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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
Information Disclosure Statement of 08/14/2024 has been entered and fully considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 5-14, 17-24 of co-pending Application No. 17/947,815 in view of Nagaraja et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2016/0345832) hereinafter “Nagaraja”.
Regarding independent claims, 1, 10, and 18, application ‘815 discloses many aspects of the claim including a system for remotely monitoring at least one patient, the system comprising: a first subsystem, comprising: at least one image sensor for sensing imaging data of at least one patient; (disclosed in claim 1 of application ‘815) a user interface for displaying data associated with the at least one patient; (claim 1 of application ‘815) aggregate the received imaging data for the at least one patient; (disclosed in claim 1 of application ‘815) analyze the aggregated imaging data using one or more algorithms to determine one or more data values associated with the at least one patient; (disclosed in claim 1 of application ‘815) classify the one or more data values determined from aggregated imaging data to determine a physiological state or a position of the at least one patient; (disclosed in claim 1 of application ‘815) and transmit, to the first subsystem, data corresponding to the determined physiological state or the position of the at least one patient, wherein the determined physiological state or the position of the at least one patient is displayed via the user interface of the first subsystem. (disclosed in claim 1 of application ‘815) a
Application ‘815 doesn’t specifically discloses a second subsystem in communication with the first subsystem, the second subsystem comprising a processor and a computer-readable medium storing instructions that are operative upon execution by the processor to: receive the imaging data of the at least one patient from the first subsystem;
However, Nagaraja further discloses a second subsystem [processing service platform; see FIG. 2] in communication with the first subsystem, [see [0029]; the two sub-system are in communication using the communication interface 110] the second subsystem comprising a processor and a computer-readable medium storing instructions that are operative upon execution by the processor to [see FIG. 2 biological signal processor and [0087] disclosing computer readable instructions to perform the method on the system]:
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill level in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the teachings of application ‘815 further such that two separate subsystems exists wherein the second subsystem in communication with the first subsystem, the second subsystem comprising a processor and a computer-readable medium storing instructions that are operative upon execution by the processor to: receive the imaging data of the at least one patient from the first subsystem according to the teachings of Nagaraja in order to provide remote monitoring of the patients by the hospital staff such as doctors, or nurses not readily present at the patient’s bedside [see [0025] of Nagaraja]
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
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 1-9 and 12-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility test (see MPEP 2106.03).
Claims 1 and 18 are directed to an “apparatus” which describes one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter, i.e., a machine.
Claim 10 is directed to a “method” which describes one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter, i.e., a process.
Step 2A of the subject matter eligibility test (see MPEP 2106.04).
Prong One:
Claims 1, 10 and 18 recite (“sets forth” or “describes”) the abstract idea of a mental process, substantially as follows: receive the imaging data of the at least one patient from the first subsystem; aggregate the received imaging data for the at least one patient; analyze the aggregated imaging data using one or more algorithms to determine one or more data values associated with the at least one patient; classify the one or more data values determined from aggregated imaging data to determine a physiological state or a position of the at least one patient; and transmit, to the first subsystem, data corresponding to the determined physiological state or the position of the at least one patient,
In claims 1, 10, and 18, the above recited steps can be practically performed in the human mind, with the aid of a pen and paper or with a generic computer, in a computer environment, or merely using the generic computer as a tool to perform the steps. If a person were to visually examine, i.e., perform an observation, of the image sensor data of the patient either in a printout or an electronic format, he/she would be able to aggregate the imaging data by collecting all data into a single folder, analyze them imaging data based on training and experiences and analyze them to classify the data and determine a position of the patient or a physiological state such as being awake, etc. He/she would further be able to obtain at least one feature value, for example, a position, via visual examination, and further to estimate the bio-information. There is nothing recited in the claim to suggest an undue level of complexity in how the data are analyzed, aggregated, or classified. Therefore, a person would be able to perform process mentally or with a generic computer.
Prong Two: Claims 1, 10, and 18 do not include additional elements that integrate the mental process into a practical application.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recites (1) additional steps of a plurality of image sensors acquiring image data of the patient; and (2) further an additional element/step of outputting the data associated with the patient as well as physiological state or position of the patient.
The steps in (1) represent merely data gathering or pre-solution activities that are necessary for use of the recited judicial exception and are recited at a high level of generality with conventionally used tools (see below Step IIB for further details).
