DETAILED ACTION
Continuation
This application is a continuation application of U.S. Application No. 17/655,808 filed on 22 March 2022, now abandoned. See MPEP §201.07. In accordance with MPEP §609.02(II)(A)(2) and MPEP §2001.06(b) (last paragraph), the Examiner has reviewed and considered the prior art cited in the Parent Application. In further accordance with MPEP §2001.06(b) (last paragraph), all documents cited or considered ‘of record’ in the Parent Application are now considered cited or ‘of record’ in this application.
Status
This Office Action is in response to the application filed on 29 May 2025 and Restriction Election filed 14 August 2026. Claims 1-20 have been cancelled currently or previously, no claims have been amended, and new claims 21-40 have been added. Election of Group I (claims 21-30) is made without traverse. Therefore, claims 21-40 are pending, claims 31-40 are withdrawn, and claims 21-30 are presented for examination.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 21-30, in the reply filed on 14 August 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 31-40 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention grouping, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 14 August 2026.
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 .
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 21-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Please see the following Subject Matter Eligibility (“SME”) analysis:
For analysis under SME Step 1, the claims herein are directed to a system, which would be classified under one of the listed statutory classifications (SME Step 1=Yes).
For analysis under revised SME Step 2A, Prong 1, independent claim 21 recites A system for virtual care management, comprising: a first device operated by a first caregiver in a clinical care environment, the first device comprising: at least one processor; a memory storing instructions which, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the first device to: provide a screen configurable by the first caregiver to create a virtual care request including a partial patient assessment; and receive a selection on the screen to submit the virtual care request; a plurality of cameras positioned in a patient room of the clinical care environment; a second device operated by a remote care provider located outside the clinical care environment, the second device comprising: at least one processor; a memory storing instructions which, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the second device to: receive the virtual care request including the partial patient assessment; display controls to accept the virtual care request; in response to receiving an acceptance of the virtual care request, provide a connection for the remote care provider to enter a virtual patient room with the first caregiver; enable control of the plurality of cameras by the remote care provider to adjust live video feeds during completion of the patient assessment; display a consultation notes box allowing the remote care provider to enter assessment notes during completion of the patient assessment; and save the assessment notes to an electronic medical record.
The dependent claims (claims 22-30) appear to be encompassed by the abstract idea of the independent claims since they merely indicate data included in the request and a source of that data, such as vitals and trends from bed or monitoring device, lab results, medication, or patient history from an EMR (claims 22-25), displaying remote provider configurable settings (i.e., role, hospital/clinic, unit, notification types) and routing the request based on role (claim 26), enable filtering by request type and location (claims 27), display active/inactive status of the remote provider (claim 28), display a timer setting a maximum time limit (claim 29), receive ID tag real-time location data for the patient and terminate the request if the received data does not match the request information (claim 30).
The underlined portions of the claims are an indication of elements additional to the abstract idea (to be considered below).
The claim elements may be summarized as the idea of enabling a care meeting, call, or conference and allowing transfer of the meeting, call, or conference controls; however, the Examiner notes that although this summary of the claims is provided, the analysis regarding subject matter eligibility considers the entirety of the claim elements, both individually and as a whole (or ordered combination). This idea is within at least the certain methods of organizing human activity (e.g., … commercial or legal interactions such as agreements, contracts, … or business relations; and/or managing personal behavior or relationships between people such as social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) grouping of subject matter.
Therefore, the claims are found to be directed to an abstract idea.
For analysis under revised SME Step 2A, Prong 2, the above judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements do not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception when evaluated individually and as a combination. The additional elements are a/the first device comprising: at least one processor; a memory storing instructions which, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the first device, a screen, a virtual care request, a plurality of cameras, a second device comprising: at least one processor; a memory storing instructions which, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the second device, enable control of the plurality of cameras by the remote care provider (at claim 21 and some dependent claims).
