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 office action for the 18/993168 application is in response to the communications filed January 10, 2025.
Claims 1-212 were initially submitted January 10, 2025.
Claims 1-81, 83-86, 89-94, 96, 98-100, 116, 121, 122, 127 and 132-212 were cancelled January 10, 2025.
Claims 82, 87, 88, 95, 97, 105, 107, 109, 113-115, 117, 123-126 and 128-131 were amended January 10, 2025.
Claims 82, 87, 88, 95, 97, 101-105, 107-115, 117-120, 123-126, and 128-131 are currently pending and considered below.
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 82, 87, 88, 95, 97, 101-105, 107-115, 117-120, 123-126, and 128-131 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
As per claim 82,
Step 1: The claim recites subject matter within a statutory category as a machine.
Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry, in which Prong 1 determines whether a claim recites a judicial exception. Prong 2 determines if the additional limitations of the claim integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. If the additional elements of the claim fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, claim is directed to the recited judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A).
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim contains subject matter that recites an abstract idea, with the steps of a context sensitive guidance (CSG) for guiding caregivers providing medical care for a trauma victim comprises: collect physiologic data for the trauma victim during the medical care, and provide the physiologic data; and at least one emergency environment data source, capture caregiver observations during the medical care, and provide the caregiver observations, receive the physiologic data and the caregiver observations, evaluate a plurality of protocols based on the physiologic data and the caregiver observations, wherein the plurality of protocols comprises at least one trauma protocol, select at least one action item for the medical care based on the evaluation of the at least one trauma protocol, and generate at least one caregiver instruction based on the at least one action item. These steps, as drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation recite:
certain methods of organizing human activity (e.g., fundamental economic principles or practices including: hedging; insurance; mitigating risk; etc., commercial or legal interactions including: agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations; etc., managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including: social activities; teaching; following rules or instructions; etc.) but for recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting steps as performed by the generic computer components, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from being directed to certain methods of organizing human activity. The identified abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon identified above, in the context of this claim, encompasses a certain method of organizing human activity, namely managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. This is because each of the limitations of the abstract idea recites a list of rules or instructions that a human person can follow in the course of their personal behavior. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers at least the recited methods of organizing human activity above, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(a).
Step 2A Prong 2: The claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. In particular, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, other than the abstract idea per se, because the additional elements amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to mere instructions to apply an exception, see MPEP 2106.05(f), such as:
“system”, “a trauma CSG engine comprising hardware logic and/or software logic;”, “and comprising: at least one medical device configured to”, “to the trauma CSG engine”, “comprising a mobile computing device configured to” and “to the trauma CSG engine, wherein the trauma CSG engine is configured to:” which corresponds to merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Paragraphs [0009]-[0011] of the as-filed specification describes that the hardware that implements the steps of the abstract idea amount to nothing more than a generic computer. Implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or add significantly more in Step 2B, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer.
add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(g), such as:
“a plurality of contextual data sources configured to communicatively couple to the trauma CSG engine:”, “at a touchscreen disposed at the mobile computing device” and “provide the at least one caregiver instruction to the mobile computing device for display at the touchscreen.” which corresponds to mere data gathering and/or output.
Accordingly, this claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to discussion of integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception, add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. Additionally, the additional limitations, identified as insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields such as:
computer functions that have been identified by the courts as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), such as:
“a plurality of contextual data sources configured to communicatively couple to the trauma CSG engine:”, “at a touchscreen disposed at the mobile computing device” and “provide the at least one caregiver instruction to the mobile computing device for display at the touchscreen.” which corresponds to receiving or transmitting data over a network.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 87,
Claim 87 depends from claim 82 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 87 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“wherein the at least one medical device comprises at least one of a trauma kit, an automated compression device, a defibrillator, an ultrasound imaging device, or a patient monitor.” further defines an additional element that was insufficient to provide a practical application and/or significantly more. The claim with this further defining limitation still corresponds to merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 88,
Claim 88 depends from claim 87 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 88 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“wherein the defibrillator comprises an advanced life support (ALS) defibrillator coupled wirelessly to the mobile computing device, wherein the mobile computing device comprises a companion tablet device that is pre-configured to communicatively couple with the ALS defibrillator and to provide a view of a user interface of the ALS defibrillator in real-time at a display screen disposed at the tablet computing device.” further defines an additional element that was insufficient to provide a practical application and/or significantly more. The claim with this further defining limitation still corresponds to merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 95,
Claim 95 depends from claim 82 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 95 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“request one or more of medical device inventory information for a patient care environment or caregiver skill information from a caregiver” further describes the abstract idea. This claim limitation is still directed to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and therefore continues to recite an abstract idea.
“wherein the CSG engine is configured to” further defines an additional element that was insufficient to provide a practical application and/or significantly more. The claim with this further defining limitation still corresponds to merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
“at the touchscreen.” further defines an additional element that was insufficient to provide a practical application and/or significantly more. The claim with this further defining limitation still corresponds to mere data gathering and/or output and receiving or transmitting data over a network.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 97,
Claim 97 depends from claim 82 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 97 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“access one or more of a previously stored medical device inventory or a previously stored caregiver skill record for a patient care environment” further describes the abstract idea. This claim limitation is still directed to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and therefore continues to recite an abstract idea.
“wherein the CSG engine is configured to.” further defines an additional element that was insufficient to provide a practical application and/or significantly more. The claim with this further defining limitation still corresponds to merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 101,
Claim 101 depends from claim 82 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 101 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“wherein the plurality of protocols comprise at least a pneumothorax protocol and a cardiac tamponade protocol.” further describes the abstract idea. This claim limitation is still directed to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and therefore continues to recite an abstract idea.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 102,
Claim 102 depends from claim 101 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 102 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“wherein the at least one action item comprises one of needle decompression, fluid administration, ventilation, or vasopressor administration.” further describes the abstract idea. This claim limitation is still directed to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and therefore continues to recite an abstract idea.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 103,
Claim 103 depends from claim 82 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 103 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“wherein the plurality of protocols comprises a bleeding protocol.” further describes the abstract idea. This claim limitation is still directed to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and therefore continues to recite an abstract idea.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 104,
Claim 104 depends from claim 103 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 104 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“wherein the at least one action item comprises one of a tourniquet application or a packing/spray foam administration.” further describes the abstract idea. This claim limitation is still directed to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and therefore continues to recite an abstract idea.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 105,
Claim 105 depends from claim 82 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 105 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“provide instructions for the at least one action item” further describes the abstract idea. This claim limitation is still directed to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and therefore continues to recite an abstract idea.
