DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is in reply to an application filed 29 August 2025, which claims domestic priority to an application filed 27 September 2024.
Claims 1-10 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
1. a user interface module electrically connected to the mobile device for inputting user information;
a patient list module electrically connected to the user interface module to provide a list of patients cared for by nursing staff;
a medical order confirmation module electrically connected to the user interface module and used to push notifications and sound notifications to nursing staff, as well as reminders and confirmations;
a nursing record module electrically connected to the user interface module and used to provide nursing staff with input of patient event records;
a mobile drug delivery module electrically connected to the user interface module and used to provide medical advice to patients under the care of nursing staff;
a work list module electrically connected to the user interface module and used to provide and remind caregivers of to-do items; and
a photo module electrically connected to the user interface module and used to provide nursing staff with the ability to take photos of patient wounds and image records of special events;
2. the patient list module displays the patient's name, gender, age, attending physician, admission date, and the number of days he or she has been hospitalized;
3. the patient list module displays TPR, medication records, nursing records, medical records, test reports, examination reports, operation records, consultation records, pathology reports, radiology reports, EKG, VS comment and other functional items;
4. the medical order confirmation module will push and sound notifications to specific nursing staff;
5. the mobile drug delivery module displays the time points that should be administered according to the frequency of administration;
6. the mobile drug delivery module has a mobile medication screen tab;
7. the mobile drug delivery module is used by nursing staff to check the medicine;
8. the nursing record module allows nursing staff to instantly enter patient event records via voice-to-text or manual input;
9. the work list module is used to remind the responsible nursing staff of to-do items; and
10. the photo upload module provides patient wound photos and image records of special events.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
The claim limitations identified above has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder module coupled with various functional language shown above without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim(s) 1-10 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: There is no support in the specification for the corresponding structure for the various modules.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
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.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
The claim limitations below invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
1. a user interface module electrically connected to the mobile device for inputting user information;
a patient list module electrically connected to the user interface module to provide a list of patients cared for by nursing staff;
a medical order confirmation module electrically connected to the user interface module and used to push notifications and sound notifications to nursing staff, as well as reminders and confirmations;
a nursing record module electrically connected to the user interface module and used to provide nursing staff with input of patient event records;
a mobile drug delivery module electrically connected to the user interface module and used to provide medical advice to patients under the care of nursing staff;
a work list module electrically connected to the user interface module and used to provide and remind caregivers of to-do items; and
a photo module electrically connected to the user interface module and used to provide nursing staff with the ability to take photos of patient wounds and image records of special events;
2. the patient list module displays the patient's name, gender, age, attending physician, admission date, and the number of days he or she has been hospitalized;
3. the patient list module displays TPR, medication records, nursing records, medical records, test reports, examination reports, operation records, consultation records, pathology reports, radiology reports, EKG, VS comment and other functional items;
4. the medical order confirmation module will push and sound notifications to specific nursing staff;
5. the mobile drug delivery module displays the time points that should be administered according to the frequency of administration;
6. the mobile drug delivery module has a mobile medication screen tab;
7. the mobile drug delivery module is used by nursing staff to check the medicine;
8. the nursing record module allows nursing staff to instantly enter patient event records via voice-to-text or manual input;
9. the work list module is used to remind the responsible nursing staff of to-do items; and
10. the photo upload module provides patient wound photos and image records of special events.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 3 recites various undefined acronyms: TPR, EKG and VS. Acronyms must be defined the first time they appear in the claims.
Claim 3 recites the phrase each all function items. It is unclear what the applicant is referring to with this phrase.
Claim 4 recites will push and sound. It is unclear what the applicant is referring to with this phrase.
Claim 5 recites if the doctor has prescribed medication instructions, it will also be displayed and pictures of the drugs are provided for verification, click on the drug picture to connect to the hospital's drug query system, where you can query the drug's detailed information or drug instructions, providing more complete dosing information. It is unclear what the applicant is referring to with this phrase.
Claims 5-7 recites the pronouns you and/or it. It is unclear what you and/or it refers to.
Claim 7 recites the limitation then bring it to the patient's bedside to perform patient identification and check the patient's accuracy, if the patient makes a mistake, it will be intercepted. It is unclear what the applicant is referring to with this phrase.
Claim 8 recites allows nursing staff. It is unclear whether this limitation is required by the claim because allows is not a positive recitation.
