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
Applicant’s response received has been fully considered and entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues: Johnson is directed to a hospital-based patient monitoring and protocol adherence system in which cameras observe patient areas and events such as falls or medical occurrences are detected…that the reference of Carlotto is …..non-analogous art, see pg.2-3 of the argument
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Admitted by Applicant, see above citation, that “Johnson is directed to a hospital-based patient monitoring and protocol adherence system in which cameras observe patient areas and events such as falls or medical occurrences are detected. (See Johnson at Abstract, ¶¶ [0036], [0038], [0047-0049]). The system operates within a clinical environment and is concerned with medical event detection and hospital workflow. (See Johnson at ¶ [0036]). Carlotto, by contrast, is directed to refrigerators having internal content cameras for imaging food items inside an appliance compartment. (See Carlotto at ¶¶ [0002], [0019]). Carlotto addresses issues of field-of-view coverage (¶ [0029]), placement of cameras within refrigerator doors (¶ [0019]), and optional mechanical repositioning of cameras to capture different zones of a refrigerator interior for consumer convenience (¶ [0029]).” It is admitted by the Applicant that they both used camera as a tool for object recognition, nothing has limited it to the broader area of refrigerator application. The same camera and obj3ect recognition, in itself, is a broad camera technique used in a specific application. A person would be able to see the same technology in broad sense, and the same technology will be applied different situation. Therefore, Applicant agrees that both of the arts work in the area of monitoring activities and events, this is the same area of the video application in the real life. A person in the area will use whatever available in the vision technical by survey the type of the camera they are using, it will touch both commercial application and hospital security camera application, because we are quite adaptive to use the same technology, and apply it from one small section to another. It does not require too much effort.
The other arguments about claim 33 are reasonable.
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.
Claim(s) 21-32, 38-47 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson et al. (Pub. No.: US 20120154582 “Johnson”), in view of CARLOTTO et al. (Pub. No.: US20170041520 “CARLOTTO”).
Regarding claim 21, JOHNSON discloses a patient monitoring system (JOHNSON, Abstract), comprising: a monitoring subsystem including a plurality of cameras (JOHNSON, Fig. 5, zone interactions, computer vision with bed occupancy), wherein the plurality of cameras are configured to observe different views of a patient area (as cited above); and a server including a processor and a memory, the memory having executable instructions thereon that when executed by the processor cause the processor (JOHNSON, Abstract) to: receive a plurality of video frames of the different views from the plurality of cameras (JOHNSON, Fig. 5, Fall detection, medical event detection); detect a patient event based on an analysis of given ones of the plurality of video frames (JOHNSON, as cited above, i.e. medical event detection); transmit the given ones of the plurality of video frames and an identification of the patient event (JOHNSON, Fig. 8, ¶ 109) to a viewer client device (Fig. 1 camera 105, ¶ 49); generate detection-based calibration instructions (JOHNSON, ¶ 84) based on the patient event, the detection-based calibration instructions including control information that controls (¶ 135, i.e. object tracking) the plurality of cameras based on a location of the patient event (JOHNSON, ¶ 83, Fig. 5, i.e., handwashing)
It is noted that JOHNSON is silent about wherein the monitoring subsystem configures the secondary camera based on the control information of the detection-based calibration instructions as claimed.
However, CARLOTTO discloses transmit the detection-based calibration instructions to the monitoring subsystem (i.e. the secondary camera), wherein the monitoring subsystem configures the functionality and operation of the plurality of cameras based on the control information of the detection-based calibration instructions (i.e. based on the need image, the secondary camera is moved to a certain position to image the desire scene: [0029] Returning to FIG. 1, by positioning the content cameras 121-125 on the doors 104, 105, images can be captured by the content cameras 121-125 that represent a larger extent of the compartment 102 than existing solutions because of the additional physical separation between the liners 107, 108 and the front edge of the shelves 110 and the front of the drawers 112. By being further away from contents of the refrigerator 100, the cameras 121-125 can capture images having wider fields of view. By purposefully distributing the cameras 121-125 between the doors 104, 105, as conceptually shown in FIG. 1, the cameras 121-125 can collectively image substantially the entire compartment 102. Furthermore, the conventional structure(s) and/or placement of, for example, storage bins, etc. on the doors 104, 105 present less impairments to the field-of-views of the cameras 121-125, as compared to other placements elsewhere within the compartment 102. In those other placements, shelves, drawers, etc. present greater impairments to camera field-of-view. In some examples, the positions and/or angles of the cameras 121-125 can be determined using, for example, simulation, computer added design (CAD), empirical analysis, etc. In a specific example, one camera is disposed on the door 105 and four cameras are disposed on the door 104 and image a top shelf, a middle shelf, a left crisper drawer, and a right crisper drawer. Servos, motors, steppers, actuators, linear actuators, etc. may be used to move the cameras 121-125 in one or more directions during use. Use of camera movement may allow the implementation of fewer cameras 121-125. For example, the ACU 140 can move a camera 121-125 to a first position, capture an image, move the camera to a second position, and capture another image. In this way, the ACU 140 can capture images within the compartment 102 using fewer cameras. Additionally and/or alternatively, a user of the user device 160 can remotely move a camera 121-125 to allow an image to be captured of a particular portion of the compartment 102).