“wherein the CSG engine is configured to:” further defines an additional element that was insufficient to provide a practical application and/or significantly more. The claim with this further defining limitation still corresponds to merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
“provide a trauma CSG user interface (UI) at the touchscreen in response to a user selection of a trauma CSG UI tab,” and “at the trauma CSG UI.” further defines an additional element that was insufficient to provide a practical application and/or significantly more. The claim with this further defining limitation still corresponds to mere data gathering and/or output and receiving or transmitting data over a network.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 107,
Claim 107 depends from claim 105 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 107 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“wherein the trauma CSG UI is configured to provide a device view window for the at least one medical device communicatively coupled to the CSG system.” further defines an additional element that was insufficient to provide a practical application and/or significantly more. The claim with this further defining limitation still corresponds to mere data gathering and/or output and receiving or transmitting data over a network.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 108,
Claim 108 depends from claim 107 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 108 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“wherein the device view window includes one or more source indicators that show a source of a particular item of information in the device view window.” further defines an additional element that was insufficient to provide a practical application and/or significantly more. The claim with this further defining limitation still corresponds to mere data gathering and/or output and receiving or transmitting data over a network.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 109,
Claim 109 depends from claim 105 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 109 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“wherein the trauma CSG engine is configured to provide guidance selection controls at the trauma CSG UI in conjunction with the instructions for the at least one action item.” further defines an additional element that was insufficient to provide a practical application and/or significantly more. The claim with this further defining limitation still corresponds to mere data gathering and/or output and receiving or transmitting data over a network.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 110,
Claim 110 depends from claim 109 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 110 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“wherein the guidance selection controls enable a caregiver to select a level of detail of the provided instructions.” further defines an additional element that was insufficient to provide a practical application and/or significantly more. The claim with this further defining limitation still corresponds to mere data gathering and/or output and receiving or transmitting data over a network.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 111,
Claim 111 depends from claim 109 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 111 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“wherein the guidance selection controls comprise at least one of a continue instructions control, an exit instructions control, a proceed to a next step control, an increase a detail level for guidance control, and a return to a previous instruction control, and a mute or unmute audible UI output control.” further defines an additional element that was insufficient to provide a practical application and/or significantly more. The claim with this further defining limitation still corresponds to mere data gathering and/or output and receiving or transmitting data over a network.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 112,
Claim 112 depends from claim 109 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 112 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“wherein the guidance selection controls comprise a scrollable notification window.” further defines an additional element that was insufficient to provide a practical application and/or significantly more. The claim with this further defining limitation still corresponds to mere data gathering and/or output and receiving or transmitting data over a network.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 113,
Claim 113 depends from claim 105 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 113 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“receive a caregiver confirmation …in response to the instructions for the at least one action item.” further describes the abstract idea. This claim limitation is still directed to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and therefore continues to recite an abstract idea.
“wherein the trauma CSG engine is configured to” further defines an additional element that was insufficient to provide a practical application and/or significantly more. The claim with this further defining limitation still corresponds to merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
“at the trauma CSG UI” further defines an additional element that was insufficient to provide a practical application and/or significantly more. The claim with this further defining limitation still corresponds to mere data gathering and/or output and receiving or transmitting data over a network.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 114,
Claim 114 depends from claim 113 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 114 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“receive an incomplete treatment explanation based on the instructions for the at least one action item” further describes the abstract idea. This claim limitation is still directed to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and therefore continues to recite an abstract idea.
“wherein the trauma CSG engine is configured to” further defines an additional element that was insufficient to provide a practical application and/or significantly more. The claim with this further defining limitation still corresponds to merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 115,
Claim 115 depends from claim 105 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 115 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“wherein the instructions comprise one or more of instructions for at least one of operation or assembly of a medical device or medical device settings.” further describes the abstract idea. This claim limitation is still directed to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and therefore continues to recite an abstract idea.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 117,
Claim 117 depends from claim 105 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 117 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“wherein the trauma CSG engine is configured to provide a medication timer at the CSG UI.” further defines an additional element that was insufficient to provide a practical application and/or significantly more. The claim with this further defining limitation still corresponds to mere data gathering and/or output and receiving or transmitting data over a network.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 118,
Claim 118 depends from claim 117 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 118 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“provide medication delivery instructions with the medication timer.” further describes the abstract idea. This claim limitation is still directed to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and therefore continues to recite an abstract idea.
“wherein the CSG engine is configured to” further defines an additional element that was insufficient to provide a practical application and/or significantly more. The claim with this further defining limitation still corresponds to merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 119,
Claim 119 depends from claim 105 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 119 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“wherein the CSG engine is configured to provide closed loop control of at least one medical device based on the at least one action item.” further defines an additional element that was insufficient to provide a practical application and/or significantly more. The claim with this further defining limitation still corresponds to mere data gathering and/or output and receiving or transmitting data over a network.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 120,
Claim 120 depends from claim 105 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 120 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“wherein the mobile computing device comprises a smartphone.” further defines an additional element that was insufficient to provide a practical application and/or significantly more. The claim with this further defining limitation still corresponds to merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 123,
Claim 123 depends from claim 105 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 123 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“wherein the mobile computing device provides at least one of a device view window tab, a working view window tab, or a trend view window tab as alternatives to the trauma CSG UI tab.” further defines an additional element that was insufficient to provide a practical application and/or significantly more. The claim with this further defining limitation still corresponds to mere data gathering and/or output and receiving or transmitting data over a network.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 124,
Claim 124 depends from claim 82 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 124 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“wherein the trauma CSG engine is configured to operate in an absence of a network connection between the mobile computing device and a remote computing device.” further defines an additional element that was insufficient to provide a practical application and/or significantly more. The claim with this further defining limitation still corresponds to merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 125,
Claim 125 depends from claim 82 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 125 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“receive information …and evaluate the plurality of protocols based on the information from the telemedicine provider.” further describes the abstract idea. This claim limitation is still directed to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and therefore continues to recite an abstract idea.
“wherein the trauma CSG engine is configured to” further defines an additional element that was insufficient to provide a practical application and/or significantly more. The claim with this further defining limitation still corresponds to merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
“wherein the mobile computing device is configured to communicatively couple to a computing device associated with a telemedicine provider,” and “from the telemedicine provider” further defines an additional element that was insufficient to provide a practical application and/or significantly more. The claim with this further defining limitation still corresponds to mere data gathering and/or output and receiving or transmitting data over a network.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 126,
Claim 126 depends from claim 82 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 126 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“wherein the mobile computing device comprises a patient charting application, and wherein the trauma CSG engine is configured to receive data from and provide data to the patient charting application,” further defines an additional element that was insufficient to provide a practical application and/or significantly more. The claim with this further defining limitation still corresponds to merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
“wherein the trauma CSG engine is configured to provide a connected software window at a CSG UI, and wherein the connected software window indicates a connection status of the patient charting application.” further defines an additional element that was insufficient to provide a practical application and/or significantly more. The claim with this further defining limitation still corresponds to mere data gathering and/or output and receiving or transmitting data over a network.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 128,
Claim 128 depends from claim 82 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 128 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“provide a code generation control configured to generate one or more of a bar code or QR code comprising one or more of medication information, patient information, emergency event information, software application connectivity information, or device connectivity information.” further describes the abstract idea. This claim limitation is still directed to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and therefore continues to recite an abstract idea.
“wherein the trauma CSG engine is configured to” further defines an additional element that was insufficient to provide a practical application and/or significantly more. The claim with this further defining limitation still corresponds to merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 129,
Claim 129 depends from claim 82 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 129 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“receive emergency event notification information prior to an arrival of the caregivers at an emergency scene.” further describes the abstract idea. This claim limitation is still directed to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and therefore continues to recite an abstract idea.
“wherein the trauma CSG engine is configured to” further defines an additional element that was insufficient to provide a practical application and/or significantly more. The claim with this further defining limitation still corresponds to merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 130,
Claim 130 depends from claim 129 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 130 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“receive the emergency event notification information” further describes the abstract idea. This claim limitation is still directed to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and therefore continues to recite an abstract idea.
“wherein the trauma CSG engine is configured to” further defines an additional element that was insufficient to provide a practical application and/or significantly more. The claim with this further defining limitation still corresponds to merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
“via caregiver input to the touchscreen.” further defines an additional element that was insufficient to provide a practical application and/or significantly more. The claim with this further defining limitation still corresponds to mere data gathering and/or output and receiving or transmitting data over a network.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 131,
Claim 131 depends from claim 129 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 131 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“configured to receive …the emergency event notification information comprising at least one of a mechanism of injury (MOI) or an emergency scene location, and generate at least one preliminary caregiver instruction prior to the arrival of the caregivers at the emergency scene based on one or more of the MOI or the emergency scene location.” further describes the abstract idea. This claim limitation is still directed to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and therefore continues to recite an abstract idea.
“wherein the trauma CSG engine is configured to” further defines an additional element that was insufficient to provide a practical application and/or significantly more. The claim with this further defining limitation still corresponds to merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
“wherein the mobile computing device is communicatively coupled to a computer aided dispatch (CAD) system and is” and “from the CAD system,” further defines an additional element that was insufficient to provide a practical application and/or significantly more. The claim with this further defining limitation still corresponds to mere data gathering and/or output and receiving or transmitting data over a network.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
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 82, 87, 88, 95, 97, 103, 105, 107-115, 117-120, 123-126, and 128-131 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Moghadam et al. (US 2022/0044772; herein referred to as Moghadam).
