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 .
Response to Amendment
A Preliminary Amendment was made 09/01/2024 to amend the specification and a complete replay was received 01/23/2025.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group 1 (Claims 1-13) in the reply filed on 05/18/2026 is acknowledged.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “102, 104, 106, 108, 110, 112, 116, 118, 120, 124, 126, 128” has been used to designate both apparatus Figure 1, 3 and method Figure 2. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Please note the specification must also reflect the associated numbering with each individual element (apparatus or step).
Claim Objections
Claims 4, 13 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 4 is missing a comma after the preamble referring back to claim 1.
Claim 4 recites the transitional phrase “with” and is likely meant as “further comprising”
Claim 13 is missing a comma after the preamble referring back to the claims in which it depends.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claims 1-13 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.
Claims 1-13 each claim a “system” as the patentable subject matter. However, no components are claimed. Simultaneously, the claims are drafted as steps directed to a “method.” See MPEP § 2106.03. For purposes of examination, the claims will be considered a method.
Claim 1 recites “the imaging scan” in the limitation “closing the barrier during the imaging scan” however, the claim lacks antecedent basis for not previously introducing a given medical imaging device to perform the scan.
Claim 4 recites “manage the entire process” but it is unclear what is claimed because claim 1 recites limitations associated with a patient entering a facility in a vehicle, obtaining security clearance, entering a facility, using a CT system to scan a patient to generate a medical image, use an AI system to perform image analysis, and apply a software application for medical management of the patient records. It is unclear what “the entire process” is that is claimed.
Claim 8 does not claim any claim to be dependent upon but is claimed as a dependent claim.
Claim 8 recites “the standing CT scan booth” but it was not previously introduced and therefore lacks antecedent basis. For purposes of examination the claim is considered dependent on claim 3.
Claim 9 recites to be dependent “of any one of claims 12-14.” However, the claim dependency lacks antecedent basis because there is no claim 14. See MPEP § 608.01(n).
Claim 9 recites “the standing CT scan booth” but it was not previously introduced and therefore lacks antecedent basis. For purposes of examination the claim is considered dependent on claim 3. Additionally noted claim 12 does not claim a CT scan booth. For purposes of examination, claim 9 will be considered dependent on claim 13 because it most closely aligns with claim limitations logic associated with the standing CT scanner.
Claim 12 recites “The system of claim 1, wherein the method further comprises” and it is therefore unclear if the claim is directed to a system or a method (see rejection above regarding claims 1-13 regarding the patentable subject matter).
Claim 12 recites “to allow simultaneous entry and exit of a first and a second thereby reducing scanner vacancy time” and it is unclear what is claimed as “a first and a second thereby”.
Claim 13 recites “the drive-through facility” which was not previously introduced in the claims in which it depends (claim 1, 3; examiner notes claim 1 recites “a drive-through system”).
Claims 2-13 are rejected as dependent on claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 12 is rejected for claiming the identical limitation as claim 1, in which claim 12 depends upon, specifically the limitation “allowing another user's vehicle to enter the imaging area after the previous user's vehicle exits”.
Regarding Claim 12, Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 2, 6, 10, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashim-Waris (US 2011/0191117) in view of Sanders JR. et al (US 2023/0398028), Lewis (US 2024/0428591), Foley (US 2020/0211678) and Saffari et al (US 2020/0226551).
