application different from the first application (0060, “cabins may be equipped with a multiplicity of devices for measuring a user's/patient's vital signs. Non-limiting examples of devices for measuring vital signs include blood pressure, temperature and weight”, 0118, “During a videophone call a medical practitioner may request a user/patient orient second camera 164 for viewing portions of a user's/patient's skin or other body features and the patient may use monitor 166 to position camera 164 to the correct place. Furthermore, a medical practitioner may request a user/patient attach vital signs monitoring (VSM) devices the user/patient. Non-limiting examples of VSM devices include blood pressure cuff 152, temperature monitor 156, oximeter 158, spirometer 160, and glucose monitor 162. VSM devices may be stored in cabinet 154” – at least the door control application being different from the videophone call application).
Claim 7: Waterson in view of Waskin discloses the method of claim 6, wherein the first application and the second application are associated with different medical providers (0046, “Users may be provided access to a large pool of medical professionals via remote medical call centers”, 0068, “the medical professional may transmit an electronic prescription to a pharmacy. Furthermore, the pharmacy may be conveniently located adjacent to the tele-health cabin. Furthermore, a copy of the prescription may be transmitted via a telecommunications link to the user's card device. Furthermore, as another example, the medical practitioner may transmit and store requests for additional tests to the user's/patient's card device. Non-limiting examples of additional tests include blood or specimen”, 0118, “Non-limiting examples of VSM devices include blood pressure cuff 152, temperature monitor 156, oximeter 158, spirometer 160, and glucose monitor 162. VSM devices may be stored in cabinet 154” – since the only description of “medical professional” is Applicant ¶ 0011, merely using the term, the broadest reasonable interpretation includes not just personnel, but equipment suppliers (such as a different application being required to communicate with each piece of equipment being used), and outsourced services).
Claim 11: Waterson in view of Waskin discloses the method of claim 1, wherein enabling the patient to enter the medical station comprises opening or unlocking a door to enter the medical station (0063, “Users may initiate tele-health service using an e-check-in terminal located external to tele-health cabins. A user may insert a card device into an e-check-in terminal positioned on the exterior of the tele-health cabin”, 0107, “User or patient may initiate access to medical care via terminal 116. Terminal 116 may be located and accessed external to tele-health cabin 106. User or patient may insert access card into card terminal 120 in order to gain access to tele-health cabin 106”).
Claim 12: Waterson in view of Waskin discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising taking measurements on the patient using sensors in the medical station (0081, “Non-limiting example of information processed includes health care information such as blood pressure, height and weight”, 0086, “Digital scale 112 may operate to determine and communicate weight information. Height measurement device 114 may operate to determine and provide height information. Non-limiting examples of operational modes for height measurement device 114 includes sonar and laser”, 0118, “a medical practitioner may request a user/patient attach vital signs monitoring (VSM) devices the user/patient”).
Claim 14: Waterson in view of Waskin discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
collecting information on the patient or a treatment being performed on the patient using the first medical tool or the first component (0081, “Non-limiting example of information processed includes health care information such as blood pressure, height and weight”, 0086, “Digital scale 112 may operate to determine and communicate weight information. Height measurement device 114 may operate to determine and provide height information. Non-limiting examples of operational modes for height measurement device 114 includes sonar and laser”, 0118, “a medical practitioner may request a user/patient attach vital signs monitoring (VSM) devices the user/patient”); and
sending the collected information to a computing device located remotely from the medical station via a communication network for analysis and processing (0053, “Users of tele-health cabins may be provided with access to a multiplicity of vital signs monitors connected via bi-directional telecommunications video collaboration to staff geographically located at a MCC who may operate to analyze the user's/patient's health”, 0069, “user/patient may visit a tele-health cabin for a follow-up session during which the test results may be retrieved from the card device and transferred to the medical professional geographically located at the MCC for analysis”).
Claim 15: Waterson in view of Waskin discloses the method of claim 14, further comprising: causing a medical record of the patient in the computing device to be updated according to the collected information (0068, “the medical professional may transmit an electronic prescription to a pharmacy…. a copy of the prescription may be transmitted via a telecommunications link to the user's card device”, 0071, “the system may automatically transfer information to the user's card device”, 0121, “results of tele-health session and follow-up activities may be stored on card device”).
Claims 16-17, 19-22, and 24-26 are rejected on the same basis as claims 1-2, 4-6, and 8-9 above since Waterson discloses a medical station, comprising: an interface device for receiving input associated with a person's authorization to access the medical station and performing the same or similar activities as at claims 1-2, 4-6, and 8-9 above (for claims 16-17 and 19-22 – see the citations above), and a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing instructions thereon, the instructions when executed by a processor cause the processor to perform the same or similar activities as at claims 1-2 and 4 (for claims 24-26) (see Waterson at 0186-0187).