As per claim 82,
Moghadam discloses a context sensitive guidance (CSG) system for guiding caregivers providing medical care for a trauma victim:
(Paragraph [0050] of Moghadam. The teaching describes an example of a patient data charting system with automated ePCR data capture and caregiver prompting is shown. In the system 100, a caregiver 103 is shown treating a patient or victim 101. The caregiver 103 may be, for example, an emergency caregiver such as, for example, but not limited to, an emergency medical technician (EMT), a paramedic, an emergency services volunteer, a firefighter, a first responder, a physician, a nurse, etc.)
Moghadam further discloses a trauma CSG engine comprising hardware logic and/or software logic:
(Paragraph [0047] of Moghadam. The teaching describes that the ePCR computing device (i.e., the computing device managing the automated ePCR data capture and executing the ePCR software) may communicate with other on-scene devices and/or remote devices. These other devices may transmit or otherwise provide information relevant to the patient encounter directly to the ePCR computing device via device-to-device and/or network communications.)
Moghadam further discloses a plurality of contextual data sources configured to communicatively couple to the trauma CSG engine and comprising: at least one medical device configured to:
(Paragraph [0057] of Moghadam. The teaching describes that the mobile computing device 130 receives the spoken patient encounter information 110 from the wearable user interface device 150. In an implementation, the processor 132 of the mobile computing device 130 is configured to execute a speech recognition system, for example, a speech-to-text conversion application 136 that resides on the mobile computing device 130. Additionally or alternatively, the mobile computing device 130 is configured to provide the spoken patient encounter information 110 to a remote computing device 190. The remote computing device 190 may include a processor 192, a memory 194, and a speech recognition system, for example, a speech-to-text conversion application 196 that resides on the remote computing device 190.)
Moghadam further discloses collect physiologic data for the trauma victim during the medical care, and provide the physiologic data to the trauma CSG engine:
(Paragraph [0103] of Moghadam. The teaching describes that the medical device 170 may include a pulse oximetry sensor 820. The caregiver 103 may attach the pulse oximetry sensor 820 to the patient 101 and the medical device 170 may monitor and send the pulse oximetry measurement to the ePCR application 120 via the communicative coupling 830 between the medical device 170 and the computing device 130.)
Moghadam further discloses at least one emergency environment data source comprising a mobile computing device configured to:
(Paragraph [0054] of Moghadam. The teaching describes that the wearable user interface device, for example the earpiece 150, and the mobile computing device 130 may be communicatively coupled. In an implementation, the caregiver 103 may speak about the patient encounter, the microphone 154 may capture this spoken patient encounter information 110, and provide this information to the mobile computing device 130 via this wireless communicative coupling 160.)
Moghadam further discloses capture caregiver observations at a touchscreen disposed at the mobile computing device during the medical care, and provide the caregiver observations to the trauma CSG engine, wherein the trauma CSG engine is configured to: receive the physiologic data and the caregiver observations:
(Paragraphs [0052], [0060] and [0103] of Moghadam. The teaching describes that he speech-to-text conversion service and the ePCR application 120 may utilize a “command and search” mode. In this mode, the ePCR application 120 may recognize various short or single-word utterances as specific voice commands. In an implementation, the voice commands may indicate labels of data fields and the ePCR application 120 may select particular data fields based on these voice commands. For example, one of the voice commands “Select Patient Age 68”, or “Patient Age 68”, or “Patient Age is 68”, or “Male Age 68” may cause the ePCR application 120 to open the specific data fields of “patient age” and “gender” and enter data field values of “68” and “male.” In an implementation, the ePCR application 120 may also recognize voice commands as instructions for the ePCR application to perform an action, for example “open patient information page,” “pulldown menu,” “enter value,” etc. As other examples, the voice commands may indicate a section of the ePCR such as, for example, “demographics,” “medical history,” “dispatch,” “patient assessment,” “neuro/airway,” respiratory/cardiac,” “medications,” “labs and fluids,” “activity log,” or “narrative.” Further the voice commands may correspond to specific sub-categories and/or data fields. The ePCR application 120 may locate the data field based on the voice command and then query the caregiver for a data field value, provide a menu either audibly or on a visual display, and/or parse the data field value from a speech string that includes the voice command. Medical device 170 may include a pulse oximetry sensor 820. The caregiver 103 may attach the pulse oximetry sensor 820 to the patient 101 and the medical device 170 may monitor and send the pulse oximetry measurement to the ePCR application 120 via the communicative coupling 830 between the medical device 170 and the computing device 130. The mobile computing device 130 may include a user input device (shown here, for example, as a touchscreen 131) configured for entry of ePCR information requiring hands-on manual data entry by the caregiver 103. This type of information entry likely requires the caregiver 103 to use their hands to enter information instead of using their hands to treat the patient 101.)
Moghadam further discloses evaluate a plurality of protocols based on the physiologic data and the caregiver observations, wherein the plurality of protocols comprises at least one trauma protocol:
(Paragraphs [0063] and [0086] of Moghadam. The teaching describes that the the ePCR application 120 may also include a rules engine 116. The rules engine 116 may apply rules to first data fields and/or data field values in order to infer data field values for second data fields. Application of the rules by the rules engine 116 may also trigger reminders and/or alarms for the caregiver 103 based on the data field values. The ePCR application 120 may include rules based on physiological facts (e.g., pregnant=female and/or pregnant male), medical treatment protocols, and/or machine learning. For example, the medical treatment protocols may specify specific transport conditions for trauma or specific examination procedures for a bleeding head wound. The rules engine 116 may associate particular medical observations with data field values for related data fields. For example, a caregiver may record the observations “mobile,” “no pain,” and “walking” in the ePCR for a trauma victim. The ePCR application 120 may implement the rules engine 116 to infer the values of “no spinal immobilization,” “no backboard,” and “seated” in the transport data fields of the ePCR based on the recorded observations.)
Moghadam further discloses select at least one action item for the medical care based on the evaluation of the at least one trauma protocol, generate at least one caregiver instruction based on the at least one action item, and provide the at least one caregiver instruction to the mobile computing device for display at the touchscreen:
(Paragraph [0134] of Moghadam. The teaching describes that the ePCR application 120 may determine a caregiver procedure warning based on one or more populated data field values in the stored ePCR. For example, the ePCR application 120 may monitor the data field values for respiratory rate, pulse oximetry, end tidal carbon dioxide, and temperature to for a personal protective equipment (PPE) warning. The rules engine 116 may apply a rule of “if respiratory rate high, pulse oximetry low, end tidal carbon dioxide high, and temperature high, then provide PPE warning.” Therefore, with a high respiratory rate (e.g., over 16 breaths per minute), a high end tidal carbon dioxide (e.g., above 45 mm Hg), and a low pulse oximetry reading (e.g., below 95), the ePCR application 120 may provide a verbal and/or visual warning of “PPE recommended.” These data field values may indicate COVID-19 rather than shock because shock would be expected to correspond to a reduced body temperature. In the case of COVID-19, the caregiver procedure warning would remind the caregiver 103 to don PPE.)
As per claim 87,
Moghadam discloses the limitations of claim 82.
Moghadam further discloses wherein the at least one medical device comprises at least one of a trauma kit, an automated compression device, a defibrillator, an ultrasound imaging device, or a patient monitor:
(Paragraph [0104] of Moghadam. The teaching describes that medical device 170 is shown in FIG. 8 as a single device for simplicity. However, as shown in FIG. 9, the medical device 170 may include one or more medical devices including, for example, a defibrillator (e.g., an automated external defibrillator 170 a), a patient monitor/defibrillator 170 b, a patient monitor 170 c, a first aid or trauma kit 170 d, an automated compression device 170 e, and a ventilator 170 f. In an implementation, the medical device may further include a bag-valve mask and/or an airflow sensor. In an implementation, the medical device may be a modular medical device that includes a patient monitor communicatively coupled to a defibrillator 170 g or that includes a patient monitor/defibrillator communicatively coupled to a dedicated computer tablet 170 h. One or more of the medical devices 170 a-170 h may include medical imaging capability, for example, ultrasound or laryngoscopy. The computing device 130 may communicatively couple to and receive data field values 410 from one or more of the medical devices 170 a-170 h associated with the patient 101.)
