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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 11 states “an Assignment scheduler system maintain staff”. The limitation should read -- an Assignment scheduler system to maintain staff--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 11 states “form the plurality of image files”. The limitation should read – from the plurality of image files--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 21 states “first comprising”. The limitation “first” should be deleted. Appropriate correction is required.
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, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-9, 11, 12, and 18-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng (US 2004/0138925) in view of Durlach et al. (US 2022/0122724) further considered with Zuckerman et al. (US 2019/0172578).
In regard to claim 1, Zheng teaches a hospital network system (fig. 1) comprising: a plurality of corridor display units each associated with a facility location (elements 8A-8D), the plurality of corridor display units each including a first flat panel display (fig. 3 element 10), a second flat panel display in an opposed arrangement to the first flat panel display (element 15 and paragraph 58), and a mounting frame adapted for mounting to a corridor surface proximate the facility location (fig. 3, the two display units are mounted together on the ceiling); and a display controller operatively associated with one or more of the plurality of corridor display units (fig. 1 element 2), the corridor display controller programmed with logic rules to generate a plurality of image files indicative of data input to the display controller (fig. 2) but does not teach wherein the plurality of image files are for rendering a contextual annunciation image on the first and/or the second flat panel display that includes both a textual component and a graphical component associated with the data input to the display controller, wherein the contextual annunciation image includes one or more of real-time data and prerecorded data, and the logic rules include prioritization rules for selection of real-time data and prerecorded data in the contextual annunciation image.
Durlach teaches wherein the plurality of image files are for rendering a contextual annunciation image on the first and/or the second flat panel display that includes both a textual component and a graphical component associated with the data input to the display controller (fig. 9, the display of Durlach shows the nurse both graphical and textual information to assist in patient care).
The two are analogous art because they both deal with the same field of invention of hospital displays.
Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the apparatus of Zheng with the display graphics of Durlach et al. The rationale is as follows: Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to provide the apparatus of Zheng with the display icons of Durlach et al. because the display graphics of Durlach et al. would work equally as well in the apparatus of Zheng as they do in the apparatus of Durlach et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the graphics of Zheng would provide predictable results and would provide the information in an easily recognizable format.
Zuckerman et al. teach wherein the contextual annunciation image includes one or more of real-time data and prerecorded data, and the logic rules include prioritization rules for selection of real-time data and prerecorded data in the contextual annunciation image (paragraph 170, Zuckerman et al. teach a Room Door Tablet that hangs outside of a patient’s room (paragraph 160). Paragraph 170 states in an emergency the tablet will flash critical information and the other tablets will display graphic arrows pointing in the direction of the emergency. These graphics are a priority in an emergency).
The three are analogous art because they all deal with the same field of invention of hospital displays.
Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the apparatus of Zheng and Durlach et al. with the emergency display of Zuckerman et al. The rationale is as follows: Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to provide the apparatus of Zheng and Durlach et al. with the emergency display of Zuckerman et al. because displaying the information in an emergency would allow for quicker and better care for the patient.
In regard to claim 2, Durlach et al. teach wherein the contextual annunciation image includes one or more patient status data and location status data (elements 176 and paragraph 287, the siderail icons change colors based on their status).
In regard to claim 3, Durlach et al. teach wherein the patient status data includes one or more of real-time patient status data and prerecorded patient status data (fig. 25 element 468. Durlach et al. show the fall score as High in bolded letters. This is graphical annunciation).
In regard to claim 6, Durlach et al. teach wherein the contextual annunciation image includes location status data (elements 176 and paragraph 287, the siderail icons change colors based on their status).
In regard to claim 7, Durlach et al. teach where in the location status data includes one or more of real-time location status data and prerecorded location status data (elements 176 and paragraph 287, the siderail icons change colors based on their status).
In regard to claim 8, Durlach et al. teach wherein the real-time location status data is an occupancy status of the facility (element 166 and paragraph 288).
In regard to claim 9, Durlach et al. teach a real-time location system (RTLS) including a plurality of locating tag transponders and a plurality of fixed sensors (paragraph 251).
In regard to claim 11, Durlach et al. teach an Assignment Scheduler system maintain staff and caregiver assignments (element 172).
