Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/09/2026 has been entered.
DETAILED ACTION
Notices to Applicant
This communication is a final rejection. Claims 1-20, as filed 02/09/2026, are currently pending and have been considered below.
Priority is generally acknowledged as shown in the filing receipt with the earliest date being 12/13/2021.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon and the rationale supporting the rejection would be the same under either status.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1, 3-5, 7, 9, 12, 13, 15-17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amble (US20200221951A1) in view of Wolf (US20200268457A1).
Regarding claim 1, Amble discloses: A non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions which, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to ([0094]; “The set of tele-health devices communicates an audio-video data of a tele-health session to the one or more remote entities,” [0003]):
--acquire a video of at least one component of a medical device being used in a medical procedure, wherein the video comprises a time sequence of image frames (“In step 404, process 400 provides a set of tele-health devices, wherein the set of tele-health devices communicates an audio-video data of a tele-health session to the one or more remote entities,” [0055]);
--as the video is acquired, transmit the acquired video to a remote electronic processing device operable by a remote expert (RE) (“Telehealth agent 202 functionalities pertain to device handling and can include, inter alia: live tele-medicine session between the patient clinic and physicians,” [0027]);
--as the video is acquired, adjust a data stream transmission setting of the transmitting as a function of time based on the determined state of the medical procedure as a function of time (“his enables process 100 to evaluate the required bandwidth for any given session with specified (e.g. digital) medical devices. Along with this setup, when the nature of tele-health session is defined, process 100 can include algorithms to dynamically manage the priority of the devices for any given session,” [0036]; “Step 106 can provide real-time ability to detect bandwidth variations…Step 106 can implement algorithms for auto-configuring the data transmission based on types of devices and nature of tele-health session,” [0035]; acquiring video during an imaging procedure in [0031]).
Amble discloses generally using information about the telehealth session to adjust transmission settings such as bandwidth changes in [0036] and [0080] but this adjustment is not based on the state of the medical procedure. Amble does not expressly disclose but Wolf teaches:
--as the video is acquired, determine a state of the medical procedure as a function of time from the acquired video (“a phase may refer to a particular period or stage of a process or series of events. Accordingly, a surgical phase may refer to a particular period or stage of a surgical procedure, as described above,” [0154]; “identify the video footage location associated with at least one of the surgical event or the surgical phase may include performing computer image analysis on the video footage to identify at least one of a beginning location of the surgical phase for playback or a beginning of a surgical event for playback,” [0158]; “A decision making junction may include an inappropriate access or exposure, a retraction of an anatomical structure, a misinterpretation of an anatomical structure or a fluid leak, and/or any other surgical event, as previously described,” [0577]; real time video analysis in [0545]. The Examiner notes that Wolf [0545] teaches determining the state of the medical procedure contemporaneously with video acquisition (“as video is captured of the surgeon operating”));
--and likelihood of interaction from the remote expert at the determined state of the medical procedure (“automatically tagging portions of surgical video with a complexity score, thereby permitting a surgeon to quickly find the frames of interest based on complexity,” [0254]; “received video footage may be compared with image-related data to determine an existence of a surgical decision juncture. This may occur, for example, through video analysis, and may occur in real time. (E.g., as video is captured of the surgeon operating, analysis may be performed on the video in real time, and surgical junctions may be identified.),” [0545])
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated before the effective filing date to expand the optimizing of bandwidth based on the nature of the tele-health session of Amble to include Wolf’s phases and critical surgical junctions because this would ensure that the system maximizes resolution, frame rate, and bandwidth during the most critical parts of the procedure and thus balance high quality data and bandwidth usage (see Wolf [0004]).
Regarding claim 3, Amble discloses: wherein to acquire of the video, the instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the processor to:
--acquire the video using a video camera arranged to image a display of the medical device wherein the time sequence of image frames comprises a time sequence of images of the display (“providing a separate connection streaming for multiple imaging devices for video streaming of images received from frame-grabber-like device,” [0027]; “Streaming can occur through video grabbers where the device's output can be captured via display and streamed to a proprietary driver at telehealth agent 202,” [0031]). The Examiner notes that under the BRI, a video camera arranged to image a display encompasses any imaging arrangement that captures a time sequence of images of the medical device display, including the video grabber of Amble [0031] which “can be captured via display and streamed to a proprietary driver.”
