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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In ¶ 0045, the term “CCD” is not previously defined. Examiner recommends defining “CCD” as “Charge-Coupled Device” at the first instance of the acronym.
In ¶ 0045, the term “CMOS” is not previously defined. Examiner recommends defining “CMOS” as “Complementary Metal-Oxide-Semiconductor” at the first instance of the acronym.
Appropriate correction is required.
Subject Matter Free of Prior Art
Claim(s) 1-21, 23-26 are allowable over prior art because the prior art of record fail to expressly teach or suggest, either alone or in combination, the features found within the independent claims, in particular: “in a case where information of the patient cannot be obtained from the first image, transmits, to a second external apparatus, a second image for identifying a patient, the second image having been added to the first image, and obtains, from the second external apparatus, information of the patient corresponding to the second image and associate the information with the first image” and “in a case where information of the patient corresponding to the second image has been obtained from the external apparatus, associates the information of the patient with the first image, and in a case where the information of the patient corresponding to the second image cannot be obtained from the external apparatus, adds the second image to the first image,” respectively. Because the prior art does not teach or disclose the above features in the specific manner and combinations recited in independent claims 1, 14, 23-26, claims 1, 14, 23-26 are hereby deemed to be allowable over prior art. Originally numbered dependent claims 2-13, 15-22 incorporate the allowable features of originally numbered independent claims 1, 14, 23-26, through dependency, respectively.
However, the claims are still rejected under 112 and 101.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“an obtaining unit” in claim 1;
“a control unit” in claim 1;
“a communication unit” in claim 14;
“an image capture apparatus” in claim 22; and
“an image processing apparatus” in claim 22.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim(s) 1-22 is/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.
Claim 1 recites “an obtaining unit” and “a control unit.” Claim 14 recites “a communication unit.” Claim 22 recites “an image capture apparatus” and “an image processing apparatus.” However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, the aforementioned claim limitations could be implemented as software (i.e., program code, algorithms) or hardware. With regards to the “image capture apparatus,” the specification mentions: “the image capture apparatus 110 is a digital camera will be described, but it is not limited to a digital camera and may be a portable communication terminal, such as a smartphone or a tablet computer, or an information processing terminal” (¶ 0039). With regards to the “image processing apparatus,” the specification mentions: “The image processing apparatus 100 is a portable terminal, such as a smartphone or a tablet computer” (¶ 0036). However, this does not clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function of the aforementioned claim limitations. Furthermore, the specification does not further describe the structure of the aforementioned units and only further describes the functions of the aforementioned claim limitations. However, this does not clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function of the aforementioned claim limitations. Therefore, the disclosure's lack of a description that clearly links the structure to the function of the aforementioned claim limitations evidences that the Applicant did not have possession of the invention at the time of filing. Because no additional information is given, the disclosure fails to sufficiently describe the aforementioned claim limitations of claims 1, 14, 22, respectively.
Claim(s) 2-13 is/are rejected as being dependent on claim 1.
Claim(s) 15-21 is/are rejected as being dependent on claim 14.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 1-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim limitations “an obtaining unit” and “a control unit” (claim 1); “a communication unit” (claim 14); “an image capture apparatus” and “an image processing apparatus” (claim 22) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. It is unclear if the aforementioned claim limitations are implemented as software (i.e., program code, algorithms) or hardware because Under broadest reasonable interpretation, the aforementioned claim limitations could be implemented as software (i.e., program code, algorithms) or hardware. With regards to the “image capture apparatus,” the specification mentions: “the image capture apparatus 110 is a digital camera will be described, but it is not limited to a digital camera and may be a portable communication terminal, such as a smartphone or a tablet computer, or an information processing terminal” (¶ 0039). With regards to the “image processing apparatus,” the specification mentions: “The image processing apparatus 100 is a portable terminal, such as a smartphone or a tablet computer” (¶ 0036). However, this does not clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function of the aforementioned claim limitations. Furthermore, the specification does not further describe the structure of the aforementioned units and only further describes the functions of the aforementioned claim limitations. However, this does not clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function of the aforementioned claim limitations. Furthermore, it is unclear how the aforementioned claim limitations are structurally related to each other and the overall “apparatus” or “system,” as they are not positively recited as being tied to any known hardware components (i.e., processor, memory). Under broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, the aforementioned claim limitations can be implemented as software and/or hardware. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim(s) 2-13 is/are rejected as being dependent on claim 1.
Claim(s) 15-21 is/are rejected as being dependent on claim 14.
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.