The step in (2) represents merely notification outputting by a processor as a post-solution activity and is recited at a high level of generality.
As a whole, the additional elements merely serve to gather and feed information to the abstract idea and to output a notification based on the abstract idea, while generically implementing it on conventionally used tools. There is no practical application because the abstract idea is not applied, relied on, or used in a meaningful way. No improvement to the technology is evident, and the estimated bio-information is not outputted in any way such that a practical benefit is realized. Therefore, the additional elements, alone or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B of the subject matter eligibility test (see MPEP 2106.05).
Claims 1, 10, and 18 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the claims recite additional steps of imaging data acquisition and physiological data display. These steps represents mere data gathering, data outputting or pre/post/extra-solution activities that are necessary for use of the recited judicial exception and are recited at a high level of generality.
Accordingly, these additional steps and tools for measuring a pulse wave signal and contact pressure, and outputting a notification amount to no more than insignificant conventional extra-solution activity. Mere insignificant conventional extra-solution activity cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims hence are The not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims
The following dependent claims merely further define the abstract idea and are, therefore, directed to an abstract idea for similar reasons:
Type of physiological data determined from the imaging data wherein at least the temperature could be easily determined by a practitioner looking at the thermal images (claim 3, 12)
Type of determined position data (claim 4, 13, 19, 20).
Identification of a plurality of persons (claim 7-9, 15-17)
The following dependent claims merely further describe the extra-solution activities and therefore, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception or integrate the abstract idea into a practical application for similar reasons:
means of obtaining pre-solutionary imaging data (claim 2, 5, 11);
outputting data details (claim 6, 14);
Taken alone and in combination, the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application at least because the abstract idea is not applied, relied on, or used in a meaningful way. They also do not add anything significantly more than the abstract idea. Their collective functions merely provide computer/electronic implementation and processing, and no additional elements beyond those of the abstract idea. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer, output device, improves technology other than the technical field of the claimed invention, etc. Therefore, the claims are rejected as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 7, 8, 10-13, 15, 16, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nagaraja et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2016/0345832) hereinafter “Nagaraja”.
Regarding claim 1, Nagaraja discloses a system for remotely monitoring at least one patient, [see abstract of Nagaraja] the system comprising:
a first subsystem, [sub-system 120; see FIG. 2; see [0030]] comprising:
at least one image sensor for sensing imaging data of at least one patient; [imaging device 130; see [0031]]
a user interface for displaying data associated with the at least one patient; [see [0043] and FIG. 4; the system can have a display to show the live or captured video along with health indicators]
a second subsystem [processing service platform; see FIG. 2] in communication with the first subsystem, [see [0029]; the two sub-system are in communication using the communication interface 110] the second subsystem comprising a processor and a computer-readable medium storing instructions that are operative upon execution by the processor to [see FIG. 2 biological signal processor and [0087] disclosing computer readable instructions to perform the method on the system]:
receive the imaging data of the at least one patient from the first subsystem; [see [0029] the biological data of the patient is received by the processor using the interface 110]
aggregate the received imaging data for the at least one patient; [see [0037] multiple sets of data are generated and sent to biological signal processor for analysis.]
analyze the aggregated imaging data using one or more algorithms to determine one or more data values associated with the at least one patient; [see [0038] and [042]; the data are analyzed and transformed d into a health summary score/ health indicator (i.e. aggregated)]
classify the one or more data values determined from aggregated imaging data to determine a physiological state or a position of the at least one patient; and [see [0042]; state of the patient (such as asleep, awake, comfort level, etc. is assessed and classified]
transmit, to the first subsystem, data corresponding to the determined physiological state or the position of the at least one patient, wherein the determined physiological state or the position of the at least one patient is displayed via the user interface of the first subsystem. [see [0043]; health indicator and periodic notifications are displayed on the output interface display]
Regarding claim 2, Nagaraja further discloses that the at least one image sensor comprises one or more of: a video capture camera [video camera; see [0029]]; an infrared camera; [see [0033]] a near infrared camera; an infrared emitter; [see [0033] and infrared emitting LED] and a thermal camera.