As per claim 88,
Moghadam discloses the limitations of claim 87.
Moghadam further discloses wherein the defibrillator comprises an advanced life support (ALS) defibrillator coupled wirelessly to the mobile computing device, wherein the mobile computing device comprises a companion tablet device that is pre-configured to communicatively couple with the ALS defibrillator and to provide a view of a user interface of the ALS defibrillator in real-time at a display screen disposed at the tablet computing device:
(Paragraph [0104] of Moghadam. The teaching describes that medical device 170 is shown in FIG. 8 as a single device for simplicity. However, as shown in FIG. 9, the medical device 170 may include one or more medical devices including, for example, a defibrillator (e.g., an automated external defibrillator 170 a), a patient monitor/defibrillator [construed as an advanced life support defibrillator due to the monitoring capabilities integrated patient monitor and distinction from a typical AED] 170 b, a patient monitor 170 c, a first aid or trauma kit 170 d, an automated compression device 170 e, and a ventilator 170 f. In an implementation, the medical device may further include a bag-valve mask and/or an airflow sensor. In an implementation, the medical device may be a modular medical device that includes a patient monitor communicatively coupled to a defibrillator 170 g or that includes a patient monitor/defibrillator communicatively coupled to a dedicated computer tablet 170 h. One or more of the medical devices 170 a-170 h may include medical imaging capability, for example, ultrasound or laryngoscopy. The computing device 130 may communicatively couple to and receive data field values 410 from one or more of the medical devices 170 a-170 h associated with the patient 101.)
As per claim 95,
Moghadam discloses the limitations of claim 82.
Moghadam further discloses wherein the CSG engine is configured to request one or more of medical device inventory information for a patient care environment or caregiver skill information from a caregiver at the touchscreen:
(Paragraphs [0004] and [0052] of Moghadam. The teaching describes that the one or more predetermined keywords may correspond to an ePCR data field identifier. The one or more predetermined keywords may correspond to ePCR data field values. The processor may be configured to populate at least one additional ePCR data field with an inferred data field value based on the at least one of the ePCR data field values. The spoken patient encounter information may include caregiver speech and patient speech, and the processor may be configured to recognize that the spoken patient encounter information may include the patient speech, and differentiate between the patient speech and the caregiver speech. Because the system can determine the difference between caregiver and patient speech, the process to request this information is a request for caregiver skill information. The mobile computing device 130 may include a user input device (shown here, for example, as a touchscreen 131) configured for entry of ePCR information requiring hands-on manual data entry by the caregiver 103. This type of information entry likely requires the caregiver 103 to use their hands to enter information instead of using their hands to treat the patient 101. Additionally, this type of information entry diverts the caregiver's visual attention away from the patient 101 and towards the mobile computing device 130. Therefore, such information entry may adversely affect the quality and duration of care provided to the patient 101 by the caregiver 103.)
As per claim 97,
Moghadam discloses the limitations of claim 82.
Moghadam further discloses wherein the CSG engine is configured to access one or more of a previously stored medical device inventory or a previously stored caregiver skill record for a patient care environment:
(Paragraph [0065] of Moghadam. The teaching describes that The EMS dispatch information may further include records of dispatcher based triage. The dispatcher may direct triage tasks by bystanders prior to the arrival of an emergency crew and these tasks may correspond to data fields of the ePCR. The medical records server(s) 178 may provide medical records database information such as, for example, medical history information for the patient. The medical history information may include medications, chronic conditions, physician information [a previously stored caregiver skill record for a patient care environment], historical treatment information, etc.)
As per claim 103,
Moghadam discloses the limitations of claim 82.
Moghadam further discloses wherein the plurality of protocols comprises a bleeding protocol:
(Paragraphs [0063] and [0145] of Moghadam. The teaching describes the caregiver 103 may activate the camera 1710 to capture one or more images of a burn injury or of a bleeding wound with an adjacent pool of blood. In the case of a bleeding injury, the processor 1832 and/or the processor 132 may interpret the image of a bleeding wound with an adjacent pool of blood to estimate a blood loss volume. For example, the ePCR application 120 may estimate an area of the pool of blood and calculate a blood loss volume using an estimated depth of the pool. The ePCR application 120 may automatically enter this value into the ePCR and/or provide this information visibly or audibly to the caregiver and/or the caregiver team. The ePCR application 120 may include rules based on physiological facts (e.g., pregnant=female and/or pregnant male), medical treatment protocols, and/or machine learning. For example, the medical treatment protocols may specify specific transport conditions for trauma or specific examination procedures for a bleeding head wound.)
As per claim 105,
Moghadam discloses the limitations of claim 82.
Moghadam further discloses wherein the CSG engine is configured to: provide a trauma CSG user interface (UI) at the touchscreen in response to a user selection of a trauma CSG UI tab, and provide instructions for the at least one action item at the trauma CSG UI:
(Paragraph [0103] and Figure 8 of Moghadam. The teaching describes that with further reference to FIG. 1D, schematic diagrams of communications between medical devices and the ePCR application are shown. In an implementation, the computing device 130 may be communicatively coupled to the medical device 170 and receive medical device information from the medical device. In an exemplary use case scenario, the medical device 170 may be a patient monitor/defibrillator. In an exemplary scenario similar to that described with regard to FIG. 6F, a patient 101 may call 911 due to difficulty breathing and a suspected COVID-19 infection. The medical device 170 may include a pulse oximetry sensor 820. The caregiver 103 may attach the pulse oximetry sensor 820 to the patient 101 and the medical device 170 may monitor and send the pulse oximetry measurement to the ePCR application 120 via the communicative coupling 830 between the medical device 170 and the computing device 130. The medical device 170 may obtain an initial pulse oximetry reading of 85% and send this initial measurement 840 to the ePCR application 120. The ePCR application 120 may automatically populate the pulse oximetry data field 126 with the initial measurement 840 from the medical device 170. Subsequently, the patient's condition may deteriorate precipitously. The medical device 170 may obtain a subsequent measurement 845 of 65% and send this subsequent measurement 845 to the ePCR application 120. The ePCR application 120 may include the data field value monitor 685. The data field value monitor 685 may compare the initial measurement 840 and the subsequent measurement 845 to a target value and/or a target range. Additionally, the ePCR application 120 may compare the subsequent measurement 845 to a previous measurement, for example, the initial measurement 840. Based on one or both of these comparisons, the ePCR application 120 may generate an audible caregiver prompt 680 as a warning. The warning may indicate one or more of the deviation of the measurement from the target and/or target range and/or the change in value between the subsequent measurement 845 and a previous measurement, for example, the initial measurement 840. In an implementation, the ePCR application 120 may generate the patient care activity prompt 685. For example, in response to the precipitous change in the pulse oximetry reading, the ePCR application 120 may generate the activity prompt 685 to intubate the patient 101.)
As per claim 107,
Moghadam discloses the limitations of claim 105.
