DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This communication is in response to the application filed on 5/23/25. Claims 1-18 are pending.
The IDS filed on 5/23/25 has been considered by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-13 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “to display actions associated with the treatment that are at a first confidentiality level and the first outer room graphical user interface operable to display actions associated with the treatment that are at a second confidentiality level, the second confidentiality level great than the first confidentiality level.” Similarly, Claim 17 also recites “ the second confidentiality level great than the first confidentiality level.”
The Examiner understands the claim language to mean that there is a distinction between the levels of information which can be accessed with a first and second level of confidentiality. However, it is unclear whether applicant intends to recite the ”second confidentiality level is greater than the first level,” and that the second level accesses/displays information that is more private in nature. (e.g. personal identifying information) or if the confidentiality distinction is based upon who may access the information (e.g. authorization level)).
Claims 2-13 inherit the deficiencies of claim 1 through dependency and are therefore also rejected.
Claim 18 inherit the deficiencies of claim 17 through dependency, and is therefore also rejected.
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 1-18 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.
35 USC 101 enumerates four categories of subject matter that Congress deemed to be appropriate subject matter for a patent: processes, machines, manufactures and compositions of matter. As explained by the courts, these “four categories together describe the exclusive reach of patentable subject matter. If a claim covers material not found in any of the four statutory categories, that claim falls outside the plainly expressed scope of Section 101 even if the subject matter is otherwise new and useful.” In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1354, 84 USPQ2d 1495, 1500 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Step 1 of the eligibility analysis asks: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? Applicant’s claims fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claims 1-13 are drawn to a system, and 14-18 are drawn to a method.
Determining that a claim falls within one of the four enumerated categories of patentable subject matter recited in 35 USC 101 (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter) in Step 1 does not complete the eligibility analysis. Claims drawn only to an abstract idea, a natural phenomenon, and laws of nature are not eligible for patent protection. As described in MPEP 2106, subsection III, Step 2A of the Office’s eligibility analysis is the first part of the Alice/Mayo test, i.e., the Supreme Court’s “framework for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts.” Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l,134 S. Ct. 2347, 2355, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1981 (2014) (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77-78, 101 USPQ2d at 1967-68).
In 2019, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) prepared revised guidance (2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance) for use by USPTO personnel in evaluating subject matter eligibility. The framework for this revised guidance, which sets forth the procedures for determining whether a patent claim or patent application claim is directed to a judicial exception (laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas), is described in MPEP sections 2106.03 and 2106.04.
As explained in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance explains that abstract ideas can be grouped as, e.g., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes. Moreover, this guidance explains that a patent claim or patent application claim that recites a judicial exception is not ‘‘directed to’’ the judicial exception if the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of the judicial exception. A claim that recites a judicial exception, but is not integrated into a practical application, is directed to the judicial exception under Step 2A and must then be evaluated under Step 2B (inventive concept) to determine the subject matter eligibility of the claim.
Step 2A asks: Does the claim recite a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature) or an abstract idea? (Prong One) If so, is the judicial exception integrated into a practical application of the judicial exception? (Prong Two) A claim recites a judicial exception when a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. While the terms “set forth” and “describe” are thus both equated with “recite”, their different language is intended to indicate that there are different ways in which an exception can be recited in a claim. For instance, the claims in Diehr set forth a mathematical equation in the repetitively calculating step, while the claims in Mayo set forth laws of nature in the wherein clause, meaning that the claims in those cases contained discrete claim language that was identifiable as a judicial exception. The claims in Alice Corp., however, described the concept of intermediated settlement without ever explicitly using the words “intermediated” or “settlement.” A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.
In the instant case, claims 1-20 recite(s) a method and system for certain methods of organizing human activities, which is subject matter that falls within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas described in MPEP 2106.04 (2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance) Certain methods of organizing human activities includes fundamental economic practices, like insurance; commercial interactions (i.e. legal obligations, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations). Organizing human activity also encompasses managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions.) The recited method and system are drawn to tracking/identifying status of a room for patient treatment.
