DETAILED ACTION
This action is made in response to the amendments/remarks filed on November 10, 2025. This action is made final.
Claims 1, 12-14, 17-18, 20-21, and 30-51 are pending. Claims 2-11, 15, 16, 19, and 22-29 have been previously cancelled. Claims 1, 12, 14, 18, 20, 21, 30-32, 42-47 and 51 have been amended. Claims 1, 12, and 18 are independent claims.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed November 10, 2025 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
With respect to the 101 rejection, Applicant first argues the claim are not a method of organizing human activity. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Notably, Applicant additionally asserts the claims are not a mental process, which is not asserted by the office and will not be addressed.
MPEP 2106. 04(a)(2)(II) states that a claimed invention is directed to certain methods of organizing human activity if the identified claim elements contain limitations that encompass fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). The Examiner submits that the identified claim elements represent a series of rules or instructions that a person or persons, with or without the aid of a computer, would follow to maintain effective utilization of surgical blocks, which Applicant’s specification describes as operating rooms and/or procedures (e.g., see [0005], [0006]). The Examiner notes that Applicant’s Background describes collecting and analyzing data to improve healthcare system’s resources (see [0004], [0005]) as a human task. Furthermore, the Examiner submits that healthcare itself is inherently represents the organization of human activity.
Insomuch as Applicant asserts the retrieving and processing of “real-time” data from geographically disparate sources is not abstract, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The “real-time” and geographically disparate sources does not preclude the limitations from being categorized as an abstract idea. Language as to the speed or location of the data in which it is retrieved is not enough to overcome a subject matter eligibility rejection. MPEP 2106.05(a)(I) provide examples in which the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement to computer-functionality and includes gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques including accelerating the process which data is analyzed. Furthermore, the examiner notes the claim language is not restricted to a computer process, but humans can transmit and receive real-time data from geographically disparate sources (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II) wherein methods of organizing human activity include the activity of a single person or multiple people, with or without the use of a computer).
Accordingly, because the claim elements fall under a series of rules or instructions that a person or persons would follow to improve/optimize surgical block (i.e., room/procedures) utilization, the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea.
Applicant further analogizes the present claims to the precedential decision of Ex parte Desjardins. However, the Examiner respectfully submits that there is no improvement to the claim machine learning. Initially, the Examiner notes that Ex parte Desjardins does not represent a substantive change in subject matter eligibility analysis; there has been no indication by the Office that this decision impacts the how claims involving machine learning are analyzed at the Examiner level. The decision is specific to the facts before the Appeals Review Panel and follows the subject matter eligibility analysis set forth in MPEP 2106. As found by the Panel, the claimed “training strategy allows the model to preserve performance on earlier tasks even as it learns new ones, directly addressing the technical problem of 'catastrophic forgetting' in continual learning systems" represents “technical improvements over conventional systems by addressing challenges in continual learning and model efficiency by reducing storage requirements and preserving task performance across sequential training.” This analysis represents implementation of the practical application-“improvement” analysis of MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) to the facts before the Panel. Applicant’s claims do not provide such an improvement. There is no training within the claims so this argument falls on its face from the outset.
Applicant points to various paragraphs that purported support that the claims are directed to an improvement in technology. However, none of the cited paragraphs describe an improvement to the computer or another technology. Rather, the cited paragraphs state leveraging (i.e., use) of technology to aid “healthcare systems, such as hospitals” to be efficient as possible and merely uses a general-purpose computer (e.g., see [0059]) for implementing the invention. Furthermore, the cited paragraphs rely on the use of generated reports of resources to increase effective/efficient utilization of those systems. In other words, the claimed invention is towards the effective management of a hospital rooms and its resources using technology as a tool. More specifically, the claims, as supported by the specification, is directed towards surgical room scheduling. While Applicant argues and the specification does state the “invention is able to reduce the number of interfaces needed to present data”, it is unclear as to how the number of interfaces is a technical problem, nor how this purported problem is solved by the claims. At best, the claims consolidate data from multiple sources into a single report. Insomuch as the solution is to generate a report, the concept of simplifying or consolidating data in a single or easy to digest manner, and, therefore, limit/reduce the output data (e.g., interfaces) is neither a technical problem nor a technical solution and is akin to putting a surgery schedule on a whiteboard.
Insomuch as Applicant argues there is an improvement in reducing medical-equipment utilization, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Contrary to Applicant’s assertions, while medical-equipment can use networking and/or signaling, medical-equipment is not inherently rooted in electronics networks and electronic device signaling. Accordingly, contrary to Applicant’s assertions, while the specification makes use of computers, powered devices, and medical electronic devices, the claims nor the specification recite and improvement to the computer, technology, or another technology.
Applicant further argues the claims provide a practical application by its improvement in technology. However, as addressed above, the mere use of technology is not an improvement thereof. The problem of optimizing or efficiently utilizing resources, in the context of scheduling a surgical room, is not a technical field and is one that exists outside of the use of technology. At best, Applicant’s identified problem is a management problem. Accordingly, as the claims are not directed to an improvement of technical field, the claims do not provide a practical application.
Insomuch as Applicant argues the examiner failed to satisfy the burden required by MPEP 2106.05 (i.e., the “Berkheimer Memo”), the examiner respectfully disagrees. The additional elements identified were “a system”, "one or more processors”, “a computer network”, “electronic user interface”, which were described by Applicant’s originally filed specification as general purpose, common, standard, known to one of ordinary skill, and at a high level of generality, and in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy the statutory disclosure requirements (e.g., Fig. 8, [0052], [0055]). The Federal Circuit has recognized that "an invocation of already-available computers that are not themselves plausibly asserted to be an advance, for use in carrying out improved mathematical calculations, amounts to a recitation of what is 'well-understood, routine, [and] conventional.'" SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 890 F.3d 1016, 1023 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (alteration in original) (citing Mayo v. Prometheus, 566 U.S. 66, 73 (2012)). Apart from the instructions to implement the abstract idea, they only serve to perform well-understood functions (e.g., receiving, translating, and displaying data—see Specification above as well as Alice Corp.; Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2015) covering the well-known nature of these computer functions).