Regarding claim 3, Nagaraja further discloses that the physiological state of the at least one patient comprises one or more of: a respiratory rate of the at least one patient; a heart rate of the at least one patient; an oxygen saturation of at least one patient; and a body temperature of the at least one patient. [see [0035]-[0036] disclosing determining respiration rate and heart rate of the patient; [0054] disclosing determining the oxygen saturation and body temperature of the patient]
Regarding claim 4, Nagaraja further discloses that the position of the at least one patient comprises one or more of: a body position of the at least one patient; [see [0019] and [0080] of Nagaraja discloses detection of shivering, rolling, chewing] an eye movement or position of the at least one patient; [see [0080] disclosing detection of eye movement (i.e. eye open, eye closed)] a limb position of the at least one patient; [see [0080] ; detection of frowning or calm facial expression] a motion, or a micro-motion of an eyelid, an ear, a finger, or a body part of the at least one patient; [see [0080]; detection of open or closed eyelid] and a room in which the at least one patient is located.
Regarding claim 5, Nagaraja further discloses that the first subsystem [subsystem of FIG.3] further comprises: a processor [see FIG. 3 and [0032]] and a computer-readable medium storing instructions that are operative upon execution by the processor to: receive, from the second subsystem, the data corresponding to the determined physiological state or the position of the at least one patient; [see [0032] of Nagaraja discloses receiving the physiological information from the second subsystem by the processor of the sensing device 120] and display, via the user interface, an indication of the physiological state or the position of the at least one patient. [see [0043]; health indicator and periodic notifications are displayed on the output interface display]
Regarding claim 7, Nagaraja further discloses that the processor of the second subsystem is further configured to: identify a plurality of patients, [see FIG. 8 and [0057]] wherein the plurality of patients is within a field of view of the at least one image sensor; [see FIG. 8]
register a first patient, and any other patients of the plurality of patients, in memory; [see [0059] and FIG> 8; each individual is recognized and the vital sign separately analyzed, therefore, it is evident that each patient has been registered in the memory]
aggregate data related to each patient of the plurality of patients individually from the received imaging data; and [see [0059]-[0060] of Nagaraja]
analyze the aggregated imaging data related to each patient of the plurality of patients using one or more algorithms to determine one or more data values associated with each respective patient. [ see [0060]-[0063] of Nagaraja]
Regarding claim 8, Nagaraja further discloses that the processor of the second subsystem is further configured to: determine a location of each patient of the plurality of patients, wherein the location of each patient comprises at least a room of a plurality of rooms in which each patient is located. [see [0025] and [0062]-[0064] of Nagaraja]
Regarding claim 10, Nagaraja discloses a method, carried out in a system for monitoring at least one patient, [see abstract of Nagaraja] the method comprising:
- receiving, [see [0029] the biological data of the patient is received by the processor using the interface 110] from a remote data acquisition system, [sub-system 120; see FIG. 2; see [0030]] imaging data of at least one patient, wherein the imaging data is acquired via at least one image sensor of the remote data acquisition system; [imaging device 130; see [0031]]
- aggregating the received imaging data for the at least one patient; [see [0037] multiple sets of data are generated and sent to biological signal processor for analysis.]
- analyzing the aggregated imaging data using one or more algorithms to determine one or more data values associated with the at least one patient; [see [0038] and [042]; the data are analyzed and transformed d into a health summary score/ health indicator (i.e. aggregated)]
- classifying the one or more data values determined from aggregated imaging data to determine a physiological state or a position of the at least one patient; and [see [0042]; state of the patient (such as asleep, awake, comfort level, etc. is assessed and classified]
- transmitting, to the remote data acquisition system, data corresponding to the determined physiological state or the position of the at least one patient; [see [0043]; health indicator and periodic notifications are displayed on the output interface display]
and wherein the data corresponding to the determined physiological state or the position of the at least one patient is displayed via a user interface of the remote data acquisition system. [see [0029]; the two sub-system are in communication using the communication interface 110]
Regarding claim 11, Nagaraja further discloses that the at least one image sensor comprises one or more of: a video capture camera [video camera; see [0029]]; an infrared camera; [see [0033]] a near infrared camera; an infrared emitter; [see [0033] and infrared emitting LED] and a thermal camera.