Claim(s) 1-26 is/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. Based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claims as a whole, the claims are directed to non-statutory subject matter which do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because of the following analysis:
Claim 1 is drawn to an apparatus which is within the four statutory categories (i.e., machine). Claim 14 is drawn to an apparatus which is within the four statutory categories (i.e., machine). Claim 22 is drawn to a system which is within the four statutory categories (i.e., machine). Claim 23 is drawn to a method which is within the four statutory categories (i.e., method). Claim 24 is drawn to a method which is within the four statutory categories (i.e., method). Claim 25 is drawn to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium which is within the four statutory categories (i.e., manufacture). Claim 26 is drawn to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium which is within the four statutory categories (i.e., manufacture).
Independent claim 1 (which is representative of independent claims 23, 25) recites…obtains…a first image in which a predetermined part of a patient has been captured; and a control unit that: in a case where information of the patient cannot be obtained from the first image, [provides]…a second image for identifying a patient, the second image having been added to the first image, and obtains…information of the patient corresponding to the second image and associate the information with the first image.
Independent claim 14 (which is representative of independent claims 24, 26) recites… [provides] the second image…; and…in a case where information of the patient corresponding to the second image has been obtained from the external apparatus, associates the information of the patient with the first image, and in a case where the information of the patient corresponding to the second image cannot be obtained from the external apparatus, adds the second image to the first image.
Independent claim 22 recites… obtains the first image to which the second image has been added…; and…reads identification information of the patient from the second image received…and [provides] information of the patient corresponding to the identification information to the image capture apparatus or the image processing apparatus.
Under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations noted above, as drafted, covers certain methods of organizing human activity (i.e., managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people…following rules or instructions), but for the recitation of generic computer components. The claims encompass a series of rules or instructions for a person or persons to follow, with or without the aid of a computer, to collect and organize patient data in the manner described in the identified abstract idea, supra. The rules or instructions are the claimed steps as indicated supra. That is, other than reciting generic computer components (discussed infra), the claim amounts to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people following rules or instructions. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or relationships 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 claims recite an abstract idea.
Claim 1 recites additional elements (i.e., An image processing apparatus comprising: an obtaining unit; a first external apparatus; a control unit; a second external apparatus). Claim 14 recites additional elements (i.e., An image capture apparatus comprising: an image capture unit that captures a first image indicating a predetermined part of a patient and a second image for identifying a patient; a communication unit; an external apparatus; a control unit). Claim 22 recites additional elements (i.e., A system including: an image capture apparatus that captures a first image indicating a predetermined part of a patient and a second image for identifying a patient; an image processing apparatus; an information management apparatus). Claim 23 recites additional elements (i.e., an image processing apparatus; a first external apparatus; a second external apparatus). Claim 24 recites additional elements (i.e., an image capture apparatus; capturing a second image for identifying a patient; an external apparatus). Claim 25 recites additional elements (i.e., A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program; a processor; image processing apparatus comprising: an obtaining unit; a first external apparatus; a control unit; a second external apparatus). Claim 26 recites additional elements (i.e., A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program; a processor; an image capture apparatus comprising: an image capture unit that captures a first image indicating a predetermined part of a patient and a second image for identifying a patient; a communication unit; an external apparatus; a control unit). Looking to the specifications, an image processing apparatus comprising units is described at a high level of generality (¶ 0036), such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Also, the claims add “a first external apparatus,” “a second external apparatus,” “an information management apparatus,” “an external apparatus,” which is described at a high level of generality (¶ 0037; ¶ 0048) and is only invoked merely as a tool in its ordinary capacity to perform an existing process (i.e., receiving, providing data), which does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claim and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Looking to the specifications, an image capture apparatus comprising units is described at a high level of generality (¶ 0039; ¶ 0043; ¶ 0045; ¶ 0048), such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Also, the claims add “an image capture unit that captures a first image indicating a predetermined part of a patient and a second image for identifying a patient,” which only invokes the image sensor merely as a tool in its ordinary capacity to perform an existing process (i.e., capturing images), which amounts to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent), and only generally links the claimed invention to a particular technological environment or field of use, which does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claim. Looking to the specifications, a computing system having a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program, processor is described at a high level of generality (¶ 0043; ¶ 0168), such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements individually. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Reevaluated under step 2B, the additional elements noted above do not provide “significantly more” when taken either individually or as an ordered combination. The use of a general purpose computer or computers (i.e., an image processing apparatus comprising units; external apparatuses; an information management apparatus; an image capture apparatus; a computing system having a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program, processor) amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and does not impose any meaningful limitation on the computer implementation of the abstract idea, so it does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Also, the claims add “an image capture unit that captures a first image indicating a predetermined part of a patient and a second image for identifying a patient,” which only invokes the image sensor merely as a tool in its ordinary capacity to perform an existing process (i.e., capturing images), which amounts to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent), and only generally links the claimed invention to a particular technological environment or field of use, which does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claim. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements individually. The combination of elements does not indicate a significant improvement to the functioning of a computer or any other technology and their collective functions merely provide a conventional computer implementation of the abstract idea. Furthermore, the additional elements or combination of elements in the claims, other than the abstract idea per se, amount to no more than a recitation of generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, as the courts have found in Parker v. Flook; similarly, the current invention merely limits the claimed calculations to the healthcare industry which does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claim. Therefore, there are no limitations in the claims that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 2, 5-11, 15-17, 19-20 include all the limitations of the parent claims and further elaborate on the abstract idea discussed above and incorporated herein.