Furthermore, the “healthcare management system” was determined to be an additional element that is not a generic computer component; however it is recited at a high levels of generality and similarly amount to generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. (See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and MPEP 2106.05(A) indicating generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment does not amount to integrating the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., dynamically reallocating high burn-rate physical resources in order to reduce waste)) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). It is further noted the originally filed specification does not disclose any “high burn-rate” of physical resources. At best, the specification states that optimizing surgical block utilization may lead to decrease of healthcare provider burnout. Accordingly, where the prior art teaches scheduling of surgical rooms/procedures/people, then it meets the claimed limitation as argued.
In response to applicant's argument that Hassan is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Hassan is in the same filed of endeavor and/or reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned of utilization-based resource allocation.
Accordingly, for at least these reasons, the previous grounds of rejection are maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As to claim 30, the claim recites “wherein dynamically reallocating the one or more of the set of surgical blocks in near real-time based on the report and the utilization model improves a utilization, relative to reallocating without the report and without the utilization model of, in connection with: a first electronic component, wherein utilization efficiency associated with operating at least one surgical block to perform a surgical procedure as implemented on the first electronic component is improved; and a second electronic component, wherein utilization efficiency associated scheduling (i) of the at least one surgical block, (ii) on the electronic user interface via the second electronic component, (iii) to perform the surgical procedure is improved”. However, a review of the specification fails to disclose any electronic component (either a first or second electronic component) whose utilization is improved based on the claimed utilization model. For the purposes of compact prosecution, the claim will be interpreted in a manner as best understood by the examiner and in light of the specification as “utilization efficiency associated with operating at least one surgical block to perform surgical procedure as implemented on an electronic component; and utilization efficiency associated with scheduling the operation of the at least one surgical block to perform the surgical procedure on an electronic component user interface”
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AlA), second paragraph, as failing to particular point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor regards as the invention.
As to claim 30, the claim recites “wherein dynamically allocating the one or more of the set of surgical blocks…improve a utilization…in connection with: a first electronic component utilization efficiency…; and a second electronic component, wherein utilization efficiency associated with scheduling (1) of the at least one surgical block, (ii) on the electronic user interface via the second electronic component, (iii) to perform the surgical procedure is improved”. However, it is unclear as to how allocating a surgical block (e.g., operating room/procedure) has any connection to the electronic component and/or the improved utilization of any part of the electronic component. For the purposes of compact prosecution, the claim will be interpreted in a manner as best understood by the examiner and in light of the specification as “utilization efficiency associated with operating at least one surgical block to perform surgical procedure as implemented on an electronic component; and utilization efficiency associated with scheduling the operation of the at least one surgical block to perform the surgical procedure on an electronic component user interface”, , which is consistent with at least [0046], [0049], and [0050] of Applicant’s originally filed specification. Accordingly, where the prior art teaches the allocating the surgical blocks such that an improvement is realized and the allocating is provided through use of a first and second electronic component, then it meets the claimed invention. In other words, an electronic component is merely used, but the electronic component, itself, is not improved.
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, 12-14, 17-18, 20-21, and 30-51 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.
Claims 1, 21, 30, 42, and 43 recite a system of allocating surgical blocks, which is within the statutory category of a machine. Claims 12-14, 17, 31-41, and 43-51 recites a computer readable memory performing instructions for allocating surgical blocks, which is within the statutory class of a manufacture. Claims 18 and 20 recites a method for allocating surgical blocks, which is within the statutory class of a process.
Claims are eligible for patent protection under § 101 if they are in one of the four statutory categories and not directed to a judicial exception to patentability. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. ___ (2014). Claims 1, 12-14, 17-18, 20-21, and 30-51, each considered as a whole and as an ordered combination, are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
MPEP 2106 Step 2A – Prong 1:
The limitations of:
Claims 1, 12, and 18 (claim 1 being representative)
extracting and receive receiving during a first predetermined time period real-time, and from multiple geographically disparate sources: a first set of real-time data from a first source within a healthcare management system; a second set of real-time data from a second source within the healthcare management system; and a third set of real-time data from a third source within a the healthcare management system; transforming the first set of real-time data, the second set of real-time data, and the third set of real-time data through use of via an algorithm configured to generate a set of utilization data; analyzing the set of utilization data to generate a utilization model generating and presenting a report that: (a) is based on the utilization model; and (b) indicates a utilization percentage of each of a set of surgical blocks, wherein a predicted first utilization percentage for a first surgical block of the set of surgical blocks during a first time period is less than a predicted second utilization percentage for a second surgical block of the set of surgical blocks during the first time period; and dynamically reallocating one or more of the set of surgical blocks in near real-time based on the report and based further on the utilization model the report, wherein reallocating the one or more of the set of surgical blocks in near real-time: is based on a comparison of the first utilization percentage and the second utilization percentage; and results in the first utilization percentage of the first surgical block during the first time period.
as presently drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a method of organizing human activity (i.e., managing personal behavior including following rules or instructions) but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the noted computer elements, the claim encompasses a person or persons collecting data and generating a report to increase utilization of surgical blocks in the manner described in the abstract idea. The examiner further notes that “methods of organizing human activity” includes a person’s interaction with a computer (see October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility at Pg. 5). If the claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing persona behavior or interactions between people but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “method of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
MPEP 2106 Step 2A – Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no meaningful limitations that transform the exception into a patent eligible application. The additional elements merely amount to instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (“a system”, "one or more hardware processors”, “a computer network”, “electronic user interface”, all recited at a high level of generality). Although they have and execute instructions to perform the abstract idea itself, this also does not serve to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as it merely amounts to instructions to "apply it." (See MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) indicating mere instructions to apply an abstract idea does not amount to integrating the abstract idea into a practical application). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The “healthcare management system” is not a generic computer component; however it is recited at a high levels of generality and similarly amount to generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. (See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) indicating generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment does not amount to integrating the abstract idea into a practical application).
The claims only manipulate abstract data elements into another form. They do not set forth improvements to another technological field or the functioning of the computer itself and instead use computer elements as tools in a conventional way to improve the functioning of the abstract idea identified above. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. None of the additional elements recited "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment,' that is, implementation via computers." Alice Corp., slip op. at 16 (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)).
At the levels of abstraction described above, the claims do not readily lend themselves to a finding that they are directed to a nonabstract idea. Therefore, the analysis proceeds to step 2B. See BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("The Enfish claims, understood in light of their specific limitations, were unambiguously directed to an improvement in computer capabilities. Here, in contrast, the claims and their specific limitations do not readily lend themselves to a step-one finding that they are directed to a nonabstract idea. We therefore defer our consideration of the specific claim limitations’ narrowing effect for step two.") (citations omitted).