In particular, the claim 1 recites:
dynamically sequence actions associated with a room status treatment sequence for a patient.
Claim 14 recites:
receiving a real-time status of a room in response to an input to a first inner room graphical user interface within the room; and
identifying the status of the dashboard graphical user interface, wherein the status indicates at least whether an action associated with the treatment is completed in response to an input to the first inner room graphical user interface within the room.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim language does not recite any improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1); see also MPEP 2106.05(a)(I-II)). Moreover, the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because the claimed invention does not: apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b)); effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05(c)); or apply or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment see MPEP 2106.05(e). (Considerations for integration into a practical application in Step 2A, prong two and for recitation of significantly more than the judicial exception in Step 2B)
While abstract ideas, natural phenomena, and laws of nature are not eligible for patenting by themselves, claims that integrate these exceptions into an inventive concept are thereby transformed into patent-eligible inventions. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1981 (2014) (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71-72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1966 (2012)). Thus, the second part of the Alice/Mayo test is often referred to as a search for an inventive concept. Id. An “inventive concept” is furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception, and is sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2355, 110 USPQ2d at 1981 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73, 101 USPQ2d at 1966). Although the courts often evaluate considerations such as the conventionality of an additional element in the eligibility analysis, the search for an inventive concept should not be confused with a novelty or non-obviousness determination. See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 91, 101 USPQ2d at 1973 (rejecting “the Government’s invitation to substitute Sections 102, 103, and 112 inquiries for the better established inquiry under Section 101”). As made clear by the courts, the “‘novelty’ of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the Section 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter.” Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec Corp.,838 F.3d 1307, 1315, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. at 188–89, 209 USPQ at 9).
As described in MPEP 2106.05, Step 2B of the Office’s eligibility analysis is the second part of the Alice/Mayo test, i.e., the Supreme Court’s “framework for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts.” Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. _, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2355, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1981 (2014) (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. 66, 101 USPQ2d 1961 (2012)). Step 2B asks: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 14 also recites: displaying the status of the room on a first outer room graphical user interface adjacent to the room; displaying the status of the room on a dashboard graphical user interface displaced from the room. The additional steps amount to insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Examples of insignificant extra-solution activity include mere data gathering, selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated, and insignificant application. In the instant case the additional steps amount to necessary data gathering and outputting, (i.e., all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering or data output). See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (presenting offers and gathering statistics amounted to mere data gathering)
Claim 1 recites additional limitation(s), including: a server; a first inner room graphical user interface in communication with the server; a first outer room graphical user interface in communication with the server; and a dashboard graphical user interface. Claim 14 also recites a first inner room graphical user interface in communication with the server; a first outer room graphical user interface in communication with the server; and a dashboard graphical user interface. However, the additional components is/are generic components that perform well-understood, routine and conventional activities that amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system
The generic nature of the computer system used to carryout steps of the recited method is underscored by the system description in the instant application, which discloses: “system 20 may be operational with numerous computing system environments or configurations. Examples of such computing systems, environments, and/or configurations that may be suitable for use with embodiments herein include, by way of example only, personal computers, server computers, hand-held or laptop devices, multiprocessor systems, microprocessor-based systems, set top boxes, programmable consumer electronics, network PCs, minicomputers, mainframe computers, distributed computing environments that include any of the above-mentioned systems or devices, and the like." (par. 36 of the PG-Pub for the application)
The disclosure also states: “A “graphical user interface” conveys its customary meaning and may include various devices such as screens, tablets, mobile devices, portable electronic devices, handheld devices, personal computers, monitors, etc. A “server” conveys its customary meaning that provides service and/or data connection, e.g., to handheld devices and tablets. The handheld devices and tablets refer to a type of portable electronic device that is at least configured to communicate with the server over a long-range wireless communication network, such as a SMS, wireless, or cellular network, short-range wireless communication network such as Bluetooth, as well as direct hard-wired connections.” (par. 41) Such language underscores that the applicant's perceived invention/ novelty focuses on the computerized implementation of the abstract idea, not the underlying structure of generic system components.