Regarding Claim 1, Hashim-Waris teach a system for performing a medical imaging scan in a drive-through system (visitor management system (VMS) 1500 associated with remote medical consultation that includes a drive-through security entrance system; Fig 1-3, 14-16, 35-36 and ¶ [0063]-[0064], [0077]-[0080], [0083], [0126]-[0136]) comprising:
reading, by a QR code scanner at the entrance, a QR code provided to the user (the greeting station 301 scanner 382 performs a scanning for user with a smart card reader (¶ [0075]) at an entrance access point with first barrier 1110; Fig 15-16 and ¶ [0082]-[0085], [0088]-[0089]);
guiding and communicating with a user in a vehicle at a facility entrance using signage and a teller (a user in vehicle approaches a greeting station 301 at an access-controlled facility with digital signage 387 and person inside the environment (teller) to authorize access and assist with vehicle flow management; Fig 3, 15-16 and ¶ [0066], [0082]-[0083]);
signalling the user to proceed to an imaging area located inside the facility and separated from the entrance by a barrier, upon reading the QR code and verifying the user (the greeting station 301 scanner 382 performs a scanning for user with a smart card reader (¶ [0075]) at access point and signage 387 provides direction for parking ; Fig 15-16 and ¶ [0082]-[0085], [0088]-[0089]);
opening the barrier to allow the user's vehicle to enter the imaging area (imaging area interpreted as the facility environment boundary that includes the imaging area) (the first barrier 1110 allows vehicle access to environment; Fig 16 and ¶ [0083]);
closing the barrier during the imaging scan (interpreted as a facility environment boundary barrier will close once a vehicle enters) (once a vehicle enters environment past barrier 1110, the barrier 1110 will close (a vehicle cannot pass through an inner barrier 1111 unless and until outer barrier 1110 is closed); Fig 16 and ¶ [0084]);
guiding, by an operator, the user from the user's vehicle in a parking area to an imaging scanner visible through a glass wall (the vehicle passes the initial access point barrier 1110 to parking area and is checked in to receive entry to a given building, with live assistance available for flow management; Fig 16 and ¶ [0083]-[0089]);
opening the barrier to allow the user's vehicle to exit the imaging area (imaging area interpreted as the facility environment boundary that includes the imaging area) upon a QR code reader signal (the user may exit the facility with a temporary responder that is returned at an exit point responder collector 389 (smart code reader ¶ [0075]) with passing through the appropriate barrier 1110 to leave the environment; Fig 16 and ¶ [0084]-[0086]); and
allowing another user's vehicle to enter the imaging area (imaging area interpreted as the facility environment boundary that includes the imaging area) after the previous user's vehicle exits (vehicles are restricted by outer barrier 1110 to allow one vehicle to enter the environment in a controlled (such as single file) fashion with access based on proper identification and entry granted by the access control system; Fig 16 and ¶ [0084]-[0085]).
Hashim-Waris does not explicitly teach performing a medical imaging scan in a drive-through system; reading a QR code by a QR code scanner; the imaging scanner is visible through a glass wall; performing the imaging scan with built-in scanning protocols according to user's imaging need; automatically quality checking the images before signaling the user to return to the user's vehicle upon completion of the imaging scan; transferring the images to AI-enabled image analysis and reporting; generating Al-enabled reports of the scans; providing a mobile application for user recruitment and qualification, shared- decision and generating a physician order, checking insurance coverage, processing payment, scheduling an imaging scan appointment; and enabling user to schedule a review of imaging reports with an expert and receiving necessary guidance.
Sanders JR. et al is analogous art pertinent to the technological problem addressed in the current application and teaches reading a QR code by a QR code scanner at the entrance (a QR code may be scanned to perform a kiosk check-in 105 for entry to a clinic building 100 at medical facility 10; Fig 1, 2 and ¶ [0030], [0046]); and performing a medical imaging scan in a drive-through system by guiding the user to an imaging scanner (the patient may be guided from the check-in to a medical imaging system 110 at a drive-thru medical facility 10; Fig 1 and ¶ [0030], [0047]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to substitute the smartcard teachings of Hashim-Waris with a QR code as taught by Sanders JR. et al, and performing a medical imaging scan in a drive-through system by guiding the user to an imaging scanner. A QR code enables a person to use a personal device to enable authenticated authorization, thereby allowing for a safe and reliable means to allow for management of a high volume of vehicles to enter and exit from a facility in a safe and organized manner, with a record for medical testing such as guided medical imaging and additional examination, as recognized by Sanders JR. et al (¶ [0029]).
Lewis is analogous art pertinent to the technological problem addressed in the current application and teaches an imaging scanner is visible through a glass wall (a lead (glass) window is used for a technician to visually monitor the environment surrounding a CT scanner in a scan room and the technician may guide the patient to the CT imaging system; Fig 1, 2 and ¶ [0003], [0024]-[0026]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to combine the teachings of Hashim-Waris in view of Sanders JR. with Lewis including an imaging scanner visible through a glass wall. By using a scan room with a window in which a technician can visually inspect through during the medical imaging procedure, potential abnormalities may be quickly identified, thereby leading to improved imaging quality and more accurate medical images, as recognized by Lewis (¶ [0003], [0025]).