Zuckerman et al. teach the contextual annunciation image is for guiding a caregiver to the patient location (paragraph 170, Zuckerman et al. teach an arrow for guidance in an emergency).
In regard to claim 12, Durlach et al. teach one or more caregiver call devices communicatively connected with one of the plurality of corridor display units through a patient location network connector (fig. 4 elements 134 and 136); and wherein the display controller generates the contextual annunciation image reflective of real-time patient status data received from the one or more caregiver call devices (paragraph 349, Durlach et al. teach receiving the fall risk assessment from the healthcare facility rather than the caregiver).
In regard to claim 18, Durlach et al. teach wherein the display controller is operatively associated with a logic base comprising logic rules for selection of the image file form the plurality of image files for display one of the plurality of corridor display units (fig. 9, there is a program that chooses the images. All computers use logic).
In regard to claim 19, Zuckerman et al. teach wherein the logic base includes prioritization rules for selection of one or more of real-time information and prerecorded information for inclusion in the contextual annunciation image (paragraph 170, Zuckerman et al. teach a Room Door Tablet that hangs outside of a patient’s room (paragraph 160). Paragraph 170 states in an emergency the tablet will flash critical information and the other tablets will display graphic arrows pointing in the direction of the emergency. These graphics are a priority in an emergency).
In regard to claim 20, Zheng teaches a corridor display unit for annunciating information within a corridor of a hospital or health facility comprising: a flat panel display for displaying a contextual annunciation image including a textual component (fig. 3); a mounting frame for mounting the corridor display unit to a corridor surface, the mounting frame outlining and enclosing the flat panel display (fig. 3 and paragraph 58, the mounting frame surrounds the display and connects to the other display); but does not teach a graphical component and a display controller operatively associated with the corridor display unit and programmed with logic rules to select data and to generate an image file for rendering the contextual annunciation image indicative of the selected data on the flat panel display.
Durlach et al. teach a graphical component (fig. 9, the display of Durlach shows the nurse both graphical and textual information to assist in patient care) and a display controller operatively associated with the corridor display unit and programmed with logic rules to select data and to generate an image file for rendering the contextual annunciation image indicative of the selected data on the flat panel display (paragraph 261, microcontroller carries out functions of caregiver assistance program).
Zuckerman et al. teach wherein the contextual annunciation image includes one or more of real-time data and prerecorded data, and the logic rules include prioritization rules for selection of real-time data and prerecorded data in the contextual annunciation image (paragraph 170, Zuckerman et al. teach a Room Door Tablet that hangs outside of a patient’s room (paragraph 160). Paragraph 170 states in an emergency the tablet will flash critical information and the other tablets will display graphic arrows pointing in the direction of the emergency. These graphics are a priority in an emergency).
In regard to claim 21, Zheng teaches a second flat panel display arranged parallel and opposed to the first flat panel display (fig. 3).
In regard to claim 22, Zheng teaches wherein the mounting panel is rectangular and include four straight frame legs (see fig. 3 frame surrounds display screen. The rectangular frame of Zheng is the same as applicant’s rectangular mounting panel).
In regard to claim 23, Zheng teaches wherein the mounting frame includes a mounting bracket orthogonal to a first and second visual plane of the first and second flat panel displays (see fig. 3 and paragraph 58. Zheng teaches mounting the displays back to back and attaching them to the ceiling).
In regard to claim 24, Zheng teaches wherein the mounting bracket is configured for placement adjacent the corridor surface, and the corridor surface is one of a ceiling and a wall (see fig. 3 where the displays are mounted to the ceiling).
Claim(s) 4 and 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng in view of Durlach et al. further considered with Zuckerman et al. and Girardeau et al. (US 2014/0266642).
In regard to claim 4, Zheng, Durlach et al. and Zuckerman et al. teach all the elements of claim 4 except wherein the real-time patient status data originates from a caregiver call system associated with the patient location.
Girardeau et al. teach wherein the real-time patient status data originates from a caregiver call system associated with the patient location (fig. 1 and paragraph 25, the graphical room station connects directly to the nurse call server. The server is connected to master nurse call station).