Both JOHNSON and CARLOTTO teach systems with viewing configuration from wider view camera and point of interest view, and those systems are comparable to that of the instant application. Because the two cited references are analogous to the instant application, it 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, to include in the JOHNSON disclosure, controlling the secondary camera from information of the wide view camera, as taught by CARLOTTO. Such inclusion would have increased the usefulness of the system by not preventing a person from seeing at least a portion of the interior of a compartment when a door is closed, and would have been consistent with the rationale of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results to show a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP 2143(I)(A)) under KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claim 22, JOHNSON/CARLOTTO, for the same motivation of combination, further discloses the patient monitoring system of claim 21, wherein the plurality of cameras includes a primary camera configured to display a wide view of the patient area (JOHNSON, Fig. 1 camera 105, ¶ 49) and a secondary camera configured to display an area of interest (JOHNSON, Fig. 8, ¶ 109); of the patient area (as cited above, i.e. JOHNSON, where the CARLOTTO is zoomed in an area of interest).
Regarding claim 23, JOHNSON/CARLOTTO, for the same motivation of combination, further discloses the patient monitoring system of claim 22, wherein the patient event is detected by the primary camera and the detection-based calibration instructions include control information that controls the primary camera based on a location of the patient event (JOHNSON, Fig. 5, Fall detection, medical event detection) and configures the functionality and operation of the primary camera based on the control information of the detection-based calibration instructions (JOHNSON, ¶ 135, i.e. object tracking)
Regarding claim 24, JOHNSON/CARLOTTO, for the same motivation of combination, further discloses the patient monitoring system of claim 23, wherein the server is configured to calculate a trajectory or motion vector based on the patient event detected by the primary camera, the calculated trajectory or motion vector used to turn or move the primary camera to retain its focus on the patient event (as cited above, i.e. JOHNSON, where the CARLOTTO is zoomed in an area of interest).
Regarding claim 25, JOHNSON/CARLOTTO, for the same motivation of combination, further discloses the patient monitoring system of claim 22, wherein the patient event is detected by the primary camera and the detection-based calibration instructions include control information that controls the secondary camera based on a location (see JOHNSON, location citation above) of the patient event and configures the functionality and operation of the secondary camera based on the control information of the detection-based calibration instructions (as cited above, i.e. JOHNSON, where the CARLOTTO is zoomed in an area of interest).
Regarding claim 26, JOHNSON/CARLOTTO, for the same motivation of combination, further discloses the patient monitoring system of claim 21, wherein the monitoring subsystem includes an audio input/output configured to allow audio communication (JOHNSON, ¶ 91) between a user of the viewer client device and a patient (JOHNSON, ¶ 106)
Regarding claim 27, JOHNSON/CARLOTTO, for the same motivation of combination, further discloses the patient monitoring system of claim 26, wherein the audio input/output is configured to be connected with at least one of speakers, microphones, or other audio equipment (as cited above, i.e. JOHNSON, voice/audio citation)
Regarding claim 28, JOHNSON/CARLOTTO, for the same motivation of combination, further discloses the patient monitoring system of claim 21, wherein the control information includes at least one of move, pan, tilt, zoom, focus, lighting, and exposure control (see JOHNSON, control citation above).
Regarding claim 29, JOHNSON/CARLOTTO, for the same motivation of combination, further discloses the patient monitoring system of claim 25, wherein the control information incudes control of the secondary camera to focus or zoom in on the area of interest based on the location of the patient event (JOHNSON, Fig. 8, ¶ 109);
Regarding claim 30, JOHNSON/CARLOTTO, for the same motivation of combination, further discloses the patient monitoring system of claim 21, wherein the server is configured to: receive manual (i.e. CARLOTTO, ¶ 26, selecting view based on levels assigned) calibration instructions (as cited above, i.e. JOHNSON, monitoring devices) from a user of the viewer client device, the manual calibration instructions including control information that manually controls operation of the plurality of cameras by the user; and transmit the manual calibration instructions to the monitoring subsystem CARLOTTO, ¶ 29), wherein the monitoring subsystem configures the plurality of cameras based on the control information of the manual calibration instructions (CARLOTTO, ¶ 26, i.e. user configuring the viewing options).
Regarding claim 31, JOHNSON/CARLOTTO, for the same motivation of combination, further discloses the patient monitoring system of claim 21, wherein the patient event includes at least one of a patient at risk of falling, the patient falling, the patient in need of intervention, the patient outside of a designated area, patient motion, or physical changes of the patient (as cited above, i.e. JOHNSON, patient falling).