To the extent that other claims rely on claims that are rejected under 35 USC 112 and fail to correct the deficiencies of the claims they rely on, those other claims are rejected for the same reasons as the claims they rely on. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-10 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.
Step 1
Claims 1-10 are within the four statutory categories. Claims 1-10 are drawn to a nursing care information system, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. machine).
Prong 1 of Step 2A
Claim 1 recites: A nursing care information system including:
a mobile device, including:
a user interface module electrically connected to the mobile device for inputting user information;
a patient list module electrically connected to the user interface module to provide a list of patients cared for by nursing staff;
a medical order confirmation module electrically connected to the user interface module and used to push notifications and sound notifications to nursing staff, as well as reminders and confirmations;
a nursing record module electrically connected to the user interface module and used to provide nursing staff with input of patient event records;
a mobile drug delivery module electrically connected to the user interface module and used to provide medical advice to patients under the care of nursing staff;
a work list module electrically connected to the user interface module and used to provide and remind caregivers of to-do items; and
a photo module electrically connected to the user interface module and used to provide nursing staff with the ability to take photos of patient wounds and image records of special events.
The underlined limitations as shown above, given the broadest reasonable interpretation, cover the abstract ideas of a certain method of organizing human activity because they recite a process that comprises managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (i.e. social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions – in this case managing a patient’s care), e.g. see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). Any limitations not identified above as part of the abstract idea(s) are deemed “additional elements,” and will be discussed in further detail below.
Dependent claims 2-10 include other limitations, for example claims 2-5 and 9 recite display or reminder functions of the various modules, claims 5 and 6 provides a drug checking ability, claims 8 and 10 are directed to inputting data, but these only serve to further narrow the abstract idea, and a claim may not preempt abstract ideas, even if the judicial exception is narrow, e.g. see MPEP 2106.04. Additionally, any limitations in dependent claims 2-10 not addressed above are deemed additional elements to the abstract idea, and will be further addressed below. Hence dependent claims 2-10 are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as independent claim 1.
Prong 2 of Step 2A
Claims 2-10 are not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements (i.e. any limitations that are not identified as part of the abstract idea) amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to mere instructions to apply an exception – for example, the recitation of the mobile device and various modules, which amounts to merely invoking a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, e.g. see the final paragraph of the present Specification, see MPEP 2106.05(f); and/or
generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use – for example, the claim language limiting the data to patient related data, which amounts to limiting the abstract idea to the field of healthcare, see MPEP 2106.05(h); and/or
adding insignificant extrasolution activity to the abstract idea, for example mere data gathering, selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated, and/or insignificant application (e.g. see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Additionally, dependent claims 2-10 include other limitations, but these limitations also amount to no more than generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (e.g. the types of data disclosed in dependent claims 2-10), and/or do not include any additional elements beyond those already recited in independent claim 1, and hence also do not integrate the aforementioned abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B
Claims 1-10 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” than the judicial exception because the additional elements (i.e. the recitation of the mobile device and various modules), as stated above, are directed towards no more than limitations that amount to mere instructions to apply the exception, generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, and/or add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, wherein the insignificant extra-solution activity comprises limitations which:
amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields, as demonstrated by:
The Specification expressly disclosing that the additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional in nature:
the final paragraph of the Specification discloses that the additional elements (i.e. the recitation of the mobile device and various modules) comprise a plurality of different types of generic computing systems that are configured to perform generic computer functions (i.e. receive and process data ) that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry (i.e. healthcare);
Relevant court decisions: The following are examples of court decisions demonstrating well-understood, routine and conventional activities, e.g. see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II):
i. 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));
ii. Performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199 (recomputing or readjusting alarm limit values); Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("The computer required by some of Bancorp’s claims is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims.");
iii. Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log); and
iv. 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.
Dependent claims 2-10 include other limitations, but none of these limitations are deemed significantly more than the abstract idea because, as stated above, the aforementioned dependent claims do not recite any additional elements not already recited in independent claim 1, and/or the additional elements recited in the aforementioned dependent claims similarly amount to generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (e.g. the types of data disclosed in dependent claims 2-10), and hence do not amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above. Furthermore, looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually, and there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology, and their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Therefore, whether taken individually or as an ordered combination, claims 1-10 are nonetheless rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Churchwell, further in view of Venkata et al. (U.S. PG-Pub 2010/0324936 A1), hereinafter Vishnubhatla.