Claim 28: Waterson in view of Waskin discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: tracking use of the medical tools or components to prevent reuse of the medical tools or components by another patient (Waterson at 0022, “.a tele-health services cabin includes an automatic cleaning system, a cabin management unit, and videoconferencing hardware via which a remote practitioner in a remote medical call center videoconferences with a patient in the cabin to diagnose symptoms of the patient. The automatic cleaning system includes a cleaning chamber and at least one spray nozzle disposed in an interior of the cleaning chamber”, with further description of the cleaning and/or disinfection process(es) at 0023-0031).
Claim 29: Waterson in view of Waskin discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising detecting presence or pose of the patient sitting on a chair by one or more sensors in a chair of the medical station (Waterson at 0014, “receiving the gender of a patient, measuring a seated height of the patient while the patient is seated in a patient chair, analyzing, using a processor, a position of the patient's lungs based on the patient's gender and seated height, and positioning at least one sensor encapsulated in a seat back of the patient chair to an initial position that is aligned with analyzed position of the patient's lungs”, 0098, “Presence detector 168 may operate to determine and communicate the presence or lack presence of a user or patient”).
Claim 30: Waterson in view of Waskin discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising operating a robotic device to draw a blood sample from the patient (Waterson at 0225, “the blood glucose monitor 810 being rotated to retract and ejecting a user test strip 830, according to an embodiment. The blood glucose monitor 810 may be mounted on a bracket (not shown) in a horizontal plane inside the enclosure 802. The bracket may include a first movable arm on which the blood glucose monitor 810 is mounted. The first movable arm may be controlled by the computer 850 in the tele-health cabin 106 or by the computer 860 in the remote MCC 104. If the blood glucose monitor 810 includes a test strip eject button or key 814, the bracket may further include a second movable arm controllable to push the test strip eject button 814” – the use of a test strip indicating that a sample of blood has been drawn to measure glucose).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Waterson in view of Waskin in further view of Shabty et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,450,981, hereinafter Shabty) .
Claim 8: Waterson in view of Waskin discloses the method of claim 5, further comprising receiving the plurality of applications from a computing device located remotely from the medical station via a communication network (0220, “A user wishing to check his or her blood glucose level in the tele-health cabin 106 or similar location purchases a single use medical lance and a single use blood glucose monitor test strip 830 from a dispensing station”, 0068, “Once the user has placed blood on the test strip 830, the medical professional enters a command on a computer 860 located at the remote MCC 104 which uses a second communications link 862 to send a command to a computer 850 located in the tele-health cabin 106. The computer 850 then relays the command via a first communications link 852 to the blood glucose monitor 810” – which is receiving the plurality of applications from a computing device located remotely from the medical station via a communication network) and installing at least one of the plurality of the applications responsive to determining the presence of the one or more plug-in components in the medical station (0118, “Non-limiting examples of VSM devices include blood pressure cuff 152, temperature monitor 156, oximeter 158, spirometer 160, and glucose monitor 162. VSM devices may be stored in cabinet 154” – where, it is apparent that a different application would be required to control and/or communicate with each piece of equipment, and since the equipment is in, and available at, the cabin, the applications satisfy requirements).
Waterson in view of Waskin, however, does not appear to explicitly disclose validating presence of one or more plug-in components in the medical station. Shabty, though, teaches a “system [that] preferably includes a cart as illustrated in FIG. 1 that facilitates easily moving the therapy system between patient rooms or other locations” (Shabty at column:lines 6:39-42, citation hereafter by number only) and “[t]he program module within the computer 10 preferably recognizes when a valid signal from an EKG and a plethysmograph are provided, which validates that the external devices are appropriately in position and operational” (Shabty at 7:40-44), indicating a validation that the component(s) is/are “in position and operational”. Therefore, the Examiner understands and finds that to validate presence of a component is applying a known technique to a known device, method, or product ready for improvement to yield predictable results so as to confirm or assure that the component is in position and operational – i.e., ready for use.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine or modify the medical device station of Waterson in view of Waskin with the validation of Shabty in order to validate presence of a component so as to confirm or assure that the component is in position and operational – i.e., ready for use.
The rationale for combining in this manner is that to validate presence of a component is applying a known technique to a known device, method, or product ready for improvement to yield predictable results so as to confirm or assure that the component is in position and operational – i.e., ready for use as explained above.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Waterson in view of Waskin in further view of Damadian (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0138553).