Foley et al is analogous art pertinent to the technological problem addressed in the current application and teaches performing the imaging scan with built-in scanning protocols according to user's imaging need (raw image data of a patient is obtained from an imaging scanner; Fig 1, 2 and ¶ [0034], [0037], [0059], [0073]);
quality checking the images before signaling the user to return to the user's vehicle upon completion of the imaging scan (the medical image may be automatically analyzed for quality control and integrated into the medial system to generate corrections in a clinical setting (understood that QC checks provide notice if image is sufficient and if so, patient may conclude examination and return to vehicle); Fig 1, 2 and ¶ [0037]-[0039], [0065]-[0067]);
transferring the images to AI-enabled image analysis and reporting (the imaging data is analyzed using deep learning techniques to determine quality control; Fig 1, 2 and ¶ ¶ [0037]-[0039], [0065]-[0067]); and
generating Al-enabled reports of the scans (a report 100 is generated regarding the data processed by the AI modeler 220, computer vision processor 230, results evaluator 240 and quality controller 250 and output generator 260; Fig 1, 2 and ¶ [0036]-[0039], [0065]-[0067]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to combine the teachings of Hashim-Waris with Foley et al including performing the imaging scan with built-in scanning protocols according to user's imaging need; automatically quality checking the images before signaling the user to return to the user's vehicle upon completion of the imaging scan; transferring the images to AI-enabled image analysis and reporting; and generating Al-enabled reports of the scans. By using quality assurance in the analysis of medical imaging, the integrity of the medical image may be enhanced by validating and verifying the entire anatomic field was imaged and imaged for high quality analysis, thereby reducing costs, saving time and generating higher efficiency in medical imaging is obtained, as recognized by Foley et al (¶ [0039]).
Saffari et al is analogous art pertinent to the technological problem addressed in the current application and teaches providing a mobile application for user (mobile application system 110 for user 102 on user mobile device 104; Fig 1 and ¶ [0023]-[0024])
recruitment and qualification (user 102 is enabled to register (recruit and qualify) for services by service provider; Fig 1 and ¶ [0023]-[0024]),
shared-decision and generating a physician order (the user may schedule an appointment, which may be initiated by a physician initiated order to schedule an appointment with a specialist; Fig 1 and ¶ [0024]),
checking insurance coverage (an application on device 104 allows for capturing an insurance card image 226, which may be entered into fields 230 which is confirmed by user; Fig 2M-2O and ¶ [0038]-[0040]),
processing payment (a payment notification 274 may be alerted to patient, which user may scan payment option 278 or manually enter 280, which is then processed after submitted 282; Fig 2Y, 2Z and ¶ [0048]-[0049]),
scheduling an imaging scan appointment (the user may schedule an appointment, which may be initiated by a physician initiated order to schedule an appointment with a specialist (such as to perform a scan, such as an X-ray); Fig 1 and ¶ [0024]-[0026]); and
enabling user to schedule a review of imaging reports with an expert and receiving necessary guidance (the user may schedule an appointment, which may be initiated by a physician initiated order to schedule an appointment with a specialist (such as to perform a follow-up service, which would include review of medical records in consult to determine needs; Fig 1 and ¶ [0024]-[0026]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to combine the teachings of Hashim-Waris with Saffari et al including providing a mobile application for user recruitment and qualification, shared- decision and generating a physician order, checking insurance coverage, processing payment, scheduling an imaging scan appointment; and enabling user to schedule a review of imaging reports with an expert and receiving necessary guidance. By using a self-registration system for patient, that includes multiples stages of paperwork associated with patient care, the registration and satisfaction with healthcare services may be more efficient and improve the user experience, as recognized by Saffari et al (¶ [0022]).
Regarding Claim 2, Hashim-Waris in view of Sanders JR. et al, Lewis, Foley and Saffari et al teach the system of claim 1 (as described above), wherein the imaging scanner is a CT scanner (Sanders JR. et al, the medical imaging system 110 is a CT machine; Fig 1 and ¶ [0047]; Lewis, the medical imager is a CT imaging system 10; Fig 1, 2 and ¶ [0030]).