Regarding claim 12, Nagaraja further discloses that the physiological state of the at least one patient comprises one or more of: a respiratory rate of the at least one patient; a heart rate of the at least one patient; an oxygen saturation of at least one patient; and a body temperature of the at least one patient. [see [0035]-[0036] disclosing determining respiration rate and heart rate of the patient; [0054] disclosing determining the oxygen saturation and body temperature of the patient]
Regarding claim 13, Nagaraja further discloses that the position of the at least one patient comprises one or more of: a body position of the at least one patient; [see [0019] and [0080] of Nagaraja discloses detection of shivering, rolling, chewing] an eye movement or position of the at least one patient; [see [0080] disclosing detection of eye movement (i.e. eye open, eye closed)] a limb position of the at least one patient; [see [0080] ; detection of frowning or calm facial expression] a motion, or a micro-motion of an eyelid, an ear, a finger, or a body part of the at least one patient; [see [0080]; detection of open or closed eyelid] and a room in which the at least one patient is located.
Regarding claim 15, Nagaraja further discloses identifying a plurality of patients, [see FIG. 8 and [0057]] wherein the plurality of patients is within a field of view of the at least one image sensor; [see FIG. 8]
registering a first patient, and any other patients of the plurality of patients, in memory; [see [0059] and FIG> 8; each individual is recognized and the vital sign separately analyzed, therefore, it is evident that each patient has been registered in the memory]
aggregating data related to each patient of the plurality of patients individually from the received imaging data; and [see [0059]-[0060] of Nagaraja]
analyzing the aggregated imaging data related to each patient of the plurality of patients using one or more algorithms to determine one or more data values associated with each respective patient. [ see [0060]-[0063] of Nagaraja]
Regarding claim 16, Nagaraja further discloses determining a location of each patient, wherein the location of each patient comprises at least a room of a plurality of rooms in which each respective patient is located. [see [0025] and [0062]-[0064] of Nagaraja]
Regarding claim 18, Nagaraja discloses a system for remotely monitoring a plurality of patients, [see abstract of Nagaraja] the system comprising:
a data acquisition system, [sub-system 120; see FIG. 2; see [0030]] comprising:
a plurality of image sensors for sensing imaging data of a plurality of patients; [imaging device 130; see [0031]]
a user interface for displaying data associated with the plurality of patients; [see [0043] and FIG. 4; the system can have a display to show the live or captured video along with health indicators]
a data processing system [processing service platform; see FIG. 2] in communication with the data acquisition system, [see [0029]; the two sub-system are in communication using the communication interface 110] the data processing system comprising a processor and a computer-readable medium storing instructions that are operative upon execution by the processor [see FIG. 2 biological signal processor and [0087] disclosing computer readable instructions to perform the method on the system] to:
receive, from the data acquisition system, the imaging data of the plurality of patients; identify, a first patient of the plurality of patients; [see [0029] the biological data of the patient is received by the processor using the interface 110]
register the first patient in memory;
aggregate the received imaging data for the first patient of the plurality of patients, wherein aggregating includes aggregating imaging data for the first patient from each of the plurality of image sensors; [see [0037] multiple sets of data are generated and sent to biological signal processor for analysis.]
analyze the aggregated imaging data for the first patient, using one or more algorithms, to determine one or more data values associated with the first patient; [see [0038] and [042]; the data are analyzed and transformed d into a health summary score/ health indicator (i.e. aggregated)]
classify the one or more data values determined from aggregated imaging data of the first patient to determine a physiological state or a position of the first patient; and [see [0042]; state of the patient (such as asleep, awake, comfort level, etc. is assessed and classified]
transmit, to the data acquisition system, data corresponding to the determined physiological state or the position of the first patient, [see [0043]; health indicator and periodic notifications are displayed on the output interface display] wherein the determined physiological state or the position of the first patient is displayed via the user interface of the data acquisition system. [see [0029]; the two sub-system are in communication using the communication interface 110]
Regarding claim 19, Nagaraja further discloses that the processor of the data processing system is further configured to determine a location of the first patient, wherein the location of the first patient comprises at least a room of a plurality of rooms in which the first patient is located. [see [0025] and [0062]-[0064] of Nagaraja]
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.
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.
Claims 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagaraja et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2016/0345832) hereinafter “Nagaraja” in view of Levi et al (U.S. Publication No. 2021/0401298) hereinafter “Levi”.
