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 .
DETAILED ACTION
The response received on June 29, 2026 has been placed in the file and was considered by the examiner. An action on the merit follows.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed on 2026 June 29 have been fully considered. Response to these amendments is provided below.
Summary of Amendment/ Arguments and Examiner’s Response:
The applicant has amended the claims to overcome the 112 rejection. On pages 9 and 10 of the remarks, the applicant argues that Williams does not teach “to create matched identified specific visual elements of the image that show an operating parameter….response event”, because Williams discloses identifying devices laying statically on the table and does not disclose that the camera/ computer can be used to document devices in use.
The examiner disagrees. If the applicant intends for the device to be used in a particular matter, the applicant should provide such limitations in the claim. However, as currently claimed, the applicant only requires the specific visual elements show: an operating parameter of a medical item OR device performing a does event OR the specific visual elements of the image that show a measurement of a response event. As disclosed in the previous rejection, Williams discloses the visual elements show the specific visual elements of the image that show a measurement of a response event, the response event being the response from capturing image data and starting the process of fig. 8a, specific visual elements being the visual elements of the image that show measurements in fig. 8a, including the visual elements matched in fig. 8A, items 713 and decoded in 707. Furthermore, one could also arguably state that the specific visual elements show an operating parameter of a medical item, because the medical item is identified as usable in the operating of fig. 8A, item 715. Therefore, Williams, in fact, discloses the claimed elements in multiple ways.
On pages 11-12, the applicant argues that Williams does not disclose the use of time stamps.
The examiner disagrees with the applicant’s arguments. Again, if the applicant wishes for something to the claims, the applicant must explicitly provide the limitations in the claim. Currently, the claim states “add time stamps” OR “other indicators of time”. As explained in the previous action, the information is added to the system (fig. 8a, item 717, page 3, paragraph 40), which includes indicators of time, i.e. procedure date, date of birth (page 7, paragraph 68).
ON pages 12-13, the applicant argues that additional references do not cure the deficiencies of Williams.
Since there are no deficiencies to cure, the prior art rejection is provided below.
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.
Claims 1, 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication NO. 20170185717 (Williams) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No.2022001235 (Davison et al).
Regarding claim 1, Williams et al discloses an automated data consolidation module including a system to receive and record data produced by electronic and electromechanical medical equipment (fig. 1), the automated data consolidation module comprising: a module, i.e. and ipad (fig. 1, item 100, page 4, paragraph 45); and at least one portable digital camera configured to produce digital data, a camera (page 4, paragraph 45); processing circuitry in wired or wireless electrical communication with the portable digital camera to receive the digital data, wherein the digital data is automatically delivered to the processing circuitry and software, i.e. the processing system (page 4, paragraphs 44-45), and wherein the processing circuitry and software is configured to interpret the digital data by: performing artificial intelligence (AI) analysis (fig. 8a) to identify specific visual elements of an image of the digital data, i.e. the matched decoded captured image (fig. 8a, item 713) by matching a subject image of the digital data (fig. 8a, item 705) to known images stored in an image library, the GUDID (fig. 8a, item 713), to create identified matched specific visual elements of the image, the matched decoded captured image (fig. 8a, item 713), wherein the matched identified specific visual elements of the image show an operating parameter of a medical item, i.e. if the item will be used (fig. 8a, item 715) or device performing dose events or the specific visual elements of the image that show a measurement of a response event, (i.e. response event from capturing image data and starting the process of fig. 8a); add time stamps or other indicators of time to the identified specific visual elements by adding the information to the EHR/EMR system (fig. 8a, item 717, page 3, paragraph 40), or the other databases of fig. 8a, item 720, 721 (page 7, paragraph 69) which includes indicators of time (page 7, paragraph 68) so that the digital data can be temporally correlated during subsequent big data or clinical decision support analysis (page 7, paragraph 69, fig. 8a, item 721), and automatically save information provided by the matched specific visual elements of the image or the image itself to an electronic record or database (fig. 8a, item 721, 720, 717).
Williams et al does not disclose expressly modules are part of a network of automated data consolidation modules, the network of modules comprising two or more modules, wherein the two or more modules are in electronic communication with each other forming the network of automated consolidation modules, wherein the two or more modules are configured to sequentially interface with a patient as the patient passes through a healthcare institution, and wherein the two or more modules are configured to communicate directly with each other through the network as the patient passes through the healthcare institution; wherein the two or more modules are configured to directly transfer a patient data set through the network of two or more modules to a currently interfacing module of the two or more modules when the currently interfacing module is interfacing with the patient from a previously interfacing module of the two or more modules after the previously interfacing module interfaces with the patient, and wherein the two or more modules are configured to transmit the patient data set by bypassing an electronic medical record of the healthcare institution while transferring patient data from the previously interfacing module to the currently interfacing module.