Regarding claim 4, Amble further discloses: wherein the video comprises video of a controller display of the medical device (“Streaming can occur through video grabbers where the device's output can be captured via display and streamed to a proprietary driver at telehealth agent 202,” [0031]).
Amble does not expressly disclose but Wolf teaches: the determining a state of the medical device from the acquired video, the instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the processor to determine one of an idle state, a protocol prescription state, and an active scanning state of the medical imaging device (“video footage may be edited in one or more ways, such as to remove frames associated with inactivity, or to otherwise compile frames not originally captured sequentially,” [0150]; “fight mode” [0604]).
The motivation to combine is the same as in claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, Amble discloses: adjust the data stream transmission setting, a transmitted frame rate of the acquired video to the remote electronic processing device (“Each stream, based on the device type and characteristics, can use different handling such as, inter alia: compression, rate of transmission, error correction, etc,” [0031]).
Regarding claim 7, Amble further discloses: adjust the data stream transmission setting a compression parameter of a data compression process applied to the acquired video before transmission to the remote electronic processing device (“optimizing and compressing the translated digital output of the medical device,” [0003]; “enables the compression and transmission based on the nature and priority of various data types,” [0027]).
Regarding claim 9, Amble further discloses:
--automatically detect two-way communication between a local operator (LO) and the remote expert (RE) (“In step 404, process 400 provides a set of tele-health devices, wherein the set of tele-health devices communicates an audio-video data of a tele-health session to the one or more remote entities,” [0055]; FIG. 4); and
--adjust the data stream transmission setting of the transmitting as a function of time further based on the automatic detection of the two-way communication (“Step 106 can provide real-time ability to detect bandwidth variations. Step 106 can provide bandwidth requirements for various types of medical devices for telemetry communications. Step 106 can implement algorithms for auto-configuring the data transmission based on types of devices and nature of tele-health session,” [0035]).
Regarding claim 12, Amble discloses: wherein determining a state of the medical procedure from the acquired video includes:
--determine a state of a medical device based at least in part on a medical procedure protocol (“Device support module 702 can create a standardized workflow that can guide the operator through discrete steps to perform a given action, or to be able to compare steps already taken with the steps that should be taken. For example, the American Medical Association (AMA) publishes a set of guidelines to be taken for a given episode of care,” [0070]); and
--determine a time segment during the medical procedure protocol during which the remote expert (RE) monitors the medical procedure (“The live audio-video session between physicians, patients, and/or specialists, family members can be handled via telehealth agent 202 as well,” [0032]; certain alerts are “brought forward” to the physician during phases of the procedure in [0093] and the physician can “manually request to view the measurements s/he wishes to see and can establish that view as the default for a given patient,” [0093]); and
--output an indication that the remote expert should be assisting during the medical procedure to the remote electronic processing device operable by the remote expert (“if a threshold is violated (exceeds the boundary), this measurement is brought forward with the appropriate warning regarding the threshold violation,” [0093]).
Claims 13 and 20 are substantially similar to claim 1 and are rejected with the same reasoning.
Claim 15 is substantially similar to claim 3 and is rejected with the same reasoning.
Claim 16 is substantially similar to claim 4 and is rejected with the same reasoning.
Claim 17 is substantially similar to claim 5 and is rejected with the same reasoning.
Claim 19 is substantially similar to claim 12 and is rejected with the same reasoning.
Claims 2, 6, 8, 14, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amble (US20200221951A1) in view of Wolf (US20200268457A1) and Wasnik (US20170262582A1).
Regarding claim 2, Amble does not expressly disclose but Wasnik teaches: screen-scrape a display of the medical device wherein the time sequence of image frames comprises a time sequence of one of screen-scraped images of the display or images of the display provided by a video cable splitter (“The frame extractor 312 can be software including routines for extracting media items from the high-resolution stream temporarily stored in the buffer 310,” [0050]; “For example, the high-resolution codec 304 may receive an analog video device stream from a device driver. The high-resolution codec 304 may sample the analog video device stream at a particular frequency to create a digital frame rate and may further sample each frame with a window size to transform each analog frame to a digital frame,” [0045]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated before the effective filing date to expand the telehealth system of Amble and Wolf to include the video acquisition techniques of Wasnik because this would allow the telehealth system to capture video from a wider range of devices such as older devices (i.e., Wasnik’s “analog video device stream” in [0045]-[0046]).
