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 .
Acknowledgements
This communication is in response to Remarks filed on 4/9/2026.
Claims 1, 10, 12, 14 are amended.
Claims 9, 18-20 are canceled.
Claims 21-23 are new.
Claims 1-8, 10-17, 21-23 are pending and have been examined and rejected as follows.
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.
Claims 1, 4-6, 10, 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Davis (US 20120313775).
CLAIM 1, 10
Davis teaches A system for providing healthcare communications, the system comprising: at least one processing device; and at least one computer readable data storage device storing software instructions that, when executed by the at least one processing device, cause the at least one processing device to: (Davis para 16 teaches a notification device. Para 21 teaches the device may be a wearable display device or head-up display (HUD glasses. Examiner notes this as a analogous to processing device including storage storing software))
receive an alarm triggered in a patient environment where a patient is located; (Davis para 16-17 teach receiving an alarm where a patient is located. )
determine whether the patient is risk sensitive; (Davis para 16-17 teach an alarm. Examiner uses the broadest reasonable interpretation of “risk sensitive” as analogous to Davis para 18-20 which teaches a clinician responsible for the patient being identified and guided to the patient suffering the alarm condition.)
when the patient is determined to be risk sensitive, open a private communications channel on a device worn by a caregiver, the private communications channel concealed from the patient, and (Davis para 21 teaches the notification device may be a head-up display (HUD) glasses where information may be visual or audio. Examiner interprets the information available on this device in necessarily a private communication channel concealed from the patient when embodied in a HUD format because the patient is not wearing the HUD. Davis para 18-20 teaches a clinician responsible for the patient being identified and guided to the patient suffering the alarm condition. )
the private communications channel providing augmented reality for resolving a condition that triggered the alarm; (Davis para 21 teaches the notification device may be a head-up display (HUD) glasses where information may be visual or audio. Davis para 18-20 which teaches a clinician responsible for the patient being identified and guided to the patient suffering the alarm condition. Examiner notes “for resolving a condition that triggered the alarm” is intended use and holds no patentable weight. )
when the patient is determined not to be risk sensitive, open a public communications channel allowing at least one of an audible alert and a visual alert to be emitted inside the patient environment; and (Davis para 49 teaches an audible alarm at the patients bedside. Para 50 teaches the alarm emanating from the patient room. Para 49 teaches patient monitor in a room and an alarm. Para 2 teaches alarm sent to a central management station such as a nurse station. See also 49-52 regarding nurse station. Examiner uses the broadest reasonable interpretation of “risk sensitive” as analogous to Davis para 18-20 which teaches a clinician responsible for the patient being identified and guided to the patient suffering the alarm condition and Examiner interprets not to be risk sensitive as the clinician not being guided to the patient location. )
automatically terminate the private communications channel and the public communications channel when the condition that triggered the alarm is resolved. (Davis para 25 teaches ending the alarm when the clinician arrives or if they wish to terminate the process and alarm notification. )
CLAIM 4, 13
Davis teaches wherein the augmented reality includes data projected on a head-up display worn by the caregiver. (Davis para 21 teaches the notification device provided to a clinician may be a head-up display (HUD) glasses where information may be visual or audio.)
CLAIM 5, 14
Davis teaches wherein the data includes directional indicators to guide the caregiver toward the patient environment where the alarm is triggered. (Davis para 19 teaches guiding a clinician to a location of the patient suffering an alarm condition. Para 21 teaches the notification device may be a head-up display (HUD) glasses where information may be visual or audio. Davis para 21, 35, 43 teach audio information to guide the caregiver toward the patient environment. )
CLAIM 6, 15
Davis teaches wherein the data includes physiological variable measurements captured by devices located inside the patient environment or information stored in an electronic medical record of the patient. (Davis para 16 teaches notice of the alarm condition may contain information regarding the nature of the alarm condition, such as the patient physiological data that triggered the alarm condition and/or other relevant information regarding the patient's physiology. Para 48 teaches EEG, ECG, heart rate)
CLAIM 22
The system of claim 1, wherein the public communications channel causes communications to be broadcast on a device carried by the caregiver. (Davis para 16 teaches a notification device. Para 21 teaches the device may be a wearable display device or head-up display (HUD glasses. Examiner notes this as a analogous to processing device including storage storing software))
CLAIM 23
The system of claim 1, wherein the private communications channel is configured such that alert information is perceptible only through the device worn by the caregiver and is not output through any audio or visual devices within the patient environment. (Davis para 16 teaches a notification device. Para 21 teaches the device may be a wearable display device or head-up display (HUD glasses. Examiner interprets the information available on this device in necessarily a private communication channel concealed from the patient when embodied in a HUD format because the patient is not wearing the HUD. Examiner interprets alert information as analogous to guidance information)
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 2, 3, 11, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis (US 20120313775) in view of Mate (US 20190182613).