As per claim 1 and 10, Churchwell discloses A nursing care information system including: a mobile device (Churchwell, see Fig. 2 #10.), including:
a user interface module electrically connected to the mobile device for inputting user information (Churchwell, see various input interfaces available in Figs. 3-5, 7, 8, 10 and 13.);
a patient list module electrically connected to the user interface module to provide a list of patients cared for by nursing staff (Churchwell, see Fig. 3.);
a medical order confirmation module electrically connected to the user interface module and used to push notifications … to nursing staff, as well as reminders and confirmations (Churchwell provides a medication order confirmation interface, see Figs. 7-9 and paragraph 84. Paragraphs 93 and claims 11 and 13 discloses an alerting system regarding medications.);
a nursing record module electrically connected to the user interface module and used to provide nursing staff with input of patient event records (Churchwell, see various input interfaces available in Figs. 3-5, 7, 8, 10 and 13.);
a mobile drug delivery module electrically connected to the user interface module and used to provide medical advice to patients under the care of nursing staff (Churchwell, Figs. 4 and 6-10 disclose an interface to input patient medical information to be used by current and future staff members.); and
a work list module electrically connected to the user interface module and used to provide and remind caregivers of to-do items (Churchwell discloses task list functionality, see Fig. 3 and paragraphs 70-76, 79-88).
Churchwell fails to explicitly disclose:
sound notifications;
a photo module electrically connected to the user interface module and used to provide nursing staff with the ability to take photos of patient wounds and image records of special events; and
10. wherein the photo upload module provides patient wound photos and image records of special events.
Vishnubhatla teaches that it was old and well known in the art of healthcare communications before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a sound notification and photo module.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of healthcare communications before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the patient data input and access system of Churchwell to include the sound notification and photo module of Vishnubhatla, in order to arrive at a patient data input and access system that provides improved alerts and insult documentation so as to provide better care to a patient. Moreover, merely adding a well-known element into a well-known system, to produce a predictable result to one of ordinary skill in the art, does not render the invention patentably distinct over such combination (see MPEP 2141).
Both Churchwell and Vishnubhatla are directed to the electronic processing of patient healthcare data and specifically to the collection of patient medication data.
A recitation directed to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be used does not distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art, if the prior art has the capability to so perform, see MPEP 2114 (II) and Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). “Language that suggest or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation”, see MPEP 2111.04.
The following limitations are interpreted as an intended use of the claimed invention:
… for inputting user information;
… to provide a list of patients cared for by nursing staff;
… to push notifications and sound notifications to nursing staff, as well as reminders and confirmations;
… to provide nursing staff with input of patient event records;
… to provide medical advice to patients under the care of nursing staff;
… to provide and remind caregivers of to-do items; and
… to provide nursing staff with the ability to take photos of patient wounds and image records of special events.
The prior art is capable of performing the intended use recitations, therefore the prior art meets the limitations.
As per claims 2-4, 8 and 9, Churchwell/Venkata discloses claim 1, discussed above. Churchwell also discloses:
2. wherein the first-level tab of the patient list module displays the patient's name, gender, age, attending physician, admission date, and the number of days he or she has been hospitalized (Churchwell, see Fig. 3 and paragraphs 110 and 129. A separate section of Churchwell discloses details on patient hospitalization, see paragraph 109. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine data elements of different embodiments of Churchwell because to do so would comprise simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results; use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way; applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results; and it would be “obvious to try” – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success.);
3. wherein the second-level tab of the patient list module displays TPR, medication records, nursing records, medical records, test reports, examination reports, operation records, consultation records, pathology reports, radiology reports, EKG, VS comment and other functional items, each all function items can be clicked to browse or inquire (Churchwell discloses the ability to access all relevant patient records, see Figs. 11 and 13-15.);
4. wherein the medical order confirmation module will push and sound notifications to specific nursing staff after the doctor writes the medical order to remind them to click and confirm (Churchwell provides a medication order confirmation interface, see Figs. 7-9 and paragraph 84. Paragraphs 93 and claims 11 and 13 discloses an alerting system regarding medications. Vishnubhatla discloses sound notifications, as shown above.);
8. wherein the nursing record module allows nursing staff to instantly enter patient event records via voice-to-text or manual input (Churchwell, see various input interfaces available in Figs. 3-5, 7, 8, 10 and 13.); and
9. wherein the work list module is used to remind the responsible nursing staff of to-do items (Churchwell discloses task list functionality, see Fig. 3 and paragraphs 70-76, 79-88).