These additional elements do not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or technical field, effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (there is no medical disease or condition, much less a treatment or prophylaxis for one), implement the judicial exception with, or by using in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (there is no transformation/reduction of a physical article), and/or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generically linking use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
The Examiner notes that to enable control of the plurality of cameras by the remote care provider and camera and microphone controls are indicated at the claims, where this is understood to merely be the general implementation of devices to perform the abstract idea – a person can direct or control their view, or instruct another to get a better view, or instruct to move, focus, etc. a camera or microphone so as to communicate information desired. Since the recitations are to the general use of generic equipment or devices, it is considered insignificant as merely applying the abstract idea by use of a generic tool.
The claims appear to merely apply the judicial exception, include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. The additional elements appear to merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception and/or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
The claims appear to merely use general purpose or generic computers for scheduling/accepting an appointment, with the use of cameras(s) and/or microphones used for their intended purpose without any indication of invention or discovery. Aside from the use of devices (claimed and remote) to log in, use menus, enter and/or select information, and the indication of a virtual care request, the claims appear to encompass in person, written, or verbal communication of particular information.
For analysis under SME Step 2B, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, as indicated above, are merely “[a]dding the words ‘apply it’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp.” that MPEP § 2106.05(I)(A) indicates to be insignificant activity.
The Examiner further notes that merely using a video call or conference for virtual visits, telemedicine, or telehealth is also considered known, typical, and/or conventional based on the indications at least at Wang, Hyde, Waage, Neff, and Cheevers as at the pertinent prior art below.
There is no indication the Examiner can find in the record regarding any specialized computer hardware or other “inventive” components, but rather, the claims merely indicate computer components which appear to be generic components and therefore do not satisfy an inventive concept that would constitute “significantly more” with respect to eligibility. Applicant ¶ 0057 indicates both the devices may be generic computers (e.g., a laptop, tablet, desktop, and/or smartphone).
The individual elements therefore do not appear to offer any significance beyond the application of the abstract idea itself, and there does not appear to be any additional benefit or significance indicated by the ordered combination, i.e., there does not appear to be any synergy or special import to the claim as a whole other than the application of the idea itself.
The dependent claims, as indicated above, appear encompassed by the abstract idea since they merely limit the idea itself; therefore, the dependent claims do not add significantly more than the idea.
Therefore, SME Step 2B=No, any additional elements, whether taken individually or as an ordered whole in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, including analysis of the dependent claims.
Please see the Subject Matter Eligibility (SME) guidance and instruction materials at https://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/subject-matter-eligibility, which includes the latest guidance, memoranda, and update(s) for further information.
NOTICE
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 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.
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 21-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naidoo et al. (U.S. Patent No. 7,185,282, hereinafter Naidoo) in view of Buetter et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0267582, hereinafter Buetter).
Claim 21: Naidoo discloses a system for virtual care management, comprising:
a first device operated by a first caregiver in a clinical care environment (see Naidoo at least at, e.g., column:lines 6:50-56, caregiver computer, 5:35-38, healthcare provider computer; citation hereafter by number only), the first device comprising:
at least one processor (6:50-56, 5:35-38);
a memory storing instructions which, when executed by the at least one processor (6:50-56, 5:44-53), cause the first device to:
provide a screen configurable by the first caregiver to create a virtual care request including a partial patient assessment (23:12-28, “if a caregiver located at the caregiver provider station 14 wishes to initiate a remote caregiving session, the caregiver would first access the video conference application server 82 through the web sever [sic] 76. The caregiver would then provide identifying information, for example, a user name and/or password to the video conference application server 82. In turn, the video conference application server 82 would compare the provided identifying information to a list of authorized persons maintained in the video conference authorization database 92. Typically, the video conference authorization database 92 would include a series of entries, each identifying a user who is authorized to conduct a healthcare or remote caregiving session and the patient with whom the user is authorized to conduct such a session. Preferably, each entry would also identify the level of access to the patient station 12 granted to that user”, 30:23-27, “a requesting station, for example, the