CLAIM 2, 11
Davis teaches wherein the augmented reality includes […] audio that automatically adjusts as a location of the caregiver changes relative to the patient environment. (Davis para 21 teaches the notification device may be a head-up display (HUD) glasses where information may be visual or audio. Davis para 21, 35, 43 teach audio information to guide the caregiver toward the patient environment. )
Davis does not teach wherein the augmented reality includes 3D audio that automatically adjusts as a location of the caregiver changes relative to the patient environment.
Mate does teach wherein the augmented reality includes 3D audio that automatically adjusts as a location of the caregiver changes relative to the patient environment. (Mate para 81 teaches 3D audio effects to create a spatial audio space aligned with real world space in the case of augmented reality in which audio can be positioned for presentation to a user. Spatial audio may use one or more of volume differences, timing differences, pitch differences to create perception of origin of audio is at a particular location in space. Para 91 teaches audio is providing guidance or an assumed route to a point of interest using spatial audio. )
It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the audio as taught by Davis with the 3D audio as taught by Mate. It would be beneficial for the audio to be 3D audio because it would solve the problem of presenting augmented reality content with directionality as taught by Mate para 2.
CLAIM 3, 12
Dais teaches wherein at least one of […] audio automatically adjusts to guide the caregiver toward the patient environment where the alarm is triggered. (Davis para 21, 35, 43 teach audio information to guide the caregiver toward the patient environment. )
Davis does not teach wherein at least one of a volume and a direction of the 3D audio automatically adjusts to guide the caregiver toward the patient environment where the alarm is triggered.
Mate does teach wherein at least one of a volume and a direction of the 3D audio automatically adjusts to guide the caregiver toward the patient environment where the alarm is triggered. (Mate para 81 teaches 3D audio effects to create a spatial audio space aligned with real world space in the case of augmented reality in which audio can be positioned for presentation to a user. Spatial audio may use one or more of volume differences, timing differences, pitch differences to create perception of origin of audio is at a particular location in space. Para 91 teaches audio is providing guidance or an assumed route to a point of interest using spatial audio. )
It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the audio as taught by Davis with the 3D audio changing volume and direction as taught by Mate. It would be beneficial for the audio to be 3D audio with volume and direction changes because it would solve the problem of presenting augmented reality content with directionality as taught by Mate para 2.
Claims 7, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis (US 20120313775) in view of Van Dusen (US 20210183512).
CLAIM 7, 16
Davis teaches wherein the patient is determined risk sensitive based on data […].
Davis does not teach wherein the patient is determined risk sensitive based on data from at least one of a microphone and a camera in the patient environment, the data indicating that the patient is exhibiting aggressive, violent, or self-harming behavior.
Van Dusen does teach wherein the patient is determined risk sensitive based on data from at least one of a microphone and a camera in the patient environment, the data indicating that the patient is exhibiting aggressive, violent, or self-harming behavior. (Van dusen para 19, 23, 36, 67 teaches collecting environmental data to determine level of risk associated with patient behavior such as potential to commit suicide. Para 74 teach microphone and camera.)
It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the data as taught by Davis with the data from a microphone or camera in the patient environment indicating the patient is exhibiting aggressive, violent or self harming behavior as taught by Van dusen because an accurate mental illness diagnosis relies on careful assessment and identification of a cause of behavioral changes identified over a period of time during which the individual can be observed as taught by Van Dusen para 2.
Claims 8, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis (US 20120313775) in view of Bergh (US 20220223259).
CLAIM 8, 17
Davis teaches wherein the patient is determined risk sensitive based on data […] (Davis para 16-17 teach an alarm. Examiner interprets an alarm as determination the patient is at risk. )
Davis does not teach wherein the patient is determined risk sensitive based on data from an electronic medical record indicating the patient is prone to violent or self-harming behavior based on at least one of a mental disorder diagnosis and past behavior.