Furthermore, the courts have recognized certain computer functions 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)). Among these are the following features, which are recited in claims 1 and claim 14:
- Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added));
- Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;
- A Web browser’s back and forward button functionality, Internet Patent Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1418 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Because Applicant’s claimed invention recites a judicial exception that is not integrated into a practical application and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself, the claimed invention is not patent eligible.
Claims 2-13 are dependent from Claim 1 and include(s) all the limitations of claim(s) 1. However, the additional limitations of the claims 2-13 fail to recite significantly more than the abstract idea. More specifically, the additional limitations further define the abstract idea with additional steps or details regarding data types; or additional steps which amount to insignificant extra solution activities. Therefore, claim(s) 2-13 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 15-18 are dependent from Claim 14 and include(s) all the limitations of claim(s) 14. However, the additional limitations of the claims 15-18 fail to recite significantly more than the abstract idea. More specifically, the additional limitations further define the abstract idea with additional steps or details regarding data types; or additional steps which amount to insignificant extra solution activities. Therefore, claim(s) 15-18 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Crane (US 5,748,907).
Claim 14. Crane discloses a method to dynamically sequence actions associated with a room status treatment sequence for a patient, the method comprising:
receiving a real-time status of a room in response to an input to a first inner room graphical user interface within the room; (Fig. 5, 507; col. 25, lines 15-34; col. 28, lines 25-31)
displaying the status of the room on a first outer room graphical user interface adjacent to the room;( col. 25, lines 15-34; col. 28, lines 25-31;Fig. 29; col. 29, lines 58- col. 30, line 23; Fig. 10; Fig. 15 )
displaying the status of the room on a dashboard graphical user interface displaced from the room; and (col. 25, lines 15-34; col. 30, lines 3-40; Fig. 15)
identifying the status of the dashboard graphical user interface, wherein the status indicates at least whether an action associated with the treatment is completed in response to an input to the first inner room graphical user interface within the room. (Fig. 17; col. 31, lines 5-25- test completion)
claim 15 Crane discloses the method as recited in claim 14, further comprising displaying data associated with at least the first outer room graphical user interface and a location of a first token associated with a first healthcare personnel on the dashboard graphical user interface. (Fig. 15; Fig. 17; col. 25, lines 15-34; col. 44, lines 5-29 (claim 1)
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-13; and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crane (US 5,748,907) in view of Vojan et al (US 20230211183 A1).
Claim 1 Crane teaches a Patient and Room Status Sequencing Management system, comprising:
a server operable to dynamically sequence actions associated with a room status treatment sequence for a patient; (Master Processor: col. 9, lines 45-50; col. 12, lines 25-32; col. 13, lines 25-52; Fig. 15 )
a first inner room graphical user interface in communication with the server; (col. 23, lines 11-20; col. 26, lines 1-16- test room displaying test to be performed for patient; Fig. 12)
a first outer room graphical user interface in communication with the server, the first outer room graphical user interface and the first inner room graphical user interface associated with a single treatment room, the first inner room graphical user interface operable to display actions associated with the treatment (col. 25, line 60-col. 26, line 1-diagnostic room displaying test room for the patient);
a first token in communication with the server, the first token associated with a first healthcare personnel; and (col. 9, lines 14-21: ID cards; col. 12, 19-24)
a dashboard graphical user interface in communication with the server and remote from the treatment room, the dashboard graphical user interface operable to display data associated with at least the first outer room graphical user interface and the first token (coordinator display: col. 25, lines 49-56-displaying diagnostic room, and instructs patient to proceed to the selected room; col. 26, lines )
Crane discloses the system of claim 1 substantially as claimed. Crane further discloses that the inner/outer room display different information to/for the patient, (i.e. the first inner room graphical user interface operable to display actions associated with the treatment that are at a first confidentiality level and the first outer room graphical user interface operable to display actions associated with the treatment that are at a second confidentiality level-col. 23, lines 15-20-test room data displayed; diagnostic roomcol. 25, lines 50-56; col. 26, lines 35-54-display room for patient to next precede (pharmacy, coordinator, test room)
Crane does not expressly disclose a system wherein there are differential confidentiality levels (i.e. the rooms have a first and second confidentiality levels, wherein the second confidentiality level is greater than the first confidentiality level.