MPEP 2106 Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as presented in Step 2A Prong 2. Moreover, the additional elements recited are known and conventional generic computing elements (“a system”, "one or more processors”, “a computer network”, “electronic user interface”—see Specification Fig. 8, [0052], [0055] describing the various components as general purpose, common, standard, known to one of ordinary skill, and at a high level of generality, and in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy the statutory disclosure requirements). Therefore, these additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept that amounts to significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The Federal Circuit has recognized that "an invocation of already-available computers that are not themselves plausibly asserted to be an advance, for use in carrying out improved mathematical calculations, amounts to a recitation of what is 'well-understood, routine, [and] conventional.'" SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 890 F.3d 1016, 1023 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (alteration in original) (citing Mayo v. Prometheus, 566 U.S. 66, 73 (2012)). Apart from the instructions to implement the abstract idea, they only serve to perform well-understood functions (e.g., receiving, translating, and displaying data—see Specification above as well as Alice Corp.; Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2015) covering the well-known nature of these computer functions).
Furthermore, as discussed above, the additional element of a “healthcare management system” is recited at high levels of generality and were determined to generally link the abstract idea into a particular technological environment or field of use. This additional element have been re-evaluated under step 2B and have also been found insufficient to provide significantly more. (See MPEP 2106.05(A) indicating generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment does not amount to significantly more).
Dependent Claims
The limitations of dependent but for those addressed below merely set forth further refinements of the abstract idea without changing the analysis already presented. Claims 13 and 14 merely describe the type of data, claim 17 provides further information with respect to the reports, claims 21, 30, 44-48, and 50-51 further recite allocating/re-allocating the blocks (e.g., rooms) based on information, claims 31-43 merely describe displaying the utilization as a unit of minutes over a set period, which covers a method of organizing human activity (i.e., managing personal behavior including following rules or instructions).
Claim 20 further refine the abstract idea described in the independent claim and merely describe the source of the data and/or the storage thereof. These additional elements are considered to “apply it” and/or “generally linking” under both the practical application and significantly more analysis, as detailed in the analysis above.
Claim 47 further refine the abstract idea described in the independent claim and merely the use of an RFID scanner. These additional elements are considered to “generally linking” under both the practical application and significantly more analysis, as detailed in the analysis above.
Claim 49 further refine the abstract idea described in the independent claim and merely recite displaying and selecting of data. These additional elements are considered to “generally linking” under both the practical application and significantly more analysis, as detailed in the analysis above.
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, 12-14, 17-18, 20, 21, 30, 33-36, and 41-51 are rejected as under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rassman et al. (USPN: 4,937,743; hereinafter Rassman) in further view of Xiao (USPPN: 2005/0060211; hereinafter Xiao), Bhavani et al. (USPPN: 2009/0315735; hereinafter Bhavani), and Hassan et al. (USPPN: 2019/0327185; hereinafter Hassan).
As to Claim 1, Rassman teaches A system having one or more hardware processors configured to perform a plurality of operations (e.g., see Title/Abstract teaching a computer system for managing a plurality of resources) the operations comprising:
extracting and receiving, over a computer network, via at least a portion of the one or more hardware processors communicatively coupled to the computer network, during a first predetermined time period, and from multiple disparate sources simultaneously and in real-time (e.g., see 4:66-5:4, 5:30-35 teaching the real-time collecting and receiving of data from multiple sources using a computer system):
a first set of real-time data from a first source within a healthcare management system (e.g., see 4:22-27-57 teaching extracting and receiving real-time data from a first database of medical resources);
a second set of real-time data from second source within the healthcare management (e.g., see 4:22-27, 4:67-5:10 teaching extracting and receiving real-time data from a second database of scheduling and/or patient information);
a third set of real-time data from a third source within a healthcare management system (e.g., see 4:22-5:10 teaching extracting and receiving real-time data from one or more databases of a plurality of differing medical resource data. While Rassman fails to explicitly teach a third source, Rassman, nonetheless teaches at least two databases (i.e., sources) containing a plurality of different data. It would have been obvious to duplicate another database as the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See MPEP 2144.04);
transforming the first set of real-time data, the second set of real-time data, and the third set of real-time data via an algorithm and using the one or more hardware processors, to generate in real-time a set of utilization data (e.g., see 7:47-51 wherein the received data from the multiple databases are used to calculate an end point of the resource (i.e., utilization of the resource));
analyzing, at the one or more hardware processors, the set of utilization data to generate a utilization model (e.g., see Figs. 1-9, 8:8-20 wherein the data, including the start and end times, are used to create a scheduling indicator and/or cell (i.e., utilization model), which is further displayed (i.e., report));
generating and presenting, via the one or more hardware processors and an electronic user interface, a report (e.g., see Figs. 1-9, 8:8-20 wherein the data, including the start and end times, are used to create a scheduling indicator and/or cell (i.e., utilization model), which is further displayed (i.e., report)) that:
(a) is based on the utilization model (e.g., see Figs. 1-9, 8:8-20 illustrating a display (i.e., report) of scheduling indicators and/or cells (i.e., utilization models);
dynamically reallocating one or more of the set of surgical blocks using the one or more hardware processors in near real-time based on the report and based further on the utilization model, wherein dynamically reallocating the one or more of the set of surgical blocks in near real-time is performed in response to comparing, at the one or more hardware processors, the predicted first utilization percentage and the predicted second utilization percentage; and increases (a) the predicted first utilization percentage for the first surgical block at a time subsequent to the dynamically reallocating relative to (b) the predicted first utilization percentage for the first surgical block at a time prior to the dynamically reallocating (e.g., see Figs. 1-9, 7:17:21, 10:60-65, 12:25-35 teaching automatically or manually scheduling a resource based the status indicators and/or cells. Notably, the claim limitation “increases (a) the predicted first utilization percentage for the first surgical block at a time subsequent to the dynamically reallocating relative to (b) the predicted first utilization percentage for the first surgical block at a time prior to the dynamically reallocating” is interpreted as an intended result and does not impart a patentable distinction as it merely states an intention of what necessarily happens as a result of the structure or actions recited in the claims (see MPEP 2111.05). In this case, scheduling a resource such that it can be utilized, obviously, if not necessarily results in an increased utilization percentage during the time it is being utilized opposed to the time it is not being utilized).
While Rassman teaches extracting and receiving, during a pre-determined time, data from multiple sources (see rejection above), Rassman fails to explicitly teach from multiple geographically disparate sources.
