DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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, 3-11, and 13-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1, 3-11, and 13-20 are within the four statutory categories. However, as will be shown below, Claims 1, 3-11, and 13-20 are nonetheless unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1 and 11 are representative of the inventive concept and recite:
Claim 1
A method for notifying a remote healthcare provider of a call status in a telehealth system, the method comprising:
receiving, by a processor of a telehealth device, at least one image from a camera in a patient location;
performing, by the processor, a computer vision process on the image and
generating at least one confidence score representing a likelihood that a patient is present in the patient location;
comparing, by the processor, the at least one confidence score to a predetermined threshold;
updating, by the processor, a patient presence value based on the comparison of the confidence score to the predetermined threshold;
updating a call status value based on the patient presence value and a device status value associated with the telehealth device;
and transmitting the call status value via a network for display at a remote device.
*Claim 11 recites similar limitations as claim 1, but for a device.
Step 2A Prong One
The broadest reasonable interpretation of these steps includes mental processes because the
highlighted components can practically be performed by the human mind (in this case, the process of
generating, comparing, and updating) or using pen and paper. Other than reciting generic computer
components/functions such as “processor”, “device”, “system”, and “network”, nothing in the claims precludes the highlighted portions from practically being performed in the mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computer components/functions, then it falls within “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Additionally, the mere nominal recitation of a generic computer does not take the claim limitation out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
Dependent claims 3-10 and 13-20 recite additional subject matter which further narrows or defines the
abstract idea embodied in the claim.
Step 2A Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims
recite the following additional limitations:
Claim 1 recites: “processor”, “device”, “system”, “network”, (A) “receiving, by a processor of a telehealth device, at least one image from a camera in a patient location”, (B) “performing, by the processor, a computer vision process on the image”, and (G) transmitting the call status value via a network for display at a remote device.
In particular, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application,
other than the abstract idea per se, because the additional elements amount to no more limitations which:
Amount to mere instructions to apply an exception. The limitations are recited as being
performed by a “processor”, “device”, “system”, “network”, which are recited at a high level of
generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a
generic computer.
Add insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) to the abstract idea such as the
recitation of (A) “receiving, by a processor of a telehealth device, at least one image from a camera in a patient location”, (B) “performing, by the processor, a computer vision process on the image”, and (G) transmitting the call status value via a network for display at a remote device.
Dependent claims 3-8 and 13-18 recite “device”
Dependent claims 5-6, 8, 15-16, and 18 recite “display”
Dependent claims 8 and 18 recite “received”
In particular, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application,
other than the abstract idea per se, because the additional elements amount to no more limitations which:
Amount to mere instructions to apply an exception. The limitations are recited as being
performed by a “device” and “computer”, which are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer.
Add insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) to the abstract idea such as the
recitation of “display” and “received”.
Dependent claims 9-10 and 19-20 do not include any additional elements beyond those already
recited in independent claims 1 and 11 and dependent claims 3-8 and 13-18, hence do not integrate the
aforementioned abstract idea into a particular application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered
combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or any
other technology. Their collective function merely provides conventional computer implementation and
do not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B
Claims 1 and 11 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly
more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to discussion of integration of the
abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements: A method in claim 1; amount to no
more than mere instructions to apply an exception to the abstract idea. Additionally, the additional
limitations, other than the abstract idea per se amount to no more than limitations which amount to
elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular
fields as demonstrated by the recitation of an additional element such as:
Receiving (Independent claims 1 and 11, dependent claims 8 and 18) refers to the process where a computer or device obtains information from another source over a network or communication channel (TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 614, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016)) in a manner that would be well-understood, routine, and conventional.
Transmitting (Independent claims 1 and 11) refers to the process of sending and receiving data between two or more devices over a network (TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 614, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016)) in a manner that would be well-understood, routine, and conventional.
Camera (Independent claims 1 and 11), which refers to a device for recording visual images in the form of photographs, film, or video signals (Para 0189 Dawes(US 20220078253 A1) discloses: “By way of reference, conventional video cameras have the ability to stream digital video in a variety of formats and over a variety of networks.”) in a manner that would be well-understood, routine, and conventional.
Display (Independent claims 1 and 11, dependent claims 5-6, 8, 15-16, and 18), which refers to an electronic device for the visual representation of data (Para 0042, Zhao(US 20230144932 A1) discloses: “which is applicable to any type of display apparatus in the conventional technology, for example, an LCD (liquid crystal display, liquid crystal display), an OLED (organic electroluminesence display, organic electroluminesence display), or a micro LED (micro light emitting diode) display. “) in a manner that would be well-understood, routine, and conventional.