Bergh does teach wherein the patient is determined risk sensitive based on data from an electronic medical record indicating the patient is prone to violent or self-harming behavior based on at least one of a mental disorder diagnosis and past behavior. (Bergh para 43, 76, 112 teaches determine risk of suicide based on analyzing historical data and record)
It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the data as taught by Davis with the data from an electronic record indicating the patient is prone to violent or self-harming behavior based on past behavior as taught by Bergh because it would be beneficial to take into account historical data to determine likelihood of risk of suicide as taught by Bergh para 43.
Claims 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis (US 20120313775) in view of Geva (US 6366871)
CLAIM 21
Davis teaches The system of claim 1, wherein the public communications channel allows direct communications between the caregiver and the patient. (Davis para 49 teaches an audible alarm at the patients bedside. Para 50 teaches the alarm emanating from the patient room. Para 49 teaches patient monitor in a room and an alarm. Para 2 teaches alarm sent to a central management station such as a nurse station. See also 49-52)
Davis does not teach, however Geva does teach The system of claim 1, wherein the public communications channel allows direct communications between the caregiver and the patient. (Geva Col 1, lines 54-67 teach communication between patient and clinician at a central station)
It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the public communications as taught by Davis with allow direct communication between caregiver and patient as taught by Geva because it would be beneficial to provide a patient with medical attention should an emergency occur as taught by Geva Col 1, line 43-45.
Prior Art Made of Record and Not Relied Upon
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20240048657 Martin
Abstract teaches system receives a notification regarding an alarm condition, and opens a communications channel based on the alarm condition. The communications channel joins together communications badges worn by caregivers in a clinical care environment. The system closes the communications channel when the alarm condition is resolved.
Response to Arguments Regarding U.S.C. 101 Rejection
Applicant argues pg. 6:
The Office Action characterizes the claims as "managing personal behavior or interaction between people" but for generic computer components, and concluded that the additional elements - including the device worn by a caregiver and the augmented reality communications channel - are recited at a high level of generality and merely apply the abstract idea using generic computer functions of computing, determining, and selecting. Amended claim I modifies the operation of a real-time clinical alerting system by dynamically creating distinct communication channels with different propagation characteristics (i.e., broadcast vs concealed delivery) based on patient-specific state. This is not merely
presenting information, but instead alters how alerts are transmitted, routed, and rendered within
a distributed system comprising sensors, a communications server, and wearable augmented
reality (AR) devices. This configuration improves the functioning of clinical alerting systems by
reducing unnecessary alert exposure, minimizing alarm fatigue, and enabling targeted, low latency
delivery of actionable information through modality-specific channels that are dynamically adapted to the clinical context, and is therefore a technical improvement. Amended claim I is not a generalized process of managing human behavior - it is a specific, technically-implemented system architecture that addresses a real and documented problem in clinical alerting systems. The specification explains that existing alerting systems either broadcast alarms universally - risking dangerous reactions from risk-sensitive patients and alarm fatigue - or suppress alarms entirely, which can result in delayed clinical response. Amended claim I solves this technical problem through a conditional, patient-specific
channel selection that leverages augmented reality (AR) to deliver alarm information to the caregiver in a manner that is physically inaccessible to the patient. The use of AR on a wearable device is not a generic computer function, but is rather a delivery modality that allows a caregiver to receive real-time spatial and clinical information while remaining physically present and unencumbered in the patient environment - a capability that has no analog in managing personal behavior or interaction between people. The conditional bifurcation between the private communications channel concealed from
the patient and the public communications channel allowing at least one of an audible alert and a
visual alert to be emitted inside the patient environment, in combination with the condition triggered
automatic termination together reflect a particular technical solution to a technical problem, that integrate the claimed subject matter into a practical application. Therefore, the amended claims are not directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong Two, and withdrawal of the§ 101 rejection is respectfully requested.
Examiner responds:
Examiner agrees in light of the amended claims and Applicants arguments pg. 7-8
Response to Arguments Regarding U.S.C. 102
Applicant argues pg. 11:
In particular, the Office Action characterizes the alarm disclosed in paragraphs 16-17 of Davis as being relevant to "determine whether the patient is risk sensitive." However, this interpretation improperly conflates receiving notice that an alarm condition has been triggered (as recited in Davis) with affirmatively determining whether the patient is risk sensitive such as when the patient is exhibiting aggressive, violent, or self-harming behavior, as recited in dependent claims 7 and 8. In fact, Davis's disclosure is directed entirely to rapid location of an alarm condition - the system receives an alarm, identifies clinician and patient locations, and provides navigation guidance to the clinician. Davis does not evaluate or classify the patient based on any risk-sensitivity criterion. The specification makes clear that "risk sensitive" refers to a distinct patient classification - patients whose health or safety may be adversely affected by awareness of an alarm condition, such as those prone to aggressive, violent, or self-harming behavior. See paragraphs 29-30, 35, and 75. The determination of patient risk sensitivity recited in amended claim I is not disclosed or suggested in Davis. Further, the conflation of the alarm in
Davis with the patient risk-sensitivity determination of amended claim I eviscerates the claimed subject matter, which is impermissible under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard.