healthcare provider station 14 or the caregiver provider station 16 accesses, via the data network 22 and the web server 76, the event scheduling application server 80 to initiate scheduling of a remote session with the patient station 12”, 30:38-44, “it is contemplated that, when accessing the event scheduling application server 80, a list of previously scheduled events, sortable by patient, date and time of session and duration of session, will be retrieved from the event schedule database 90 and made available for review by the home health provider located at the requesting station” – indicating patient identification, 30:45-48. “To schedule a remote event, the requesting station should provide, to the event scheduling application server 80, the type of remote session to be scheduled, the patient station 12 with which the remote session will be conducted”, etc. – indicating the request type); and
receive a selection on the screen to submit the virtual care request (30:29-36, “it is contemplated that a remote session may be scheduled contemporaneously. The requesting station provides the event scheduling application server 80 with information regarding the proposed remote session and, if there are no previously scheduled remote sessions that would conflict with the proposed remote session, the event scheduling application server 80 would schedule the remote session”);
a second device operated by a remote care provider located outside the clinical care environment (6:50-56, 5:35-38), the second device comprising:
at least one processor (6:50-56, 5:35-38);
a memory storing instructions which, when executed by the at least one processor (6:50-56, 5:35-38), cause the second device to:
receive the virtual care request including the partial patient assessment (23:12-28, 30:23-27, 30:38-44, 30:45-48);
accept the virtual care request (30:30-36, “The requesting station provides the event scheduling application server 80 with information regarding the proposed remote session and, if there are no previously scheduled remote sessions that would conflict with the proposed remote session, the event scheduling application server 80 would schedule the remote session”);
in response to receiving an acceptance of the virtual care request, provide a connection for the remote care provider to enter a virtual patient room with the first caregiver (31:31-34, “Proceeding on to step 202, the video conference application server 82 establishes a two-way video and audio connection between the requesting station and the patient station and, at step 204, the remote session is conducted”);
display a consultation notes box allowing the remote care provider to enter assessment notes during completion of the patient assessment (23:50-58, “the physician or other healthcare professional may also add additional information to the electronic patient record. For example, a physician or other healthcare professional 14 who retrieved the electronic patient record for a patient in connection with a telemedicine or other healthcare session may wish to add a diagnosis, course of treatment, protocols, response to protocols and other notes to the electronic patient record either during or at the conclusion of the telemedicine or other healthcare session”); and
save the assessment notes to an electronic medical record (23:50-58).
Naidoo, however, does not appear to explicitly disclose a plurality of cameras positioned in a patient room of the clinical care environment; display controls to accept the virtual care request, and enable control of the plurality of cameras by the remote care provider to adjust live video feeds during completion of the patient assessment. Where Naidoo appears to automatically accept the scheduling request upon meeting the appropriate criteria (as cited above), Buetter, though, teaches to “provide a communication arrangement including a room having at least one communication device therein, with the at least one communication device receiving in-room images, in-room video and/or in-room audio within the room” (Buetter at ¶ 0004; citations hereafter by number only), where a person can “accept the request for communication … [or] not accept the request for communication” (Buetter at 0026 – indicating use of manual acceptance), “allow a remote user with the PC 58 to remotely control the PTZ room camera” (Buetter at 0020), including where “a person remote from the first medical room 12 attempts to communicate with the first medical room 12 by viewing images from the in-room camera 62 (or multiple in-room cameras 62), from the surgical device camera 34 (or multiple surgical device cameras 34), from the PTZ room camera 36 (or multiple PTZ room cameras 36), from the in-light video camera 42 (or multiple in-light video cameras 42) or from any other image taken in the room or by speaking with the people in the first medical room using a microphone 54 (or other microphones (e.g., in a telephone))” (Buetter at 0025) so that “the privacy setting could be conditional such that it could only be activated when one or more conditions (or attributes) are met or that the privacy setting could be partially turned on to allow some communications (e.g., teleconference), but not all communications (e.g., not allowing images or video to be sent from the room)” (Buetter at 0029). Therefore, the Examiner understands and finds that to use manual acceptance, a plurality of cameras, and provide remote control of the cameras are each applying a known technique to a known device, method, or product ready for improvement to yield predictable results so as to provide user control as appropriate to allow effective communication and security.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine or modify the remote care of Naidoo with the acceptance, cameras, and control of Buetter in order to use manual acceptance, a plurality of cameras, and provide remote control of the cameras so as to provide user control as appropriate to allow effective communication and security.
