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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the present action filed on 12/29/2025.
As stated in the Response to Restriction Requirement dated 12/18/2025, Claims 1-14 and 19-20 were elected without traverse, are currently pending, and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 09/13/2024 and 03/04/2025 were filed before the mailing date of the first action on the merits. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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 1-4 and 19 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Volpe et al. (US 20170258401 A1) in view of Kwak et al. (WO 2019177207 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Volpe discloses the following:
An adaptive healthcare system comprising: (Volpe discloses aspects and examples are directed to apparatus and processes that monitor the location of a medical device and execute location-specific processing upon detecting that the medical device is within a predetermined range of a reference location [0033].)
at least one medical device including a user interface with a plurality of settings, (Volpe discloses the user interface 408 includes one or more physical interface devices such as input devices, output devices, and combination input/output devices and a software stack configured to drive operation of the devices. These user interface elements may render visual, audio, and/or tactile content, including content relating to location-specific processing [0048].)
the user interface having a power saving mode and a power unrestricted mode; (Volpe discloses the at least one processor may be further configured to operate the network interface in a power conservation mode when not to determining whether the ambulatory medical device is within the predefined range of the reference location [0017]. The Examiner interprets the device as being in power unrestricted mode when it is not in “power conservation mode”.)
a monitoring system including: a device location identifier; (Volpe discloses the processor is configured to determine whether the ambulatory medical device is within a predefined range of a reference location and to initiate location-specific processing in response to determining that the ambulatory medical device is within the predefined range,…[0010]. FIG. 5 illustrates one of these processes, a proximity monitoring process 500. As shown, the proximity monitoring process 500 is executed by a proximity monitoring component …of a controller…of a medical device [0065].)
a processor and memory, the memory containing instructions that when carried out by the processor, cause the processor to: (Volpe discloses the ambulatory medical device includes at least one sensor configured to acquire data descriptive of a patient; a memory; a user interface; and at least one processor coupled with the memory, the at least one sensor, and the user interface [0010].)
detect that a proximity between the device location identifier and one of the plurality of caregiver location identifiers is within a predetermined range; (Volpe discloses processes that monitor the location of a medical device and execute location-specific processing upon detecting that the medical device is within a predetermined range of a reference location [0033]. In yet some examples, the reference location may be based on a mobile device such as a patient, caregiver or other predetermined person's smartphone or tablet [0051].)
switch the user interface from the power saving mode to the power unrestricted mode; (Volpe discloses processor may be further configured to operate the network interface in a power conservation mode when not to determining whether the ambulatory medical device is within the predefined range of the reference location [0017].)
The difference between the primary reference and the claimed subject matter is that Volpe does not disclose the interface being switched between power modes as a result of the detected proximity between the person and the device. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have incorporated switching the device into full power mode when the device is detected to be near to the caregiver into the system of Volpe. This modification would enable the preservation of a device’s battery when it is determined it is not in use service as there are a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions to the need of battery conservation of a medical device. One of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued such power saving mode with a reasonable expectation of success.
Volpe does not disclose providing access to the device based on the caregiver classification which is met by Kwak:
and a plurality of caregiver location identifiers that include at least one of a first caregiver classification and a second caregiver classification; (Kwak teaches the authority controller 343 may check the access authority granted to the user based on the confirmed role (that is, the grade). When the access right is confirmed for the authenticated user, a medical service corresponding to a request (e.g., a request for access/control to the medical IoT device) received from the user terminal may be provided (p. 15, ¶ 0004). In operation 530, the authentication controller 342 may authenticate a user based on identifier information of the user terminal (p. 14, ¶ 0007). The Examiner interprets the caregiver's role as their classification.)
determine if the detected caregiver location identifier includes the first caregiver classification or the second caregiver classification; (Kwak teaches the authority controller may determine whether a role corresponding to the user is a patient, a nurse, a doctor, or a security manager, and check the access authority specified according to a predefined policy with respect to the identified role (p. 4, ¶ 0002).)
