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 . This action is in response to the Request for Continued Examination (RCE) received on August 24, 2026. Claims 21-28, 30-32, 34, and 36 are currently pending.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicants’ submission filed on August 24, 2026 has been entered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, “imaging device” (as to claims 28, 31, 32) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 21, 34, and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wagner Block et al. (US Publication 2022/0399105), hereinafter “Wagner”.
Regarding claim 21, Wagner describes an enhanced operating room for assessing surgical conditions (i.e., an operating room monitoring system (ORMS, 50), the operating room (10, Figure 2 containing surgical table 37 and ORMS) comprising: a room for performing surgical procedures; a plurality of sensors (i.e., sensor array 60, comprising cameras, proximity sensors, air-velocity sensors, door-position sensors, temperature sensor, and relative-humidity sensor) connected to a physical infrastructure of the operating room (i.e., located in and around an operating room that the ORMS is configured for [0025] and cameras 62 can be mounted near walls or on the ceiling), the sensors being configured to measure a plurality of operating room parameters associated with the surgical conditions of the operating room as data [paragraph 0025 describes the sensors detect one or more conditions, events, and information about the operating room such as temperature, relative humidity, motion, proximity, vibration, sound, door position, differential pressure, airflow/velocity, air quality/toxicity and biological aerosols]; and a data module in communication with the sensors [paragraph 0025 describes data processed by the sensor array, such that the communication device 102 places the processor 100 in communication with sensor array 60 and monitoring server 80], the data module being capable of receiving the data from the plurality of sensors [paragraph 0025 describes the senser data is received and processed; sensor-array signals are received by monitoring server 80], the data module comprising memory (104, Figure 1 and monitoring server 80 can receive, store, and directly process sensor data) for storing the received data, and a processor (100, Figure 1, analyzes sensor data, including machine-vision data, and monitoring server can analyze/process sensor data) capable of analyzing and processing the stored data.
Regarding claim 34, Wagner discloses wherein at least one sensor is an environmental sensor (such as temperature, relative humidity, differential pressure, airflow/velocity, and air quality/toxicity) [paragraph 0025].
Regarding claim 36, Wagner discloses wherein the processor can generate a performance report accessible by an operator (i.e. the processor collects and analyzes sensor data and provide dashboard/interface information about environmental quality and infection risk) [paragraphs 0062-0067].
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 22-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wagner Block et al. (US Publication 2022/0399105), hereinafter “Wagner” in view of Lucchese et al. (US Publication 2016/0017602), hereinafter “Lucchese”.
Regarding claim 22, Wagner fails to disclose wherein the plurality of sensors is integrated into a portion of a floor of the room.
Lucchese, however, teaches sensitive-floor substrate1 comprising first sensing frame 2a-2d, second sensing frame 3a-3d, and conductive element 4 (Figures 1-3). The floor finishing products tiles, slabs, planks or carpeting are placed above second sensing frame 3a-3d, thereby incorporating the sensing structure into the finished floor [paragraphs 52-59].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the system of Wagner with a plurality of sensors integrated into a portion of a floor as taught by Lucchese to detect stresses or loads acting upon the floor.
Regarding claim 23, the modified Wagner’s system discloses wherein at least a portion of the sensors are in a sensor pad (i.e. flexible sheath, Figures 1-3, [paragraph 0051] of Lucchese) coupled to the floor of the operating room.
Regarding claim 24, the modified Wagner’s system discloses wherein at least one sensor is a floor sensor (i.e., substrate 1 is a floor sensor, sensing strips 2a-2d, 3a-3d, and 4 of Lucchese).
Regarding claim 25, the modified Wagner’s system discloses wherein the floor sensor is a single sensor or integrated into an array (i.e., an array or grid arrangement comprised of 1, 2a-2d, 3a-3d, and 4, see Figures 1-3 of Lucchese)
Regarding claim 26, the modified Wagner’s system discloses wherein the floor sensor measures load distribution (i.e. computer 11 can continuously display information regarding the load distribution throughout the areas of the floor as a person walks or stands on the floor. The sensing signals travel through cables 5,6, connectors 7, 8, and lines 9, 10 to computer 11, [paragraphs 0086-0091] of Lucchese).