The rationale for combining in this manner is that to use manual acceptance, a plurality of cameras, and provide remote control of the cameras are each applying a known technique to a known device, method, or product ready for improvement to yield predictable results so as to provide user control as appropriate to allow effective communication and security as explained above.
Claim 22: Naidoo in view of Buetter discloses the system of claim 21, wherein the virtual care request includes current vital signs and trends acquired from patient monitoring devices (Naidoo at 6:9-11, “vital signs or other indicators of the health of the patient in both real-time and store-and-forward modes”, 9:13-19, “The database management services provided by the system management station 20 includes the scheduling of healthcare, caregiver and/or educational sessions for a patient located at the patient station 12 and the scheduling of data collection times at which the vital signs and/or other health indices of a patient located at the patient station 12 are to be measured”, 9:60-62, “measure their vital signs or other indices of their health using various monitoring devices forming part of the patient station” – where “other indices … using monitoring devices” would include or encompass trends in such data).
Claim 23: Naidoo in view of Buetter discloses the system of claim 22, wherein the patient monitoring devices include at least one of a hospital bed and a vital signs monitoring device (Naidoo at 9:60-62, “measure their vital signs or other indices of their health using various monitoring devices forming part of the patient station”).
Claim 24: Naidoo in view of Buetter discloses the system of claim 21, wherein the virtual care request includes one or more of: laboratory results; medication information; and medical history of the patient (Naidoo at 20:27-38, “the system management station 20 includes plural servers, specifically, web server 76, telehealth services provider application server 78, event scheduling application server 80, video conferencing application server 82, electronic patient record ("EPR") management application server 84, medical device application server 96 and database array management server 96 and plural databases, specifically, questionnaire database 86, telehealth media content database 88 event schedule database 90, video conferencing authorization database 92 and electronic patient records database 94, which collectively comprises the database array 26” – where the EPR would include or encompass lab results, medications, and history).
Claim 25: Naidoo in view of Buetter discloses the system of claim 24, wherein the laboratory results, the medication information, and the medical history of the patient are acquired from the electronic medical record (Naidoo at 20:27-38).
Claim 26: Naidoo in view of Buetter discloses the system of claim 21, wherein the second device further comprises instructions which, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the second device to: display role settings configurable by the remote care provider including: a role designation; hospital and clinic assignments; unit assignments within the hospitals and clinics; and notification types for receiving virtual care requests; and wherein the virtual care request is routed through a communications network to the second device based on the role settings (Naidoo at 22:28-50, “event scheduling application server 80 may be used to schedule various types of events, for example, telemedicine, telehealth, or caregiver sessions for the patient located at the patient station 12. Another type of event which may be scheduled using the event scheduling application server 80 are reminders of any of the aforementioned types of events. A user, for example, a physician or other healthcare professional located at the healthcare provider station 14, scheduling an event would access the event scheduling application server 80 through the web server 76. The user would then generate an entry for storage in the event schedule database 90. Typically, such an entry would include the type of event, the time at which the event is to occur, and the location of the event. Preferably, the entries maintained in the event schedule database 90 would be sortable by both the time at which the event shall occur and the patient for which the event has been scheduled. By doing so, a subsequent user accessing the event scheduling application server 80, for example, a caregiver located at the caregiver provider station 16 may review the schedule of events for the patient and may avoid scheduling a prospective remote caregiving session at a time which conflicts with a previously scheduled healthcare session”).
Claim 27: Naidoo in view of Buetter discloses the system of claim 21, wherein the second device further comprises instructions which, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the second device to: enable the remote care provider to filter receipt of virtual care requests by: request type; and location of the clinical care environment; and wherein the virtual care request is routed through a communications network to the second device based on the request type and the location of the clinical care environment (Naidoo at 22:34-41, “for example, a physician or other healthcare professional located at the healthcare provider station 14, scheduling an event would access the event scheduling application server 80 through the web server 76. The user would then generate an entry for storage in the event schedule database 90. Typically, such an entry would include the type of event, the time at which the event is to occur, and the location of the event”).