Regarding Claim 6, Hashim-Waris in view of Sanders JR. et al, Lewis, Foley and Saffari et al teach the system of claim 1 (as described above), further comprising: verifying the user's identity using facial recognition before allowing the user's vehicle to enter the imaging area (Saffari et al, a patient may use facial recognition management tools for self-identification and verification for self-registration and identity verification; ¶ [0035]; noted Hashim-Waris teach the user in a vehicle facility entrance to perform identity verification for access).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to combine the teachings of Hashim-Waris with Saffari et al including verifying the user's identity using facial recognition before allowing the user's vehicle to enter the imaging area. By using facial management tools, a patient may be reliably identified to prevent spoofing or other forms of identity theft, thereby improving the safety of protecting the patient’s medical data, as recognized by Saffari et al (¶ [0035]).
Regarding Claim 10, Hashim-Waris in view of Sanders JR. et al, Lewis, Foley and Saffari et al teach the system of claim 1 (as described above), further comprising:
providing a walk-through imaging area at the facility for users without vehicles (Sanders JR. et al, patients can enter (walk-through) the clinic building 100 on foot (similarly to patients that park cars and enter the clinic building) and may use an outdoor waiting room 195 while waiting to receive examination using the imaging system 110; Fig 1-2, 11A and ¶ [0030], [0067]);
guiding walk-through users entering the facility on foot to the imaging scanner via a dedicated entrance and pathway using directional signage and audio instructions (Sanders JR et al, patients may enter clinic building at an entrance to reach at a check-in kiosk 105 that provides visual and audible instruction for directions for treatment/staging within the building 100; Fig 1 and ¶ [0046]);
performing the imaging scan on the walk-through user (Sanders JR et al, the patient may receive examination with a medical imaging system 110 within the clinic building 100; Fig 1-2 and ¶ [0047]);
directing the walk-through user to exit the imaging area through a separate exit pathway and doorway upon completion of the imaging scan (Sanders JR et al, following examination in a room with the medical imaging system 110, the patient may be directed (walk) to the check-out kiosk 130, interpreted as separate doors to exit building (similarly to separate entrance 22 and exit 70, 75 of facility 10); Fig 1-2, 10B, 11B and ¶ [0049], [0066], [0069]); and
allowing the next walk-through user to enter the imaging area after the previous walk-through user has exited (Sanders JR et al, once a patient is complete with screening, the patient may exit the clinic building 100, thereby allowing a different patient to enter the clinic building 100 at check-in kiosk 105; Fig 1-2, 10B, 11B and ¶ [0046], [0050]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to combine the teachings of Hashim-Waris with Sanders JR. et al including providing a walk-through imaging area at the facility for users without vehicles; guiding walk-through users entering the facility on foot to the imaging scanner via a dedicated entrance and pathway using directional signage and audio instructions; performing the imaging scan on the walk-through user; directing the walk-through user to exit the imaging area through a separate exit pathway and doorway upon completion of the imaging scan; and allowing the next walk-through user to enter the imaging area after the previous walk-through user has exited. By providing walk-in access to a clinic building, more individuals may be treated in a timely and streamlined approach, thereby increasing the efficiency of examination for more patients, as recognized by Sanders JR et al (¶ [0005]).
Regarding Claim 12, Hashim-Waris in view of Sanders JR. et al, Lewis, Foley and Saffari et al teach the system of claim 1 (as described above), wherein the method further comprises:
allowing another user's vehicle to enter the imaging area (imaging area interpreted as the facility environment boundary for vehicles and the facility includes the imaging area based on claim structure of claim 1 “imaging area located inside the facility”) after the previous user's vehicle exits (Hashim-Waris, vehicles are restricted by outer barrier 1110 to allow one vehicle to enter the environment in a controlled (such as single file) fashion with access based on proper identification and entry granted by the access control system; Fig 16 and ¶ [0084]-[0085]);
wherein the imaging area (imaging area interpreted as the facility environment boundary for vehicles and the facility includes the imaging area based on claim structure of claim 1 “imaging area located inside the facility”) is accessible from both sides or same side with separate doors for entrance and exit operating independently to allow simultaneous entry and exit of a first and a second thereby reducing scanner vacancy time and improving efficiency of the drive-through medical imaging process (intended use for “reducing scanner vacancy time and improving efficiency of the drive-through medical imaging process” does not limit the claim’s scope and therefore considered a non-limiting result that does not have patentable weight; see MPEP § 2173.05(g)) (Hashim-Waris, access point barriers 1110, 111, 1120, 1130 control access to the environment and given facility and can control one vehicle to enter the environment in a controlled fashion (thereby entrance/exit one vehicle at a time), with distinct entrance and exit points with entrance scanner 382 and greeting station 301 and exit scanner 382 and responder collector 389; Fig 16 and ¶ [0083]-[0084], [0091]).