Examiner responds:
Applicant does not claim “"risk sensitive" refers to a distinct patient classification - patients whose health or safety may be adversely affected by awareness of an alarm condition, such as those prone to aggressive, violent, or self-harming behavior. See paragraphs 29-30, 35, and 75”. Examiner uses the broadest reasonable interpretation of risk-sensitive which encompasses an alarm guiding a clinician to a patient.
Applicant argues pg. 11
Amended claim I further recites a conditional, bifurcated architecture in which the system opens a private communications channel when the patient is determined to be risk sensitive, and a public communications channel - allowing at least one of an audible alert and a visual alert to be emitted inside the patient environment - when the patient is determined not to be risk sensitive. Davis discloses a single, uniform system response to every alarm: calculating guidance information and displaying it on a portable notification device to direct the clinician to the patient. Davis applies the same response regardless of any patient characteristic, discloses no mechanism for branching between a private and public channel based on a patient determination, and contains no disclosure of a first channel that emits an alert inside the patient environment or a second channel that conceals the alert as a function of a risk-sensitivity assessment.
Examiner responds:
Davis para 49 teaches an audible alarm at the patients bedside. Para 50 teaches the alarm emanating from the patient room. Para 49 teaches patient monitor in a room and an alarm. Para 2 teaches alarm sent to a central management station such as a nurse station. See also 49-52 regarding nurse station. Examiner uses the broadest reasonable interpretation of “risk sensitive” as analogous to Davis para 18-20 which teaches a clinician responsible for the patient being identified and guided to the patient suffering the alarm condition and Examiner interprets not to be risk sensitive as the clinician not being guided to the patient location. Davis para 49 teaches an audible alarm at the patients bedside. Para 50 teaches the alarm emanating from the patient room. Para 49 teaches patient monitor in a room and an alarm. Para 2 teaches alarm sent to a central management station such as a nurse station. See also 49-52 regarding nurse station. Examiner uses the broadest reasonable interpretation of “risk sensitive” as analogous to Davis para 18-20 which teaches a clinician responsible for the patient being identified and guided to the patient suffering the alarm condition and Examiner interprets not to be risk sensitive as the clinician not being guided to the patient location.
Applicant argues pg.11:
The conclusion at the bottom of page 7 of the Office Action that Davis's heads-up display (HUD) glasses constitute a "private communication channel concealed from the patient" because the patient is not wearing the HUD likewise fails based on similar logic. Davis does not disclose or suggest a system that intentionally controls whether alert information is perceptible to the patient based on a patient-specific determination. Any purported "privacy" in Davis is incidental to device usage and not the result of a system-level determination or selective communication channel instantiation, as required by the claims.
Examiner responds:
Applicant does not claim “a system that intentionally controls whether alert information is perceptible to the patient based on a patient-specific determination”. Applicant claims “the private communications channel concealed from the patient,” which is analogous to a private headset worn by the clinician.
Applicant argues pg. 11-12:
Finally, amended claim I requires that when the alarm condition is resolved, the system automatically terminates the private communications channel and the public communications channel. Davis terminates its guidance process when the clinician arrives at the patient location - not when the alarm condition is resolved. Thus, Davis terminates based on clinician arrival, which is a navigation event. In contrast, the claimed system terminates communications based on resolution of the underlying clinical condition, which requires monitoring and evaluating patient state. This reflects fundamentally different system behavior and control logic.
Examiner responds:
Applicant does not claim “terminates communications based on resolution of the underlying clinical condition”. Applicant claims “when the condition that triggered the alarm is resolved.”
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW KYLE TAPIA whose telephone number is (703)756-1662. The examiner can normally be reached 830 - 530.
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, Mamon Obeid can be reached at (571) 270-1813. 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.
/A.K.T./Examiner, Art Unit 3687
/MAMON OBEID/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3687
Prosecution Insights