and enable at least one of the plurality of settings of the medical device based on a combination of the proximity and the determined caregiver classification of the detected caregiver location identifier. (Kwak teaches authority by level, can be defined as follows. For example, a nurse (grade 1) may issue only commands (GET, POST, etc.) to specific medical IoT devices such as temperature sensors (thermometers), blood pressure sensors, glucose sensors, insulin pumps, and the like. Only authorized devices can have access. And the doctor (grade 2) may have more access rights than the nurse (p. 10, ¶ 0004).)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system and method for detecting the proximity between a medical device and a caregiver and switching the device’s power mode as disclosed by Volpe to incorporate providing access to the medical device based on the caregiver’s classification as taught by Kwak. This modification would create a system which prevents a situation in which the user's life is at risk due to the invasion of the privacy of the patient's medical records and unauthorized access to medical devices (see Kwak, p. 4, ¶ 0009).
Regarding Claim 19, this claim recites limitations that are substantially similar to those recited in Claim 1 above; thus, the same rejection applies. Volpe further discloses:
detect that a proximity between the device location identifier and the personnel location identifier associated with the caregiver classification is within a predetermined range;… detect if a proximity between the device location identifier and the personnel location identifier…is within a predetermined range; (Volpe discloses processes that monitor the location of a medical device and execute location-specific processing upon detecting that the medical device is within a predetermined range of a reference location [0033]. In yet some examples, the reference location may be based on a mobile device such as a …caregiver… [0051].)
and if the personnel location …is within a predetermined range… (Volpe discloses the at least one processor may be configured to determine whether the ambulatory medical device is within the predefined range using at least one of …a global positioning system, indoor positioning system, triangulation, an indoor beacon, and signal strength [0011].)
Volpe does not disclose providing access to the device based on the caregiver classification and an oversight classification which is met by Kwak:
a pair of personnel location identifiers that include a caregiver classification and an oversight classification; (Kwak teaches the user terminal is an electronic device possessed by a user such as a patient, a doctor, a senior doctor, a pharmacist, a nurse, and may include a tablet, a PC, a smartphone, and the like (p. 6, ¶ 0002). The Examiner interprets the senior doctor as a caregiver with an oversight classification which would have greater access than a nurse or doctor.)
Enable a restricted plurality of settings of the medical device based on …the caregiver classification…;…personnel …identifier…associated with the oversight classification…enable additional plurality of settings of the medical device. (Kwak teaches Alice, Bob, and Charlie are registered in the health prescription assistant and security system 340 as roles of nurses, doctors, and senior physicians, respectively. … Accordingly, the nurses, doctors, and senior doctors may be classified into Level 1, Level 2, and Level 3, and the policy indicating access rights for Class 1, access rights for Class 2, and access rights for Class 3 (policy)) May be set differently. … For example, a nurse (grade 1) may issue only commands …to specific medical IoT devices such as temperature sensors …And the doctor (grade 2) may have more access rights than the nurse…You may have Charlie (Class 3) has all the rights that Bob (Class 2) has, but can have access to implanted IoT devices, such as an IoT-enabled pacemaker that is implanted in the body. In addition, Charlie (grade 3) may have the authority to prescribe medicines in emergency or fatal situations by issuing orders in smart medicine boxes, such as Pill Bottles (p. 10, ¶ 0004). The Examiner interprets the senior doctor as the personnel identifier which has an oversight classification and more settings enabled.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system and method for detecting the proximity between a medical device and a caregiver and switching the device’s power mode as disclosed by Volpe to incorporate providing access to the medical device based on the caregiver’s classification and oversight classification as taught by Kwak. This modification would create a system which prevents a situation in which the user's life is at risk due to the invasion of the privacy of the patient's medical records and unauthorized access to medical devices (see Kwak, p. 4, ¶ 0009).