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naidoo in view of Buetter in further view of Kozicki et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0156293, hereinafter Kozicki).
Claim 28: Naidoo in view of Buetter discloses the system of claim 21, but does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the second device further comprises instructions which, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the second device to: display an activation switch that, when selected, indicates the remote care provider is active to receive virtual care requests, and when unselected, indicates the remote care provider is inactive and does not receive virtual care requests; and wherein the virtual care request is routed through a communications network to the second device only when the activation switch is selected. Kozicki, however, teaches “providing a customized virtual health care solution for a user … and 5) personalize the virtual lobby interface to the user in accordance with the completed health care questionnaire” (Kozicki a t0013), where “a health care practitioner may utilize virtual queue interface 1302 to indicate whether he or she is open for virtual consultations. For example, the health care practitioner may select an availability status (i.e., whether the health care practitioner is open for virtual consultations or whether the health care practitioner is busy and not available for virtual consultations) utilizing drop-down menu 1308 and/or in any other manner as may serve a particular implementation. In some examples, session management facility 302 may detect an indication by a health care practitioner that the health care practitioner is not open for virtual consultations and accordingly prevent the health care practitioner from being assigned to a virtual health care session” (Kozicki at 0074). Therefore, the Examiner understands and finds that to display and use an activation switch for availability of virtual care is applying a known technique to a known device, method, or product ready for improvement to yield predictable results so as to provide customization and personalization of a virtual visit with available are providers.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine or modify the remote care of Naidoo in view of Buetter with the availability selection of Kozicki in order to display and use an activation switch for availability of virtual care so as to provide customization and personalization of a virtual visit with available are providers.
The rationale for combining in this manner is that to display and use an activation switch for availability of virtual care is applying a known technique to a known device, method, or product ready for improvement to yield predictable results so as to provide customization and personalization of a virtual visit with available are providers as explained above.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naidoo in view of Buetter in further view of Gupta et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0034592, hereinafter Gupta).
Claim 29: Naidoo in view of Buetter discloses the system of claim 21, but does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the first device further comprises instructions which, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the first device to: display a timer that is configured based on a request type of the virtual care request, the timer setting a maximum time limit for taking clinical action to minimize patient deterioration. Gupta, however, teaches to “analyze an electronic health care record of at least one patient at a first point in time, identify a medical treatment action item in view of the analyzed electronic health care record, and prompt a user confirmation of the identified medical treatment action item. If the identified medical treatment action item is confirmed, the at least one processor-based device is also configured to: set a countdown timer for performance of the identified medical treatment action item, and await user confirmation that the identified medical treatment action item is completed before the expiration of the countdown timer” (Gupta at 0003), “The system implements countdown timers for each step of a treatment protocol and communicates to medical personnel that necessary action items relating to each step of a treatment protocol are not complete until a member of the health care provider team confirms completion of the protocol in a step-by-step manner” (Gupta at 0019), “The value of the countdown timer should be set to define a realistic time duration for a reasonably diligent medical team to complete the action item in expected working conditions and may also depend on the severity of the patient conditions being treated” (Gupta at 0053). Therefore, the Examiner understands and finds that to display a timer for a maximum time for taking action is applying a known technique to a known device, method, or product ready for improvement to yield predictable results so as to assure that the treatment is provided and documented on record.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine or modify the remote care of Naidoo in view of Buetter with the timer of Gupta in order to display a timer for a maximum time for taking action so as to assure that the treatment is provided and documented on record.
The rationale for combining in this manner is that to display a timer for a maximum time for taking action is applying a known technique to a known device, method, or product ready for improvement to yield predictable results so as to assure that the treatment is provided and documented on record as explained above.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naidoo in view of Buetter in further view of Sweeney (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0137680) and in still further view of Yu et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0060579, hereinafter Yu).