Claim 27: Waterson in view of Waskin discloses the method of claim 1, but does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the one or more sensors external to the drawers or the trays comprises a body scanner configured to scan the patient's body that is rotated on a platform. Damadian, however, teaches a “full-body scanner”, where “The patient support is movable through a similar range of motion, …. Generally, by sliding the patient along the elevator and rotating the patient about the pivot axis the conventional scanner 20 allows for full body scans either in a horizontal position or a vertical position” (Damadian at 0044). Therefore, the Examiner understands and finds that to scan a patient by rotating the patient’s body on a platform is applying a known technique to a known device, method, or product ready for improvement to yield predictable results so as to allow for full body scans in either horizontal or vertical positions.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine or modify the medical device station of Waterson in view of Waskin with the scanning of Damadian in order to scan a patient by rotating the patient’s body on a platform so as to allow for full body scans in either horizontal or vertical positions.
The rationale for combining in this manner is that to scan a patient by rotating the patient’s body on a platform is applying a known technique to a known device, method, or product ready for improvement to yield predictable results so as to allow for full body scans in either horizontal or vertical positions as explained above.
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Waterson in view of Waskin in further view of Barlow (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0315669).
Claim 31: Waterson in view of Waskin discloses the method of claim 1, but does not appear to explicitly disclose further comprising powering the medical station by a self-contained power source. Barlow, however, teaches that “Field conditions may include, for example, search and rescues, third world countries, military medical stations, at sea, while hiking, traveling medical stations, or any location where liquid medication may need to be administered to a patient and power may not be readily available. Thus, the heating device according to this variation may be portable, e.g., handheld and run on battery power and/or solar power, among other portable power sources” (Barlow at 0044). Therefore, the Examiner understands and finds that to power a medical station by a self-contained power source is applying a known technique to a known device, method, or product ready for improvement to yield predictable results so as to enable portability and provide power when it may not be readily available otherwise.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine or modify the medical device station of Waterson in view of Waskin with the power supply of Barlow in order to power a medical station by a self-contained power source so as to enable portability and provide power when it may not be readily available otherwise.
The rationale for combining in this manner is that to power a medical station by a self-contained power source is applying a known technique to a known device, method, or product ready for improvement to yield predictable results so as to enable portability and provide power when it may not be readily available otherwise as explained above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 20 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant first argues the 101 rejections (Remarks at 8-13), first alleging “the claim is directed to a specific improvement to a particular technological field: automated, error-reduced, time-synchronized delivery of medical tools from a modular medical station” (Id. at 9). However, delivery of medical tools is NOT a technical field – it is what people can do and would do (i.e., one of certain methods of organizing human activity). Automating the opening and closing of drawers or trays, nor “time-synchronizi[ng}” activities such as opening and closing of drawers or trays makes this a “technological field”, a technology, or anything but activity that persons can and would perform (i.e., an abstract idea).
Applicant then attempts analogy to Diehr, alleging that “Claim 1 … is integrated into a specific technological process: orchestrated control of actuators, sensors, and drawers to deliver the correct medical tools at the correct time” (Id.). However, the claimed activities are diametrically opposed to Diehr and its indication of eligibility. Diehr is indicated as eligible since the monitoring of temperatures inside the mold(s) and the continuous calculations to arrive at the correct time and temperature combination to achieve full curing of rubber could not be performed by persons – the people would essentially have to guess (i.e., artistry of hopefully experienced persons), rather than use the precision and technology of the invention to improve the processes. Applicant’s claims, however, appear to currently do nothing more than mechanically perform the activities that a person standing at the medical station could or would do otherwise – people can open and close drawers at the proper time so as to allow a person to have access to medical tools, implements, supplies, information, etc.
Applicant then alleges that “The claim recites the use of a ‘particular machine’” (Remarks at 10), since “It is a specific, pre-fabricated modular structure with restricted entrance controlled by computing device and access control module, multiple drawer assemblies of different dimensions, each with actuators and visual indicators” (Id.). However, although the specification describes the medical station (one time) as “a prefabricated modular structure” (Applicant ¶ 0034), this does not appear to be a definition and there is no claim limitation(s) indicating that the medical station is either modular or prefabricated. According to the plain meaning (there is no definition or meaning indicated by the light of the specification), the term “prefabricated” just means that it may or may not (depending on how someone views fabrication and how complete it may need to be) be built or assembled beforehand. And “modular” is only indicated by the specification as “modular installation (e.g., multiple medical stations can be installed side-by-side to increase throughput capacity)” (Applicant ¶ 0091). However, the claims are to a method, station, or medium for “a medical station” – i.e., SINGULAR tense; therefore, whether the medical station is modular or not has no bearing or relevance to the claims. The prefabrication can very literally be ANY design, material, type, construction, etc. – from a simple, small tent to as large a permanent structure as one can imagine prefabricating. There is nothing particular about such a “machine”, it is just required to have a restricted entrance (of apparently ANY form or type, including manual controls one would suppose), actuators to open/close drawers or trays (again of any type or form), and a computer or other such/similar device to receive and send signals to the actuators (again also of any form or type).