Vojan discloses a patient information system for providing differential access and for displaying information regarding patient treatment based levels of access allowed by user credentials. (par. 76-the analytics server 110 may adjust what the user is able to view, adjust, and control based on the user's authorization level… if a medical technician were to sign-in to the console monitors 150 the analytics server 110 may only allow the medical technician to see the treatment plan. The analytics server 110 may conceal the patient's medical information that is not relevant to the radiation treatment from the medical technician.)
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Crane with the teaching of Vojan to provide differential access/ confidentiality in the display of patient data. One would have been motivated to include this feature to ensure HIPAA compliance while allowing parties to access the information they need to facilitate patient care.
Claim 2 Crane and Vojan in combination teach the system as recited in claim 1, as explained in the rejection of claim 1. Crane does not expressly disclose, but Vojan teaches color change of a GUI or screen to indicate a status change in a process (par. 503: the analytics server may revise the status indicator of the graphical component 770 on the GUI, such as by changing the orange color to green or translucent. In another embodiment, when the technician moves the wrong accessory corresponding to the graphical indicator 774 away from the radiotherapy machine, the analytics server may revise the graphical indicator 774 by removing it, changing its color, shape, or any other manner that is visually distinct) At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the system of Crane with the teaching of Vojan to include the status of the room on the first outer room graphical user interface changing a color of an entire screen of the first outer room graphical user interface. One would have been motivated to include this feature to provide an easy visual indication that certain tasks in the treatment process have been completed. (Vojan: par. 31)
Claim 3 Crane teaches a system wherein the first inner room graphical user interface is operable to display an action associated with a room status treatment sequence for a patient. (col. 17, lines 5-10-scheduling status displayed; col. 25, lines 15-20-patient and employee status; col. 31, lines 1-20-displaying the status/status change of the patient displayed, status of tests performed displayed on patient displayed), wherein the action is one of a sequence of actions, the action associated with the status of the room. (col. 17, lines 5-10-scheduling status displayed; col. 25, lines 15-20-patient and employee status; col. 31, lines 1-20-displaying the status/status change of the patient displayed, status of tests performed displayed on patient displayed; See also col. 29, lines 60-col. 30 lines 2 for status of room, patient and employee updated by the server and stored)
Crane does not expressly disclose a system, but Vojan teaches a system, wherein the action comprises a multiple of choices depicted by a multiple of buttons.(fig. 4D; par. 255- display graphical indicator 427D representing a safety feature associated with the treatment room. Safety features associated with the treatment room can include closing the door of the treatment room before the treatment is commenced, locking the position of the couch in the treatment room, hanging the pendant in the treatment room; par. 265- The progress indicator 434D may be displayed on the bottom of the page 400d horizontally. The analytics server indicates the current stage of the workflow 4341D (e.g., Stage Two, Room Setup). The current stage of the workflow is emphasized, for example, by the analytics server because the server displays the current stage of the workflow 4341D in a different color (e.g., white) from the other stages of the workflow (e.g., grey))
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the system of Crane with the teaching of Vojan to include multiple of choices depicted by a multiple of buttons. One would have been motivated to include this feature to facilitate the input of information into the system and to provide an easy visual indication regarding status of certain tasks in the treatment process. (Vojan: par. 31)
Claim 4. Crane and Vojan in combination teach the system as recited in claim 3, as explained. Crane does not expressly disclose a system, but Vojan teaches a system, wherein each of the multiple of buttons comprises an icon and text. (fig. 4D; par. 255- display graphical indicator 427D representing a safety feature associated with the treatment room. Safety features associated with the treatment room can include closing the door of the treatment room before the treatment is commenced, locking the position of the couch in the treatment room, hanging the pendant in the treatment room; par. 265- The progress indicator 434D may be displayed on the bottom of the page 400d horizontally. The analytics server indicates the current stage of the workflow 4341D (e.g., Stage Two, Room Setup). The current stage of the workflow is emphasized, for example, by the analytics server because the server displays the current stage of the workflow 4341D in a different color (e.g., white) from the other stages of the workflow (e.g., grey); Fig. 6F)