Regarding claim 32, JOHNSON/CARLOTTO, for the same motivation of combination, further discloses the patient monitoring system of claim 21, wherein the area of interest includes at least one of a wound, an intravenous insertion, or a face (JOHNSON, ¶ 152).
Regarding claim 38, JOHNSON/CARLOTTO, for the same motivation of combination, discloses a method, in a data processing system comprising a processor and a memory, for calibrating cameras for a patient monitoring system, the method comprising: receiving a plurality of video frames of different views from a plurality of cameras (see rejection of claim 21); detecting a patient event based on an analysis of given ones of the plurality of video frames (see rejection of claim 21); transmitting the given ones of the plurality of video frames and an identification of the patient event to a viewer client device (see rejection of claim 21); generating detection-based calibration instructions based on the patient event, the detection-based calibration instructions including control information that controls the plurality of cameras based on a location of the patient event (see rejection of claim 21); and transmitting the detection-based calibration instructions to the monitoring subsystem, wherein the monitoring subsystem configures the functionality and operation of the plurality of cameras based on the control information of the detection-based calibration instructions (see rejection of claim 21).
Regarding claim 39, JOHNSON/CARLOTTO, for the same motivation of combination, further discloses the method of claim 38, wherein the plurality of cameras includes a primary camera configured to display a wide view of the patient area and a secondary camera configured to display an area of interest of the patient area (see CARLOTTO, interest citation), wherein the secondary camera comprises visible light and thermal imagining functionality (JOHNSON, ¶ 55).
Regarding claim 40, JOHNSON/CARLOTTO, for the same motivation of combination, further discloses the method of claim 39, wherein the patient event is detected by the primary camera and the detection-based calibration instructions include control information that controls the primary camera based on a location of the patient event and configures the functionality and operation of the primary camera based on the control information of the detection-based calibration instructions (JOHNSON, see control citation).
Regarding claim 41, JOHNSON/CARLOTTO, for the same motivation of combination, further discloses the method of claim 40, further including calculating a trajectory or motion vector based on the patient event detected by the primary camera, the calculated trajectory or motion vector used to turn or move the primary camera to retain its focus (JOHNSON, control and focus citation) on the patient event detected by the primary camera (See CARLOTTO, interest citation).
Regarding claim 42, JOHNSON/CARLOTTO, for the same motivation of combination, further discloses the method of claim 39, wherein the patient event is detected by the primary camera and the detection-based calibration instructions include control information that controls the secondary camera based on a location of the patient event and configures the functionality and operation of the secondary camera based on the control information of the detection-based calibration instructions (See CARLOTTO, secondary camera citation).
Regarding claim 43, JOHNSON/CARLOTTO, for the same motivation of combination, further discloses the method of claim 38, wherein the control information includes at least one or more, pan, tilt, zoom, focus, lighting, and exposure control (see JOHNSON focus citation).
Regarding claim 44, JOHNSON/CARLOTTO, for the same motivation of combination, further discloses the method of claim 42, wherein the control information incudes control of the secondary camera to focus or zoom in on the area of interest based on the location of the patient event (see CARLOTTO, interest citation).
Regarding claim 45, JOHNSON/CARLOTTO, for the same motivation of combination, further discloses the method of claim 38, further comprising: receiving manual calibration instructions from a user of the viewer client device, the manual calibration instructions including control information that manually controls operation of the plurality of cameras by the user; and transmitting the manual calibration instructions to the monitoring subsystem, wherein the monitoring subsystem configures the plurality of cameras based on the control information of the manual calibration instructions (see CARLOTTO, manual citation).
Regarding claim 46, JOHNSON/CARLOTTO, for the same motivation of combination, further discloses the method of claim 38, wherein the patient event includes at least one of the patient at risk of falling, the patient falling, the patient in need of intervention, the patient outside of a designated area, patient motion, or physical changes of the patient (see JOHNSON, falling citation).
Regarding claim 47, JOHNSON/CARLOTTO, for the same motivation of combination, further discloses the method of claim 38, wherein the area of interest includes at least one of a wound, an intravenous insertion, or a face (see JOHNSON, face citation).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 33-37 are allowed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20100010672 A1 Docking system for a tele-presence robot
US 20090125147 A1 REMOTE CONTROLLED ROBOT SYSTEM THAT PROVIDES MEDICAL IMAGES
US 20070291128 A1 Mobile teleconferencing system that projects an image provided by a mobile robot
US 20070228755 A1 Vehicle observation apparatus
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANK F HUANG whose telephone number is (571)272-0701. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30 am - 6:00 pm (Eastern Time), Federal Alternative First Friday Off.
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, Jay Patel can be reached on (571)272-2988.. 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.
/FRANK F HUANG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2485
Prosecution Insights