Regarding claim 6, Amble does not expressly disclose bot Wasnik teaches: adjust a resolution of the image frames of the acquired video transmitted to the remote electronic processing device ([0035]-[0037).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated before the effective filing date to expand the telehealth system of Amble and Wolf to include the video resolution adjustments of Wasnik because this would allow the telehealth system to be more efficient with bandwidth (Wasnik [0020]).
Regarding claim 8, Amble discloses: wherein the method further includes: provide a user interface (UI) on a display device of the remote electronic processing device, the UI including a user control button selectable by the RE to adjust the data stream transmission setting of the transmitting (“The video player may include user interface controls that allow a user (e.g., the doctor 106) to specify frame numbers of interest in the low-resolution stream,” [0055]; “the user interface 320 may receive a user input to request a high-resolution copy of a given frame. The low-resolution stream may be playing and the user may simply interact with a user interface control to indicate such a request,” [0056]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated before the effective filing date to expand the telehealth system of Amble and Wolf to include the data adjustments of Wolf because this would allow the telehealth system to be more efficient with bandwidth (Wasnik [0020]).
Claim 14 is substantially similar to claim 2 and is rejected with the same reasoning.
Claim 18 is substantially similar to claim 6 and is rejected with the same reasoning. The Examiner notes that Amble further discloses: adjust a compression parameter of a data compression process applied to the acquired video before transmission to the remote electronic processing device (“optimizing and compressing the translated digital output of the medical device,” [0003]; “enables the compression and transmission based on the nature and priority of various data types,” [0027]).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amble (US20200221951A1) in view of Wolf (US20200268457A1) and Buras (US20200265754A1).
Regarding claim 10, Amble does not expressly disclose but Buras teaches: use a structural similarity index metric to determine the state of the medical procedure (“The image evaluation module computes each image's structural similarity index (SSI) against all other images in the set. If the SSI between two images is greater than a similarity threshold, which in one nonlimiting example may be about 60%, then the two images are regarded as near duplicates and the image evaluation module removes all one of the duplicate or near duplicate images,” [0113]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated before the effective filing date to expand the telehealth system of Amble and Wolf to include SSI-based state determinations of Buras because this would allow the system to be more efficient with bandwidth by, for example, reducing the quality of the data transmission when the device is stalled.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amble (US20200221951A1) in view of Wolf (US20200268457A1) and Jaw (US20210357702A1).
Regarding claim 11, Amble does not expressly disclose, but Jaw teaches: use text screen-scraped from the acquired video to determine the state of the medical procedure (“The text string may be received, for example, through an online submission form or in an email, or the text string may be obtained in various electronic manners, including from a PDF, a word processioning document, an image of text, or screen scraping,” [0041]; “For example, a description of an event may comprise a description of a medical procedure performed on a subject,” [0038]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated before the effective filing date to expand the telehealth system of Amble and Wolf to include text-based determinations of state of Jaw because using text instead of patient anatomical structure would allow the telehealth system to more quickly and efficiently determine the state of the procedure (see Jaw [0003]).
Response to arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/09/2026 have been fully considered and are discussed below.
Applicant argues that “AMBLE teaches optimization and compression together, but never explains what is meant by optimization,” (Remarks page 9). This is not persuasive because Amble expressly explains its bandwidth optimization in [0035]-[0036]: “This enables process 100 to evaluate the required bandwidth for any given session with specified (e.g. digital) medical devices… process 100 can include algorithms to dynamically manage the priority of the devices for any given session” and “Step 106 can implement algorithms for auto-configuring the data transmission based on types of devices and nature of tele-health session”.
Applicant argues “Nowhere does AMBLE teach or contemplate any reason to adjust transmission settings such as bandwidth changes during a medical procedure or based on the medical procedure” (Remarks page 9). This argument is not persuasive because it mischaracterizes the rejection. That rejection applied Wolf to the “based on the determined state of the medical procedure” limitation. Amble was relied upon for the underlying telehealth session framework such as bandwidth optimization. An argument attacking Amble in isolation cannot rebut a rejection grounded in the combination of Amble and Wolf.