“wherein the trauma CSG UI is configured to provide a device view window for the at least one medical device communicatively coupled to the CSG system:
(Paragraph [0103] and Figure 8 of Moghadam. The teaching describes that with further reference to FIG. 1D, schematic diagrams of communications between medical devices and the ePCR application are shown. In an implementation, the computing device 130 may be communicatively coupled to the medical device 170 and receive medical device information from the medical device. In an exemplary use case scenario, the medical device 170 may be a patient monitor/defibrillator. In an exemplary scenario similar to that described with regard to FIG. 6F, a patient 101 may call 911 due to difficulty breathing and a suspected COVID-19 infection. The medical device 170 may include a pulse oximetry sensor 820. The caregiver 103 may attach the pulse oximetry sensor 820 to the patient 101 and the medical device 170 may monitor and send the pulse oximetry measurement to the ePCR application 120 via the communicative coupling 830 between the medical device 170 and the computing device 130. The medical device 170 may obtain an initial pulse oximetry reading of 85% and send this initial measurement 840 to the ePCR application 120. The ePCR application 120 may automatically populate the pulse oximetry data field 126 with the initial measurement 840 from the medical device 170. Subsequently, the patient's condition may deteriorate precipitously. The medical device 170 may obtain a subsequent measurement 845 of 65% and send this subsequent measurement 845 to the ePCR application 120. The ePCR application 120 may include the data field value monitor 685. The data field value monitor 685 may compare the initial measurement 840 and the subsequent measurement 845 to a target value and/or a target range. Additionally, the ePCR application 120 may compare the subsequent measurement 845 to a previous measurement, for example, the initial measurement 840. Based on one or both of these comparisons, the ePCR application 120 may generate an audible caregiver prompt 680 as a warning. The warning may indicate one or more of the deviation of the measurement from the target and/or target range and/or the change in value between the subsequent measurement 845 and a previous measurement, for example, the initial measurement 840. In an implementation, the ePCR application 120 may generate the patient care activity prompt 685. For example, in response to the precipitous change in the pulse oximetry reading, the ePCR application 120 may generate the activity prompt 685 to intubate the patient 101.)
As per claim 108,
Moghadam discloses the limitations of claim 107.
“wherein the device view window includes one or more source indicators that show a source of a particular item of information in the device view window:
(Paragraph [0103] and Figure 8 of Moghadam. The teaching describes that with further reference to FIG. 1D, schematic diagrams of communications between medical devices and the ePCR application are shown. In an implementation, the computing device 130 may be communicatively coupled to the medical device 170 and receive medical device information from the medical device. In an exemplary use case scenario, the medical device 170 may be a patient monitor/defibrillator. In an exemplary scenario similar to that described with regard to FIG. 6F, a patient 101 may call 911 due to difficulty breathing and a suspected COVID-19 infection. The medical device 170 may include a pulse oximetry sensor 820. The caregiver 103 may attach the pulse oximetry sensor 820 to the patient 101 and the medical device 170 may monitor and send the pulse oximetry measurement to the ePCR application 120 via the communicative coupling 830 between the medical device 170 and the computing device 130. The medical device 170 may obtain an initial pulse oximetry reading of 85% and send this initial measurement 840 to the ePCR application 120. The ePCR application 120 may automatically populate the pulse oximetry data field 126 with the initial measurement 840 from the medical device 170. Subsequently, the patient's condition may deteriorate precipitously. The medical device 170 may obtain a subsequent measurement 845 of 65% and send this subsequent measurement 845 to the ePCR application 120. The ePCR application 120 may include the data field value monitor 685. The data field value monitor 685 may compare the initial measurement 840 and the subsequent measurement 845 to a target value and/or a target range. Additionally, the ePCR application 120 may compare the subsequent measurement 845 to a previous measurement, for example, the initial measurement 840. Based on one or both of these comparisons, the ePCR application 120 may generate an audible caregiver prompt 680 as a warning. The warning may indicate one or more of the deviation of the measurement from the target and/or target range and/or the change in value between the subsequent measurement 845 and a previous measurement, for example, the initial measurement 840. In an implementation, the ePCR application 120 may generate the patient care activity prompt 685. For example, in response to the precipitous change in the pulse oximetry reading, the ePCR application 120 may generate the activity prompt 685 to intubate the patient 101.)
As per claim 109,
Moghadam discloses the limitations of claim 105.
Moghadam further discloses wherein the trauma CSG engine is configured to provide guidance selection controls at the trauma CSG UI in conjunction with the instructions for the at least one action item:
(Paragraph [0130] of Moghadam. The teaching describes that as shown in FIG. 14B, the caregiver 103 may select a portion of the ePCR form from a drop-down menu 1420. As an example, the drop-down menu may provide options of “patient info-compressions-vitals-ventilations-notifications.” As another example, the drop-down menu 1420 may provide a selectable menu of “Airway—Breathing—Circulation” and provide the portion of the ePCR form corresponding to the selected item. This gives tha caregiver a selected level of detail of the provided instructions.)
As per claim 110,
Moghadam discloses the limitations of claim 109.
Moghadam further discloses wherein the guidance selection controls enable a caregiver to select a level of detail of the provided instructions:
(Paragraph [0130] of Moghadam. The teaching describes that as shown in FIG. 14B, the caregiver 103 may select a portion of the ePCR form from a drop-down menu 1420. As an example, the drop-down menu may provide options of “patient info-compressions-vitals-ventilations-notifications.” As another example, the drop-down menu 1420 may provide a selectable menu of “Airway—Breathing—Circulation” and provide the portion of the ePCR form corresponding to the selected item. This gives tha caregiver a selected level of detail of the provided instructions.)
As per claim 111,
Moghadam discloses the limitations of claim 109.
Moghadam further discloses wherein the guidance selection controls comprise at least one of a continue instructions control, an exit instructions control, a proceed to a next step control, an increase a detail level for guidance control, and a return to a previous instruction control, and a mute or unmute audible UI output control:
(Paragraph [0130] of Moghadam. The teaching describes that as shown in FIG. 14B, the caregiver 103 may select a portion of the ePCR form from a drop-down menu 1420. As an example, the drop-down menu may provide options of “patient info-compressions-vitals-ventilations-notifications.” As another example, the drop-down menu 1420 may provide a selectable menu of “Airway—Breathing—Circulation” and provide the portion of the ePCR form corresponding to the selected item. This gives tha caregiver a selected level of detail of the provided instructions.)
As per claim 112,
Moghadam discloses the limitations of claim 109.
Moghadam further discloses wherein the guidance selection controls comprise a scrollable notification window:
(Paragraph [0164] of Moghadam. The teaching describes that gesture recognition module 1838 may be configured to identify the caregiver's hands within images obtained by the AR glasses 255 and, based on the position, orientation, and movement of the hands, may identify gestures performed by the caregiver 103 for the purpose of controlling operation of the AR glasses 255 and/or for manipulating the virtual touchpad 1415 and/or other display features provided to the caregiver 103 by the optical projector 1824 at the lens 1405. For example, the caregiver may use pre-programmed gestures to scroll through ePCR information displayed by the optical projector 1824 at the lens 1405 and/or to toggle through different screens provided by the ePCR application 120.)
As per claim 113,
Moghadam discloses the limitations of claim 105.
Moghadam further discloses wherein the trauma CSG engine is configured to receive a caregiver confirmation at the trauma CSG UI in response to the instructions for the at least one action item:
(Paragraph [0115] of Moghadam. The teaching describes that he ePCR application 120 may receive multiple values for one or more data fields. To resolve this issue, the ePCR application 120 may populate the one or more data fields according to one or more conflict resolution protocols. For example, the ePCR application 120 as executed by the processor 325 may assign one or more first sections of the ePCR to the first caregiver 1003 a and patient encounter information 1010 a received from the first wearable user interface device 1050 a. Similarly, the ePCR application 120 as executed by the processor 325 may assign one or more second sections of the ePCR to the second caregiver 1003 b and patient encounter information 1010 b received from the first wearable user interface device 1050 a. Based on these assignments, the ePCR application 120 may restrict population of a data field to the patient encounter information received from the assigned device. Alternatively, the ePCR application 120 may prioritize population of the data field based on the assignment. For example, the ePCR application 120 may populate a data field with a value received from an unassigned user interface device and then replace this value with a value received from an assigned user interface device. The ePCR application 120 may request confirmation from one or more of the user interface devices prior to replacing a value based on an assignment. In an implementation, the ePCR application 120 may include a notification of a change or difference in the value as part of the replacement confirmation. In an implementation, the assignment of a wearable user interface device to a section of the ePCR may be a predetermined assignment. For example, an EMS crew may include members with different assigned roles where each assigned role corresponds to a section of the ePCR. An agency supervisor or medical director may assign these roles and the associated section prior to any dispatched call. Alternatively, the crew may set up these assignments on route to the emergency scene. In an implementation, the predetermined assignments may be default assignments and the crew may rearrange these assignments on route to the victim based on the makeup of the crew.)
