DETAILED ACTION
This office action is based on the claim set submitted and filed on 08/22/2025.
Claims 27-47 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/17/2025 is in accordance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and are considered by the Examiner.
Claim objection
Claim 39 recites the feature “lying in bad”. It seems that there is a typo and the feature maybe a “lying in bed”. Appropriate correction is needed.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the "right to exclude" granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not
patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg,
140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d
2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Langi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van
Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619
(CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR l.32I(c) or l.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717. 02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP
§ § 706.02(1)(1) - 706.02(1)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR l.32l(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used.
Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or
PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal
Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-inf o-1.js p.
Claim 27-47 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 and 14 of Pat. No. 12,282,642. The claims at issue are not identical and they are not patentably distinct from each other because both are directed toward addressing a similar scope. The table/chart below exhibits the similarity* between the independent claim while claim 27 and 40 of the current application ‘826 discloses equivalent elements for as in claims 1 and 14 of the reference patent ‘642.
*Similarities highlighted in BOLD
Application No. 19/207,826 (Current App)
Pat. No. 12,282,642- (Reference App)
Claim 1
Claim 14
a method for classifying healthcare activities using a patient management system including a base unit with a processor in communication with a camera and a wireless receiver, the method comprising:
a method for use at a location to monitor at least one subject at the location, each subject of the at least one subject having a radio transmitter that transmits a beacon signal, the method comprising:
receiving a beacon signal with the wireless receiver;
determining an identity of a person associated with the beacon signal using the processor and information relating to the beacon signal;
perform signal measurement on the beacon signal received by the receiver to indicate conditions including that the subject approached the location and that the subject moved away from the location, the signal measurement including at least a comparison of received signal to the threshold value
capturing image data with the camera;
collect camera information using the camera at least when the subject is indicated to have approached the location
processing the image data to determine if there is a patient in the image data;
if there is a patient in the image data, determining coordinates of the patient;
processing the image data to determine the coordinates of the person;
process the camera information to assist in tracking the subject at the location including analyzing feature data of the subject using at least some of the camera information
classifying a specific healthcare activity or a patient activity, using machine learning and at least one of the coordinates of the person and the coordinates of the patient
process the beacon signal and the camera information to classify location transitions of the subject, wherein processing the beacon signal is constrained by the processed camera information
Claim 40
Claim 1
a system for use at a location to monitor at least one person at the location, each person of the at least one person having a radio transmitter that transmits a beacon signal, the system comprising:
a base unit including a processor that is in communication with a camera and with a wireless receiver; and the base unit further comprising storage with processor-executable instructions that the processor can execute to
a system for use at a location to monitor at least one subject at the location, each subject of the at least one subject having a radio transmitter that transmits a beacon signal
a base unit including a processor that is in communication with a camera and with a receiver, the receiver comprising received signal measurement electronics and at least one memory to store a threshold value,
the base unit further comprising storage with processor-executable instructions that the processor can execute to
The claim recites similar limitation as in claim 27 above
The claim recites similar limitation as in claim 14 above
As per the above chart, it shows the similarities in the reference patent ‘642 and the current patent application ‘826 independent claim(s) which exhibits a broader and more generic than the patent ‘642 as such the current application is the species and the reference patent is the genus. Thus, this is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims are obvious variations of one another.
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.
Claim 27-47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 27-39 are drawn to a method and Claims 40-47 are drawn to a device, which are within the four statutory categories (i.e., a machine and a process). Claims 27-47 are further directed to an abstract idea on the grounds set out in detail below.
Under Step 2A, Prong 1, the steps of the claim for the invention represents an abstract idea of a series of steps that recite a process controlling medication dosage delivery. This abstract idea could have been performed by a human actor to implement the abstract idea for steps citing a process directed to collecting a user health data such as glycemic, using the data to determine changes, and determine new dose of medication which is/are an abstract idea that could have been performed by a human mind but for the fact that the claims recite a general-purpose computer processor to implement the abstract idea for which both the instant claims and the abstract idea are defined as Mental Process.
Independent claim 27, and similarly 40, recites the step of:
“receiving a beacon signal with the wireless receiver;
determining an identity of a person associated with the beacon signal using the processor and information relating to the beacon signal;
capturing image data with the camera;
processing the image data to determine if there is a patient in the image data;
if there is a patient in the image data, determining coordinates of the patient;
processing the image data to determine the coordinates of the person;
classifying a specific healthcare activity or a patient activity, using machine learning and at least one of the coordinates of the person and the coordinates of the patient”.