Computer vision process, which refers to an ai worklow that trains machines to understand visual data (Para 0118, Hullemeyer(US 20230391384 A1) discloses: “Comparatively, conventional computer vision would process consecutive image updates and subtract one from the other to determine position change of the object in question.”) in a manner that would be well-understood, routine, and conventional.
Dependent claims 9-10 and 19-20 do not include any additional elements beyond those already
recited in independent claims 1 and 11 and dependent claims 3-8 and 13-18. Therefore, they are not deemed to be significantly more than the abstract idea because, as stated above, the limitations of the
aforementioned dependent claims amount to no more than generally linking the abstract idea to a
particular technological environment or field of use, and/or do not recite and additional elements not
already recited in independent claims 1 and 11 hence do not amount to “significantly more” than the
abstract idea. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the
abstract idea identified above. Furthermore, looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds
nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually, and there is no
indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any
other technology, and their collective function merely provide conventional computer implementation.
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 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, 3-4, 9-11, 13-14, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arshad(US20170011194A1) in view of Hanrahan(US20190066837A1) and Nechyba(US8254647B1).
Claim 1
Arshad discloses:
A method for notifying a remote healthcare provider of a call status(Para 0219, Arshad discloses notification to medical team regarding video encounters[CALL STATUS]) in a telehealth system(Para 0087, Arshad discloses telemedicine system), the method comprising: receiving, by a processor of a telehealth device(Para 0016, Arshad discloses receiving on a healthcare worker computing device), at least one image from a camera in a patient location(Figure 37, #955, Arshad discloses live video feed received of a patient) performing, by the processor, (Para 0150, Arshad discloses facial recognition to confirm presence of expected patient) in the patient location(Para 0137, Arshad discloses sensors able to obtain location information); comparing, by the processor,
Arshad does not explicitly disclose:
a computer vision process on the image(Col. 4, Line 7, Nechyba discloses facial feature recognition algorithm) and generating at least one confidence score(Col. 5, Line 36, Nechyba discloses facial landmark detection confidence score)
the at least one confidence score to a predetermined threshold(Col. 3, Line 11, Nechyba discloses a threshold)
updating, by the processor, a patient presence value
based on the comparison of the confidence score to the predetermined threshold(Col. 4, Line 61. Nechyba discloses comparing scores to a threshold)
device status value associated with the telehealth device
and transmitting the call status value via a network for display at a remote device
Hanrahan discloses:
updating, by the processor, a patient presence value(Para 0006, Hanrahan discloses: “presence information indicating the availability of the patient[CAN BE VALUE])
device status value associated with the telehealth device(Para 0006, Hanrahan discloses: device status of the patient access device[DEVICE STATUS VALUE]);
and transmitting the call status value via a network for display at a remote device(Para 0025, Hanrahan discloses displaying a plurality of accessible remote patient devices[INHERENTLY DISCLOSES CALL STATUS AVAILABILITY AND TRANSMISSION VIA NETWORK])
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the telemedicine system of Arshad to add updating, by the processor, a patient presence value, device status value associated with the telehealth device, and transmitting the call status value via a network for display at a remote device, as taught by Hanrahan. One of ordinary skill would have been so motivated to provide an accurate means to determine availability of the patient for a telemedicine session using several metrics to better improve the chance of timely resolution to patient health concerns, but in this case for an infrastructure for a telehealth platform (Para 0005, Hanrahan discloses: “Many organizations that wish to offer telehealth services struggle to establish a delivery platform that is both secure and reliable but also flexible and scalable. This may prevent or hinder the ability of an external specialist to join and contribute to a session where his or her expertise may be helpful.”).
Hanrahan does not explicitly disclose:
a computer vision process on the image and generating at least one confidence score
the at least one confidence score to a predetermined threshold
based on the comparison of the confidence score to the predetermined threshold
Nechyba discloses:
a computer vision process on the image(Col. 4, Line 7, Nechyba discloses facial feature recognition algorithm) and generating at least one confidence score(Col. 5, Line 36, Nechyba discloses facial landmark detection confidence score)
the at least one confidence score to a predetermined threshold(Col. 3, Line 11, Nechyba discloses a threshold)
based on the comparison of the confidence score to the predetermined threshold(Col. 4, Line 61. Nechyba discloses comparing scores to a threshold)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the telemedicine system of Arshad to add a computer vision process on the image and generating at least one confidence score, the at least one confidence score to a predetermined threshold, and based on the comparison of the confidence score to the predetermined threshold as taught by Nechyba. One of ordinary skill would have been so motivated to provide an accurate means to determine the likelihood facial recognition, but in this case for facial image quality assessment (Col 2, Line 57, Nechyba discloses: “Techniques of the disclosure may reduce the frequency of facial recognition authentication failures by identifying image captures of low quality, alerting the user, and refraining from performing facial recognition authentication or completing enrollment until images of satisfactory quality have been captured.”).