Claims 3, 8, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashim-Waris (US 2011/0191117) in view of Sanders JR. et al (US 2023/0398028), Lewis (US 2024/0428591), Foley (US 2020/0211678), Saffari et al (US 2020/0226551) and Yamada et al (Comparison of inspiratory and expiratory airway volumes and luminal areas among standing, sitting, and supine positions using upright and conventional CT).
Regarding Claim 3, Hashim-Waris in view of Sanders JR. et al, Lewis, Foley and Saffari et al teach the system of claim 2 (as described above), Hashim-Waris in view of Sanders JR. et al, Lewis, Foley and Saffari et al do not teach wherein the CT scanner is a standing scanner.
Yamada et al is analogous art pertinent to the technological problem addressed in the current application and teaches wherein the CT scanner is a standing scanner (an upright CT scanner may be used for performing CT imaging; Fig 1A, 1B and Methods CT imaging protocol).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to substitute the CT scanner of Lewis with the standing scanner as taught by Yamada et al. By using an upright CT examination system, medical imaging can be performed in a manner more similar to the position of a human during daytime hours and may provide more accurate functional data, thereby improving the physiological assessment of a patient, as recognized by Yamada et al (1. Introduction ¶ 1).
Regarding Claim 8, Hashim-Waris in view of Sanders JR. et al, Lewis, Foley, Saffari et al and Yamada et al teach the system of claim .......(interpreted as dependent on claim 3, see 112(b) rejection above) wherein the standing CT scan booth comprises one or more handles and back support for the user to hold onto and maintain a steady position during the scan (Yamada et al, the Upright CT imaging system includes handles and a back pole to support the patient to maintain positioning during CT examination; Fig 1A, 1B and Methods CT imaging protocol).
Regarding Claim 13, Hashim-Waris in view of Sanders JR. et al, Lewis, Foley, Saffari et al and Yamada et al teach the system of claim 3 where in the drive-through facility is replaced with a walk- through facility (examiner notes “drive-through facility” is only recited in the preamble of claim 1 and not given patentable weight in the context of the claim limitations of claims 1, 3; see MPEP § 2111.02) that allows individuals without a vehicle to enter and get scanned (Hashim-Waris, the visitor management system (VMS) 1500 associated with remote medical consultation that includes a drive-through security entrance system may also allow for visitors to enter the environment (interpreted as by foot, with the access is for a visitor with visitor flow management, not necessarily the visitor in the vehicle ¶ [0051], [0054]) than a vehicle; Fig 1-3, 14-16, 35-36 and ¶ [0065]-[0067]).
Claims 4, 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashim-Waris (US 2011/0191117) in view of Sanders JR. et al (US 2023/0398028), Lewis (US 2024/0428591), Foley (US 2020/0211678), Saffari et al (US 2020/0226551) and Wallace (US 2024/0285170).
Regarding Claim 4, Hashim-Waris in view of Sanders JR. et al, Lewis, Foley and Saffari et al teach the system of claim 1 (as described above).
Hashim-Waris in view of Sanders JR. et al, Lewis, Foley and Saffari et al do not teach with embedded cameras with interactive audiovisual systems that allows both human and Al to manage the entire process without any physical touch with the subject.
Wallace is analogous art pertinent to the technological problem addressed in the current application and teaches with embedded cameras with interactive audiovisual systems that allows both human and Al to manage the entire process without any physical touch with the subject (an Audio-Visual Detection Monitor 100 is configured to monitor a subject and capture vital information of the subject that includes a monitoring unit with camera array 106 and microphone array 104, which are used by algorithms (software that employs AI) to monitor the subject; Fig 1 and ¶ [0015], [0023]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to combine the teachings of Hashim-Waris in view of Sanders JR. et al, Lewis, Foley and Saffari et al with Wallace including with embedded cameras with interactive audiovisual systems that allows both human and Al to manage the entire process without any physical touch with the subject. By using an audio-visual detection monitor, remote monitoring may be used to assist in overseeing and monitoring patients, thereby improving monitoring, including safety and security of patients, as recognized by Wallace (¶ [0004], [0022]).