However, in the same field of endeavor of systems/methods for facilities management, Xiao teaches extracting and receiving, over a computer network, during a first pre-determined time period and from multiple geographically disparate sources (e.g., see Figs. 3, 4, [0046], [0047] teaching a method/system for coordinating multiparty use of one or more facilities through a distributed system for capturing real-time data). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to modify Rassman in view of Xiao with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make such a modification to help manage facilities distributed among several locations, thereby improving scheduling effectiveness and efficiency (e.g., see [0046] of Xiao).
While Rassman-Xiao teach a report indicating utilization (e.g., see Figs. 1-9 of Rassman teaching a display of various resource availability and Figs. 5, 10, [0103] of Xiao teaching the display of a progress bar (i.e., utilization model) which includes the current progress of a procedure and forecast availability. The progress/forecast bars providing visual analytics providing information as to the availability of a room (i.e., unused time) and the current progress of a procedure (i.e., used block minutes)), Rassman-Xiao fail to explicitly teach a respective predicted utilization percentage of each of a set of surgical blocks, wherein a predicted first utilization percentage for a first surgical block of the set of surgical blocks is less than a predicted second utilization percentage for a second surgical block of the set of surgical blocks.
However, in the same field of endeavor of resource management, Bhavani teaches a report that a respective predicted utilization percentage of each of a set of surgical blocks, wherein a predicted first utilization percentage for a first surgical block of the set of surgical blocks is less than a predicted second utilization percentage for a second surgical block of the set of surgical blocks (e.g., see Fig. 7, [0042] wherein a display is presented that further indicates an estimated utilization percentage of each particular room (i.e., surgical block) during a time period, wherein each room has a different utilization percentage). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to modify Rassman-Xiao in view of Bhavani with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make such a modification to modify the display/report of Rassman-Xiao to include the utilization percentage of Bhavani to include a metric which would help optimize the use of rooms during peaks times (e.g., see [0042] of Bhavani).
While Rassman further teaches teaching automatically scheduling of resources based on the indicators and/or cells and Bhavani teaches optimizing operating room scheduling and reducing bottlenecks using a plurality of metrics, including percentage of utilization of the room, wherein each room can have different utilization percentages, Rassman-Bhavani fails to explicitly teach the reallocating is performed in response to comparing the predicted first utilization percentage and the predicted second utilization percentage.
However, in the same field of endeavor of resource scheduling, Hassan teaches reallocating is performed in response to comparing, at the one or more hardware processors, the predicted first utilization percentage and the predicted second utilization percentage (e.g., see [0016], [0032], [0040] teaching one or more processors to dynamically shift operations from a highly used resource to a less utilized resource). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to modify Rassman-Xiao-Bhavani in view of Hassan with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make the modification to aid in the dynamic allocation of resources by effectively utilizing resources which have excess capacity (e.g., see [0002], [0003]).
As to Claim 7, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Rassman further teaches wherein the third set of real-time data is associated with a personnel block schedule and a room schedule. (e.g., see 5:1-23 of Rassman teaching receiving scheduling information regarding the patient, equipment, and personnel. While Rassman teaches the recited limitation, it is noted Xiao additionally teaches the limitation. See also [0073], [0091] of Xiao teaching receiving information on the planned use of the facility and/or personnel and patient data).
As to claim 12, the claim is directed to the computer-readable medium implemented on the system of claim 1 and is similarly rejected.
As to Claim 13, the rejection of claim 12 is incorporated. Rassman further teaches determining a predetermined time period of about 4 hours (e.g., see Figs. 1-3 wherein the time period is 3 hours (i.e., about 4 hours) and 5:1-5 wherein a scheduled information with respect to a resource can be of any particular day/time. Notably, the precise amount of 4 hours is not explicitly taught but is nonetheless obvious as being within the disclosed ranges taught in Rassman, see MPEP 2144.05)
While Rassman teaches extracting and receiving, during a pre-determined time, data from multiple sources (see rejection above), Rassman fails to explicitly teach from multiple geographically disparate sources.
However, in the same field of endeavor of systems/methods for facilities management, Xiao teaches extracting from one or more sources of the multiple geographically disparate sources (e.g., see Figs. 3, 4, [0046], [0047] teaching a method/system for coordinating multiparty use of one or more facilities through a distributed system for capturing real-time data). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to modify Rassman in view of Xiao with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make such a modification to help manage facilities distributed among several locations, thereby improving scheduling effectiveness and efficiency (e.g., see [0046] of Xiao).
As to Claim 14, the rejection of claim 12 is incorporated. Rassman further teaches, wherein the operations further comprise extracting an additional set of data from one or more of the first source, the second source, or the third source on a predetermined schedule (e.g., see 10:1-10, 12:25-35 wherein data is extracted in accordance with a rule (i.e., predetermined schedule)).
As to claim 17, the rejection of claim 12 is incorporated. Rassman teaches wherein the third set of real-time data is associated with one or both of a personnel block schedule and a room schedule. (e.g., see 5:1-23 of Rassman teaching receiving scheduling information regarding the patient, equipment, and personnel. While Rassman teaches the recited limitation, it is noted Xiao additionally teaches the limitation. See also [0073], [0091] of Xiao teaching receiving information on the planned use of the facility and/or personnel and patient data), and
wherein the report generated comprises data defining “in block” minutes and “out-of-block” minutes for each of a plurality of procedures, wherein “in block” minutes quantify a first duration of time withing a scheduled surgical block and wherein “out-of-block” minutes quantify a second duration of time that a procedure extends past the scheduled surgical block (e.g., see Fig. 2, 12:1-10 displaying a plurality of cells which indicate a time in which a procedure is occurring (i.e., in block) and an indicator which illustrate a duration of time that the procedure extends past the expected completion time (i.e., out of block)).
As to Claim 18, the claim is directed to the method implemented on the system of claim 1 and is similarly rejected.
As to Claim 20, the rejection of claim 18 is incorporated. Rassman further teaches wherein the second set of real-time data comprises procedure duration data, individual patient data, and personnel data, and further comprising (a) receiving an updated surgery schedule based on the one or more reports and (b) storing, in a database for future use, the first set of real-time data, the second set of real-time data, the third set of real-time data including the updated surgery schedule, the first set of utilization data and the one or more reports generated in a database (e.g., see 2:29-56, 3:5-11, 4:57-5:23, 12:35-42 teaching a database storing data regarding procedures or operations for future scheduling, including updated information. While Rassman teaches the limitation, it is noted Xiao additionally teaches storing procedure, expected duration, patient, and personnel data, e.g., see [0056], [0091]).