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the system of Crane with the teaching of Vojan to include multiple of buttons comprising an icon and text. One would have been motivated to include this feature to facilitate the input of information into the system and to provide an easy visual indication regarding status of certain tasks in the treatment process. (Vojan: par. 31)
Claim 5 Crane does not disclose, but Vojan teaches wherein each of the multiple of choices are the only choices available for that action in the sequence of actions. (Fig. 6F-6G; par. 473-474) At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the system of Crane with the teaching of Vojan with the motivation of facilitating the input of information into the system and to provide an easy visual indication regarding status of certain tasks in the treatment process. (Vojan: par. 31)
Claim 7 Crane discloses the system as recited in claim 3, wherein the room status treatment sequence for the patient is one of a multitude of room status treatment sequences. (col. 17, lines 5-10-scheduling status displayed; col. 25, lines 15-20-patient and employee status; col. 31, lines 1-20-displaying the status/status change of the patient displayed, status of tests performed displayed on patient displayed; See also col. 29, lines 60-col. 30 lines 2 for status of room, patient and employee updated by the server and stored)
Claim 8. Crane teaches the system as recited in claim 1 as explained. Crane does not expressly disclose, but Vojan teaches wherein the status of the room on the first outer room graphical user interface comprises changing a color of a backlight which provides a colored penumbra about the first outer room graphical user interface. (par. 170: the color and intensity of the light may be customized by the technician and/or the system administrator. In some configurations, color/intensity could also be used to communicate different states of the controls or guide the user through the workflow described herein; par. 503: the analytics server may revise the status indicator of the graphical component 770 on the GUI, such as by changing the orange color to green or translucent. In another embodiment, when the technician moves the wrong accessory corresponding to the graphical indicator 774 away from the radiotherapy machine, the analytics server may revise the graphical indicator 774 by removing it, changing its color, shape, or any other manner that is visually distinct) At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the system of Crane with the teaching of Vojan to include the status of the room on the first outer room graphical user interface changing a color. One would have been motivated to include this feature to provide an easy visual indication that certain tasks in the treatment process have been completed. (Vojan: par. 31)
Claim 9 Crane discloses the system as recited in claim 1, further comprising displaying a position of the first token on the dashboard graphical user interface. (col. 35, lines 35-45; col. 37, lines 45-50)
Claim 10 Crane discloses the system as recited in claim 1, further comprising displaying a position of the token on a map of an office on the dashboard graphical user interface. (col. 37, lines 30-65; col. 38, lines 5-35; Figs.15 and 27)
Claim 11 Crane discloses the system as recited in claim 1, further comprising a designation element associated with the first inner room graphical user interface to indicate a presence of a user. (col. 37, lines 30-65; col. 38, lines 5-35; Fig.15 (1501-1503); and Fig. 27)
Claim 12 Crane discloses the system as recited in claim 11, wherein the designation element is operable to scan the token. (Fig. 15-card reader)
Claim 13 Crane discloses the system as recited in claim 12 as explained, but does not expressly disclose wherein the token comprises a RFID (Radio-Frequency Identification) token. Vojan teaches a system wherein the token includes RFID tokens (fig. 7A-C; par. 218-he analytics server may use radio-frequency identification (RFID) technology, in addition to other technology, to identify the locations of one or more accessories within a predetermined proximity to the radiotherapy machine…)