The limitations, as drafted, given the broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations by a human mind with aid of pen and paper, thus, an abstract idea, but for the recitation of generic computer components. The claimed concept encompasses to performance of the limitations of a mental process for determining location coordination of a patient and classify the patient activity based on the received coordination which are steps reciting mental process that could have been performed by a human mind along with mathematical concepts (e.g., processing coordination) but for the fact that the claim(s) recites a general-purpose processor and hardware to implement the abstract idea for performing the steps of observing, evaluating, judgment and opinion which is/are citing a process for which can be performed using a human mind with the aid of pencil and paper, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Accordingly, the claim limitations (in BOLD) recite an abstract idea. Any limitations not identified above as part of the Mental Process are deemed "additional elements," and will be discussed in further detail below.
Under Step 2A, Prong 2, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the remaining elements amount to no more than a component programmed to perform the abstract ideas and linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements such as “processor, base unit, camera, beacon, radio transmitter, wireless receiver” that is/are disclosed at a high - level of generality and is described in an arbitrary form that iteratively takes input data and determine an output performing generic computer functions that is merely implemented as a tool such that it amounts no more than adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f), (e.g. “receive[ing] beacon signal using wireless receiver”, “capture[ing] image with camera”), generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h) (e.g. wireless receiver”, “machine learning”), and mere data gathering process that does not add a meaningful limitation to the above abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(g). For example, the machine learning model is/are recited in the claims in a high level of generality and is described in the specification in an arbitrary form without disclosing a specific algorithm using and implementing the claimed invention available data for allowing the model to learn patterns and relationships within the data and implement it to perform the claimed function which is recited at a high level of generality and describing a general concept of machine learning model (e.g., “Model training 506 includes machine learning methods, such as back propagation...”, see Applicant PGPub [0074]). As set forth in the 2019 Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 "merely include[ing] instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer" is an example of when an abstract idea has not been integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, looking at the claim as a whole, individually and in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Under step 2B, The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to "significantly more" than the judicial exception because, as mentioned above, the additional elements amount to no more than generic computing components, recited at a high level of generality, that amount to no more than mere instruction to perform the abstract idea such that it amounts no more than adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) to apply the exception using generic computer component, see MPEP 2106.05(f), (i.e., “receive[ing] beacon signal using wireless receiver”, “capture[ing] image with camera”), generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h), and mere data gathering that does not add a meaningful limitation to the above abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(d)-(g). There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation and mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept, See Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 ("mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention."). The claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims 28-39 and 41-47 include all of the limitations of claim(s) 27 and 40, and therefore likewise incorporate the above-described abstract idea. While the depending claims add additional limitations, such as
As for claim 31-36, 38-39, , the claim(s) recite limitations that are under the broadest reasonable interpretation, further define the abstract idea noted in the independent claim(s) that covers performance by a human mind using pen and paper, but for, the recitation of the generic computer components which are similarly rejected because, neither of the claims, further, defined the abstract idea and do not further limit the claim to a practical application or provide an inventive concept such that the claims are subject matter eligible. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept ("significantly more").
As for claims 28-30, 37, and 41-47, the claim(s) recite limitations that are under the broadest reasonable interpretation, further define the abstract idea noted in the independent claim(s) that covers performance by a human but for, the recitation of the generic computer components which are similarly rejected because, neither of the claims, further, defined the abstract idea and do not further limit the claim to a practical application or provide an inventive concept such that the claims are subject matter eligible. The claims recite additional elements “processor, machine learning, spirometer, databases, cloud platform, Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE), display, sound level detector, light sensor, temperature sensor, call bell detector, pull cord detector” that implement the identified abstract idea. These hardware components are recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and hardware. These additional elements effectively amount to no more than the words "apply it" with a computer (e.g., store[ing]), because it appears to intend to do so, which would still amount to mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept ("significantly more").