As to claim 21, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Rassman futher teaches wherein the operations further comprise dynamically changing a first schedule for a first surgical block of the one or more of the set of surgical blocks in near real-time based on one or both of an update to the utilization model and an update to the report, wherein changing the first schedule in near real-time results in a further increase in at least one utilization percentage (e.g., see Figs. 1-9, 7:17:21, 10:60-65, 12:25-35 teaching automatically or manually scheduling a resource based on conflicts present in the status indicators and/or cells. Notably, the claim limitation “results in a further increase in at least one utilization percentage” is interpreted as an intended result and does not impart a patentable distinction as it merely states an intention of what necessarily happens as a result of the structure or actions recited in the claims (see MPEP 2111.05). In this case, scheduling a resource such that it can be utilized, obviously, if not necessarily results in an increased utilization percentage during the time it is being used).
As to claim 30, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Rassman further teaches wherein dynamically reallocating the one or more of the set of surgical blocks in near real-time based on the report and the utilization model improves a utilization, relative to reallocating without the report and without the utilization model, in connection with: a first electronic component, wherein utilization efficiency associated with operating at least one surgical block to perform a surgical procedure as implemented on the first electronic component is improved; and a second electronic component, wherein utilization efficiency associated with scheduling (i) of the at least one surgical block, (ii) on the electronic user interface via the second electronic component, and (ii) to perform the surgical procedure is improved (See 112 rejection above. Furthermore, the entire claim limitation, including, but not limited to “improves a utilization…in connection with: a first electronic component…; and a second electronic component, wherein utilization efficiency associated with scheduling…on the electronic user interface…to perform the surgical procedure is improved” is interpreted as an intended result and does not impart a patentable distinction as it merely states an intention of what necessarily happens as a result of the structure or actions recited in the claims (see MPEP 2111.05). In this case, scheduling a resource such that it can be utilized, in light of the changes in utilization of one or more resources taught in Rassman, obviously, if not necessarily results in an improved utilization rate of operating a room and/or scheduling the operation using a user interface, relative to allocating without the teachings of Rassman).
As to claim 33, the rejection of claim 12 is incorporated. Notably, the limitation of wherein the report specifies a utilization percentage as an average for a plurality of days is interpreted as nonfunctional descriptive information as they are not functionally required in the claimed computer readable media. See MPEP 2111.05. The function described in the claimed computer readable media would be performed the same regardless of the time period the utilization percentage entails, which is further evidenced by dependent claims 34 and 35 reciting time periods as variable. Therefore, Rassman and Bhavani teaching utilization percentages for a particular time period (e.g., see Figs. 1-9 of Rassman and Fig 7, [0016], [0035] of Bhavani), it would have been obvious to substitute daily or weekly time periods for the daily or hourly time periods taught in Rassman and Bhavani as a simple substitution because the results would have been predictable for easily identifying desired data. See KSR Int’l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1740-41, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007); and MPEP 2143.
Nonetheless, Bhavani teaches wherein the report specifies a utilization percentage as an average for a plurality of days (e.g., see [0035] wherein the reports show data for a given hour, day, week, month, or year). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to modify Rassman-Xiao in view of Bhavani with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make such a modification to modify the display/report of Rassman-Xiao to include the utilization percentage of Bhavani to include a metric which would help optimize the use of rooms during peaks times (e.g., see [0042] of Bhavani).
As to claim 34, the rejection of claim 12 is incorporated. Notably, the limitation of wherein the report identifies an average utilization percentage determined as an average of a set of utilization percentages corresponding to a set of work days is interpreted as nonfunctional descriptive information as they are not functionally required in the claimed computer readable media. See MPEP 2111.05. The function described in the claimed computer readable media would be performed the same regardless of the time period the utilization percentage entails, which is further evidenced by dependent claims 33, 35 and 36 reciting time periods as variable. Therefore, Rassman and Bhavani teaching utilization percentages for a particular time period (e.g., see Figs. 1-9 of Rassman and Fig 7, [0016], [0035] of Bhavani), it would have been obvious to substitute daily or weekly time periods for the daily or hourly time periods taught in Rassman and Bhavani as a simple substitution because the results would have been predictable for easily identifying desired data. See KSR Int’l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1740-41, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007); and MPEP 2143.
Nonetheless, Bhavani teaches wherein the report identifies an average utilization percentage determined as an average of a set of utilization percentages corresponding to a set of work days (e.g., see [0035] wherein the reports show data for a given hour, day, week, month, or year). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to modify Rassman-Xiao in view of Bhavani with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make such a modification to modify the display/report of Rassman-Xiao to include the utilization percentage of Bhavani to include a metric which would help optimize the use of rooms during peaks times (e.g., see [0042] of Bhavani).
As to claim 35, the rejection of claim 12 is incorporated. Notably, the limitation of wherein the report specifies an average utilization percentage determined, as a number, for a time period greater than two days is interpreted as nonfunctional descriptive information as they are not functionally required in the claimed computer readable media. See MPEP 2111.05. The function described in the claimed computer readable media would be performed the same regardless of the time period the utilization percentage entails, which is further evidenced by dependent claims 33, 34 and 36 reciting time periods as variable. Therefore, Rassman and Bhavani teaching utilization percentages for a particular time period (e.g., see Figs. 1-9 of Rassman and Fig 7, [0016], [0035] of Bhavani), it would have been obvious to substitute daily or weekly time periods for the daily or hourly time periods taught in Rassman and Bhavani as a simple substitution because the results would have been predictable for easily identifying desired data. See KSR Int’l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1740-41, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007); and MPEP 2143.
Nonetheless, Bhavani teaches wherein the report specifies an average utilization percentage determined, as a number, for a time period greater than two days (e.g., see [0035] wherein the reports show data for a given hour, day, week, month, or year). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to modify Rassman-Xiao in view of Bhavani with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make such a modification to modify the display/report of Rassman-Xiao to include the utilization percentage of Bhavani to include a metric which would help optimize the use of rooms during peaks times (e.g., see [0042] of Bhavani).