Regarding Claim 5, Hashim-Waris in view of Sanders JR. et al, Lewis, Foley and Saffari et al teach the system of claim 1 (as described above).
Hashim-Waris in view of Sanders JR. et al, Lewis, Foley and Saffari et al do not teach wherein the operator is an automated Al system that communicates with the user through video and speech recognition.
Wallace is analogous art pertinent to the technological problem addressed in the current application and teaches wherein the operator is an automated Al system that communicates with the user through video and speech recognition (an Audio-Visual Detection Monitor utilizes artificial intelligence to monitor patients, including the use of cameras 106 and microphone 104 to receive feedback from the subject; Fig 1 and ¶ [0015], [0021], [0023], [0136]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to combine the teachings of Hashim-Waris in view of Sanders JR. et al, Lewis, Foley and Saffari et al with Wallace including wherein the operator is an automated Al system that communicates with the user through video and speech recognition. By performing continuous monitoring of a patient, risk management is performed to assist with improved identification of activities and measuring risks, thereby improving the safety and health care of the patient, as recognized by Wallace (¶ [0004], [0022]).
Claims 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashim-Waris (US 2011/0191117) in view of Sanders JR. et al (US 2023/0398028), Lewis (US 2024/0428591), Foley (US 2020/0211678), Saffari et al (US 2020/0226551) and Dag (Mobile computed tomography scanner in trailer: a field hospital experience).
Regarding Claim 7, Hashim-Waris in view of Sanders JR. et al, Lewis, Foley and Saffari et al teach the system of claim 1 (as described above).
Hashim-Waris in view of Sanders JR. et al, Lewis, Foley and Saffari et al do not teach providing a mobile unit that can be transported to different locations, wherein the drive-through or walk-through medical imaging system is set up in the mobile unit.
Dag et al is analogous art pertinent to the technological problem addressed in the present application and teaches providing a mobile unit that can be transported to different locations, wherein the drive-through or walk-through medical imaging system is set up in the mobile unit (a mobile CT scanner is used in a mobile operation that is capable to be positioned to different locations and serve as a medical imaging system; Introduction ¶ 2-3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to combine the teachings of Hashim-Waris in view of Sanders JR. et al, Lewis, Foley and Saffari et al with Dag et al including providing a mobile unit that can be transported to different locations, wherein the drive-through or walk-through medical imaging system is set up in the mobile unit. Using a mobile CT scanner in a mobile setting allows for provide medical services in a setting outside of a hospital, thereby creating safe healthcare opportunities for patients with rapid treatment, thereby improving wellbeing of patients, as recognized by Dag (Introduction ¶ 2-3).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashim-Waris (US 2011/0191117) in view of Sanders JR. et al (US 2023/0398028), Lewis (US 2024/0428591), Foley (US 2020/0211678), Saffari et al (US 2020/0226551), Yamada et al (Comparison of inspiratory and expiratory airway volumes and luminal areas among standing, sitting, and supine positions using upright and conventional CT) and Dag (Mobile computed tomography scanner in trailer: a field hospital experience).
Regarding Claim 9, Hashim-Waris in view of Sanders JR. et al, Lewis, Foley, Saffari et al and Yamada et al teach the system of any one of claims 12-14 (interpreted as dependent on claim 13 because it is the only claim with proper antecedent basis for the standing CT scanner within claims 12-13 (claim 14 is not considered within the restricted claims; see 112(b) rejections above)), including the standing CT scan booth (Yamada et al, an upright CT scanner may be used for performing CT imaging; Fig 1A, 1B and Methods CT imaging protocol).
Hashim-Waris in view of Sanders JR. et al, Lewis, Foley, Saffari et al and Yamada et al do not teach the CT scanner is located in one or more of the following: airports, retail stores, and drive- through settings.
