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 a response filed 24 October 2025, on an application filed 14 July 2022, which claims domestic priority to provisional applications filed 6 January 2022 and 15 July 2021.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 9, 12, 15 and 17 have been amended.
Claim 6 has been canceled.
Claim 21 has been added.
Claims 1-5 and 7-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 1-5 and 7-21 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 1-5 and 7-21 are within the four statutory categories. Claims 1-5, 7, 8 and 15-21 are drawn to a method, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. process). Claims 9-14 are drawn to a system, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. machine).
Prong 1 of Step 2A
Claim 1 recites: A method, comprising:
receiving, at a controller associated with a healthcare facility and via a network, intake information associated with a patient;
determining, by the controller and based on the intake information, an initial discharge date;
tracking, in real time, by the controller and from one or more devices associated with the patient, mobility information corresponding to the patient via the LAN;
determining, by the controller and based at least partly on aggregating the mobility information, an estimated discharge date and a confidence metric associated with the estimated discharge date;
determining, by the controller, that the estimated discharge date is later than the initial discharge date by more than a threshold period of time;
determining, by the controller, that the confidence metric is greater than a threshold metric;
based at least partly on the estimated discharge date being later than the initial discharge date by more than the threshold period of time and the confidence metric being greater than the threshold metric, generating, by the controller, an alert for display at an electronic device associated with a caregiver, the alert including a recommendation to change the initial discharge date to the estimated discharge date;
receiving, by the controller, from the electronic device of the caregiver, and via the network, an input indicating an acceptance of the recommendation; and
based at least in part on the input, sending, by the controller, to an additional computing device, and via the network, a signal causing the additional computing device to change the initial discharge date to the estimated discharge date.
Claim 9 recites similar material to claim 1, and also:
a network; a computing device connected to the network; a controller in communication with the computing device via the network; a plurality of sensors operably connected to the controller via the network; and
one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions that, when executed by the controller, cause the controller to perform operations.
Claim 15 recites similar material to claim 9, and also
determining, by a controller, one or more of an initial discharge date, a mobility requirement, or a discharge event;
determining, by the controller, that at least one of the mobility requirement or the discharge event is achievable by a date that is later than the initial discharge date;
determining, by the controller, that the confidence metric is greater than a threshold metric; and
causing, by the controller and via the network, display of the alert at a display device of the caregiver.
The underlined limitations as shown above, given the broadest reasonable interpretation, cover the abstract ideas of certain method of organizing human activity because they recite fundamental economic practices, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (i.e. social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions – in this case the determination of an initial discharge date based on collected data, an updated discharge date based on new information, the determination of whether the difference between the two surpasses a threshold amount and then the generation of a corresponding alert), 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 2-5, 7, 8, 10-14, and 16-21 include other limitations, for example, claims 2, 8, 10, 13, 16, 18, 20 recite further limitations directed to determining the discharge date and confidence metric, claims 4, 5 and 19 recite limitations directed to scheduling an appointment for patient based on determinations and claims 11 and 12 recite further limitations directed to the provided suggestion, 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 2-5, 7, 8, 10-14, and 16-21 not addressed above are deemed additional elements to the abstract idea, and will be further addressed below. Hence dependent claims 2-5, 7, 8, 10-14, and 16-21 are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as independent claims 1, 9 and 15.
Prong 2 of Step 2A
Claims 1, 9 and 15 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 structural components of the computer, which amounts to merely invoking a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, as well as the recitation of the network, 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 directed to receiving mobility data from a sensor, 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, such as the reception and transmission of data (e.g. see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Additionally, dependent claims 2-5, 7, 8, 10-14, and 16-21 include other limitations, but these limitations also amount to no more than amount to mere instructions to apply the exception (e.g.
the recitation of various devices of claims 3, 14 and 17), generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (e.g. the reception of data from an electronic health record of claims 2 and 20), 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, such as the reception and transmission of data, see claims 2, 4-6, 12, 18 and 20 (e.g. see MPEP 2106.05(g)), and/or do not include any additional elements beyond those already recited in independent claims 1, 9 and 15, and hence also do not integrate the aforementioned abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B
Claims 1, 9 and 15 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” than the judicial exception because the additional elements (i.e. the non-underlined limitations above – in this case, the one or more processors), 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:
paragraphs [0017]-[0020] and [0066] of the Specification discloses that the additional elements (i.e. computing components) 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):
Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g. see Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec – similarly, the current invention receives and transmits data over a network, for example the Internet, e.g. see paragraph [0024] of the present Specification;
which even when reevaluated under the considerations of Step 2B of the analysis, do not amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-5, 7, 8, 10-14, and 16-21 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 claims 1, 9, and 15, and/or the additional elements recited in the aforementioned dependent claims similarly amount to mere instructions to apply the exception (e.g. the recitation of various devices of claims 3, 14 and 17), generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (e.g. the reception of data from an electronic health record of claims 2 and 20), 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, such as the reception and transmission of data, see claims 2, 4-6, 12, 18 and 20 (e.g. see MPEP 2106.05(g)), 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 1-5 and 7-21 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 1-5, 7-10, 13-15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Adhikari et al. (U.S. PG-Pub 2023/0008936 A1), hereinafter Adhikari, further in view of Thomas et al. (U.S. PG-Pub 2021/0098090 A1), hereinafter Thomas.