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 27-36 and 38-45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson et al. (US 2012/0154582 Al– “Johnson”) in view of n view of Saito (US 2017/0142323 A1)
Regarding Claim 27 (New), Johnson teaches a method for classifying healthcare activities using a patient management system including a base unit with a processor in communication with a camera and a wireless receiver, (Johnson: [0005] Systems that have been developed to track and analyze activities in a clinical setting... one known RFID-based system focuses on identifying human activities, [0037-0038]; the system will continually monitor patient room activity, [0042]; a combination of multi-modal sensors and computer vision is used to identify motion, objects, and people alone or in combination with data and traditional sensor inputs and analyze activity analysis (i.e., through reasoning over 1 or more sensor signals).), the method comprising:
receiving a beacon signal with the wireless receiver
determining an identity of a person associated with the beacon signal using the processor and information relating to the beacon signal;
capturing image data with the camera; Johnson discloses a camera capturing image data (Johnson: [0148]; The multi-camera, multi-person tracking system 2000 is useable with the scene model and semantic zone definition... into an association matrix for comparative classification. A most likely association is made and then published on the information broker for consumption by the subscribing protocol reasoning engine(s)),
processing the image data to determine if there is a patient in the image data Johnson discloses coordination between the cameras to track an object position within defined physical space using algorithm to determine perform a spatial-temporal arrangement and geo-spatial zones identifying activity within the defined space and locations in the zone(s) (Johnson: [0037]; An optically based sensor system is deployed that determines the location and trajectory of people as well as the presence of certain objects and settings or status of configured apparatus, [0122]; The granularity of state information within which the AI engine reasons is a function of what is sensed by the various sensing modalities… the system is designed to robustly infer states described in terms of presence or absence of people in the pre-defined zones)
if there is a patient in the image data, determining coordinates of the patient; Johnson discloses a camera capturing image data and determine location of the object using a coordination system (Johnson: [0141]; Cameras or optical sensors 1705 of system 1700 operate in a calibrated fashion, where the correspondence between the 3D world coordinate system 1710 and 2D image spaces 1720 can be established)
processing the image data to determine the coordinates of the person Johnson discloses coordination between the cameras to track an object position within defined physical space using algorithm to determine perform a spatial-temporal arrangement and geo-spatial zones identifying activity within the defined space and locations in the zone(s) (Johnson'582: [0105], [0107]-[0109], [0122]; The granularity of state information within which the AI engine reasons is a function of what is sensed by the various sensing modalities… the system is designed to robustly infer states described in terms of presence or absence of people in the pre-defined zones [0131]; Person detection and tracking algorithms and code receive inputs from multiple optical sensors…, [0141]; Cameras or optical sensors 1705 of system 1700 operate in a calibrated fashion, where the correspondence between the 3D world coordinate system 1710 and 2D image spaces 1720 can be established. Hence, a detailed 3D human body model may be crafted based on the physical dimension of a human and stands on the ground plane, [0146]; The detected persons from video imageries are also cast into this virtual space based on his/her estimated ground plane locations, and their spatial proximities to each of the room objects in the virtual space can thus easily be measured),
classifying a specific healthcare activity or a patient activity, using machine learning and at least one of the coordinates of the person and the coordinates of the patient Johnson discloses using a machine learning approach to classify (Johnson: [0133; a software component subsystem may be programmed to implement an appearance classifier-based person detection method, which further validates above candidate detections using a dedicatedly trained person appearance classifier via machine learning approach)
Johnson discloses the optical sensing system comprising processor that communicates with various monitoring components [0078] and discloses RFID-based tagging combined with the computer vision system providing signals for identifying location within a defined space [0095], however does not expressly disclose a base unit and does not expressly disclose the use of beacon for performing the features as underlined.
Saito teaches
a base unit with a processor Saito discloses a base unit connected to a camera and an electronic devices (beacon detector) that receives beacon signal (Saito: [0009], [0026]; wireless base station RB is also connected to remote camera RC via wired LAN 40, [0028], [0031]-[0032]; Beacon signal reception section 21 receives beacon signals from beacon signal transmission apparatuses Bn, [0033]-[0034]).