Claim 30: Naidoo in view of Buetter discloses the system of claim 21, but does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the first device further comprises instructions which, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the first device to: receive real-time locating system (RTLS) data identifying a tag worn by the patient or attached to a device associated with the patient; and terminate the virtual care request when the RTLS data does not match an identity of the patient entered in the virtual care request. Where Naidoo discloses a device associated with the patient that also associated with the patient identification and patient location (Naidoo at 24:20-25), Sweeney teaches “The patient wristband 125 comprises a wristband on which is stored a unique patient identification code and an integrated RTLS tag for wirelessly sharing the patient's identification code with the patient-centric care management system 100” (Sweeney at 0095). Yu further teaches “review the request, match the patient identifier with the patient's name, locate any file(s) that satisfy the criteria, … [and] approve or deny the request based one or more of the above, and/or send the approval or denial to the main server system” (Yu at 0255). Although Yu is discussing file requests, the discussion is in the patient and medical field and requesting access to file is analogous to accessing virtual care. Therefore, the Examiner understands and finds that to check identification based on a user tag or device so as to deny an access request when confirmation is not successful is applying known techniques to known device(s), method(s), or product(s) ready for improvement to yield predictable results so as to assure a/the correct and approved patient is eligible for virtual care.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine or modify the remote care of Naidoo in view of Buetter with the identification and denial techniques of Sweeney and Yu in order to check identification based on a user tag or device so as to deny an access request when confirmation is not successful so as to assure a/the correct and approved patient is eligible for virtual care.
The rationale for combining in this manner is that to check identification based on a user tag or device so as to deny an access request when confirmation is not successful is applying known techniques to known device(s), method(s), or product(s) ready for improvement to yield predictable results so as to assure a/the correct and approved patient is eligible for virtual care as explained above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
PTZOptics Telemedicine Cart Project, dated 5 December 2019, downloaded from https://ptzoptics.com/ptzoptics-telemedicine-cart-project/ on 14 May 2026, indicating the described system includes a “A PTZOptics camera, which allows a physician to remotely zoom into specific areas of interest in high definition” and “allows for the integration of a remotely controlled PTZOptics video conferencing camera that doctors can operate from almost anywhere in the world” (at p. 2).
Olagoke et al., "Literature Survey on Multi-Camera System and Its Application," in IEEE Access, vol. 8, pp. 172892-172922, 2020, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3024568. downloaded 14 May 2026 from https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/9200313, indicating “A multi-camera system combines features from different cameras to exploit a scene of an event to increase the output image quality…. We also survey the recent developments and advancements in four areas of multi-camera system applications, which are surveillance, sports, education, and mobile phones. In the surveillance system, the combination of multiple heterogeneous cameras and the discovery of Pan-Tilt-Zoom (PTZ) and smart cameras have brought tremendous achievements in the area of multi-camera control and coordination” (at Abstract).
Wang et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0182377, hereinafter Wang) indicates that “[a] typical representative of the remote video systems is, for example, a remote video conference system or a remote medical care system in which a video capture unit and a video display unit are placed in at least two terminals, respectively, and the terminals are made able to communicate with each other by employing a wired or wireless communication unit so that users of the terminals may acquire real-time or off-line videos from each other” (Wang at 0004).
Hyde et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0119652, hereinafter Hyde) indicates that “It will be appreciated that a patient or caregiver can use the smartphone in video conferencing mode to communicate with a medical care provider at a remote location (hospital 340). If it is desired to image a portion of the patient's body other than the portion visible while the patient is speaking to the medical care provider via the smart phone video conference, the patient or caregiver can temporarily halt or pause the video conference and aim the handheld unit toward the portion of the body to be imaged in order to obtain the desired image. Lighting provided by controllable compound light sources 308 and 310 can be controlled at least in part by electrical control circuitry located at hospital 340, to provide lighting conditions to obtain the desired medical information from the acquired image, as described elsewhere herein. Communication between handheld unit 300 and a medical monitoring system at hospital 340 can be carried out over a cellular network 346 (it will be appreciated that cellular network 346 may include one or more base stations and/or transceivers between handheld unit 300 and hospital 346, as are well known to those of ordinary skill in the art” (Hyde at 0069).