As to claim 36, the rejection of claim 12 is incorporated. Notably, the limitation of wherein the report includes a utilization percentage representing an average of utilization percentages for nine or more days is interpreted as nonfunctional descriptive information as they are not functionally required in the claimed computer readable media. See MPEP 2111.05. The function described in the claimed computer readable media would be performed the same regardless of the time period the utilization percentage entails, which is further evidenced by dependent claims 33-35 reciting time periods as variable. Therefore, Rassman and Bhavani teaching utilization percentages for a particular time period (e.g., see Figs. 1-9 of Rassman and Fig 7, [0016], [0035] of Bhavani), it would have been obvious to substitute daily or weekly time periods for the daily or hourly time periods taught in Rassman and Bhavani as a simple substitution because the results would have been predictable for easily identifying desired data. See KSR Int’l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1740-41, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007); and MPEP 2143.
Nonetheless, Bhavani wherein the report includes a utilization percentage representing an average of utilization percentages for nine or more days (e.g., see [0035] wherein the reports show data for a given hour, day, week, month, or year). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to modify Rassman-Xiao in view of Bhavani with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make such a modification to modify the display/report of Rassman-Xiao to include the utilization percentage of Bhavani to include a metric which would help optimize the use of rooms during peaks times (e.g., see [0042] of Bhavani).
As to claim 41, the rejection of claim 12 is incorporated. Rassman-Bhavani further teaches wherein the report specifies a utilization percentage determined, for an identified set of surgeons, as an average of a set of utilization percentages corresponding to a set of work days (e.g., see Figs. 2, 6-8 of Rassman wherein the report shows utilization for a work day of a particular doctor. While the number of days is interpreted as non-functional descriptive language, see rejection of claims 33-36 above, Bhavani nonetheless teaches wherein the report shows data for a given hour, day, week, month, or year).
As to claim 42, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. It is noted the claim limitation wherein dynamically reallocating the one or more of the set of surgical blocks in near real-time increases in the predicted first utilization percentage relative to the predicted second utilization percentage is interpreted as an intended result and does not impart a patentable distinction as it merely states an intention of what necessarily happens as a result of the structure or actions recited in the claims (see MPEP 2111.05). In this case, scheduling a resource that can be utilized, obviously, if not necessarily results in an increased utilization percentage.
Nonetheless, in the same field of endeavor of resource scheduling, Hassan teaches wherein dynamically reallocating the one or more of the set of surgical blocks in near real-time increases in the predicted first utilization percentage relative to the predicted second utilization percentage (e.g., see [0016], [0040] teaching shifting an operation to a less utilized resource (i.e., thereby increasing its utilization)). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to modify Rassman-Xiao-Bhavani in view of Hassan with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make the modification to aid in the dynamic allocation of resources by effectively utilizing resources which have excess capacity (e.g., see [0002], [0003]).
As to claim 43, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Rassman teaches wherein dynamically reallocating the one or more of the set of surgical blocks in near real-time increases one or more surgical block utilization percentages as compared to reallocating the one or more of the set of surgical blocks in delayed time (Notably, the limitation is interpreted as an intended result and does not impart a patentable distinction as it merely states an intention of what necessarily happens as a result of the structure or actions recited in the claims (see MPEP 2111.05). In this case, scheduling a resource that can be utilized as it becomes available, opposed to delaying the information, obviously, if not necessarily, results in an increased utilization percentage. Nonetheless, Rassman teaches the limitation e.g., see 11:54-64 wherein real time data permits notification of unanticipated availability of resources).
As to claim 44, the rejection of claim 12 is incorporated. Rassman further teaches wherein the dynamically reallocating increases the predicted second utilization percentage of the second surgical block during the first time period (e.g., see Figs. 1-9, 7:17:21, 10:60-65, 12:25-35 teaching automatically or manually scheduling a resource based the status indicators and/or cells. Notably, the claim limitation “causes an increase in the second utilization percentage of the second surgical block during the first time period” is interpreted as an intended result and does not impart a patentable distinction as it merely states an intention of what necessarily happens as a result of the structure or actions recited in the claims (see MPEP 2111.05). In this case, scheduling a resource such that it can be utilized, obviously, if not necessarily results in an increased utilization percentage during the time it is being used).
As to claim 45, the rejection of claim 44 is incorporated. Rassman further teaches wherein the dynamically reallocating increases the predicted first utilization percentage of the first surgical block during a second time period after the first time period (e.g., see Figs. 1-9, 7:17:21, 10:60-65, 12:25-35 teaching automatically or manually scheduling a resource based the status indicators and/or cells. Notably, the claim limitation “increases the predicted first utilization percentage of the first surgical block during a second time period after the first time period” is interpreted as an intended result and does not impart a patentable distinction as it merely states an intention of what necessarily happens as a result of the structure or actions recited in the claims (see MPEP 2111.05). In this case, scheduling a resource such that it can be utilized, obviously, if not necessarily results in an increased utilization percentage during the time it is being used).
As to claim 46, the rejection of claim 12 is incorporated. Rassman further teaches wherein the operations further comprise receiving an indication of an updated surgery schedule based on the report, and wherein the updated surgery schedule increases a utilization rate for at least one operating room corresponding to or identified by the first surgical block (e.g., see Figs. 1-9, 7:17:21, 10:60-65, 12:25-35 teaching automatically or manually scheduling a resource based on conflicts present in the status indicators and/or cells. Notably, the claim limitation “results in a further increase in at least one utilization percentage” is interpreted as an intended result and does not impart a patentable distinction as it merely states an intention of what necessarily happens as a result of the structure or actions recited in the claims (see MPEP 2111.05). In this case, scheduling a resource such that it can be utilized, obviously, if not necessarily results in an increased utilization percentage during the time it is being used).
As to claim 47, the rejection of claim 12 is incorporated. Rassman further teaches real-time data extracted and received, in real-time and simultaneously with extracting and receive (a) the second set of real-time data from a surgical procedure application and (b) the set of real-time data from a scheduling application (e.g., see Abstract, 4:66-5:19 teaching monitoring and dynamically managing a plurality of interrelated and interdependent resources including scheduling and surgical procedure to be performed).
While Rassman teaches the use of radio frequency for monitoring, Rassman fails to teach a first set of data is from a Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) scanner.
However, in the same field of endeavor of resource management, Bhavani teaches a first set of real-time data is extracted and received from a Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) scanner (e.g., see [0008] wherein data tracking can be received from radio frequency identifier locator). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to modify Rassman-Xiao in view of Bhavani with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make such a modification to modify the tracking/monitoring of Rassman-Xiao to tracking/monitoring resources using RFID as taught in Bhavani to easily track objects withing a patient flow pattern (e.g., see [0007] of Bhavani).