A recitation directed to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be used does not distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art, if the prior art has the capability to so perform, see MPEP 2114 (II) and Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). “Language that suggest or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation”, see MPEP 2111.04.
The following limitations are interpreted as an intended use of the claimed invention:
3. … can be clicked to browse or inquire;
4. … to remind them to click and confirm;
8. … allows nursing staff to instantly enter patient event records via voice-to-text or manual input; and
9. … to remind the responsible nursing staff of to-do items.
The prior art is capable of performing the intended use recitations, therefore the prior art meets the limitations.
As per claims 5-7, Churchwell/Vishnubhatla discloses claim 1, discussed above. Churchwell also discloses:
5. wherein the mobile drug delivery module displays the time points that should be administered according to the frequency of administration, the status of the administration time points is visually presented in color, if the doctor has prescribed medication instructions, it will also be displayed and pictures of the drugs are provided for verification, click on the drug picture to connect to the hospital's drug query system, where you can query the drug's detailed information or drug instructions, providing more complete dosing information.
6. wherein the mobile drug delivery module has a mobile medication screen tab, after opening the camera on the mobile device to scan the barcode of the medication bag/medication bag, it will automatically check the accuracy of the medication, at the same time, the screen will display the picture of the medication and detailed medication information, for caregivers to check; and
7. wherein the mobile drug delivery module is used by nursing staff to check the medicine and then bring it to the patient's bedside to perform patient identification and check the patient's accuracy, if the patient makes a mistake, it will be intercepted.
Churchwell fails to explicitly disclose Vishnubhatla teaches that it was old and well known in the art of healthcare communications before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide:
5. wherein the mobile drug delivery module displays the time points that should be administered according to the frequency of administration, the status of the administration time points is visually presented in color, if the doctor has prescribed medication instructions, it will also be displayed and pictures of the drugs are provided for verification, click on the drug picture to connect to the hospital's drug query system, where you can query the drug's detailed information or drug instructions, providing more complete dosing information (Vishnubhatla discloses use of the drug information to confirm patient identity and administer scheduled bedside medications, see paragraphs 89, 99, 104, 137, 147, 193, 224, 358, 375 and 479-482. Fig. 15 discloses a receipt indicating time of administration of drug through use of visual, colored text.);
6. wherein the mobile drug delivery module has a mobile medication screen tab, after opening the camera on the mobile device to scan the barcode of the medication bag/medication bag, it will automatically check the accuracy of the medication, at the same time, the screen will display the picture of the medication and detailed medication information, for caregivers to check (Vishnubhatla discloses use of the drug information to confirm patient identity and administer bedside medications, see paragraphs 99, 104, 137, 147, 193 and 224.); and
7. wherein the mobile drug delivery module is used by nursing staff to check the medicine and then bring it to the patient's bedside to perform patient identification and check the patient's accuracy, if the patient makes a mistake, it will be intercepted (Vishnubhatla discloses use of the drug information to confirm patient identity and administer bedside medications, see paragraphs 99, 104, 137, 147, 193 and 224.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of healthcare communications before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the patient data input and access system of Churchwell/Vishnubhatla to include the drug administration system of Vishnubhatla, in order to arrive at a patient data input and access system that provides a system of safer and more reliable medication administration so as to provide better care to a patient.. Moreover, merely adding a well-known element into a well-known system, to produce a predictable result to one of ordinary skill in the art, does not render the invention patentably distinct over such combination (see MPEP 2141).
A recitation directed to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be used does not distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art, if the prior art has the capability to so perform, see MPEP 2114 (II) and Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). “Language that suggest or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation”, see MPEP 2111.04.
The following limitations are interpreted as an intended use of the claimed invention:
5. … can query the drug's detailed information or drug instructions, providing more complete dosing information;
6. … for caregivers to check; and
7. … to check the medicine and then bring it to the patient's bedside to perform patient identification,
The prior art is capable of performing the intended use recitations, therefore the prior art meets the limitations.
Conclusion
Unused but cited relevant prior art includes:
Ginsburg et al. (U.S. PG-Pub 2020/0168333 A1), which discloses a data command center visual display system for presenting relevant patient information to a caretaker.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Mark Holcomb, whose telephone number is 571.270.1382. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (8-5). If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Kambiz Abdi, can be reached at 571.272.6702.
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.
/MARK HOLCOMB/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3685
22 July 2026
Prosecution Insights