Regarding Claim 2, Volpe and Kwak teach the limitations as seen in the rejection of Claim 1 above. Volpe does not disclose the following limitations met by Kwak:
the processor is further caused to enable a first plurality of settings for the first caregiver classification and a second plurality of settings that includes all the first plurality of settings and additional settings for the second caregiver classification. (Kwak teaches the user level may be divided according to the role…the nurses, doctors, and senior doctors may be classified into Level 1, Level 2, and Level 3, and the policy indicating access rights for Class 1, access rights for Class 2, and access rights for Class 3 (policy)… authority by level, can be defined as follows. For example, a nurse (grade 1) may issue only commands (GET, POST, etc.) to specific medical IoT devices such as temperature sensors (thermometers), blood pressure sensors, glucose sensors, insulin pumps,… Only authorized devices can have access. And the doctor (grade 2) may have more access rights than the nurse (p. 10, ¶ 0004). The Examiner interprets the nurse as being the first caregiver and the doctor as the second caregiver with greater access.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system and method for detecting the proximity between a medical device and a caregiver and switching the device’s power mode as disclosed by Volpe to incorporate the second caregiver having greater access than the first as taught by Kwak. This modification would create a system which prevents a situation in which the user's life is at risk due to the invasion of the privacy of the patient's medical records and unauthorized access to medical devices (see Kwak, p. 4, ¶ 0009).
Regarding Claim 3, Volpe and Kwak teach the limitations as seen in the rejection of Claim 2 above. Volpe does not disclose the following limitations met by Kwak:
the at least one of the first and second caregiver classifications includes a plurality of additional caregiver classifications with access to different pluralities of settings than the first and second plurality of settings. (Kwak teaches the user terminal is an electronic device possessed by a user such as a patient, a doctor, a senior doctor, a pharmacist, a nurse, and may include a tablet, a PC, a smartphone, and the like (p. 6, ¶ 0002). The Examiner interprets the senior doctor as an additional caregiver classification which would have greater access than a nurse or doctor.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system and method for detecting the proximity between a medical device and a caregiver and switching the device’s power mode as disclosed by Volpe to incorporate an additional caregiver classification providing differing levels of access than the first and second caregiver settings as taught by Kwak. This modification would create a system which prevents a situation in which the user's life is at risk due to the invasion of the privacy of the patient's medical records and unauthorized access to medical devices (see Kwak, p. 4, ¶ 0009).
Regarding Claim 4, Volpe and Kwak teach the limitations as seen in the rejection of Claim 3 above. Volpe does not disclose the following limitations met by Kwak:
wherein the second caregiver classification is associated with an individual with greater responsibilities to a patient than the first caregiver classification, (Kwak teaches the nurses, doctors, and senior doctors may be classified into Level 1, Level 2, and Level 3, and the policy indicating access rights for Class 1, access rights for Class 2, and access rights for Class 3 (policy) ) May be set differently. Rule, that is, authority by level, can be defined as follows. For example, a nurse (grade 1) may issue only commands (GET, POST, etc.) to specific medical IoT devices such as temperature sensors… glucose sensors,…Only authorized devices can have access. And the doctor (grade 2) may have more access rights than the nurse (p. 10, ¶ 0004). The Examiner interprets the nurse as being the first caregiver and the doctor as the second caregiver with greater responsibility.)
and the plurality of additional caregiver classifications includes a third caregiver classification that is associated with an individual with greater responsibilities to the patient than the second caregiver classification. (Kwak teaches the user terminal is an electronic device possessed by a user such as a patient, a doctor, a senior doctor, a pharmacist, a nurse, and may include a tablet, a PC, a smartphone… (p. 6, ¶ 0002). The Examiner interprets the senior doctor as an additional caregiver classification which would have greater responsibility than a nurse or doctor.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system and method for detecting the proximity between a medical device and a caregiver and switching the device’s power mode as disclosed by Volpe to incorporate the second caregiver having greater access than the first and the additional caregiver having more access than both as taught by Kwak. This modification would create a system which prevents a situation in which the user's life is at risk due to the invasion of the privacy of the patient's medical records and unauthorized access to medical devices (see Kwak, p. 4, ¶ 0009).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Volpe et al. (US 20170258401 A1) and Kwak et al. (WO 2019177207 A1) in view of Sevadjian et al. (US 20100205741 A1).
