DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the preliminary amendment filed August 13, 2024.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Status
Claims 1-4 are as originally filed.
Claims 5-20 are newly added.
Therefore, claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 4 recites “a second of telecommunication devices” in line 2. It appears as though the word “second” should be replaced with the word “set” considering the language of line 6 refers to “the set of telecommunication devices”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 10, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Treacy et al. (Treacy; US PG Pub #2018/0261066).
As to claim 1, Treacy teaches an apparatus for use with a first telecommunication device that is associated with a subject requiring care, and a set of telecommunication devices that are associated with people other than the subject (Paragraph [0017] teaches a location tracking system; Paragraph [0019] teaches a host network communicating with one or more wireless sensing devices; Paragraph [0025] teaches the wireless sensing devices are portable computing devices communicating via Bluetooth, BLE, ANT, or Zigbee such that they are telecommunications devices; Paragraph [0026] teaches the sensing devices with identification transmitters associated with the patient; Paragraph [0030] teaches visitor, clinician, and nurse transmitters such that each group is its own set of telecommunication devices), the apparatus comprising:
at least one computer processor (Paragraph [0060] teaches a computing system of the host network including a processing system that executes steps) configured:
to detect whether any of the set of telecommunication devices associated with the people other than the subject are disposed within a given distance of the first telecommunication device; and
in response to detecting that, over a given time period, none of the set of telecommunication devices associated with people other than the subject is disposed within a given distance of the first telecommunication device, to generate an alert (Paragraph [0017] teaches tracking the locations of clinicians and visitors to provide an alert when a patient has been alone for an extended period of time that exceeds a threshold).
As to claim 2, depending from the apparatus of claim 1, Treacy teaches wherein the set of telecommunication devices associated with the people other than the subject includes telecommunication devices associated with any person other than the subject, and wherein the at least one computer processor is configured to generate the alert in response to detecting that, over the given time period, no telecommunication device associated with any person other than the subject is disposed within the given distance of the first telecommunication device (Paragraph [0017] teaches tracking the locations of visitors to provide an alert when a patient has been alone for an extended period of time that exceeds a threshold).
As to claim 3, depending from the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the set of telecommunication devices associated with the people other than the subject includes telecommunication devices associated with a set of caregivers that are assigned to the subject, and wherein the at least one computer processor is configured to generate the alert in response to detecting that, over the given time period, none of the set of telecommunication devices associated with the set of caregivers that are assigned to the subject is disposed within the given distance of the first telecommunication device (Paragraph [0017] teaches tracking the locations of clinicians to provide an alert when a patient has been alone for an extended period of time that exceeds a threshold).
As to claim 5, depending from the apparatus of claim 1, Treacy teaches wherein the at least one computer processor is included in the first telecommunication device of the subject (Paragraph [0058] teaches the activity tracker module is stored in and executed by a computing system in the hub or wireless sensing devices).
As to claim 6, depending from the apparatus of claim 1, Treacy teaches wherein the at least one computer processor is included in a server that is remote from the subject (Paragraph [0058] teaches the activity tracking module is contained in and executed by the computing system of the host network).
As to claim 10, depending from the apparatus of claim 1, Treacy teaches wherein to detect whether any of the set of telecommunication devices associated with the people other than the subject are disposed within a given distance of the first telecommunication device involves the use of communications between the first telecommunication device and one or more of the set of telecommunication devices according to a Bluetooth protocol or a Zigbee protocol (Paragraphs [0025] and [0037] teaches the use of Bluetooth or Zigbee communication for identification transmitters and wireless sensing devices and identification receivers).
As to claim 13, depending from the apparatus of claim 1, Treacy teaches wherein the alert is generated at a monitoring center (Paragraphs [0015] and [0047] teach presenting an activity alert to the clinicians; Paragraph [0054] teaches alerting via a user interface display; Paragraph [0057] teaches alerting at a nurses’ station).