Applicant then alleges that “The Examiner's analogy to merely ‘replacing an attendant’ is not faithful to the claim. A human attendant could choose which cabinet to unlock, but that is qualitatively different from receiving machine-generated sensor signals internal to the medical station, and automatically, in opening/closing particular drawers/trays of defined dimensions via actuators, while enforcing application based access restrictions” (Remarks at 11). But there is NO explanation or reasoning indicating what is “qualitatively different” – the argument merely indicates it is “different” to use a sensor signal rather than other communications, and to automate the opening/closing via actuators rather than the human Applicant apparently admits can unlock, open, or close the drawers and/or trays. The argument itself appears to Indicate (e.g., agree or concede) that the claims really are just applying the idea of authorized access to a medical station, tools, applications and/or components by way of using available, standard technology.
Applicant then argues that “The Examiner's own § 103 analysis confirms the unconventional nature of the claimed coordination. The § 103 rejection concedes that Waterson does not disclose” (Remarks at 12). However, prior art analysis is not applied to eligibility analysis. This is evidenced at least by the volume of applications that have been issued as patents, but then found to be directed to abstract ideas – they have overcome the prior art, but nonetheless are found to be an abstract idea.
Applicant then argues the ordered combination (Remarks at 12-13); however, the ordered combination offers no benefit or additional significance beyond the functions or activities of the individual parts themselves.
Applicant then argues the prior art rejections, alleging that the amendment is not disclosed (Id. at 14-15); however, the amendment is covered by the current rejection(s) as above. Therefore the arguments are considered moot and not persuasive.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Drapeau et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0068421, hereinafter Drapeau) discloses a network-connected patient station that can be used at least by authorized care givers in treating a patient (see Drapeau at least at , e.g., 0020-0021).
Volek et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0256427, hereinafter Volek) describes “a medical technology station for prescription dispensing and a method of using the station. The station uses a mobile wheeled cart that includes a number of assorted and reconfigurable drawers, where each drawer will generally be assigned to a single patient for a given medication distribution workflow. The drawers on the cart are electronically recognizable, by employing a unique identifier, such as inclusion of an RFID tag in each drawer, or another electronic identification device. The station's drawers are generally kept in a locked inaccessible state, unless electronically opened in response to certain preset activation signals” (Volek at 0003), where “The staff loads the drawers with medication to be delivered…. The staff will enter a patient ID to access that patient's drawer, open that patient's drawer, and load the predetermined patient medication…. To dispense the medications, the staff will then roll the loaded station to particular patient's location, access the drawer using one of the input devices (to identify the patient or drawer)” (Volek at 0004), where “[t]he system processor would receive the information and associate the patient information with the drawer and enter this information in the configuration map with the selected drawer (and, for instance retransmit the information to the server, if present). The cart can utilize the HL7 integration to access the patient-related information stored on HIS” (Volek at 0092).
Latorraca et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0089303, hereinafter Latorraca) indicates that “[t]he system includes a compact enclosure configured to be disposed on a support surface in a medical treatment area, wherein the compact enclosure does not require floor space in the medical treatment area. The system also includes a lock assembly and one or more drawers for storing medications, each drawer configured to be secured in the compact enclosure when locked by the lock assembly, and each drawer configured to be slideably openable from the compact enclosure when unlocked by the lock assembly. The system further includes one or more compartments disposed within at least one of the drawers and an access control interface operatively coupled to the lock assembly, the access control interface configured to provide an unlock signal to the lock assembly based on received authorization input” (Latorraca at 0006), “Portable devices may be mounted on a rolling cart or other movable appliance, such as the wheeled computer platforms commonly used in hospitals and known to those of skill in the art. Portable devices are generally not secured to a single location for extended periods of time during which the devices are used” (Latorraca at 0043), and “[t]he dispensing apparatus 202 can contain a locking device 206 to limit access of the optional medications to the individual patients within the rooms” (Latorraca at 0060).
Health Level 7 (HL7), from ExtraHop, dated 28 October 2020, downloaded 28 October 2025 from the Archive.org WayBack Machine at https://web.archive.org/web/20201028175247/https://www.extrahop.com/resources/protocols/hl7/, indicating that “HL7 is a set of international standards used by healthcare providers transferring clinical and administrative data between software applications” (at p. 1).
Orion Health, What is HL7 and why does healthcare need it?, dated 6 July 2020, downloaded 28 October 2025 from https://orionhealth.com/us/blog/what-is-hl7-and-why-does-healthcare-need-it/, indicating that “Health Level Seven (HL7) is a set of international standards used to provide guidance with transferring and sharing data between various healthcare providers” (at p. 1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT D GARTLAND whose telephone number is (571)270-5501. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 AM - 5 PM.
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, Kambiz Abdi can be reached at 571-272-6702. 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.
/SCOTT D GARTLAND/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3685