Regarding Claim 5, Volpe and Kwak teach the limitations as seen in the rejection of Claim 1 above. Volpe and Kwak do not teach the following limitations met by Sevadjian:
wherein the at least one medical device includes a patient table. (Sevadjian teaches the present invention relates to a therapeutic table with an improved activation means for a therapeutic table with one or more position adjustment mechanisms…[0012].)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system and method for detecting the proximity between a medical device and a caregiver and switching the device’s power mode as disclosed by Volpe to incorporate the medical device being a patient table as taught by Sevadjian. This modification would create a system which allows for therapies to be carried out on a table for the desired patient position (see Sevadjian, ¶ 0011).
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Volpe et al. (US 20170258401 A1), Kwak et al. (WO 2019177207 A1), and Sevadjian et al. (US 20100205741 A1) in view of Palmroos et al. (US 20090157432 A1).
Regarding Claim 6, Volpe, Kwak, and Sevadjian teach the limitations as seen in the rejection of Claim 5 above. Volpe, Kwak, and Sevadjian do not teach the following limitations met by Palmroos:
the user interface includes a display that is one of off or dimmed in the power saving mode and illuminated in the power unrestricted mode. (Palmroos teaches to conserve power and wear and tear on the display hardware, some prior art devices have an automatic dimming feature that dims the display to a preset brightness level after a period set in the medical device. To restore the brightness level, the clinician must touch the display [0063]. The Examiner interprets the screen dimming as being the power saving mode of the device.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system and method for detecting the proximity between a medical device and a caregiver and switching the device’s power mode as disclosed by Volpe to incorporate the interface including a display which is dimmed in power saving mode as taught by Palmroos. This modification would create a system which prevents undue wear and tear on the display hardware (see Palmroos, ¶ 0006).
Regarding Claim 7, Volpe, Kwak, Sevadjian, and Palmroos teach the limitations as seen in the rejection of Claim 6 above. Volpe, Kwak, and Sevadjian do not teach the following limitations met by Palmroos:
wherein the plurality of settings are displayed on the user interface in the power unrestricted mode. (Palmroos teaches Fig. 6 and 7 which show the interface displayed to the user including buttons for modifying the settings of the medical device infusion parameters such as volumetric rate and VTBI. When a default brightness level has been selected for a particular medical device, the medical device will maintain that default brightness level unless or until it is adjusted by a user/clinician at the device or is automatically dimmed [0058]. The Examiner interprets the default brightness level of the screen as power unrestricted mode, the dimmed screen as power saving mode, and the ‘view delivery screen’ as displaying settings.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system and method for detecting the proximity between a medical device and a caregiver and switching the device’s power mode as disclosed by Volpe to incorporate the interface including a display which is dimmed in power saving mode as taught by Palmroos. This modification would create a system which prevents undue wear and tear on the display hardware (see Palmroos, ¶ 0006).
Claims 8-12 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Volpe et al. (US 20170258401 A1) and Kwak et al. (WO 2019177207 A1) in view of Palmroos et al. (US 20090157432 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, Volpe and Kwak teach the limitations as seen in the rejection of Claim 1 above. Volpe and Kwak do not teach the following limitations met by Palmroos:
wherein the at least one medical device includes a medical device with a delivery rate critical to the support of the patient. (Palmroos teaches FIG. 5 illustrates a multi-channel infusion pump 14 with a split touch screen 122 having a first channel screen portion 140 associated with first channel 132 and a second channel screen portion 142 associated with the second channel 136. Each channel screen portion 140 and 142 presents a subset of the delivery information regarding the respective channels 132 or 136, including without limitation therapeutic agent name, concentration, dose rate, VTBI, and alarm information…[0046].)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system and method for detecting the proximity between a medical device and a caregiver and switching the device’s power mode as disclosed by Volpe to incorporate the medical device having a delivery rate critical to supporting the patient as taught by Palmroos. This modification would create a system which improves patient safety and therapy (see Palmroos, ¶ 0004).