Claim 16. Crane disclose the method as recited in claim 15, as explained . Crane does not expressly disclose, but Vojan teaches wherein the status of the room on the first outer room graphical user interface comprises changing a color of a backlight which provides a colored penumbra about the first outer room graphical user interface. (par. 170: the color and intensity of the light may be customized by the technician and/or the system administrator. In some configurations, color/intensity could also be used to communicate different states of the controls or guide the user through the workflow described herein; par. 503: the analytics server may revise the status indicator of the graphical component 770 on the GUI, such as by changing the orange color to green or translucent. In another embodiment, when the technician moves the wrong accessory corresponding to the graphical indicator 774 away from the radiotherapy machine, the analytics server may revise the graphical indicator 774 by removing it, changing its color, shape, or any other manner that is visually distinct) At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the system of Crane with the teaching of Vojan to include the status of the room on the first outer room graphical user interface changing a color. One would have been motivated to include this feature to provide an easy visual indication that certain tasks in the treatment process have been completed. (Vojan: par. 31)
Claim 17. Crane discloses the system of claim 16 substantially as claimed. Crane further discloses that the inner/outer room display different information to/for the patient, (i.e. the first inner room graphical user interface operable to display actions associated with the treatment that are at a first confidentiality level and the first outer room graphical user interface operable to display actions associated with the treatment that are at a second confidentiality level-col. 23, lines 15-20-test room data displayed; diagnostic roomcol. 25, lines 50-56; col. 26, lines 35-54-display room for patient to next precede (pharmacy, coordinator, test room)
Crane does not expressly disclose a system wherein there are differential confidentiality levels (i.e. the rooms have a first and second confidentiality levels, wherein the second confidentiality level is greater than the first confidentiality level.
Vojan discloses a patient information system for providing differential access and for displaying information regarding patient treatment based levels of access allowed by user credentials. (par. 76-the analytics server 110 may adjust what the user is able to view, adjust, and control based on the user's authorization level… if a medical technician were to sign-in to the console monitors 150 the analytics server 110 may only allow the medical technician to see the treatment plan. The analytics server 110 may conceal the patient's medical information that is not relevant to the radiation treatment from the medical technician.)
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Crane with the teaching of Vojan to provide differential access/ confidentiality in the display of patient data. One would have been motivated to include this feature to ensure HIPAA compliance while allowing parties to access the information they need to facilitate patient care.
Claim 18. Crain teaches a method further comprising displaying an action of the sequence of actions associated with a room status treatment sequence for a patient on the first inner room graphical user interface, (col. 17, lines 5-10-scheduling status displayed; col. 25, lines 15-20-patient and employee status; col. 31, lines 1-20-displaying the status/status change of the patient displayed, status of tests performed displayed on patient displayed) wherein each of the multiple of choices are the only choices available for that action in the sequence of actions, the action associated with the status of the room wherein displaying the action (col. 17, lines 5-10-scheduling status displayed; col. 25, lines 15-20-patient and employee status; col. 31, lines 1-20-displaying the status/status change of the patient displayed, status of tests performed displayed on patient displayed; See also col. 29, lines 60-col. 30 lines 2 for status of room, patient and employee updated by the server and stored)
Crane does not expressly disclose a system, but Vojan teaches a method further comprising: displaying a multiple of choices depicted by a multiple of buttons on the first inner room graphical user interface, wherein displaying the multiple of choices as a multiple of buttons on the first inner room graphical user interface, .(fig. 4D; par. 255- display graphical indicator 427D representing a safety feature associated with the treatment room. Safety features associated with the treatment room can include closing the door of the treatment room before the treatment is commenced, locking the position of the couch in the treatment room, hanging the pendant in the treatment room; par. 265- The progress indicator 434D may be displayed on the bottom of the page 400d horizontally. The analytics server indicates the current stage of the workflow 4341D (e.g., Stage Two, Room Setup). The current stage of the workflow is emphasized, for example, by the analytics server because the server displays the current stage of the workflow 4341D in a different color (e.g., white) from the other stages of the workflow (e.g., grey))