As to claim 14, depending from the apparatus of claim 1, Treacy teaches wherein the computer processor is configured to detect whether a telecommunications device other than the set of telecommunication devices is within the given distance of the first telecommunications device, and to generate a presence alert in response thereto (Paragraph [0067] teaches receiving an indication that a visitor has been detected at the patient location; Paragraph [0017] teaches tracking the location of clinicians and visitors).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 4 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Treacy et al. (Treacy; US PG Pub #2018/0261066) in view of Chaco et al. (Chaco; US PG Pub #2002/0044043).
As to claim 4, Treacy teaches an apparatus for use with a first telecommunication device that is associated with a subject requiring care, and a second of telecommunication devices associated with people other than the subject (Paragraph [0017] teaches a location tracking system; Paragraph [0020] teaches a host network communicating with a hub associated with a patient; Paragraph [0025] teaches the wireless sensing devices are portable computing devices communicating via Bluetooth, BLE, ANT, or Zigbee such that they are telecommunications devices; Paragraph [0030] teaches visitor and clinician transmitters), the apparatus comprising:
at least one computer processor (Paragraph [0060] teaches a computing system of the host network including a processing system that executes steps) configured:
to receive designations of respective telecommunication devices belonging to the set of telecommunication devices, as being associated with respective people (Paragraph [0030] teaches visitor and clinician transmitters transmitting to identification receivers; Paragraph [0038] teaches communication between the identification receivers and the host network); and
to receive an indication that one of the telecommunication devices belonging to the set of telecommunication devices is within a given distance of the first telecommunication device (Paragraph [0067] teaches receiving an indication that a visitor has been detected at the patient location; Paragraph [0017] teaches tracking the location of clinicians and visitors); and
at least partially in response thereto, to generate an output indicating an identity of the person associated with the telecommunication device that is within a given distance of the first telecommunication device (Paragraph [0017] teaches providing a visitor notification when a visitor’s location is tracked to the patient’s location; Paragraph [0029] teaches displaying visitor location indicator, nurse location indicator, and physician location indicator).
Although Treacy teaches that the hub has a display to generate a visual alert (Paragraph [0057]), Treacy does not explicitly teach generating an output on the first telecommunication device indicating an identity of the person.
In the field of patient communication systems, Chaco teaches generating an output on the first telecommunication device indicating an identity of the person (Paragraph [0129] teaches an indicator assembly associated with the patient’s room displaying the type and name of the staff member in the patient’s room). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Treacy with the identification display of Chaco because this provides onlookers with knowledge regarding patient care by simply looking at each indicator (Paragraph [0129]).
As to claim 18, depending from the apparatus of claim 4, Treacy does not explicitly teach wherein the output comprises text on a display of the first telecommunication device identifying the person associated with the telecommunication device that is within the given distance of the first telecommunication device.
In the field of patient communication systems, Chaco teaches wherein the output comprises text on a display of the first telecommunication device identifying the person associated with the telecommunication device that is within the given distance of the first telecommunication device (Paragraph [0129] teaches an indicator assembly associated with the patient’s room displaying the type and name of the staff member in the patient’s room). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Treacy with the identification display of Chaco because this provides onlookers with knowledge regarding patient care by simply looking at each indicator (Paragraph [0129]).
As to claim 19, depending from the apparatus of claim 4, Treacy does not explicitly teach wherein the at least one computer processor is communicatively coupled to an infusion pump that is operable to deliver medication to the subject.
In the field of patient communication systems, Chaco teaches wherein the at least one computer processor is communicatively coupled to an infusion pump that is operable to deliver medication to the subject (Paragraph [0135] teaches an intravenous (IV) pump connected to a patient station which is connected to a nurse control station via zone controller and CPU to periodically monitor the IV pump to ensure flow rate is appropriate). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Treacy with the pump communication of Chaco because this allows an appropriate alarm sequence to be initiated with regards to the IV needs (Paragraph [0135]).