As to claim 48, the rejection of claim 12 is incorporated. Rassman further teaches wherein: (a) the first set of real-time data comprises: surgical block prepping start and end times; and surgical block procedure start and end times, (b) the second set of real-time data comprises surgery-related procedure data, and (c) the third set of real-time data comprises temporal data, personnel data, and surgical block allocation data (e.g., see 4:40-65, 7:44-52, 8:8-13 wherein the collected data includes procedure (including surgical) start and end times, resources related to the procedures, time and scheduling information for doctors and rooms).
As to claim 49, the rejection of claim 12 is incorporated. Rassman further teaches wherein the operations further comprise: after the presenting, receiving an input corresponding to a selection of one or both of the utilization model and another utilization model included in the report (e.g., see Fig. 9, 14:52-56 wherein after presenting, a user can select one or more cells (i.e., utilization models)).
As to claim 50, the rejection of claim 12 is incorporated. Rassman further teaches wherein the report further indicates: multiple block turnover times, block unused times, sets of used block minutes, and analytics configured to facilitate increase in one or more surgical block utilization rates; and the utilization model (e.g., see Figs. 1-7, 4:57-5:23 of Rassman teaching displaying a plurality of cells (i.e., utilization models) indicating scheduled surgical procedures, an amount of time for each procedure factoring in turnover time, wherein the display further indicates used and unused time and other indicators to aid in the manual or automatic scheduling of resources. Notably, the claim limitation “to increase one or more surgical block utilization rates” is interpreted as an intended result and does not impart a patentable distinction as it merely states an intention of what necessarily happens as a result of the structure or actions recited in the claims (see MPEP 2111.05). In this case, scheduling a resource such that it can be utilized, obviously, if not necessarily results in an increased utilization rate).
As to claim 51, the rejection of claim 12 is incorporated. Rassman further teaches wherein the operations further comprise: after the transforming and prior to the reallocating, generating a plurality of utilization models, including the utilization model, based on the analyzing; including indications of the plurality of utilization models in the report (e.g., see Figs. 1-7, 7:46-51, 8:8-20 wherein the display presents multiple scheduling indicators/cells and/or resources, either or which is interpreted to read upon the claimed “utilization models”, wherein the models and new scheduling are based on existing data. In other words, a resource is not allocated without taking into consideration existing data (i.e., after transforming and prior to allocating)); after the presenting, receiving an input selecting one or more of the plurality of utilization models (e.g., see Fig. 9, 14:52-56 wherein after presenting, a user can select one or more cells (i.e., utilization models)), and wherein the selection of the one or more of the plurality of utilization models causes an increase in at least one of a plurality of surgical block utilization rates (e.g., see Fig. 9, 14:52-56 wherein after presenting, a user can select one or more cells (i.e., utilization models). See also Figs. 1-9, 7:17:21, 10:60-65, 12:25-35 teaching automatically or manually scheduling a resource based the status indicators and/or cells. Notably, the claim limitation “to increase at least one of the surgical block utilization rates” is interpreted as an intended result and does not impart a patentable distinction as it merely states an intention of what necessarily happens as a result of the structure or actions recited in the claims (see MPEP 2111.05). In this case, scheduling a resource such that it can be utilized, obviously, if not necessarily results in an increased utilization rate).
Claims 31-32 are rejected as under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rassman, Xiao, Bhavani, and Hassan, as applied above, and in further view of Johnson et al. (USPPN: 2009/0119126; hereinafter Johnson)
As to claim 31, the rejection of claim 12 is incorporated. The above cited references fail to explicitly teach wherein the operations further comprise comparing, by a validator, procedure length data from the first set of real- time data for a specific procedure with a particular surgeon to a prior set of data stored that includes an overlapping characteristic selected from a group comprising at least a same procedure type and a same surgeon identity; and based on the comparing, validating an estimated length that the specific procedure may take and determining a data consistency metric for the specific procedure.
However, in the same field of endeavor scheduling resources, Johnson teaches wherein the operations further comprise comparing, by a validator, procedure length data from the first set of real- time data for a specific procedure with a particular surgeon to a prior set of data stored that includes an overlapping characteristic selected from a group comprising at least a same procedure type and a same surgeon identity; and based on the comparing, validating an estimated length that the specific procedure may take and determining a data consistency metric for the specific procedure (e.g., see Figs. 2, 3, [0009], [0050], [0051], [0061], [0164]-[0168] wherein duration information of a procedure is predicted using historical records of the same type of procedure, staff, room, equipment, etc. Wherein audits are performed to compare the scheduled vs. recorded operations which is used to characterize a degree of confidence of the forecasted duration for the procedure). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to modify Rassman-Xiao-Bhavani-Hassan in view of Johnson with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make the modification in order to improve upon scheduling clinical activities using probabilities to schedule activities and modify schedules (e.g., see [0008] of Johnson).
As to claim 32, the rejection of claim 31 is incorporated. Rassman further teaches wherein the dynamically reallocating increases the predicted first utilization percentage of the first surgical block during a first time period relative to a utilization percentage of the first surgical block during the first time period without the generation in real-time of the set of utilization data and without the dynamically reallocating (e.g., see Figs. 1-9, 7:17:21, 10:60-65, 12:25-35 teaching automatically or manually scheduling a resource based the status indicators and/or cells. Notably, the claim limitation “increases the predicted first utilization percentage of the first surgical block during a first time period relative to a utilization percentage of the first surgical block during the first time period without the generation in real-time of the set of utilization data and without the dynamically reallocating” is interpreted as an intended result and does not impart a patentable distinction as it merely states an intention of what necessarily happens as a result of the structure or actions recited in the claims (see MPEP 2111.05). In this case, scheduling a resource such that it can be utilized, obviously, if not necessarily results in an increased utilization percentage during the time it is being used).
Nonetheless, in the same field of endeavor of resource scheduling, Hassan teaches wherein the dynamically reallocating increases the predicted first utilization percentage of the first surgical block during a first time period relative to a utilization percentage of the first surgical block during the first time period without the generation in real-time of the set of utilization data and without the dynamically reallocating (e.g., see [0016], [0040] teaching shifting an operation to a less utilized resource (i.e., thereby increasing its utilization)). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to modify Rassman-Xiao-Bhavani in view of Hassan with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make the modification to aid in the dynamic allocation of resources by effectively utilizing resources which have excess capacity (e.g., see [0002], [0003]).