Regarding Claim 9, Volpe, Kwak, and Palmroos teach the limitations as seen in the rejection of Claim 8 above. Volpe and Kwak do not teach the following limitations met by Palmroos:
wherein the plurality of settings includes monitoring the delivery rate and adjusting the delivery rate. (Palmroos teaches each channel screen portion 140 and 142 presents a subset of the delivery information regarding the respective channels 132 or 136, including…therapeutic agent name, concentration, dose rate,… [0046]. By using the Channel Level Therapy Buttons 145 and the Program Level Buttons 147, the healthcare practitioner can program each individual channel of the pump with specific fluid therapies…other delivery specifications for the following modes: Basic Therapy --includes dose calculation, which allows does rate programming …, drug amount, infusion time and drug concentration and simple rate programming that allows programming of volumetric rate (mL/hr)…[0052]. See Fig. 5-6 which show options for editing the settings of delivery rate.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system and method for detecting the proximity between a medical device and a caregiver and switching the device’s power mode as disclosed by Volpe to incorporate the medical device settings including monitoring and adjusting the delivery rate as taught by Palmroos. This modification would create a system which improves patient safety and therapy (see Palmroos, ¶ 0004).
Regarding Claim 10, Volpe, Kwak, and Palmroos teach the limitations as seen in the rejection of Claim 8 above. Volpe does not disclose the following limitations met by Kwak:
wherein the first caregiver classification enables the monitoring …but restricts adjusting… (Kwak teaches Permission may represent a permission for a particular mode of work in connection with one or more medical services. Based on access rights, rights holders can perform some tasks on the system. For example, a nurse may be authorized to retrieve thermometer (i.e., medical IoT device) readings,… (p. 11, ¶ 0005). The Examiner interprets the nurse only being authorized to retrieve readings as an authorization for monitoring and no authorization for adjusting.)
and the second caregiver classification enables the monitoring…and adjustment… (Kwak teaches Bob (Class 2) may have all the rights of Alice (Class 1) and additionally issue commands and access to sensitive medical IoT devices such as EEG, ECG, vision sensors, hearing sensors, etc. (p. 10, ¶ 0004).)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system and method for detecting the proximity between a medical device and a caregiver and switching the device’s power mode as disclosed by Volpe to incorporate the second caregiver having greater access than the first and the first caregiver only having access to monitoring as taught by Kwak. This modification would create a system which prevents a situation in which the user's life is at risk due to the invasion of the privacy of the patient's medical records and unauthorized access to medical devices (see Kwak, p. 4, ¶ 0009).
Volpe and Kwak do not teach the medical device having a delivery rate which is met by Palmroos:
…of the delivery rate… (Palmroos teaches FIG. 5 illustrates a multi-channel infusion pump 14 with a split touch screen…and a second channel screen portion 142 associated with the second channel 136. Each channel screen portion 140 and 142 presents a subset of the delivery information regarding the respective channels 132 or 136, including without limitation therapeutic agent name, concentration, dose rate,… [0046].)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system and method for detecting the proximity between a medical device and a caregiver and switching the device’s power mode as disclosed by Volpe to incorporate the medical device having a delivery rate for supporting the patient as taught by Palmroos. This modification would create a system which improves patient safety and therapy (see Palmroos, ¶ 0004).