Waage et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0005832, hereinafter Waage) indicates that “Video conference have been used in a variety of applications. It has e.g. been used for remote participation in educational situations, where students follow a lesson or a lecture simply by having established a conventional video conference connection to the auditorium or class room. However, this has a limited presence effect both for the remote participants, and the perception of presence of the remote participants from the point of view of the physically present participants. Some other applications have used robotic tele-presence systems for providing a better remote presence, but these applications have traditionally been adjusted to other purposes than education, e.g. remote medical care and remote (Waage at 0004).
Neff et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0066414, hereinafter Neff) indicates that ‘Warm handoffs have become increasingly common with voice phone calls in call centers. Expanding this concept to telehealth and providing warm handoffs in the case of video calls is even more important. Discussing health is extremely personal, and it is already challenging to shift that discussion to electronic mediums. By providing warm handoffs between practitioners, the patient is afforded extra comfort with the technology that is imperative when delivering healthcare via this medium” (Neff at 0016).
Cheevers (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0224736) indicates that “telemedicine, or virtual doctor visits, are increasingly popular especially in situations where epidemics or sheer distances prevent in-person visits. A typical virtual doctor visit involves a doctor in one location holding a video conference with a caregiver and patient at another location. The caregiver may be using a personal computer, smart phone, or tablet to establish the video conference; furthermore, the caregiver is probably using that device's camera to converse with the doctor. A problem arises when the caregiver needs to train the camera on the patient, perhaps to show a skin rash, enlarged tonsils, or other conditions, while simultaneously trying to maintain a dialog with the doctor” (Cheevers at 0023), where “What is needed is a system and method for controlling an authorized device's camera and light settings during a virtual doctor visit” (Cheevers at 0025), such that “A system and method in accordance with the present disclosure allows the control of an authorized device's camera and light settings during a virtual doctor visit” (Cheevers at 0026).
Noted as previously of record:
Freeman (U.S. Patent No. 4,420,656), from 1983, indicates that “Touch-Tone Telephone Systems are well-known and extend throughout the United States” (Freeman at 1:24-25; citation herein by number only), “Interrogation systems, or multiple choice selectible [sic] response systems are well known, such as exemplified” by a significant list of art (Freeman at 1:42-56) and “Call-forwarding may be accomplished in the present invention by prerecording the dialing code of the number to which the call is to be forwarded as the ultimate branch response, with the caller providing a unique signal corresponding to a dial tone prior to the prerecorded dialing code being provided to a conventional call forwarding dialer” (Freeman at 3:30-36).
Kennedy, U.S. Patent No. 7,715,790) indicates that “call forwarding is a well known [sic] feature of many telephone systems. Call forwarding of a telephone system allows a user of a phone at a given phone number to dial a specific sequence on the phone to cause the telephone system to forward incoming calls addressed to the phone number to another specified phone number indicated by the dialed sequence. After call forwarding is turned on, the telephone system automatically forwards the calls until another sequence is dialed on the phone to turn off call forwarding. For example, on a phone at (321) 890-7654 a user may dial sequence #967*1230984567, which includes access code #967* for turning on call forwarding and the target phone number (123) 098-4567, to which the calls are forwarded” (Kennedy at 1:21-35)
Galenski et al (U.S. Patent No. 4,665,545, hereinafter Galenski) indicates that “Host switch 105 receives this code and initiates the well-known call transfer routine” (Galenski at 4:43-44).
Hanle et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,012,511, hereinafter Hanle) indicates “Call Forwarding, a popular custom calling or special service in telephone networks, has been offered in Stored Program Control (SPC) switching systems for many years” (Hanle at 1:13-16) Conventional Call Forwarding provides an access code and a series of tone prompts to guide the customer through the Call Forwarding programming sequence” (Hanle at 2:32-35).
Teladoc How It Works page, dated 15 March 2020, downloaded 21 March 2024 via Archive.org WayBack Machine at https://web.archive.org/web/20200315031019/https://www.teladoc.com/how-it-works/, indicating Teledoc is/was an application that can be downloaded and is for scheduling remote care appointments with various “doctors, therapists, and specialists” (at 2).