Regarding claim 6, Nagaraja discloses all the limitations of claim 5 [see rejection of claim 5]
Nagaraja does not expressly disclose that the processor of the first subsystem is further configured to: generate an inference layer; and combine the inference layer with the imaging data of the at least one patient, wherein the inference layer is a visual representation of the physiological state or the position of the at least one patient and the imaging data is a video stream of the at least one patient, the inference layer is displayed over top of the video stream of the at least one patient via the user interface.
Levi, directed towards non-contact image based vital sign detection of the patients [see abstract of Levi] further discloses that the processor of the first subsystem is further configured to: generate an inference layer; [see FIG. 1B of Levi] and combine the inference layer with the imaging data of the at least one patient, wherein the inference layer is a visual representation of the physiological state or the position of the at least one patient and the imaging data is a video stream of the at least one patient, the inference layer is displayed over top of the video stream of the at least one patient via the user interface.[see [0160]; the physiological information such as RR waveform 62 and HR waveform 60 are overlayed on the same screen as the live image of the patient; See FIG. 1B]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill level in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the teachings of Nagaraja further such that the processor of the first subsystem is further configured to: generate an inference layer; and combine the inference layer with the imaging data of the at least one patient, wherein the inference layer is a visual representation of the physiological state or the position of the at least one patient and the imaging data is a video stream of the at least one patient, the inference layer is displayed over top of the video stream of the at least one patient via the user interface according to the teachings of Levi in order to reflect both the patient’s general stat e as well as vital signs [see [0003] of Nagaraja]
Regarding claim 14, Nagaraja discloses all the limitations of claim 10 [see rejection of claim 10]
Nagaraja does not expressly disclose that the processor of the first subsystem is further configured to: generate an inference layer; and combine the inference layer with the imaging data of the at least one patient, wherein the inference layer is a visual representation of the physiological state or the position of the at least one patient and the imaging data is a video stream of the at least one patient, the inference layer is displayed over top of the video stream of the at least one patient via the user interface.
Levi, directed towards non-contact image based vital sign detection of the patients [see abstract of Levi] further discloses that the processor of the first subsystem is further configured to: generate an inference layer; [see FIG. 1B of Levi] and combine the inference layer with the imaging data of the at least one patient, wherein the inference layer is a visual representation of the physiological state or the position of the at least one patient and the imaging data is a video stream of the at least one patient, the inference layer is displayed over top of the video stream of the at least one patient via the user interface.[see [0160]; the physiological information such as RR waveform 62 and HR waveform 60 are overlayed on the same screen as the live image of the patient; See FIG. 1B]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill level in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the teachings of Nagaraja further such that the processor of the first subsystem is further configured to: generate an inference layer; and combine the inference layer with the imaging data of the at least one patient, wherein the inference layer is a visual representation of the physiological state or the position of the at least one patient and the imaging data is a video stream of the at least one patient, the inference layer is displayed over top of the video stream of the at least one patient via the user interface according to the teachings of Levi in order to reflect both the patient’s general stat e as well as vital signs [see [0003] of Nagaraja]
Claims 9, 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagaraja et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2016/0345832) hereinafter “Nagaraja” in view of Rogers (U.S. Publication No. 2007/0288263) hereinafter “Rogers”.
Regarding claim 9, Nagaraja discloses all the limitations of claim 8 [see rejection of claim 8]
Nagaraja does not expressly disclose that the processor of the second subsystem is further configured to: track each patient as each patient moves from a first room to second room of the plurality of rooms; determine that a first patient of the plurality of patients has moved from the first room to the second room; determine that the first patient is authorized to be to the second room; and upon determining that the first patient is not authorized to be in the second room, transmit, to the first subsystem, a notification indicating that the first patient is not authorized to be in the second room.