Claim 3
Arshad does not explicitly disclose:
The method of claim 1, wherein the device status value indicates whether the telehealth device is available for a call.
Hanrahan discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein the device status value indicates whether the telehealth device is available for a call(Para 0024, Hanrahan discloses: “device statuses may include ready, busy, and/or offline, depending on whether the device is online and available to participate in a communication session”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the telemedicine system of Arshad to add device status value, as taught by Hanrahan. One of ordinary skill would have been so motivated to provide a means to determine availability of the patient for a telemedicine session to better improve the chance of timely resolution to patient health concerns, but in this case for an infrastructure for a telehealth platform (Para 0005, Hanrahan discloses: “Many organizations that wish to offer telehealth services struggle to establish a delivery platform that is both secure and reliable but also flexible and scalable. This may prevent or hinder the ability of an external specialist to join and contribute to a session where his or her expertise may be helpful.”).
Claim 4
Arshad does not explicitly disclose:
The method of claim 1, wherein updating the call status value includes performing an operation on the patient presence value and the device status value.
Hanrahan discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein updating the call status value includes performing an operation(Para 0023, Hanrahan discloses monitoring status information[MONITORING CAN BE AN OPERATION]) on the patient presence value(Para 0006, Hanrahan discloses: “presence information indicating the availability of the patient[CAN BE A VALUE]) and the device status value(Para 0006, Hanrahan discloses: device status of the patient access device[DEVICE STATUS VALUE]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the telemedicine system of Arshad to add performing an operation to call status, as taught by Hanrahan. One of ordinary skill would have been so motivated to provide an accurate means to determine availability of the patient for a telemedicine session using several metrics to better improve the chance of timely resolution to patient health concerns, but in this case for an infrastructure for a telehealth platform (Para 0005, Hanrahan discloses: “Many organizations that wish to offer telehealth services struggle to establish a delivery platform that is both secure and reliable but also flexible and scalable. This may prevent or hinder the ability of an external specialist to join and contribute to a session where his or her expertise may be helpful.”).
Claim 9
Arshad and Hanrahan do not explicitly disclose:
The method of claim 1, wherein generating the at least one confidence score includes determining the identity of a person detected in the image.
Nechyba discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein generating the at least one confidence score includes determining the identity of a person detected in the image(Col 2, Line 9, Nechyba discloses a facial detection confidence score).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the telemedicine system of Arshad to add confidence score includes determining the identity of a person detected in the image, as taught by Nechyba. One of ordinary skill would have been so motivated to provide an accurate means to determine the likelihood facial recognition, but in this case for facial image quality assessment (Col 2, Line 57, Nechyba discloses: “Techniques of the disclosure may reduce the frequency of facial recognition authentication failures by identifying image captures of low quality, alerting the user, and refraining from performing facial recognition authentication or completing enrollment until images of satisfactory quality have been captured.”).
Claim 10
Arshad discloses:
The method of claim 9, wherein determining whether the person is a patient includes analyzing at least one of facial features(Para 0150, Arshad discloses facial recognition), clothing, and the position of the person within the patient location.
Claim 11
Claim 11 contains similar elements as claim 1. See claim 1 analysis.
Claim 13
Claim 13 contains similar elements as claim 3. See claim 3 analysis.
Claim 14
Claim 14 contains similar elements as claim 4. See claim 4 analysis.
Claim 19
Claim 19 contains similar elements as claim 9. See claim 9 analysis.
Claim 20
Claim 20 contains similar elements as claim 10. See claim 10 analysis.
Claims 5-8 and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arshad(US20170011194A1) in view of Hanrahan(US20190066837A1), Nechyba(US8254647B1), and Schuman(US20090212956A1).
Claim 5
Arshad in view of Hanrahan and Nechyba does not explicitly disclose:
The method of claim 1, wherein the remote device displays the call status in association with at least one of a patient identifier and a patient location identifier.