Claims 37-40 are rejected as under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rassman, Xiao, Bhavani, and Hassan, as applied above, and in further view of Page et al. (USPPN: 2019/0371456; hereinafter Page).
As to claim 37, the rejection of claim 12 is incorporated. Notably, the limitation of wherein the report specifies, as a number, a total number of allocated minutes for a set of multiple work days is interpreted as nonfunctional descriptive information as they are not functionally required in the claimed computer readable media. See MPEP 2111.05. The function described in the claimed computer readable media would be performed the same regardless of the report specifies the allocated/unallocated minutes as a number. Therefore, Rassman and Bhavani teaching displaying the allocated minutes in a chart form and/or start and end times (e.g., see Figs. 1-9, 2:65-67 of Rassman and Fig, 7 of Bhavani), it would have been obvious to substitute illustrating the time graph taught in Rassman and Bhavani to a specific number as a simple substitution because the results would have been predictable for easily identifying desired data. See KSR Int’l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1740-41, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007); and MPEP 2143.
Nonetheless, for the purposes of compact prosecution and in the same field of endeavor of resource scheduling, Page teaches wherein the report specifies, as a number, a total number of allocated minutes for a set of multiple work days (e.g., see Fig. 7, [0075] wherein the used/unused time can be represented as a total number over a duration). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to substitute illustrating the time graph taught in Rassman and Bhavani to a specific number as taught in Page a simple substitution because the results would have been predictable for easily identifying desired data. See KSR Int’l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1740-41, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007); and MPEP 2143.
As to claim 38, the rejection of claim 12 is incorporated. Notably, the limitation of wherein the report specifies, as a number, a total number of released minutes over a set of multiple work days is interpreted as nonfunctional descriptive information as they are not functionally required in the claimed computer readable media. See MPEP 2111.05. The function described in the claimed computer readable media would be performed the same regardless of the report specifies the allocated/unallocated minutes as a number. Therefore, Rassman and Bhavani teaching displaying the unallocated minutes in a chart form and/or start and end times (e.g., see Figs. 1-9, 2:65-67 of Rassman and Fig, 7 of Bhavani), it would have been obvious to substitute illustrating the time graph taught in Rassman and Bhavani to a specific number as a simple substitution because the results would have been predictable for easily identifying desired data. See KSR Int’l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1740-41, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007); and MPEP 2143.
Nonetheless, for the purposes of compact prosecution and in the same field of endeavor of resource scheduling, Page teaches wherein the report specifies, as a number, a total number of released minutes over a set of multiple work days (e.g., see Fig. 7, [0075] wherein the used/unused time can be represented as a total number over a duration). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to substitute illustrating the time graph taught in Rassman and Bhavani to a specific number as taught in Page a simple substitution because the results would have been predictable for easily identifying desired data. See KSR Int’l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1740-41, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007); and MPEP 2143.
As to claim 39, the rejection of claim 12 is incorporated. Notably, the limitation of wherein the report specifies, as a number, a total number of in block minutes over a set of multiple work days is interpreted as nonfunctional descriptive information as they are not functionally required in the claimed computer readable media. See MPEP 2111.05. The function described in the claimed computer readable media would be performed the same regardless of the report specifies the allocated/unallocated minutes as a number. Therefore, Rassman and Bhavani teaching displaying the unallocated minutes in a chart form and/or start and end times (e.g., see Figs. 1-9, 2:65-67 of Rassman and Fig, 7 of Bhavani), it would have been obvious to substitute illustrating the time graph taught in Rassman and Bhavani to a specific number as a simple substitution because the results would have been predictable for easily identifying desired data. See KSR Int’l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1740-41, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007); and MPEP 2143.
Nonetheless, for the purposes of compact prosecution and in the same field of endeavor of resource scheduling, Page teaches wherein the report specifies, as a number, a total number of in block minutes over a set of multiple work days (e.g., see Fig. 7, [0075] wherein the used/unused time can be represented as a total number over a duration). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to substitute illustrating the time graph taught in Rassman and Bhavani to a specific number as taught in Page a simple substitution because the results would have been predictable for easily identifying desired data. See KSR Int’l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1740-41, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007); and MPEP 2143.
As to claim 40, the rejection of claim 12 is incorporated. Notably, the limitation of wherein the report specifies, as a number, a total number of turnover minutes over a set of multiple work days is interpreted as nonfunctional descriptive information as they are not functionally required in the claimed computer readable media. See MPEP 2111.05. The function described in the claimed computer readable media would be performed the same regardless of the report specifies the allocated/unallocated minutes as a number. Therefore, Rassman and Bhavani teaching displaying the unallocated minutes in a chart form and/or start and end times (e.g., see Figs. 1-9, 2:65-67 of Rassman and Fig, 7 of Bhavani), it would have been obvious to substitute illustrating the time graph taught in Rassman and Bhavani to a specific number as a simple substitution because the results would have been predictable for easily identifying desired data. See KSR Int’l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1740-41, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007); and MPEP 2143.
Nonetheless, for the purposes of compact prosecution and in the same field of endeavor of resource scheduling, Page teaches wherein the report specifies, as a number, a total number of turnover minutes over a set of multiple work days (e.g., see Fig. 7, [0075] wherein the used/unused time can be represented as a total number over a duration). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to substitute illustrating the time graph taught in Rassman and Bhavani to a specific number as taught in Page a simple substitution because the results would have been predictable for easily identifying desired data. See KSR Int’l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1740-41, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007); and MPEP 2143.
Relevant Art not Cited
As a courtesy, the following references have been found during the course of examination and deemed relevant to Applicant’s disclosure. Applicant is encourage to review the references prior to any amendments/remarks:
Guarino (USPPN: 2019/0362837): Systems and methods for efficiently managing hospital operating rooms
Wang et al. (USPPN: 2014/0039906): Optimized surgery scheduling
Gada et al. (USPN: 11,488,115): Efficient meeting room reservation and scheduling
It is noted that any citation to specific pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. “The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). Further, a reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). See also Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Celeritas Technologies Ltd. v. Rockwell International Corp., 150 F.3d 1354, 1361, 47 USPQ2d 1516, 1522-23 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 STELLA HIGGS whose telephone number is (571)270-5891. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9-5PM.
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, Peter Choi can be reached at (469) 295-9171. 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.
/STELLA HIGGS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3681