As per claim 114,
Moghadam discloses the limitations of claim 113.
Moghadam further discloses wherein the trauma CSG engine is configured to receive an incomplete treatment explanation based on the instructions for the at least one action item:
(Paragraph [0115] of Moghadam. The teaching describes that he ePCR application 120 may receive multiple values for one or more data fields. To resolve this issue, the ePCR application 120 may populate the one or more data fields according to one or more conflict resolution protocols. For example, the ePCR application 120 as executed by the processor 325 may assign one or more first sections of the ePCR to the first caregiver 1003 a and patient encounter information 1010 a received from the first wearable user interface device 1050 a. Similarly, the ePCR application 120 as executed by the processor 325 may assign one or more second sections of the ePCR to the second caregiver 1003 b and patient encounter information 1010 b received from the first wearable user interface device 1050 a. Based on these assignments, the ePCR application 120 may restrict population of a data field to the patient encounter information received from the assigned device. Alternatively, the ePCR application 120 may prioritize population of the data field based on the assignment. For example, the ePCR application 120 may populate a data field with a value received from an unassigned user interface device and then replace this value with a value received from an assigned user interface device. The ePCR application 120 may request confirmation from one or more of the user interface devices prior to replacing a value [incomplete treatment explanation] based on an assignment. In an implementation, the ePCR application 120 may include a notification of a change or difference in the value as part of the replacement confirmation. In an implementation, the assignment of a wearable user interface device to a section of the ePCR may be a predetermined assignment. For example, an EMS crew may include members with different assigned roles where each assigned role corresponds to a section of the ePCR. An agency supervisor or medical director may assign these roles and the associated section prior to any dispatched call. Alternatively, the crew may set up these assignments on route to the emergency scene. In an implementation, the predetermined assignments may be default assignments and the crew may rearrange these assignments on route to the victim based on the makeup of the crew.)
As per claim 115,
Moghadam discloses the limitations of claim 105.
Moghadam further discloses wherein the instructions comprise one or more of instructions for at least one of operation or assembly of a medical device or medical device settings:
(Paragraph [0141] of Moghadam. The teaching describes that an example of virtual instructions superimposed on a real-space view of an emergency scene is shown. In an implementation, the caregiver may view all or a portion of a patient 101 in the field of view of the AR glasses 255. The caregiver may also view her hands 1645 and medical equipment, such as, for example, defibrillation pads 1640 and a hypodermic needle 1650 in the field of view of the AR glasses 255. These objects, represented in FIG. 16 with solid lines, are real-space objects. The ePCR application 120 may cause the AR glasses 255 to superimpose virtual instructions on these real-space objects. For example, the virtual instructions may include text instructions 1610, such as the “insert IV now” instruction. The virtual instructions may include a text instruction with an equipment indicator, such as the “connect cable to defibrillator” instruction 1615 and the “attach electrode to sternum at x” instruction 1616. The text instruction with the equipment indicator may reference the instruction to a particular item of equipment or a particular component. This may enable the ePCR application 120 to provide detailed instructions on the use of an item of medical equipment. The virtual instructions may further include virtual representations of locations on the patient's body at which to perform a procedure (e.g., the injection site 1625 and the electrode placement site 1617) and/or may further include virtual representations of internal organs (e.g., the blood vessel 1620) in order to guide the caregiver in performing the medical procedures. The ePCR application 120 may generate these virtual instructions in response to and based in part on data field values in the stored ePCR. For example, if the medications data field includes the data field value of “nitroglycerin,” the ePCR application 120 may generate the drug injection instructions as shown for example in FIG. 16. As another example, if a medical therapy or medical device field includes an indication that a patient monitor/defibrillator is in use, the ePCR application 120 may generate the electrode instructions as shown for example in FIG. 16. In an implementation, the ePCR application 120 may provide the virtual instructions in response to an audible request from the caregiver for instructions. For example, the caregiver may say “nitroglycerin injection help” and, in response, the ePCR application 120 may provide the virtual instructions.)
As per claim 117,
Moghadam discloses the limitations of claim 105.
Moghadam further discloses wherein the trauma CSG engine is configured to provide a medication timer at the CSG UI:
(Paragraph [0099] and Figure 6E of Moghadam. The teaching describes that referring to FIG. 6E, an example of a timed alarm for patient care activities by the caregiver based on captured ePCR data field values is shown. In an implementation, the alarm or patient care warning may be a timed alarm for patient care activities by the caregiver. The timed alarms may correspond to treatments within the medical protocol 634. For example, a caregiver 103 may automatically record an administration of naloxone to a patient via the caregiver speech 660. The ePCR application 120 may enter the drug administration along with a time of administration. Based on these field values 410, the ePCR application 120 may generate a timed alarm 670 for a second dose of medication. In the naloxone example, the ePCR application 120 may provide this timed alarm 670 two to three minutes after the initial data entry via the caregiver speech 110 based on naloxone administration guidelines from the medical protocol 634. The timed alarm 670 may also apply to treatments and/or monitoring other than drug administration. For example, the timed alarm may be an alarm to repeat a 12 Lead ECG, a vital sign measurement, etc. The timed alarm 670 may occur at a pre-determined interval, for example, according to the medical protocol 634. Additionally or alternatively, the timed alarm may occur in response to a new or updated ePCR data field 126 and/or data field value 410. For example, automated entry of a value for the drug administration data field 126 may trigger a timer for the timed alarm 670.)
As per claim 118,
Moghadam discloses the limitations of claim 117.
Moghadam further discloses wherein the CSG engine is configured to provide medication delivery instructions with the medication timer:
(Paragraph [0099] and Figure 6E of Moghadam. The teaching describes that referring to FIG. 6E, an example of a timed alarm for patient care activities by the caregiver based on captured ePCR data field values is shown. In an implementation, the alarm or patient care warning may be a timed alarm for patient care activities by the caregiver. The timed alarms may correspond to treatments within the medical protocol 634. For example, a caregiver 103 may automatically record an administration of naloxone to a patient via the caregiver speech 660. The ePCR application 120 may enter the drug administration along with a time of administration. Based on these field values 410, the ePCR application 120 may generate a timed alarm 670 for a second dose of medication. In the naloxone example, the ePCR application 120 may provide this timed alarm 670 two to three minutes after the initial data entry via the caregiver speech 110 based on naloxone administration guidelines from the medical protocol 634. The timed alarm 670 may also apply to treatments and/or monitoring other than drug administration. For example, the timed alarm may be an alarm to repeat a 12 Lead ECG, a vital sign measurement, etc. The timed alarm 670 may occur at a pre-determined interval, for example, according to the medical protocol 634. Additionally or alternatively, the timed alarm may occur in response to a new or updated ePCR data field 126 and/or data field value 410. For example, automated entry of a value for the drug administration data field 126 may trigger a timer for the timed alarm 670.)
As per claim 119,
Moghadam discloses the limitations of claim 105.