Claims 2-13, 15-21 further define the analysis and organization of data for the performance of the abstract idea and do not recite any additional elements. Thus, the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not provide “significantly more.”
Claims 3-4 further recites the additional elements of “a display unit that displays,” which is only invoked merely as a tool in its ordinary capacity to perform an existing process (i.e., displaying data), which amounts to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent), and only generally links the claimed invention to a particular technological environment or field of use, which does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claim. Also, functional limitations further define the analysis and organization of data for the performance of the abstract idea. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements individually. Thus, the claims as a whole do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not provide “significantly more.”
Claim 12 further recites the additional elements of “wherein the second external apparatus: stores the information of the patient.” Claim 13 further recites the additional elements of “wherein the second external apparatus…stores the first image and the information of the patient.” Claim 18 further recites the additional elements of “wherein the control unit stores the second image and the first image.” Claim 21 further recites the additional elements of “wherein the external apparatus: stores the information of the patient.” The “second external apparatus,” “control unit,” and “external apparatus” are described at a high level of generality and only invoked merely as a tool in its ordinary capacity to perform an existing process (i.e., storing data), which amounts to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent), and only provides the input data for the performance of the abstract idea, and as such, amounts to insignificant extrasolution activity (i.e., mere data gathering), which does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claim. See: MPEP § 2106.05(g). Also, functional limitations further define the analysis and organization of data for the performance of the abstract idea. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements individually. Thus, the claims as a whole do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Reevaluated under step 2B, the “second external apparatus,” “control unit,” and “external apparatus” are described at a high level of generality and only invoked merely as a tool in its ordinary capacity to perform an existing process (i.e., storing data), which amounts to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent). Furthermore, receiving or transmitting data over a network, electronic recordkeeping, and storing and retrieving information in memory has been recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional elements/functions. See: MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II). Also, functional limitations further define the analysis and organization of data for the performance of the abstract idea. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements individually. Thus, the claims as a whole do not provide “significantly more.”
Although the dependent claims add additional limitations, they only serve to further limit the abstract idea by reciting limitations on what the information is and how it is received and used. These information characteristics do not change the fundamental analogy to the abstract idea groupings and, when viewed individually or as a whole, they do not add anything substantial beyond the abstract idea. Furthermore, the combination of elements does not indicate a significant improvement to the functioning of a computer or any other technology. Therefore, the claims when taken as a whole are ineligible for the same reasons as the independent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. US 2013/0256405 A1 (hereinafter referred to as "Montout").
Regarding claim 1, Montout teaches a system including:
an image capture apparatus that captures a first image indicating a predetermined part of a patient and a second image for identifying a patient (Montout: ¶ 0030, i.e., “the user scans a barcode to obtain data, such as a patient ID. Then, the user captures one or more digital images using the internal digital camera”; ¶ 0039-0040);
an image processing apparatus that obtains the first image to which the second image has been added from the image capture apparatus (Montout: ¶ 0030, i.e., “These images are tagged with the data from the scanned barcode. Tagging the image with data can include adding this data to the exchangeable image file format (EXIF) data of the image. Alternatively, tagging the image with data can include adding the scanned data to the filename of the image file. In yet another iteration, the actual image data is modified to include the scanned data, such as by adding a textual representation of the scanned data as a watermark on the image. The images along with the associated scanned barcode data can then be transmitted to an external device, such as a general-purpose computer”); and
an information management apparatus that reads identification information of the patient from the second image received from the image capture apparatus or the image processing apparatus and transmits information of the patient corresponding to the identification information to the image capture apparatus or the image processing apparatus (Montout: ¶ 0039, i.e., “a reference image of the patient is obtained using the scanned barcode data and is used to confirm that the patient wearing the barcode is in fact the patient assigned to that barcode”; ¶ 0040, i.e., “The digital images associated with that particular patient then can be made available to medical professionals either by directly viewing the data on the digital image barcode scanner device”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2003/0047600 A1 teaches printing a barcode on a headshot in a comprehensive check-in sheet and printing out the sheet to information retrieval at check-in.
“Patient's medical image mobile controller” teaches accessing a patient’s medical images by obtaining a patient accession number from a scanned barcode.
WO 2019/221908 A1 teaches affixing an optical code to a patient, capturing image data, and accessing patient data.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Emily Huynh whose telephone number is (571)272-8317. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 8-5 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, Robert Morgan can be reached on (571) 272-6773. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/EMILY HUYNH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3683
Prosecution Insights