Doctor On Demand homepage, dated 15 March 2020, downloaded 21 March 2024 via Archive.org WayBack Machine at https://web.archive.org/web/20200315023713/https://doctorondemand.com/, indicating “The CDC is recommending video visits to help avoid exposure and reduce the risk of being exposed to germs in the waiting room” (at 1), and a person can “Connect with a doctor over live video in minutes. Available 24/7, nights and weekends” (at 1).
Ballantyne et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,871,889, hereinafter Ballantyne) indicates “Disclosed is a tele-presence system that includes a remote device coupled to a control station through a communication link. The remote device includes a remote monitor, a remote camera, a remote speaker and a remote microphone. Likewise, the control station includes a station monitor, a station camera, a station speaker and a station microphone. The control station displays a plurality of graphical icons that each represents a different type of communication link between the remote device and its initial node. The graphical icons can be selected to allow a user of the control station to change that communication link.” (Ballantyne at 1:51-60).
Cashman et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20130173587, hereinafter Cashman ‘287) describes “A medical kiosk designed to provide tele-med services, check-in services, and/or prescription services for a user. The medical kiosk can include a user video conferencing system that is designed to enable the user to have a real-time or near real-time tele-conference with a medical provider located remotely from the medical kiosk.” (at Abstract).
Zebra Technologies, It’s All in the Wrist: Improving Patient Safety with Bar Code Wristbands, Application White Paper, Copyrighted 2004, downloaded from https://s26142.pcdn.co/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/patient-wristbands.pdf on 24 October 2024, indicating that the “most healthcare administrators are well aware of the Institute of Medicine report To Err is Human: Building a Safer Health System … [which] helped motivate the FDA to create its first requirement for pharmaceutical bar code labeling at the unit-of-use level” (at p. 1, Executive Summary).
Bekker (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0107637) indicates that “Identification bands such as wristbands or bracelets and the like are commonly used to identify individual patients in a hospital or other medical facility. The identification band is normally imprinted with patient identification information such as patient name, room number, patient identification (ID) number, etc., and then secured about the patient's wrist or the like at the time of admission to the medical facility. Thereafter, in the course of patient treatment, the identification band is used to confirm and verify patient identity thereby insuring that each specific patient receives the appropriate treatment, pharmaceuticals, laboratory tests, surgical procedures, etc.” (Bekker at 0002).
Schneider et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0074493, hereinafter Schneider) indicates that “clinicians will typically verbally confirm two or more identifiers in order to check for "the correct patient." In recent years, hospitals and clinics have moved over to electronic methods for positive patient identification, most notably "barcode technology" such as bar code wristbands or labels for both patients and their medications. These labels are checked by medical professionals before the administration of a drug or medical procedure. This is a reasonable process considering that patients are subject to multiple procedures, medicines and movements within a fast-paced and high-volume medical facility.” (Schneider at 0028).
Joao (U.S. Patent No. 11,587,688) discusses “An apparatus, including a memory or a database which stores an electronic healthcare record of or for an individual or a patient a comment, note, or message, in advance of a video call, and information regarding an appointment for or regarding the video call; a processor which generates an appointment message or reminder message containing information regarding the appointment and containing a link or hyperlink for initiating the video call, wherein the video call is initiated via the link or the hyperlink; a receiver which receives information regarding the individual or the patient during the video call, receives information input into or entered into a provider communication device or a user communication device, wherein the processor or a computer generates a report containing information regarding the video call; and a transmitter, wherein the transmitter transmits the report to the user communication device” (at Abstract), and “the apparatus and method of the present invention can be utilized to facilitate and/or to conduct remote or virtual healthcare provider visits, consultations, and/or examinations, via and/or through the use of video calls, video chat sessions, and/or videoconferences, with and between an individual, a patient, and/or a caregiver for the individual or the patient. The apparatus and method of the present invention can also be utilized to schedule remote or virtual provider visits, consultations, and/or examinations, via and/or through the use of video calls, video chat sessions, and/or videoconferences, with and between an individual, a patient, and/or a caregiver for the individual or the patient” (at 17:65-18:9).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT D GARTLAND whose telephone number is (571)270-5501. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 AM - 5 PM.
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, Kambiz Abdi can be reached on 571-272-6702. 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.
/SCOTT D GARTLAND/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3685
Prosecution Insights