Moghadam further discloses wherein the CSG engine is configured to provide closed loop control of at least one medical device based on the at least one action item:
(Paragraph [0067] of Moghadam. The teaching describes that in an implementation, the AR glasses 255 may further include a display 270. The display 270 may be an augmented reality display as discussed in more detail with regard to FIG. 14. The watch 250 and/or the AR glasses 255 may include a haptic output device (e.g., the haptic devices 268 and 278). The haptic devices 268 and/or 278 (e.g., vibration motors) may be configured to provide vibration feedback to the caregiver 103. The haptic devices 268 and/or 278 may be configured to emit various patterns and intensities of vibration to convey information to the caregiver 103. For example, the haptic devices 268 and/or 278 may be compact linear actuators that vibrate at varying patterns and intensities as directed by a (e.g., the processor 132 and/or a processor associated with the watch 250 and/or the AR glasses 255). Such an actuator may include a spring and magnet for manipulating a mass coupled thereto. In some instances, providing vibration feedback, rather than audio alerts and/or visual indicators, may be less likely to distract other caregivers 103 from resuscitation activities they are performing. In other examples, the vibration feedback may supplement audio alerts and/or visual indicators or replace the audio alerts in a noisy environment. Because these feedback processes are providing notifications based on system performance outputs, the notification to change the performance is construed as a closed loop control process.)
As per claim 120,
Moghadam discloses the limitations of claim 105.
Moghadam further discloses wherein the mobile computing device comprises a smartphone:
(Paragraph [0050] of Moghadam. The teaching describes that the caregiver 103 and the patient 101 are co-located on-scene 105 at the site of the patient's medical event. Additionally, the caregiver 103 may be associated with an emergency vehicle 109, for example, an ambulance or a fire truck, also located on-scene 105. The caregiver 103 may also be associated with a mobile computing device 130, for example, a laptop computer, a computer tablet, a smartphone, etc. The mobile computing device 130 may include an electronic patient care record (ePCR) application 120.)
As per claim 123,
Moghadam discloses the limitations of claim 105.
Moghadam further discloses wherein the mobile computing device provides at least one of a device view window tab, a working view window tab, or a trend view window tab as alternatives to the trauma CSG UI tab:
(Paragraph [0103] and Figure 8 of Moghadam. The teaching describes that with further reference to FIG. 1D, schematic diagrams of communications between medical devices and the ePCR application are shown. In an implementation, the computing device 130 may be communicatively coupled to the medical device 170 and receive medical device information from the medical device. In an exemplary use case scenario, the medical device 170 may be a patient monitor/defibrillator. In an exemplary scenario similar to that described with regard to FIG. 6F, a patient 101 may call 911 due to difficulty breathing and a suspected COVID-19 infection. The medical device 170 may include a pulse oximetry sensor 820. The caregiver 103 may attach the pulse oximetry sensor 820 to the patient 101 and the medical device 170 may monitor and send the pulse oximetry measurement to the ePCR application 120 via the communicative coupling 830 between the medical device 170 and the computing device 130. The medical device 170 may obtain an initial pulse oximetry reading of 85% and send this initial measurement 840 to the ePCR application 120. The ePCR application 120 may automatically populate the pulse oximetry data field 126 with the initial measurement 840 from the medical device 170. Subsequently, the patient's condition may deteriorate precipitously. The medical device 170 may obtain a subsequent measurement 845 of 65% and send this subsequent measurement 845 to the ePCR application 120. The ePCR application 120 may include the data field value monitor 685. The data field value monitor 685 may compare the initial measurement 840 and the subsequent measurement 845 to a target value and/or a target range. Additionally, the ePCR application 120 may compare the subsequent measurement 845 to a previous measurement, for example, the initial measurement 840. Based on one or both of these comparisons, the ePCR application 120 may generate an audible caregiver prompt 680 as a warning. The warning may indicate one or more of the deviation of the measurement from the target and/or target range and/or the change in value between the subsequent measurement 845 and a previous measurement, for example, the initial measurement 840. In an implementation, the ePCR application 120 may generate the patient care activity prompt 685. For example, in response to the precipitous change in the pulse oximetry reading, the ePCR application 120 may generate the activity prompt 685 to intubate the patient 101.)
As per claim 124,
Moghadam discloses the limitations of claim 82.
Moghadam further discloses wherein the trauma CSG engine is configured to operate in an absence of a network connection between the mobile computing device and a remote computing device:
(Paragraph [0062] of Moghadam. The teaching describes that the processor 132 of the mobile computing device 130 may provide text patient encounter information 115 (e.g., received from the local speech-to-text conversion application 136 and/or the remote speech-to-text conversion application 196) to the ePCR application 120. This means that the local speech-to-text function can work properly without a network connection between the mobile and remote devices.)
As per claim 125,
Moghadam discloses the limitations of claim 82.
Moghadam further discloses wherein the mobile computing device is configured to communicatively couple to a computing device associated with a telemedicine provider, and wherein the trauma CSG engine is configured to receive information from the telemedicine provider and evaluate the plurality of protocols based on the information from the telemedicine provider:
(Paragraph [0047] of Moghadam. The teaching describes that the ePCR computing device (i.e., the computing device managing the automated ePCR data capture and executing the ePCR software) may communicate with other on-scene devices and/or remote devices. These other devices may transmit or otherwise provide information relevant to the patient encounter directly to the ePCR computing device via device-to-device and/or network communications. Because this medical information is transmitted to the on-scene device from a remote source, this remote source is construed as a computing device associated with a telemedicine provider.)
As per claim 126,
Moghadam discloses the limitations of claim 82.
Moghadam further discloses wherein the mobile computing device comprises a patient charting application, and wherein the trauma CSG engine is configured to receive data from and provide data to the patient charting application, wherein the trauma CSG engine is configured to provide a connected software window at a CSG UI, and wherein the connected software window indicates a connection status of the patient charting application:
(Paragraph [0005] of Moghadam. The teaching describes that an example of a patient data charting system for automated data capture by an electronic patient care record (ePCR) generated during a patient encounter with an emergency medical services (EMS) caregiver team according to the disclosure includes a local computing device including a processor, and a memory storing an ePCR including a plurality of ePCR data fields, and a first user interface device and a second user interface device, each user interface device associated with a respective caregiver and communicatively coupled to the local computing device and configured to capture patient encounter information, and transmit the patient encounter information to the local computing device, wherein the processor may be configured to receive first patient encounter information from the first user interface device, receive second patient encounter information from the second user interface device, determine at least one ePCR data field value based on at least one of the first and second patient encounter information, populate at least one ePCR data field with the at least one ePCR data field value, generate one or more caregiver prompts based on the at least one ePCR data field value, and provide the one or more caregiver prompts to at least one of the first and second user interface devices.)
As per claim 128,
Moghadam discloses the limitations of claim 82.
Moghadam further discloses wherein the trauma CSG engine is configured to provide a code generation control configured to generate one or more of a bar code or QR code comprising one or more of medication information, patient information, emergency event information, software application connectivity information, or device connectivity information:
(Paragraph [0148] of Moghadam. The teaching describes that examples of components of AR glasses are shown. The AR glasses 255 may include a processor 1832 and a memory 1831. In an implementation, the memory 1831 may include the ePCR application 120 executable by the processor 1832. In some examples, the processor 1832 may be configured to generate code markers, during performance of resuscitation activities, that provide a time-stamped record of a rescue event (e.g., drug infusion/administered, ventilations given, amongst others) for post-rescue event review based on the received and processed images. Additionally or alternatively, the processor 1832 may upload code markers from an external device (e.g., defibrillator, monitor, tablet, external computer, etc.).)
As per claim 129,
Moghadam discloses the limitations of claim 82.