Furthermore, Crane does not expressly disclose a system, but Vojan teaches that each of the multiple of buttons labeled with an icon and text. (fig. 4D; par. 255- display graphical indicator 427D representing a safety feature associated with the treatment room. Safety features associated with the treatment room can include closing the door of the treatment room before the treatment is commenced, locking the position of the couch in the treatment room, hanging the pendant in the treatment room; par. 265- The progress indicator 434D may be displayed on the bottom of the page 400d horizontally. The analytics server indicates the current stage of the workflow 4341D (e.g., Stage Two, Room Setup). The current stage of the workflow is emphasized, for example, by the analytics server because the server displays the current stage of the workflow 4341D in a different color (e.g., white) from the other stages of the workflow (e.g., grey); Fig. 6F)
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the system of Crane with the teaching of Vojan to include multiple of choices depicted by a multiple of buttons, and to include multiple of buttons comprising an icon and text One would have been motivated to include this feature to facilitate the input of information into the system and to provide an easy visual indication regarding status of certain tasks in the treatment process. (Vojan: par. 31)
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crane (US 5,748,907) in view of Vojan et al (US 20230211183 A1) as applied to claim 5, and in further view of McClaren et al (US 20100305973 A1)
Claim 6 Crane and Vojan do not expressly disclose, but McClaren teaches including a timer function to indicate time remaining for a process/procedure on a system GUI (par. 116: display a countdown timer for indicating the time remaining for a medical procedure, and this information may be transmitted in real-time to a medical information management system) At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Crane and Vojan in combination with the teaching of McClaren to include the option of displaying a timer function. (i.e. at least one of the multiple of choices comprise a timer function that displays a time remaining on the first outer room graphical user interface and the first inner room graphical user interface.) One would have been motivated to include this feature to provide a simple visual indication regarding workflow progress and time to complete certain tasks in the treatment process.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Nolte et al ( US 20140012597 A1)- graphical user interfaces for automatically populating a dashboard with aggregate data.
Scherpbier et al ( US 20080164998 A1)- A Workflow Management System is integrated with a Healthcare Information System and uses location tracking of patients, providers and resources in addition to relevant patient data in managing tasks of clinicians associated with care of a patient.
Good et al (US 20190082298 A1) discloses methods, apparatus, systems and articles of manufacture to facilitate proximity detection and location tracking. An example method includes receiving messages collected by a badge in an environment, the messages including signal strength and a timestamp.
Cannell et al (US 20190327161 A1) discusses real-time location systems (RTLS) monitor asset distribution and usage, providing actionable information to help control costs and improve the quality and efficiency of care. (Beacons; installing Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) or infrared (IR) reader infrastructures into buildings to capture position information). The location information indicates real-time locations of the plurality of beacon devices, and the health status information indicates real-time conditions of the plurality of beacon devices.
Xiao et al (US 20050060211 A1)-discloses coordinating the information regarding the status of rooms and patient care at a medical facility, and projecting the information on a magnetic whiteboard.
Binder et al (US 20240249025 A1)- discloses an integrated credential-based scalable communication system for providing remote access to a physical site. The system includes a dashboard in electronic communication with a server. The server is configured to receive an access request from a remote user, assign the remote user a credential having an access profile, and transmit an authorization request to the dashboard which displays it for approval by an authorizing agent. (par. 18: the system includes levels of access based on remoter user credentials that include at least one and, in some instances, more than two levels of credentialing in an access profile…the system provides for multiple levels of credentialing that include company level credentialing, hospital level credentialing, and in-suite level of credentialing; par. 20; par. 104-106: Levels of access that may be granted to a remote user based on the algorithm may include audio only, limited audio, visual or combination, partially screened/shielded audio, visual or combination, full audio visual access)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Rachel L Porter whose telephone number is (571)272-6775. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 10-6:30.
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, Shahid Merchant can be reached on 571-270-1360. 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.
/Rachel L. Porter/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3684