Regarding claim 27, the modified Wagner’s system discloses wherein the load distribution is measured in terms of force or pressure on the floor sensor (i.e., the floor responds to loads/stresses, with pressure-sensitive behavior generated when a person or object applies a load, Figure 5 depicts a sensing substrate with no load, Figure 6 depicts sensing substrate under the load of a person’s foot. The conductive element 4 is elastically compressed under the load, changing its resistance and generating the corresponding electrical measurement, see Figures 5-6; elements 2a-2d, 3a-3d, 4).
Claims 28 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wagner Block et al. (US Publication 2022/0399105), hereinafter “Wagner” in view of Nye et al. (US Publication 2020/0160574), hereinafter “Nye”.
Regarding claim 28, Wagner fails to disclose wherein at least one sensor is a patient vital monitoring sensor, wherein the patient vital monitoring sensor comprises an imaging device configured to read vitals monitor in the operating room, and transmit vitals based on the read vitals to the data module.
Nye, however, teaches a system to capture and combine patient vitals and image data, wherein at least one sensor is a patient vital monitoring sensor (112, Figure 1), wherein the patient vital monitoring sensor comprises an imaging device (106, Figure 1) configured to read vitals monitor in the operating room (i.e. camera 106 captures visual vital information displayed by monitor 112), and transmit vitals based on the read vitals to the data module (i.e. by the vital capturer 302 and transmitted to vital analyzer 308) [paragraphs 0024-0027].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the system of Wagner with a patient vital monitor sensor as taught by Nye to have a mobile apparatus to capture imaging and vitals information of a patient during an imaging procedure.
Regarding claim 30, the modified Wagner’s system discloses wherein the vitals data is accessible by an operator (specialist 102 assesses vitals data via user interface 200, Figures 1, 2A, 2B of Nye).
Claims 31 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wagner Block et al. (US Publication 2022/0399105), hereinafter “Wagner” in view of van Zon et al. (US Publication 2019/0287682), hereinafter “van”.
Regarding claim 31, Wagner fails to disclose wherein at least one sensor is a patient monitoring sensor, wherein the patient monitoring sensor system comprising an imaging device configured to detect at least one of movement or thermal response of a patient in the operating room, and transmit patient data based on the least one of movement or thermal response of the patient to the data module.
Van, however, teaches at least one sensor is a patient monitoring sensor (476A, vital sign acquisition camera, Figure 4), wherein the patient monitoring sensor system comprising an imaging device (476a, Figure 4) capable of detecting at least one of movement or thermal response of a patient in the operating room (i.e., detects chest movement and respiratory rate measurement from said movement [paragraph 0053-0054]), and transmit patient data based on the least one of movement or thermal response of the patient to the data module [paragraph 0054].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the system of Wagner with a patient monitoring sensor to detect patient movement to monitor physiological metrics based on movement.
Regarding claim 32, the modified Wagner’s system discloses wherein at least one sensor of the plurality of sensors is a patient bed monitoring sensor (476A, Figure 4), wherein the patient bed monitoring sensor comprises an imaging device (476 A ) capable of focusing on a patient and record at least one of breathing rate (i.e. respiratory rate), skin temperature, or activity level of the patient as data [paragraphs 0053-0054].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the system of Wagner with a patient bed monitoring sensor to detect breathing rate to monitor physiological metrics based on movement.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DIANA S JONES whose telephone number is (571)270-5963. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday (8am to 4pm EST).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kevin Truong can be reached at 571-272-4705. 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.
/Diana Jones/Examiner, Art Unit 3775
/Zade Coley/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3775
Prosecution Insights