Schuman discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein the remote device displays the call status in association with at least one of a patient identifier and a patient location identifier(Figure 4, Schuman discloses a display with patient name, call status and location)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the telemedicine system of Arshad to add displaying the call status in association with at least one of a patient identifier and a patient location identifier, as taught by Schuman. One of ordinary skill would have been so motivated to provide a means to visualize patients and relevant information required to initiate a session on a dashboard, to better allow for timely response to a telemedicine request, and therefore improving patient outcomes, but in this case for a distributed healthcare communication system (Para 0003, Schuman discloses: “After a patient places a nurse call, a caregiver at a master station may answer the nurse call which enables voice communications between the caregiver at the master station and the patient. To facilitate such voice communications a microphone and speaker is located somewhere in the patient room, which can be prohibitive for providing timely care.”).
Claim 6
Arshad in view of Hanrahan and Nechyba does not explicitly disclose:
The method of claim 5, wherein the call status is displayed in a list comprising a plurality of patient identifiers or patient location identifiers.
Schuman discloses:
The method of claim 5, wherein the call status is displayed in a list comprising a plurality of patient identifiers or patient location identifiers. (Figure 4, Schuman discloses a display with list of a plurality of patient names, call statuses and locations)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the telemedicine system of Arshad to add a list comprising a plurality of patient identifiers or patient location identifiers, as taught by Schuman. One of ordinary skill would have been so motivated to provide a means to visualize patients and relevant information required to initiate a session on a dashboard, to better allow for timely response to a telemedicine request, and therefore improving patient outcomes, but in this case for a distributed healthcare communication system (Para 0003, Schuman discloses: “After a patient places a nurse call, a caregiver at a master station may answer the nurse call which enables voice communications between the caregiver at the master station and the patient. To facilitate such voice communications a microphone and speaker is located somewhere in the patient room, which can be prohibitive for providing timely care.”).
Claim 7
Arshad in view of Hanrahan and Nechyba does not explicitly disclose:
The method of claim 6, wherein a user of the remote device selects one of the plurality of patient identifiers or patient location identifiers to initiate a call with the telehealth device at the patient location
Schuman discloses:
The method of claim 6, wherein a user of the remote device selects one of the plurality of patient identifiers or patient location identifiers to initiate a call with the telehealth device at the patient location(Figure 9, Schuman discloses the possibility to select and call(#336) and individual from a list).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the telemedicine system of Arshad to add selects one of the plurality of patient identifiers or patient location identifiers to initiate a call with the telehealth device at the patient location, as taught by Schuman. One of ordinary skill would have been so motivated to provide a means to visualize patients and relevant information required to initiate a session on a dashboard, to better allow for timely response to a telemedicine request, and therefore improving patient outcomes, but in this case for a distributed healthcare communication system (Para 0003, Schuman discloses: “After a patient places a nurse call, a caregiver at a master station may answer the nurse call which enables voice communications between the caregiver at the master station and the patient. To facilitate such voice communications a microphone and speaker is located somewhere in the patient room, which can be prohibitive for providing timely care.”).
Claim 8
Arshad discloses:
The method of claim 7, wherein, during the call, video received from the remote device is displayed on a display device at the patient location(Figure 4, Arshad discloses patient receiving video feed from remote device at patient location).
Claim 15
Claim 15 contains similar elements as claim 5. See claim 5 analysis.
Claim 16
Claim 16 contains similar elements as claim 6. See claim 6 analysis.
Claim 17
Claim 17 contains similar elements as claim 7. See claim 7 analysis.
Claim 18
Claim 18 contains similar elements as claim 8. See claim 8 analysis.
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. 101
(Pages 1-2) Regarding the assertion that the claims are integrated into a practical application.
Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The additional elements identified above do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, other than the abstract idea per se, because the additional elements amount to no more limitations which amount to mere instructions to apply an exception and add insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) to the abstract idea.
35 U.S.C. 103
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bhagwan(US11641449B1) discloses a method for video teleconferencing management. Some
disclosures of this invention are similar to that of this instant pending application.
Poel(US12001976B1) discloses a system for facilitating collaboration sessions. Some
disclosures of this invention are similar to that of this instant pending application.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHERYL GOPAL PATEL whose telephone number is (703)756-1990. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 5:30am to 2:30pm PST.
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, Kambiz Abdi can be reached at 571-272-6702. 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.
/S.G.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3685
/KAMBIZ ABDI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3685
Prosecution Insights