Moghadam further discloses wherein the trauma CSG engine is configured to receive emergency event notification information prior to an arrival of the caregivers at an emergency scene:
(Paragraph [0065] of Moghadam. The teaching describes that external devices may include one or more medical devices 170, as described in further detail with regard to FIGS. 8 and 9. Additionally or alternatively, the computing device 130 may be configured to communicatively couple, via the network 180 (e.g., as discussed in FIG. 1C) to one or more of the remote server(s) 190 (e.g., as discussed in FIG. 1C), computer aided dispatch (CAD) server(s) 174, medical records server(s) 178, and/or one or more computing devices 179 associated with a medical facility 195. In an implementation, the computing device(s) 179 may be associated with remotely located medical personnel 108. The ePCR application 120 may populate one or more data field values based on patient and/or emergency event information received from the CAD server(s) 174, the medical record server(s) 178 and/or the computing device(s) 179. The CAD server(s) 174 may provide EMS dispatch information. The EMS dispatch information may include a time and location of the emergency event, demographic information for the patient, EMS crew information, chief complaint information, patient transport information, etc. The EMS dispatch information may include a delay time between a 911 call and the dispatch of an emergency crew, a time of the 911 call, and a time of the dispatch of the emergency crew. The location of the emergency event may include a longitude and latitude and may include a third dimension to indicate a floor of a multi-story building. The EMS dispatch information may further include records of dispatcher based triage. The dispatcher may direct triage tasks by bystanders prior to the arrival of an emergency crew and these tasks may correspond to data fields of the ePCR. The medical records server(s) 178 may provide medical records database information such as, for example, medical history information for the patient. The medical history information may include medications, chronic conditions, physician information, historical treatment information, etc.)
As per claim 130,
Moghadam discloses the limitations of claim 129.
Moghadam further discloses wherein the trauma CSG engine is configured to receive the emergency event notification information via caregiver input to the touchscreen:
(Paragraph [0065] of Moghadam. The teaching describes that external devices may include one or more medical devices 170, as described in further detail with regard to FIGS. 8 and 9. Additionally or alternatively, the computing device 130 may be configured to communicatively couple, via the network 180 (e.g., as discussed in FIG. 1C) to one or more of the remote server(s) 190 (e.g., as discussed in FIG. 1C), computer aided dispatch (CAD) server(s) 174, medical records server(s) 178, and/or one or more computing devices 179 associated with a medical facility 195. In an implementation, the computing device(s) 179 may be associated with remotely located medical personnel 108. The ePCR application 120 may populate one or more data field values based on patient and/or emergency event information received from the CAD server(s) 174, the medical record server(s) 178 and/or the computing device(s) 179. The CAD server(s) 174 may provide EMS dispatch information. The EMS dispatch information may include a time and location of the emergency event, demographic information for the patient, EMS crew information, chief complaint information, patient transport information, etc. The EMS dispatch information may include a delay time between a 911 call and the dispatch of an emergency crew, a time of the 911 call, and a time of the dispatch of the emergency crew. The location of the emergency event may include a longitude and latitude and may include a third dimension to indicate a floor of a multi-story building. The EMS dispatch information may further include records of dispatcher based triage. The dispatcher may direct triage tasks by bystanders prior to the arrival of an emergency crew and these tasks may correspond to data fields of the ePCR. The medical records server(s) 178 may provide medical records database information such as, for example, medical history information for the patient. The medical history information may include medications, chronic conditions, physician information, historical treatment information, etc.)
As per claim 131,
Moghadam discloses the limitations of claim 129.
Moghadam further discloses wherein the mobile computing device is communicatively coupled to a computer aided dispatch (CAD) system and is configured to receive, from the CAD system, the emergency event notification information comprising at least one of a mechanism of injury (MOI) or an emergency scene location, and wherein the trauma CSG engine is configured to generate at least one preliminary caregiver instruction prior to the arrival of the caregivers at the emergency scene based on one or more of the MOI or the emergency scene location:
(Paragraph [0065] of Moghadam. The teaching describes that external devices may include one or more medical devices 170, as described in further detail with regard to FIGS. 8 and 9. Additionally or alternatively, the computing device 130 may be configured to communicatively couple, via the network 180 (e.g., as discussed in FIG. 1C) to one or more of the remote server(s) 190 (e.g., as discussed in FIG. 1C), computer aided dispatch (CAD) server(s) 174, medical records server(s) 178, and/or one or more computing devices 179 associated with a medical facility 195. In an implementation, the computing device(s) 179 may be associated with remotely located medical personnel 108. The ePCR application 120 may populate one or more data field values based on patient and/or emergency event information received from the CAD server(s) 174, the medical record server(s) 178 and/or the computing device(s) 179. The CAD server(s) 174 may provide EMS dispatch information. The EMS dispatch information may include a time and location of the emergency event, demographic information for the patient, EMS crew information, chief complaint information, patient transport information, etc. The EMS dispatch information may include a delay time between a 911 call and the dispatch of an emergency crew, a time of the 911 call, and a time of the dispatch of the emergency crew. The location of the emergency event may include a longitude and latitude and may include a third dimension to indicate a floor of a multi-story building. The EMS dispatch information may further include records of dispatcher based triage. The dispatcher may direct triage tasks by bystanders prior to the arrival of an emergency crew and these tasks may correspond to data fields of the ePCR. The medical records server(s) 178 may provide medical records database information such as, for example, medical history information for the patient. The medical history information may include medications, chronic conditions, physician information, historical treatment information, etc.)
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 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 101, 103 and 104 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moghadam.
As per claim 101,
Moghadam discloses the limitations of claim 82.
Moghadam does not explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of protocols comprise at least a pneumothorax protocol and a cardiac tamponade protocol.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing that the protocols of at least pneumothorax and cardiac tamponade would have been included in the understanding of one of ordinary skill in the art in possession of Moghadam. Any person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing would have known that an ECG signal collected as described in paragraph [0051] of Moghadam would have been suited to address a wide variety of cardiac events. Cardiac tamponade is a common cardiac event for some patients and is well-known to be diagnosable from an ECG. Having a protocol for cardiac tamponade would have been an obvious inclusion in the ePCR system of Moghadam. Furthermore, paragraph [0171] of Moghadam describes that information such as lung sounds are collected in the ePCR system. To one of ordinary skill in the art, lung sounds, particularly the sounds (or more appropriately lack of sounds) that the lungs make in the state of a pneumothorax, are used to determine the health of the lung. Since having diminished or completely absent lung sounds is well-known to be associated with a pneumothorax, one of ordinary skill in the art would have known that the ePCR system of Moghadam was capable of providing protocols for it.
As per claim 102,
Moghadam teaches the limitations of claim 101.
Moghadam further teaches wherein the at least one action item comprises one of needle decompression, fluid administration, ventilation, or vasopressor administration:
(Paragraph [0143] of Moghadam. The teaching describes that in an implementation, the ePCR application 120 may also infer and fill a data field based on image information. For example, if the medical equipment is an intravenous fluid bag, the ePCR application 120 may infer 1785 a value to populate the medical procedure field of “IV administration,” for example with the inferred value of “yes.” Further, the ePCR application 120 may determine the type of fluid administered from spoken information by the caregiver, information provided via the virtual touchpad from the AR glasses, and/or a bar code 1730 (or QR code) on the fluid bag, as shown for example in FIG. 17. The ePCR application 120 may further infer medical condition field values based on the types of medications and/or fluids and/or type of medical equipment. The bar code/QR code reading functionality can integrate with the trauma kit that may have bar codes or QR codes on each item in the storage case.)
As per claim 104,
Moghadam discloses the limitations of claim 103.
Moghadam does not explicitly teach wherein the at least one action item comprises one of a tourniquet application or a packing/spray foam administration.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing that an action item of applying a tourniquet to a bleed site would have been present or at least understood as being inclusive of in the teaching of Moghadam. Paragraph [0145] of Moghadam teaches that the system is able to detect bleed sites on a patient. I has been well-known, routine and conventional for several decades, if not centuries, that the first thing a caregiver should do in a bleeding situation is to stop the bleeding event as soon as possible. One of the well-known methods that exist to achieve this, particularly with limbs, is to apply a tourniquet. No person of ordinary skill in the art would have read Moghadam and walked away from the prior art without an understanding that applying a tourniquet to a bleeding patient was an obvious action item.
Prior Art not Relied Upon
The Examiner cites Eichelberger et al. (US 2022/00319718) as relevant prior art to the claimed subject matter which is not relied upon at this time as basis for rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHAD A NEWTON whose telephone number is (313)446-6604. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00AM-4:00PM (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, 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.
/CHAD A NEWTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3681
Prosecution Insights