Regarding Claim 11, Volpe and Kwak teach the limitations as seen in the rejection of Claim 1 above. Volpe does not disclose the following limitations met by Kwak:
…and upon determining if the detected caregiver location identifier includes the first caregiver classification or the second caregiver classification, (Kwak teaches the authority controller 343 may check the access authority granted to the user based on the confirmed role (that is, the grade). When the access right is confirmed for the authenticated user, a medical service corresponding to a request (e.g., a request for access / control to the medical IoT device) received from the user terminal may be provided (p. 15, ¶ 0004). The Examiner interprets the caregiver's role as their classification.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system and method for detecting the proximity between a medical device and a caregiver and switching the device’s power mode as disclosed by Volpe to incorporate providing access to the medical device based on the caregiver’s classification as taught by Kwak. This modification would create a system which prevents a situation in which the user's life is at risk due to the invasion of the privacy of the patient's medical records and unauthorized access to medical devices (see Kwak, p. 4, ¶ 0009).
Volpe and Kwak do not teach the following limitations met by Palmroos:
wherein the memory includes a power management protocol that causes the processor to: reduce power to a non-critical feature of the at least one medical devices; (Palmroos teaches FIG. 6 further illustrates that at graphical user interface 600 a user may configure the backlight using a default power saving mode when on A/C power 620 setting. To conserve power and wear and tear on the display hardware, some prior art devices have an automatic dimming feature that dims the display to a preset brightness level…[0063]. The Examiner interprets the level of brightness of the screen as the non-critical feature which is being reduced in power.)
unrestricting the power to the non-critical feature associated with the at least one of the plurality of settings that are enabled. (Palmroos teaches to conserve power and wear and tear on the display hardware, some prior art devices have an automatic dimming feature that dims the display to a preset brightness level after a period set in the medical device. To restore the brightness level, the clinician must touch the display [0063]. The Examiner interprets the display brightness level increasing to normal levels as unrestricting the power level.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system and method for detecting the proximity between a medical device and a caregiver and switching the device’s power mode as disclosed by Volpe to incorporate the interface including a display which is dimmed in power saving mode as taught by Palmroos. This modification would create a system which prevents undue wear and tear on the display hardware (see Palmroos, ¶ 0006).
Regarding Claim 12, Volpe, Kwak, Palmroos teach the limitations as seen in the rejection of Claim 11 above. Volpe and Kwak do not teach the following limitations met by Palmroos:
wherein the at least one medical device includes a drug delivery system and the non-critical feature includes a visualization of a delivery rate of a medication on the user interface. (Palmroos teaches each channel screen portion 140 and 142 presents a subset of the delivery information regarding the respective channels 132 or 136, including …concentration, dose rate,…[0046]. By using the Channel Level Therapy Buttons 145 and the Program Level Buttons 147, the healthcare practitioner can program each individual channel of the pump with specific fluid therapies…other delivery specifications for the following modes: Basic Therapy--includes dose calculation, which allows does rate programming …, drug amount, infusion time and drug concentration and simple rate programming that allows programming of volumetric rate (mL/hr)…[0052]. Fig. 5 and 6 show the display screen of the delivery rate of the drug which provides visualization for the user.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system and method for detecting the proximity between a medical device and a caregiver and switching the device’s power mode as disclosed by Volpe to incorporate the medical device being a drug delivery system as taught by Palmroos. This modification would create a system which prevents undue wear and tear on the display hardware (see Palmroos, ¶ 0006).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Volpe et al. (US 20170258401 A1), Kwak et al. (WO 2019177207 A1), and Palmroos et al. (US 20090157432 A1) in view of Sevadjian et al. (US 20100205741 A1).
