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 Application No. 18/608,028 filed on 3/18/2024.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Claims 19-20 are withdrawn below.
Claims 1-18 have been examined and rejected as follows.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Claims 1-18 in the reply filed on 9/24/2025 is acknowledged. Accordingly, claims 19-20 have been withdrawn.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/18/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites a system and method for communication after an alarm and risk determination.
The limitations of receiving an alarm triggered in a patient environment where a patient is located; determining whether the patient is risk sensitive; and when the patient is determined to be risk sensitive, opening a private communications channel […] by a caregiver, the private communications channel concealed from the patient, and the private communications channel […] for resolving a condition that triggered the alarm, as drafted, is a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers certain methods of organizing human activity (i.e., managing personal behavior including following rules or instructions) but for recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a system implemented by a “at least one processing device; and at least one computer readable data storage device” (computer), the claimed invention amounts to managing personal behavior or interaction between people. For example, but for the processing device and computer readable data storage device, this claim encompasses a person receiving an alarm, determining patient risk, and opening private communication in the manner described in the identified abstract idea, supra. The Examiner notes that certain “method[s] of organizing human activity” includes a person’s interaction with a computer (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or interactions between people but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A2
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional element of (claim 1 and 10) a processing device and computer readable data storage device that implements the identified abstract idea. The processing device and computer readable data storage device is not described by the applicant and is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., a generic computer performing a generic computer functions of computing, determining, and selecting) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional element of a device worn and channel providing augmented reality that implements the identified abstract idea. The device worn and channel providing augmented reality is not described by the applicant and is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., a generic device and channel performing a generic computer functions of computing, determining, and selecting) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processing device and computer readable data storage device to perform the noted steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a device worn and channel providing augmented reality to perform the noted steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”).
Dependent Claims
Claims 2-9, 11-18 are similarly rejected because they either further define/narrow the abstract idea and/or do not further limit the claim to a practical application or provide as inventive concept such that the claims are subject matter eligible even when considered individually or as an ordered combination. Claim 3, 13 merely describes volume and direction of 3D audio. Claim 5, 15 merely describes data including directional indicators. Claim 7, 8, 17, 18 merely describes determining patient risk. Claim 9 merely describes opening a public channel.
Claim 2, 4, 12, 14 also includes the additional element of “augmented reality” which is analyzed the same as in the independent claim and does not provide a practical application or significantly more for the same reasons. Claim 2, 12 merely describes audio adjusting based on position. Claim 4, 14 also includes the additional element of “a display” which merely generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) indicates that generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide a practical application. Utilization of the interactive user equates to saying “apply it.” MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) indicates that merely saying “apply it” or equivalent to the abstract idea cannot provide a practical application. Accordingly, even in combination, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 4, 14 merely describes data projected on a head-up display.
Claim 6, 16 also includes the additional element of devices that implements the identified abstract idea. The devices are not described by the applicant and are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., a generic devices performing a generic capturing functions of capturing physiological variable measurements) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. Claim 6, 16 merely describes capturing physiological measurements.
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; and (Davis para 16-17 teach an alarm. Examiner interprets an alarm as determination the patient is at risk. )
when the patient is 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. )
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. Examiner notes “for resolving a condition that triggered the alarm” is intended use and holds no patentable weight. )
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 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. (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.
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. (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 9, 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis (US 20120313775) in view of Zuckerman (US 20190236840) in view of Etchison (US 20230062727)
CLAIM 9, 18
Davis teaches open a public communications channel on another device worn by the caregiver when the patient is determined not to be risk sensitive, the public communications channel not being concealed from the patient. (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 does not teach open a public communications channel on another device worn by the caregiver […], the public communications channel not being concealed from the patient.
Zuckerman does teach open a public communications channel on another device worn by the caregiver […], the public communications channel not being concealed from the patient. (Zuckerman para 33, 43 teach a HMD including a patient and provider and a second physician may participate in the same consultation via a second HMD.)
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 communications channel as taught by Davis with the public channel not concealed from the patient as taught by Zuckerman because it would be beneficial to include multiple medical professionals when engaging with a patient for a consultation as taught by Zuckerman para 5.
Davis in view of Zuckerman does not teach open a public communications channel on another device worn by the caregiver when the patient is determined not to be risk sensitive, the public communications channel not being concealed from the patient.
Etchison does teach open a public communications channel on another device worn by the caregiver when the patient is determined not to be risk sensitive, the public communications channel not being concealed from the patient. (Etchison para 193 teaches notifying a patient that they are no longer designated as a risk)
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 communications as taught by Davis in view of Zuckerman with the communication when the patient is determined to not be risk sensitive as taught by Etchison because it would be beneficial to indicate the patient is no longer at risk as taught by Etchison para 24, 34.
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 20210057111 Barkol
Para 21 teaches public and private communication channels between providers and healthcare assistants.
US 20180233018 Burwinkel
Para 45 teaches 3D audio synthesized to generate from a spatial location to draw attention.
Yeh, Diagnosed Mental Health Conditions and Risk of Suicide Mortality, June 12, 2019 (Year: 2019)
Yeh section “Discussion” teaches nearly all mental disorders are associated with increased risk of suicide mortality.
Conclusion
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