The four are analogous art because they all deal with the same field of invention of hospital displays.
Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the apparatus of Zheng, Durlach et al. and Zuckerman et al. with the master nurse call station of Girardeau et al. The rationale is as follows: Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to provide the apparatus of Zheng, Durlach et al. and Zuckerman et al. with the master nurse call station of Girardeau et al. because the master nurse call station of Girardeau et al. would allow coordination with all of the rooms and patients.
In regard to claim 13, Zheng teach wherein the plurality of the corridor display units are communicatively connected by a corridor communication network (fig. 1 all corridor displays 8 are connected to the same server) but neither Zheng nor Durlach et al. teach each of the plurality of corridor display units include a unique network address.
Girardeau et al. teach each of the plurality of corridor display units include a unique network address (paragraph 34, each station ID is correlated with the room number).
The three are analogous art because they all deal with the same field of invention of hospital displays.
Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the apparatus of Zheng and Durlach et al. with the station ID numbers of Girardeau et al. The rationale is as follows: Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to provide the apparatus of Zheng and Durlach et al. with the station ID numbers of Girardeau et al. because the station ID numbers of Girardeau et al. would allow the device to display only the pertinent information for one patient.
In regard to claim 14, Girardeau et al. teach wherein the logic rules utilize the unique network address for generating the plurality of image files from data input to the display controller (paragraph 34, each display is connected to a station ID which is associated with a particular patient. The server provides information to the room that is specific to the patient).
In regard to claim 15, Girardeau et al. teach wherein the plurality of corridor display units operate in concert by use of the unique network addresses (paragraph 34, each display receives only information on a particular patient in the room. There is no redundancy in the displays because of the network address).
Claim(s) 5, 16 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng in view of Durlach et al. further considered with Zuckerman et al., Girardeau et al. and Hatch et al. (US 2022/0051532).
In regard to claim 5, Zheng, Durlach et al., Zuckerman et al. and Girardeau et al. teach all the elements of claim 5 except wherein the prerecorded patient status data originates from a patient electronic medical record.
Hatch et al. teach wherein the prerecorded patient status data originates from a patient electronic medical record. (fig. 7 element 706 and paragraph 56).
The five are analogous art because they all deal with the same field of invention of hospital displays.
Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the apparatus of Zheng, Durlach et al., Zuckerman et al. and Girardeau et al. with the medical record display of Hatch et al. The rationale is as follows: Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to provide the apparatus of Zheng, Durlach et al., Zuckerman et al. and Girardeau et al. with the medical record display of Hatch et al. because the medical record display of Hatch et al. would provide the caregiver with important information while allow the information to remain private.
In regard to claim 16, Hatch et al. teach wherein the corridor communication network is configured to supply electrical power to the plurality of corridor display units (element 816 and paragraph 59).
In regard to claim 25, Zheng teaches a hospital network system comprising: a corridor display unit including a first flat panel display, a second flat panel display in an opposed arrangement with the first flat panel display (fig. 3), and a mounting frame adapted for mounting to a corridor surface proximate the patient location (element 15).
Durlach et al. teach a display controller networked to the corridor display unit and programmed with logic rules to generate an image file corresponding to a contextual annunciation image for rendering on the flat panel display, the contextual annunciation image having a textual component and a graphical component (fig. 9 and paragraph 261).
Girardeau et al. a caregiver call system including one or more call devices communicatively networked to the display controller for communicating patient status data for generating and inclusion in the contextual annunciation image (fig. 1 and paragraph 25, the graphical room station connects directly to the nurse call server. The server is connected to master nurse call station).
Hatch et al. teach one or more network servers storing patient status data and communicatively networked to the display controller to communicate the patient status data for selection and inclusion in the contextual annunciation image in accordance with the logic rules (fig. 7 element 706 and paragraph 56).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: In regard to claim 10, the prior art fails to teach or make obvious the annunciation image being in a preferred language based on the RTLS system.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH R HALEY whose telephone number is (571)272-0574. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am-5pm.
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, Amr Awad can be reached at 571-272-7764. 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.
/JOSEPH R HALEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2621