Regarding Claim 13, Volpe, Kwak, and Palmroos teach the limitations as seen in the rejection of Claim 11. Volpe, Kwak, and Palmroos do not teach the following limitations met by Sevadjian:
wherein the non-critical feature includes at least one of a weight sensor or an adjustment mechanism in a patient table. (Sevadjian teaches a therapeutic table with one or more position adjustment mechanisms and an activation means comprising one or more ribbon switches, whereby the activation of said particular position adjustment mechanism is achieved by applying pressure on said corresponding ribbon switches [0013].)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system and method for detecting the proximity between a medical device and a caregiver and switching the device’s power mode as disclosed by Volpe to incorporate a non-critical feature being an adjustment mechanisms in a patient table as taught by Sevadjian. This modification would create a system which allows for adjustment of the table that is unobtrusive, accessible from any position around the table, and easy to use (see Sevadjian, ¶ 0010).
Claims 14 and 19 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Volpe et al. (US 20170258401 A1) and Kwak et al. (WO 2019177207 A1) in view of Bera et al. (US 20230360780 A1).
Regarding Claim 14, Volpe and Kwak teach the limitation as seen in the rejection of Claim 1 above. Volpe does not disclose the following limitations met by Kwak:
…the caregiver classification of the detected caregiver,…and if the caregiver classification of the detected caregiver is authorized to the access the plurality of settings. (Kwak teaches the authority controller 343 may check the access authority granted to the user based on the confirmed role (that is, the grade). When the access right is confirmed for the authenticated user, a medical service corresponding to a request (e.g., a request for access / control to the medical IoT device) received from the user terminal may be provided (p. 15, ¶ 0004). The Examiner interprets the caregiver's role as their classification.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system and method for detecting the proximity between a medical device and a caregiver and switching the device’s power mode as disclosed by Volpe to incorporate providing access to the medical device based on the caregiver’s classification as taught by Kwak. This modification would create a system which prevents a situation in which the user's life is at risk due to the invasion of the privacy of the patient's medical records and unauthorized access to medical devices (see Kwak, p. 4, ¶ 0009).
Volpe and Kwak do not teach the following limitations met by Bera:
wherein the processor is further caused to log any interactions between the detected caregiver location and the at least one medical device that includes attempted access to the plurality of settings,… (Bera teaches an interaction may refer to, for example, a record of which menu(s) were accessed by the caregiver, which settings were used, how long the caregiver interacted with a certain function of the medical equipment, which function(s) were used, how the equipment was used on client, where on the client a part of the equipment was positioned, how fast it was moved, for how long was it used, etc. [0083].)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system and method for detecting the proximity between a medical device and a caregiver and switching the device’s power mode as disclosed by Volpe to incorporate logging interactions between the caregiver and the device as taught by Bera. This modification would create a system which improves availability and access to information which can be relevant to a caregiver (see Bera, ¶ 0033).
Regarding Claim 20, Volpe and Kwak teach the limitation as seen in the rejection of Claim 19 above. Volpe and Kwak do not teach the following limitations met by Bera:
wherein the processor is further caused to log any interactions between the detected personal location and the medical device. (Bera teaches an interaction may refer to, for example, a record of which menu(s) were accessed by the caregiver, which settings were used, how long the caregiver interacted with a certain function of the medical equipment, which function(s) were used, how the equipment was used on client, where on the client a part of the equipment was positioned, how fast it was moved, for how long was it used, etc. [0083].)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system and method for detecting the proximity between a medical device and a caregiver and switching the device’s power mode as disclosed by Volpe to incorporate logging interactions between the caregiver and the device as taught by Bera. This modification would create a system which improves availability and access to information which can be relevant to a caregiver (see Bera, ¶ 0033).
Relevant Art Made of Record Not Currently Being Applied
The following references are considered pertinent to the Applicant’s disclosure but are not currently being applied:
Azizan et al. (US 20210158955 A1) teaches a system in which a user device detects a beacon associated with a medical system, and if the devices does not detect the beacon, the user is provided with a second set of medical features.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLIVIA R GEDRA whose telephone number is (571)270-0944. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am-5:00pm.
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, Peter H Choi can be reached at (469)295-9171. 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.
/OLIVIA R. GEDRA/Examiner, Art Unit 3681
/PETER H CHOI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3681