Dag et al is analogous art pertinent to the technological problem addressed in the present application and teaches a CT scanner is located in one or more of the following: airports, retail stores, and drive- through settings (a mobile CT scanner is used in a mobile operation as a field hospital; Introduction ¶ 2-3). Given a field hospital may have many interpretations to describe a mobile CT scanner, it would be obvious to try to position the mobile CT scanner in a location such as an airport, retail store or drive-through setting (interpreted as a parking lot). See MPEP § 2141.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to combine the teachings of Hashim-Waris in view of Sanders JR. et al, Lewis, Foley, Saffari et al and Yamada et al with Dag et al including a CT scanner is located in one or more of the following: airports, retail stores, and drive- through settings. Using a mobile CT scanner in a setting such as a field hospital allows for provide medical services in a setting outside of a hospital, thereby allowing for safe healthcare to patient with rapid treatment, thereby improving wellbeing of patients, as recognized by Dag (Introduction ¶ 2-3). It would have been obvious to try the mobile CT scanner located in an airport, retail store or drive-through settings (interpreted as a parking lot) as a mobile CT scanner would be capable of being established in any of these settings with a reasonable expectation of success (see MPEP § 2141 (III) rationale (E)).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashim-Waris (US 2011/0191117) in view of Sanders JR. et al (US 2023/0398028), Lewis (US 2024/0428591), Foley (US 2020/0211678), Saffari et al (US 2020/0226551) and Cork et al (US 2013/0138452).
Regarding Claim 11, Hashim-Waris in view of Sanders JR. et al, Lewis, Foley and Saffari et al teach the system of claim 1 (as described above), wherein the mobile application (Saffari et al, mobile application system 110 for user 102 on user mobile device 104; Fig 1 and ¶ [0023]-[0024]) is further configured to:
provide the user or an associated healthcare professional (Saffari et al, system applicable to healthcare providers and patients ¶ [0022]) with a selection of available imaging scan types (Saffari et al, the self-registration system 110 allows for scheduling a given service appointment, such as a diagnostic imaging exam; ¶ [0003], [0024]); and
allow the user or the associated healthcare professional to choose one or more desired scan types for the scheduled appointment (Saffari et al, the self-registration allows for scheduling a given type of appointment (diagnostic medical imaging ¶ [0003]) by the user 102 in a scheduling service in the self-registration system 110; Fig 1 and ¶ [0024]).
Hashim-Waris in view of Sanders JR. et al, Lewis, Foley and Saffari et al do not explicitly teach to enable the user or the associated healthcare professional to specify scan parameters associated with the chosen scan types; wherein the imaging scanner automatically performs the selected scans using the specified parameters upon the user's arrival, without requiring on-site programming.
Cork et al is analogous art pertinent to the technological problem addressed in the present application and teaches to enable the user or the associated healthcare professional to specify scan parameters associated with the chosen scan types (the application in the mobile device 114 allows a user to create an electronic record of the medical procedure on medical device 104, including for capturing medical images of patient 102; Fig 1 and ¶ [0027]-[0030], [0034]-[0035]);
wherein the imaging scanner automatically performs the selected scans using the specified parameters upon the user's arrival, without requiring on-site programming (the medical device 104 (including to perform medical imaging of subject) performs the particular procedure based on measurements (parameters) of subject 102 to control (perform and respond) during the procedure with procedure facilitated via the mobile application; Fig 1 and ¶ [0029], [0034]-[0035]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to combine the teachings of Hashim-Waris in view of Sanders JR. et al, Lewis, Foley and Saffari et al with Cork et al including to enable the user or the associated healthcare professional to specify scan parameters associated with the chosen scan types; wherein the imaging scanner automatically performs the selected scans using the specified parameters upon the user's arrival, without requiring on-site programming. By using a mobile application for data management and scheduling of medical procedures, procedures may be quickly and efficiently be scheduled and accurately monitored, thereby improving the operations through automation of tasks and eliminating potential errors to perform the given administrative task, as recognized by Cork et al (¶ [0023]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Croghan (US 2021/0158950) teach a method and system for a drive through medicine service area to allow for on-site patient care include a check-in kiosk, consult bay, consult advisor and treatment servicing.
Grajales (US 2022/0354440) teach a clinical workflow for on-demand artificial intelligence visual screening and visual field screening for telemedicine capabilities including examination and consultation.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHLEEN M BROUGHTON whose telephone number is (571)270-7380. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00.
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, John Villecco can be reached at (571) 272-7319. 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.
/KATHLEEN M BROUGHTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2661
Prosecution Insights