receiving a beacon signal with the wireless receiver Saito discloses beacon reader which receives the beacon message/signal being part of the base unit (Saito: [0040]; controller 10 determines whether beacon signals from individual beacon signal transmission apparatuses Bn have been received)
determining an identity of a person associated with the beacon signal using the processor and information relating to the beacon signal; Saito discloses the system detects using a beacon signal of an object that enters a monitored area which can be any defined space such as patient room and that determines an object presence is in the defined space (Saito [0040]; controller 10 determines whether beacon signals from individual beacon signal transmission apparatuses Bn have been received. In the case of YES, the processing proceeds to step S2; in the case of NO, the processing returns to step S1. In step S2, distance determination section 11 estimates distances r between tag device TD and beacon signal transmission apparatuses Bn, based on reception intensities of the received beacon signals. In step S3, distance determination
section 11 determines whether the shortest one of estimated distances r is less than the predetermined value rth. In the case of YES, the processing proceeds to step S4; in the case
of NO, the processing returns to step S1. Herein, the predetermined value rth is a distance threshold. More specifically, the predetermined value rth is a distance threshold used to detect the presence of subject 50 (see FIG. 2) at or close to preset point Pn).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have Johnson incorporate the use of a beacon and determine the beacon signal and to determine a presence an object in a room, as taught by Saito, which helps provide a high precision tacking system comparing to conventional systems such as GPS (Saito: [0010]).
Regarding Claim 28 (New), the combination of Johnson and Saito teaches the method of claim 27, wherein the machine learning is performed at least in part using the processor (Johnson: [Claim 1, 7]).
Regarding Claim 29 (New), the combination of Johnson and Saito teaches the method of claim 27, wherein the machine learning is performed at least in part using a cloud platform (Saito: [0052], [0076], [Claim 8]).
The motivations to combine the above- mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 27, and incorporated herein.
Regarding Claim 30 (New), the combination of Johnson and Saito teaches the method of claim 27, wherein using the machine learning includes using a scene classifier trainer using data from one or more databases to create and store scene models using model training (Johnson: [0134]; software component subsystem may be programmed to implement a semantic scene model that may define the locations of walls, and locations/zones where medical equipment and furniture, fluid dispenser, washbasins, doors, ...; [0143], [0151]).
Regarding Claim 31 (New), the combination of Johnson and Saito teaches the method of claim 30, wherein the model training includes one or more of back propagation, feed forward propagation, gradient descent, and deep learning (Johnson: [Claim 7]).
Regarding Claim 32 (New), the combination of Johnson and Saito teaches the method of claim 27, wherein the specific healthcare activity includes hourly rounding Johnson discloses monitoring activities that include tasks, clinical events, regulatory events, administrative events specified for the care of patients (Johnson: [0038]; the system will continually monitor patient room activity... Such protocols may, as examples, include... monitoring rounds of care givers).
Regarding Claim 33 (New), the combination of Johnson and Saito teaches the method of claim 27, wherein the specific healthcare activity includes bedside reporting Johnson discloses monitoring activities that include tasks, clinical events, regulatory events, administrative events specified for the care of patients (Johnson: [Fig. 7], [0038], [0070]).
Regarding Claim 34 (New), the combination of Johnson and Saito teaches the method of claim 27, wherein the specific healthcare activity includes rotating the patient for pressure ulcer prevention Johnson discloses monitoring activities that include tasks, clinical events, regulatory events, administrative events specified for the care of patients (Johnson: [0038]; the system will continually monitor patient room activity... monitoring patient positions and making sure that patients, especially sedentary ones, are turned on a regular basis so as to prevent the occurrence of pressure ulcers).
Regarding Claim 35 (New), the combination of Johnson and Saito teaches the method of claim 27, wherein the specific healthcare activity includes assisting the patient with restroom use Johnson discloses monitoring activities that include tasks, clinical events, regulatory events, administrative events specified for the care of patients (Johanson: [0038], [0104] Different protocols to be monitored and managed may use the same clinical events. For example, that a round was made or the patient toileted, [0113]; verification that a patient has toileted and rounds have been made are examples of any number of specific activities to be monitored. Alarms are appropriately sent to the personnel responsible for the protocol tasks).
Examiner note that the feature " healthcare activity includes assisting the patient with restroom use" can be construed as intended use without patentable weight as the feature is recited and described in arbitrary form and at a high level as such it does not add significant patentable weight to the claim because the feature has no impact on the monitoring process.
Regarding Claim 36 (New), the combination of Johnson and Saito teaches the method of claim wherein the specific healthcare activity includes feeding the patient Johnson discloses monitoring activities that include tasks, clinical events, regulatory events, administrative events specified for the care of patients (Johnson: [0038]).