As to claim 20, depending from the apparatus of claim 18, Treacy teaches wherein the at least one computer processor is also communicatively coupled to a physiological sensor that detects the subject's heart rate and/or respiration rate (Paragraph [0016] teaches monitoring heart rate and/or breath rate; Paragraphs [0021]-[0022] teach wireless sensing devices receiving physiological parameter measurements from sensors and transmitting the measurements to the bub where the sensors or ECG electrodes for determining heart rate; Paragraph [0052] teaches accounting for the patient’s heart rate and/or breath rate at activity module 24a; Paragraph [0058] teaches that the activity tracking module is part of the computing system of the host network; Paragraph [0067] teaches the activity analysis module receiving the heart rate).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Treacy et al. (Treacy; US PG Pub #2018/0261066) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Golomb et al. (Golomb; US PG Pub #2013/0063268).
As to claim 7, depending from the apparatus of claim 1, Treacy does not explicitly teach wherein the at least one computer processor is included in one of the set of telecommunication devices that are associated with people other than the subject.
In the field of proximity sensing, Golomb teaches wherein the at least one computer processor is included in one of the set of telecommunication devices that are associated with people other than the subject (Paragraph [0045] teaches that a parent unit or a child unit can be capable of determining when the signal strength of the other drops below a predetermined level). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Treacy with the proximity detection of Golomb such that the at least one computer processor is included in one of the set of telecommunication devices that are associated with people other than the subject because providing the proximity detection capability throughout components of a system yields the predictable result of increasing reliability by reducing the likelihood that a problem at one device causes the result of the processing to be erroneous.
Claims 8-9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Treacy et al. (Treacy; US PG Pub #2018/0261066) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wengrovitz et al. (Wengrovitz; US PG Pub #2012/0095779).
As to claim 8, depending from the apparatus of claim 1, Treacy does not explicitly teach wherein the first telecommunication device and each telecommunication device of the set of telecommunications devices that are associated with people other than the subject each comprises a phone.
In the field of providing location based data in healthcare environments, Wengrovitz teaches wherein the first telecommunication device and each telecommunication device of the set of telecommunications devices that are associated with people other than the subject each comprises a phone (Paragraph [0127] teaches a tablet as a phone; Paragraphs [0074] and [0167] teach tracking the location of a tablet as it moves about a hospital). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teaching of Treacy with the tablet location of Wengrovitz because this exploits the various benefits of tablet devices while providing functionality for establishing accurate indoor location information to efficiently deliver patient-related data (Paragraph [0020]).
As to claim 9, depending from the apparatus of claim 1, Treacy does not explicitly teach wherein the first telecommunication device and each telecommunication device of the set of telecommunications devices that are associated with people other than the subject each comprises one of the following: a computer, a laptop computer, or a tablet device.
In the field of providing location based data in healthcare environments, Wengrovitz teaches wherein the first telecommunication device and each telecommunication device of the set of telecommunications devices that are associated with people other than the subject each comprises one of the following: a computer, a laptop computer, or a tablet device (Paragraphs [0074] and [0167] teach tracking the location of a tablet as it moves about a hospital). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teaching of Treacy with the tablet location of Wengrovitz because this exploits the various benefits of tablet devices while providing functionality for establishing accurate indoor location information to efficiently deliver patient-related data (Paragraph [0020]).
As to claim 12, depending from the apparatus of claim 1, Treacy teaches alerting at a nurses’ station (Paragraph [0057]), but does not explicitly teach wherein the alert is generated on a telecommunications device of the subject's primary caregiver.
In the field of providing location based data in healthcare environments, Wengrovitz teaches wherein the alert is generated on a telecommunications device of the subject's primary caregiver (Paragraph [0087] teaches a tablet presenting alerts to a doctor). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the alert of Treacy with the alerting of Wengrovitz because it is important for doctor’s to have data relating to their patients (Paragraph [0002]).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Treacy et al. (Treacy; US PG Pub #2018/0261066).