Rogers, directed towards video surveillance of a medical facility [see abstract of Rogers] further discloses that the processor of the second subsystem is further configured to: track each patient as each patient moves from a first room to second room of the plurality of rooms; [see [0115]-[0118] of Rogers] determine that a first patient of the plurality of patients has moved from the first room to the second room;[see [0128]-[0129] of Rogers] determine that the first patient is authorized to be to the second room; [see [0148]-[0149] of Rogers] and upon determining that the first patient is not authorized to be in the second room, transmit, to the first subsystem, a notification indicating that the first patient is not authorized to be in the second room [see [0149]; an alarm is at the nursing stations and security is started]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill level in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the teachings of Nagaraja further such that the processor of the second subsystem is further configured to: track each patient as each patient moves from a first room to second room of the plurality of rooms; determine that a first patient of the plurality of patients has moved from the first room to the second room; determine that the first patient is authorized to be to the second room; and upon determining that the first patient is not authorized to be in the second room, transmit, to the first subsystem, a notification indicating that the first patient is not authorized to be in the second room according to the teachings of Rogers in order to provide a continuous and direct supervision of patients throughout the facility [see [0007] of Rogers]
Regarding claim 17, Nagaraja discloses all the limitations of claim 16 [see rejection of claim 16]
Nagaraja does not expressly disclose that the processor of the second subsystem is further configured to: track each patient as each patient moves from a first room to second room of the plurality of rooms; determine that a first patient of the plurality of patients has moved from the first room to the second room; determine that the first patient is authorized to be to the second room; and upon determining that the first patient is not authorized to be in the second room, transmit, to the first subsystem, a notification indicating that the first patient is not authorized to be in the second room.
Rogers, directed towards video surveillance of a medical facility [see abstract of Rogers] further discloses that the processor of the second subsystem is further configured to: track each patient as each patient moves from a first room to second room of the plurality of rooms; [see [0115]-[0118] of Rogers] determine that a first patient of the plurality of patients has moved from the first room to the second room;[see [0128]-[0129] of Rogers] determine that the first patient is authorized to be to the second room; [see [0148]-[0149] of Rogers] and upon determining that the first patient is not authorized to be in the second room, transmit, to the first subsystem, a notification indicating that the first patient is not authorized to be in the second room [see [0149]; an alarm is at the nursing stations and security is started]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill level in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the teachings of Nagaraja further such that the processor of the second subsystem is further configured to: track each patient as each patient moves from a first room to second room of the plurality of rooms; determine that a first patient of the plurality of patients has moved from the first room to the second room; determine that the first patient is authorized to be to the second room; and upon determining that the first patient is not authorized to be in the second room, transmit, to the first subsystem, a notification indicating that the first patient is not authorized to be in the second room according to the teachings of Rogers in order to provide a continuous and direct supervision of patients throughout the facility [see [0007] of Rogers]
Regarding claim 20, Nagaraja discloses all the limitations of claim 19 [see rejection of claim 19]
Nagaraja does not expressly disclose that the processor of the second subsystem is further configured to: track each patient as each patient moves from a first room to second room of the plurality of rooms; determine that a first patient of the plurality of patients has moved from the first room to the second room; determine that the first patient is authorized to be to the second room; and upon determining that the first patient is not authorized to be in the second room, transmit, to the first subsystem, a notification indicating that the first patient is not authorized to be in the second room.
Rogers, directed towards video surveillance of a medical facility [see abstract of Rogers] further discloses that the processor of the second subsystem is further configured to: track each patient as each patient moves from a first room to second room of the plurality of rooms; [see [0115]-[0118] of Rogers] determine that a first patient of the plurality of patients has moved from the first room to the second room;[see [0128]-[0129] of Rogers] determine that the first patient is authorized to be to the second room; [see [0148]-[0149] of Rogers] and upon determining that the first patient is not authorized to be in the second room, transmit, to the first subsystem, a notification indicating that the first patient is not authorized to be in the second room [see [0149]; an alarm is at the nursing stations and security is started]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill level in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the teachings of Nagaraja further such that the processor of the second subsystem is further configured to: track each patient as each patient moves from a first room to second room of the plurality of rooms; determine that a first patient of the plurality of patients has moved from the first room to the second room; determine that the first patient is authorized to be to the second room; and upon determining that the first patient is not authorized to be in the second room, transmit, to the first subsystem, a notification indicating that the first patient is not authorized to be in the second room according to the teachings of Rogers in order to provide a continuous and direct supervision of patients throughout the facility [see [0007] of Rogers]
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARJAN - SABOKTAKIN whose telephone number is (303)297-4278. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am-5pm CT.
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, Michael Carey can be reached at (571) 270-7235. 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.
/MARJAN SABOKTAKIN/Examiner, Art Unit 3797
/MICHAEL J CAREY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3795
Prosecution Insights