Examiner note that the feature "specific healthcare activity includes feeding the patient " can be construed as intended use without patentable weight as the feature is recited and described in arbitrary form and at a high level as such it does not add significant patentable weight to the claim because the feature has no impact on the monitoring process.
Regarding Claim 38 (New), the combination of Johnson and Saito teaches the method of claim 27, wherein the patient activity includes ambulating (Johnson: [0072]; system 300 observes movements indicative of patient movement, [0130]; Locations of the patients and caregivers, such as their standing/walking positions on the ground plane in a room).
Examiner note that the feature "patient activity includes ambulating" can be construed as intended use without patentable weight as the feature is recited and described in arbitrary form and at a high level as such it does not add significant patentable weight to the claim because the feature has no impact on the monitoring process.
Regarding Claim 39 (New), the combination of Johnson and Saito teaches the method of claim 27, wherein the patient activity includes lying in bad Johnson discloses monitoring activities that include tasks, clinical events, regulatory events, administrative events specified for the care of patients (Johnson: [0038], [0084]; Computer Vision Component 505 continually monitors... the position of a patient with respect to the patient bed).
Examiner note that the feature "patient activity includes lying in bad" can be construed as intended use without patentable weight as the feature is recited and described in arbitrary form and at a high level as such it does not add significant patentable weight to the claim because the feature has no impact on the monitoring process.
Regarding Claim 40 (New), Johnson teaches a system for use at a location to monitor at least one person at the location, each person of the at least one person having a radio transmitter that transmits a beacon signal, the system comprising:
a base unit including a processor that is in communication with a camera and with a wireless receiver; and the base unit further comprising storage with processor-executable instructions that the processor can execute to (Saito: [0009], [0026]; wireless base station RB is also connected to remote camera RC via wired LAN 40, [0028], [0031]-[0032]:
Johnson discloses RFID-based tagging combined with the computer vision system providing signals for identifying location within a defined space [0095], however does not expressly disclose a base unit and does not expressly disclose the use of beacon for performing the features as underlined.
Saito teaches
transmits a beacon signal (Saito: [Fig. 1-2], [0026])
a base unit including a processor that is in communication with a camera and with a wireless receiver; and the base unit further comprising storage with processor-executable instructions that the processor can execute to (Saito: [0009], [0026]; wireless base station RB is also connected to remote camera RC via wired LAN 40, [0028], [0031]-[0032]):
the further claim limitations is/are analogous to the limitations in Claim 27. As such, claim 40 is rejected for substantially the same reasons given for claim 27 and is incorporated herein.
Regarding Claim 41 (New), the combination of Johnson and Saito teaches the system of claim 40, wherein the base unit includes Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) electronics Saito discloses transmitter transmits Bluetooth signal (Saito: [0037]).
The motivations to combine the above- mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 40, and incorporated herein.
Regarding Claim 42 (New), the combination of Johnson and Saito teaches the system of claim 40, wherein the base unit further comprises a display configured to be in communication with the processor (Johnson: [0047]; People, objects, motion, and visual signals such as displays, coupled with other data from various systems are acquired for the purposes of determining what the state of the environment (the system and its stakeholders) is relative to the tasks of a protocol, [0048] A computer vision system which includes sensor 105, is utilized to acquire images ... Thus, objects may be ascertained without a physical reproduction or display of an image).
Regarding Claim 43 (New), the combination of Johnson and Saito teaches the system of claim 40, wherein the base unit further comprises a sound level detector configured to communicate with the processor (Johnson: [0091]; Sound capture device 685 such as a microphone may be deployed in one or several locations, [0061]; multi-modal sensing 310 (e.g., through Computer Vision, RFID, audio analysis; [Claim 15]).
Regarding Claim 44 (New), the combination of Johnson and Saito teaches the system of claim 40, wherein the base unit further comprises an ambient light sensor configured to communicate with the processor (Johnson: [0054]; the optical sensing 105 may be used to adjust the light levels in the room sufficient to achieve requisite illumination for detection).
Regarding Claim 45 (New), the combination of Johnson and Saito teaches the system of claim 40, wherein the base unit further comprises a temperature sensor configured to communicate with the processor (Johnson: [0055]; Thermal sensors may be used as part of the invention to sense flight/fight response to stimuli as well as skin or bandage or device temperature; [Claim 15]).
Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson et al. (US 2012/0154582 Al– “Johnson”) in view of n view of Saito (US 2017/0142323 A1) in view of Schwieterman et al. (US 8,360,975 B1 – “Schwieterman”)
Regarding Claim 37 (New), the combination of Johnson and Saito teaches the method of claim 27, wherein the patient activity includes using a spirometer
Johnsons discloses monitoring activity based on RFID tag attached to different entities/objects, but does not a spirometer.
Schwieterman discloses interfacing with medical device including spirometer (Schwieterman: [col. 2, line 24-27], [col. 6, line 3, [col. 7, line 16-21], [claim 3]).
Examiner note that the feature "patient activity using spirometer" can be construed as intended use without patentable weight as the feature is recited and described in arbitrary form and at a high level as such it does not add significant patentable weight to the claim because the description of a device (e.g., a spirometer) features has no impact on the monitoring process.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the combination of Johnson and Saito incorporate the use of spirometer as activity, as taught by Schwieterman, which helps improving location and monitoring workflow (Schwieterman: [col. 7, line 22-23]).
Claims 46-47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson et al. (US 2012/0154582 Al– “Johnson”) in view of n view of Saito (US 2017/0142323 A1) in view of Robinson et al. (US 2013/0300548 Al – “Robinson”)
Regarding Claim 46 (New), the combination of Johnson and Saito teaches the system of claim 40, wherein the base unit further comprises a call bell detector configured to communicate with the processor
Johnson discloses a nurse call, but does not expressly disclose a detector.
Robinson teaches
a call bell detector (Robinson: [Fig.8], [0026]; Various alert light devices are activated by the I/O circuit of the RCB unit 26 when a certain alert or alarm condition occurs ... alert light devices include a dome light assembly 28, a zone light assembly 29, and a single-bulb dome light assembly, [0035]; Receptacle 60 also includes a call cancel/cable disconnect button 70 and a visual indicator).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the combination of Johnson and Saito incorporate the use of a nurse call alert/alarm detection, as taught by Robinson, which helps monitoring all patient related clinical events (Robinson: [0001-0003]).
Regarding Claim 47 (New), the combination of Johnson and Saito teaches the system of claim 40, wherein the base unit further comprises a pull cord detector configured to communicate with the processor
Johnson discloses a nurse call, but does not expressly disclose pull cord detector.
Robinson teaches
a pull cord detector (Robinson: [0026]; Patient stations 22 communicate bidirectionally (e.g., two-way communication) with a room control board (RCB) unit 26...The bidirectional communication between stations 22 and units ... Various alert light devices are activated by the I/O circuit of the RCB unit 26 when a certain alert or alarm condition occurs. ... in the illustrative example, a shower switch with pull cord 37 is coupled to one of the RCB units 26 as indicated by double headed arrow 35. Pull cord 37 is pulled by a patient in the bathroom or shower to send out an alarm signal, [0041]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the combination of Johnson and Saito incorporate a pull cord detection, as taught by Robinson, which helps monitoring all patient related clinical events (Robinson: [0001-0003]).
Prior Art Cited but not Applied
The following document(s) were found relevant to the disclosure but not applied:
US 2017/0109481 “Johnson” discloses workflow engine including a first particularly programmed processor to monitor one or more medical orders from one or more hospital information systems to identify a condition indicating that a first patient and occupancy data regarding the first patient in the first room and transmit the occupancy data to the workflow engine.
US 2019/0327161 “Cannell” discloses determining health status and receiving location information and health status information of a plurality of beacon devices.
US 2020/0228928 “Good” discloses proximity detection and location tracking including identifying an asset.
US 2017 /0187991 “Toros” discloses vision system and transmitting a unique identifier of a radio frequency (RF) transmitter to a device in a vicinity of the RF transmitter for acquiring images of objects by the vision system to determine objects in the images acquired by the image capturing device and location.
The references are relevant since it discloses tracking a user/patient location and position using a camera and radio transmitter “beacon” and utilize the collected data to determine the patient state.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALAAELDIN ELSHAER whose telephone number is (571)272-8284. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:30-5:30.
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, MAMON OBEID can be reached at Mamon.Obeid@USPTO.GOV. 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.
/ALAAELDIN M. ELSHAER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3687
Prosecution Insights