Davison et al discloses modules (fig. 1, items 130) are part of a network of automated data consolidation modules (fig. 1), the network of modules comprising two or more modules (fig. 1, item 130-1-130-n), wherein the two or more modules are in electronic communication with each other forming the network of automated consolidation modules (fig. 1), wherein the two or more modules are configured to sequentially interface with a patient as the patient passes through a healthcare institution (fig. 3B, page 6, paragraph 49, patient moves to different modules), and wherein the two or more modules are configured to communicate directly with each other through the network as the patient passes through the healthcare institution (fig. 3B, fig. 4f); wherein the two or more modules are configured to directly transfer a patient data set through the network of two or more modules (fig. 4F, item 400) to a currently interfacing module of the two or more modules (fig. 4F, P1”) when the currently interfacing module is interfacing with the patient from a previously interfacing module of the two or more modules after the previously interfacing module interfaces with the patient (fig. 4F, P1), and wherein the two or more modules are configured to transmit the patient data set (fig. 4F, item 436) by bypassing an electronic medical record of the healthcare institution (fig. 4F, bypasses item 423) while transferring patient data from the previously interfacing module to the currently interfacing module (fig. 4F, item 436).
Williams and Davison et al are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor, i.e. medical data collection.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use a direct communication to transfer data.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to provide a more secure system by not relying on the database system.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the module of Williams with network of modules of Davison et al to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, Davison et al discloses the two or more modules are locatable at patient care locations throughout an institutional healthcare setting, including one or more of an operating room (OR), i.e. surgical center (page 3, paragraph 26), an emergency department (ED), i.e. emergency room (page 3, paragraph 26), an intensive care unit (ICU), a ward, a radiology department, i.e. imaging center (page 3, paragraph 25), a physical therapy department, a laboratory, and a long-term care department, i.e. nursing home (page 3, paragraph 26).
Regarding claim 5, Davison et al discloses the two or more modules are configured to interface with a patient as the patient passes through the healthcare institution (Page 6, paragraph 49), and wherein the two or more modules are configured to communicate with each other through the network of automated consolidation modules (fig. 1, fig. 4F).
Regarding claim 6, Davison et al discloses the two or more modules are configured to: determine a first module of the two or more modules with which the patient is interfacing by determining the second location of the patient and their data being entered (fig. 4F, item 433); determine a second module of the two or more modules with which the patient was interfacing, i.e. where the patient was previously (fig. 4F, item 413); determine whether the first module has received the patient data set associated with the patient from the second module (by determining that a copy on request operation should be carried out as described on page 8, paragraph 63); and transmit the patient data set from the second module to the first module when the first module has not received the patient data set from the second module (fig. 4F, item 436).
Regarding claim 7, Davison et al discloses the two or more modules in electronic communication with each other forming the network of automated consolidation modules can periodically transfer consolidated data from a patient, to the electronic medical record of the healthcare institution for storage (fig. 4F, item 444, 416).
Regarding claim 8, Davison et al discloses the two or more modules are configured to operate as nodes in batch computing (fig. 1) and are configured to cooperate to break big computing tasks into multiple smaller computing tasks (fig. 4F- multiple tasks carried out in each node, 413, 433, 423).
Claims 2 and 3 are is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Williams et al in view of Davison et al, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20190123998 (Baumgartl et al).
Regarding claim 2, Williams et al (as modified by Davison et al) discloses all of the claimed elements as set forth above and incorporated herein by reference.
Williams et al (as modified by Davison et al) does not disclose expressly the two or more modules are connected by one or more hard wires to support electronic communications between the two or more modules.
Baumgartl et al discloses the two or more modules are connected by one or more hard wires to support electronic communications between the two or more modules (page 4, paragraph 34).
Williams et al (as modified by Davison et al) and Baumgartl et al are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor, i.e. transfer of medical data.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use a wired communication.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to provide a more robust system by providing a means to communicate.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the network of Williams et al (as modified by Davison et al) with the wired communication of Baumgartl et al to obtain the invention as specified in claim 2
Regarding claim 3, Baumgartl et al discloses the two or more modules are configured to wirelessly communicate therebetween (page 4, paragraph 34).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kathleen Yuan Dulaney whose telephone number is (571)272-2902. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9AM-5PM.
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, Emily Terrell can be reached at 5712703717. 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.
/KATHLEEN Y DULANEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2666 7/10/2026
Prosecution Insights