Applicant argues that “cited step 404 in FIG. 4 is described in cited paragraph [0055], but is performed before the output at step 408 so not "as the video is acquired". Similarly, cited step 106 in FIG. 1 is described in cited paragraph [0035] but never states or shows adjustments "as the video is acquired",” (Remarks page 10). This is not persuasive. Amble [0035] states: “Step 106 can provide real-time ability to detect bandwidth variations” and “Step 106 can implement algorithms for auto-configuring the data transmission based on types of devices and nature of tele-health session.” A real-time detection of bandwidth during a telehealth session occurs contemporaneously with the live session, i.e., during acquisition and transmission of audio-video data as described in [0055]: “In step 404, process 400 provides a set of tele-health devices, wherein the set of tele-health devices communicates an audio-video data of a tele-health session to the one or more remote entities.” That step 404 precedes step 408 (FIG. 4) in a single iteration of the process says nothing about how the entire process iterates over the session as live video is being acquired and transmitted.
Applicant argues that “WOLF also does not teach these features, at cited portions or anywhere else. Rather, WOLF teaches: at paragraph [0154] WOLF describes different phases of procedures at paragraph [0158] WOLF describes analyzing received video footage at paragraph [0545] WOLF describes analyzing received video footage at paragraph [0577] WOLF describes analyzing received video footage. As set forth above, WOLF teaches analysis of video footage after transmission in order to provide feedback. Footage is actually specified from the start in claim 1 and other independent claims of WOLF.” (Remarks page 10). This is not persuasive because it disregards the real-time disclosure in the very paragraph it characterizes as limited to “received” footage. Paragraph [0545] states, “In some embodiments, received video footage may be compared with image-related data to determine an existence of a surgical decision juncture. This may occur, for example, through video analysis, and may occur in real time. (E.g., as video is captured of the surgeon operating, analysis may be performed on the video in real time, and surgical junctions may be identified.)” Wolf therefore expressly teaches the determining of a state of a medical procedure as the video is captured.
Applicant argues, “WOLF teaches analysis of video footage after transmission in order to provide feedback. Footage is actually specified from the start in claim 1 and other independent claims of WOLF.” (Remarks page 10). This is not persuasive. The recitation in claim 1 does not limit what Wolf’s specification teaches a POSITA which is real-time analysis “as video is captured of the surgeon operating” [0545].
Applicant argues, “in claim 1, the determining and the adjusting is performed by the element or system that is performing the transmitting, not by the element that is receiving the video footage as in WOLF and not beforehand as in AMBLE.” (Remarks page 10). This is not persuasive because it imports a structural limitation not found in claim 1 which merely uses a non-transitory CRM with instructions to cause a processor to perform these steps. The claim does not specify where the processor is located relative to the medical device, the network, or the remote expert.
Applicant argues, “WOLF does not disclose the combination of determined likelihood of interaction at a determined state of the medical procedure as the video is being acquired. AMBLE is acknowledged not to disclose these features. Even the combination of AMBLE and WOLF does not teach these features or cure even the acknowledged deficiencies in AMBLE, in addition to the additional deficiencies noted above.” (Remarks page 10). This is not persuasive. The ”likelihood of interaction” limitation is taught by Wolf at [0254] (“automatically tagging portions of surgical video with a complexity score, thereby permitting a surgeon to quickly find the frames of interest based on complexity”) and at [0545] (“received video footage may be compared with image-related data to determine an existence of a surgical decision juncture. This may occur, for example, through video analysis, and may occur in real time”). A surgical decision juncture is a moment in the procedure when surgeon attention (and expert interaction) is most likely needed. Wolf [0577] provides examples of these (“A decision making junction may include an inappropriate access or exposure, a retraction of an anatomical structure, a misinterpretation of an anatomical structure or a fluid leak, and/or any other surgical event”). The broadest reasonable interpretation of “likelihood of interaction from the remote expert at the determined state” includes any indicator that correlates surgical state with the probability of expert engagement. This is confirmed by [0019] of the specification as published (“the medical imaging procedure set-up, a beginning of the medical imaging procedure protocol, transition to another medical imaging procedure protocol, an end of medical imaging procedure have the greatest likelihood of interactions”) and demonstrates that likelihood of interaction is derived from the determined state. The combination of Wolf and Amble to identify states/junctures from the acquired video thus leads to the claimed likelihood.
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from the invention claimed in the parent application prior to the filing of this Continued Prosecution Application under 37 CFR 1.53(d) (that is, restriction would not be proper) and could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing under 37 CFR 1.53(d). 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 JOSHUA BLANCHETTE whose telephone number is (571)272-2299. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday 7:30AM - 6:00PM, EST.
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, Shahid Merchant, can be reached on (571) 270-1360. 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.
/JOSHUA B BLANCHETTE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights