DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Following is a list of prior arts are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, including prior arts not relied upon in the rejection
US 20140267549 A1 (Pinter)
US 20090055023 A1 (Walters)
US 20240266074 A1 (Smurro)
US 20150109442 A1 (para 89 “If one or more images of the person's face were successfully captured that included sufficient information to identify the individual, computer device 24 tags the images it captures of that individual with the individual's ID”)
US 20230293119 A1 (Patent identification from image for remote consultation and treatment, Fig. 4, 9)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1, 4-7, 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pinter in view of Walters.
Regarding Claim 1. Pinter teaches A telehealth device in a patient environment [(para 22, telepresence device and remote monitoring in hospitals, FIg.7 )], the device comprising: a camera that captures an image of the patient environment: [(para 24, Figs.7-8)] a controller in communication with the camera [(para 24, the control device )], the controller is configured to: identify at least one object of interest in the image: [(para 41 “identify objects of interest in an image” )] store a pan angle and a tilt angle associated with each of the at least one object of interest in association with the identity of each of the at least one object of interest: [(para 58, store location such as pan, tilt and zoom information . “annotation may be associated with a specific object within an image and the first location data may describe the location of the object” )]i transmit the image and the identity of each of the at least one object of interest to a remote device, wherein the remote device is configured to display a user interface that includes the image and an interactive icon for each of the at least one object of interest: [(Fig. 10, para 58-59 )] receive, from the remote device, a user selection of one of the interactive icons to control: [( para 79, Fig.10)]
Pinter does not explicitly show receive, from the remote device, a user selection of one of the interactive icons: and, re-orient the camera based on the stored pan angle and tilt angle associated with the at least one object of interest associated with the selected interactive icon
However, in the same/related field of endeavor, Walters teaches receive, from the remote device, a user selection of one of the interactive icons: and, re-orient the camera based on the stored pan angle and tilt angle associated with the at least one object of interest associated with the selected interactive icon. [(Table III “restoreHeadPosition” : under description “The restoreHeadPosition functions like the gotoHomePosition command, but it homes the head to a position previously saved with gotoHomePosition” )]
Therefore, in light of above discussion it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teaching of the prior arts because incorporating Walter’s ability to go back to accurate previously saved/used pan/tilt setting quickly would improve healthcare provider/user enhance flexibility in monitoring.
Pinter in view of Walters additionally teaches, with respect to claim 4. The telehealth device of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to: store a zoom factor in association with the identity of each of the at least one object of interest: and adjust the camera zoom factor based on the stored zoom factor associated with the at least one object of interested associated with the selected interactive icon. [(Pinter para 58, 72, Fig.14 )]
Pinter in view of Walters additionally teaches, with respect to claim 5. The telehealth device of claim 1, wherein identifying at least one object of interest includes determining a set of pixels representing a bounding box that encloses a portion of the image containing the object of interest. [(Pinter FIg.10 #1038, para 55, 61 )]
Pinter in view of Walters additionally teaches, with respect to claim 6. The telehealth device of claim 1, wherein storing a pan angle and a tilt angle in association with each of the at least one object of interest includes storing a unique identifier in association with the pan angle and the tilt angle [(Walters Table III, gotoHomePosition, description; pan and tilt are associated with index values )]
Regarding claims 7, 10-12: See analyses of claims 1, 4-6
Claims 2-3, 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pinter in view of Walters in view of Smurro.
Regarding Claims 2, 8. Pinter in view of Walters does not explicitly show identifying the at least one object of interest includes analyzing the image using a multimedia large language model (MMLLM).
However, in the same/related field of endeavor, Smurro teaches identifying object of interest includes analyzing the image using a multimedia large language model (MMLLM). [(Fig.4 and para 132 )]
Therefore, in light of above discussion it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teaching of the prior arts because such combination would improve performance of a medical collaborative system [(Smurro para 229 )]
Pinter additionally teaches, with respect to claims 3, 9. The telehealth device of claim 2, wherein analyzing the image using the MMLLM includes prompting the MMLLM to identify objects of interest in a hospital environment. [(Pinter para )]
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Shahan Rahaman whose telephone number is (571)270-1438. The examiner can normally be reached on 7am - 3:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nasser Goodarzi can be reached at telephone number (571) 272-4195. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/SHAHAN UR RAHAMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2426
Prosecution Insights