As to claim 11, depending from the apparatus of claim 1, Treacy does not explicitly teach wherein the given time period comprises once a day, once a week, or once every few hours.
However, Treacy does teach that activity time periods against which data should be compared can be set based on the patient’s needs, such as standing every 4 hours or walking twice per day (Paragraph [0053]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Treacy such that the given time period comprises once a day, once a week, or once every few hours because encouraging a patient to engage in mental and physical activity plays an important role in their care and treatment (Paragraph [0014]).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Treacy et al. (Treacy; US PG Pub #2018/0261066) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Chaco et al. (Chaco; US PG Pub #2002/0044043).
As to claim 15, depending from the apparatus of claim 1, Treacy teaches wherein the computer processor is configured to generate an output to indicate an identity of a person associated with any of the set of telecommunication devices that are within the given distance of the first telecommunication device (Paragraph [0017] teaches providing a visitor notification when a visitor’s location is tracked to the patient’s location; Paragraph [0029] teaches displaying visitor location indicator, nurse location indicator, and physician location indicator).
Although Treacy teaches that the hub has a display to generate a visual alert (Paragraph [0057]), Treacy does not explicitly teach generating an output on the first telecommunication device indicating an identity of the person.
In the field of patient communication systems, Chaco teaches generating an output on the first telecommunication device indicating an identity of the person (Paragraph [0129] teaches an indicator assembly associated with the patient’s room displaying the type and name of the staff member in the patient’s room). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Treacy with the identification display of Chaco because this provides onlookers with knowledge regarding patient care by simply looking at each indicator (Paragraph [0129]).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Treacy et al. (Treacy; US PG Pub #2018/0261066) in view of Chaco et al. (Chaco; US PG Pub #2002/0044043) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Denholm (US PG Pub #2003/0093300).
As to claim 16, depending from the apparatus of claim 4, Treacy does not explicitly teach wherein the output comprises a picture of the person associated with the telecommunication device that is within the given distance of the first telecommunication device.
In the field of patient communication systems, Denholm teaches wherein the output comprises a picture of the person associated with the telecommunication device that is within the given distance of the first telecommunication device (Paragraph [0022] teaches a patient terminal display configured to display an image of a caregiver; Paragraph [0024] teaches a patient terminal display configured to display an image of a visitor; Paragraph [0063] teaches showing a picture of medical personnel). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Treacy with the identification displaying of Denholm because showing a picture allows for easily determining authorization of visitors for an added sense of security and safety (Paragraph [0063]).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Treacy et al. (Treacy; US PG Pub #2018/0261066) in view of Chaco et al. (Chaco; US PG Pub #2002/0044043) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Maruszczak (US PG Pub #2004/0095254).
As to claim 17, depending from the apparatus of claim 4, Treacy does not explicitly teach wherein the output comprises an audio output identifying the person associated with the telecommunication device that is within the given distance of the first telecommunication device.
In the field of visitor communication systems, Maruszczak teaches wherein the output comprises an audio output identifying the person associated with the telecommunication device that is within the given distance of the first telecommunication device (Paragraph [0014] teaches playing a message on a speaker box of an interior panel so that the user immediately knows the identity of the visitor and nature of their visit). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Treacy with the audible visitor identification of Maruszczak because providing identification information to a patient yields the predictable result of providing comfort to the patient when a visitor identity is formally announced.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bulat (US PG Pub #2004/0116785) teaches a patient terminal with a video display by which the patient may view the available physician, the available physician's name, written instructions supplied by the available physician, video instructions and the available physician credentials in real time (Paragraph [0150]).
Kusens et al. (US PG Pub #2017/0193180) teach detecting audio in a patient room (Paragraphs [0005]-[0006]) and detecting caretakers or visitors (Paragraph [0049]).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN W SHERWIN whose telephone number is (571)270-7269. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7:00-8:00, 9:00-3:00 and 4:00-5:00 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, Steven Lim can be reached at 571.270.1210. 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.
/RYAN W SHERWIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2688
Prosecution Insights