As per claims 1, 7-9, 13, 15 and 18, Adhikari discloses a system (Adhikari, see Figs. 1 and 2.), comprising:
a network; a computing device connected to the network; a controller in communication with the computing device via the network (Adhikari, see Figs. 1 and 2, and paragraph 39.);
a plurality of sensors operably connected to the controller via one or more communication protocols (System is operative to receive vital and clinical data from various monitoring devices that submit data to a database that is then sent to the system, see Adhikari paragraphs 33, 44, 53, 58, 64, 66 and 82. It is old and well known that sensors that communicate information utilize one or more communication protocols, such as analog or digital communication protocols.); and
one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions that, when executed by the controller, cause the controller to perform operations (Adhikari, see Figs. 1 and 2.), comprising:
receive, via the network and from the computing device, intake information associated with a patient (System receives disease information and physiological data of the patient to make an initial estimated length of stay, see Adhikari paragraph 52.);
determine, based on the intake information, an initial discharge date (System receives disease information and physiological data of the patient to make an initial estimated length of stay, see Adhikari paragraph 52.);
tracking, in real time and by the plurality of sensors and via the one or more communication protocols, mobility information associated with the patient (System continually receives new physiological and vitals data, see Adhikari paragraph 53.);
determine, based at least partly on the … information, an estimated discharge date (Based on the new information, the system determines a new estimated length of stay, the residual length of stay, see Adhikari paragraph 53.);
determine that the estimated discharge date is later than the initial discharge date by more than a threshold period of time (Patient flow is based on initial and revised patient length of stays; then system compares a deviation between predicted patient flow and a data point, such as actual patient flow, to determine whether a deviation exceeds a threshold, see Adhikari paragraphs 66-68.);
generate an alert based at least partly on the estimated discharge date being later than the initial discharge date by more than the threshold period of time (If the deviation exceeds a threshold, system generates a visual alert on a user interface and a suggested action, see Adhikari paragraphs 67-69 and 73.);
provide, via the network, the alert to a computing device of a caregiver, the alert causing the computing device to display at least one of a visual indicia or a suggestion in response to receiving the alert (If the deviation exceeds a threshold, system generates a visual alert on a user interface and a suggested action, see Adhikari paragraphs 67-69 and 73.); and
the alert associated with a recommendation for a change in the care plan for the patient (Alert provides recommendations that will be associated with a change in care plan for the patient, such as one or more suggested rearrangements of resources or actions to be taken within the hospital or sub-ward or unit to address the expected deviation”, including more personnel to a department the patient is in, see paragraphs 73-74.);
receive, via the network and from the computing device, an input indicating an acceptance of the recommendation (Adhikari, user accepts recommendation, see paragraph 80.); and
based at least in part on the input, send, via the network and to an additional computing device, a signal causing the additional computing device to change the care plan (Acceptance results in changes to the database, see paragraph 80 of Adhikari. Adhikari discloses a network and centralized database, see Figs. 1 and 2.).
7,8,13. determine, based at least partly on the … information, a confidence metric associated with the estimated discharge date (Each prediction of Adhikari is utilized in pair with a confidence metric, see paragraphs 64 and 70.);
determine that the confidence metric is greater than a threshold metric (Adhikari discloses a confidence band for confidence amounts, which would comprise comparing a confidence metric to plural thresholds, see paragraph 70.); and
generate the alert based at least partly on the confidence metric being greater than a threshold metric, wherein the visual indicia is associated with one or more of the threshold period of time or the confidence metric, the visual indicia comprising at least a first color associated with the threshold period of time or a second color associated with the confidence metric (If the deviation exceeds a threshold, system generates a visual alert on a user interface and a suggested action, see Adhikari paragraphs 67-69 and 73. The Office notes that any display of data inherently requires a color associated with that display of data, such as black text.).
Adhikari fails to explicitly disclose mobility information, a discharge date indication and changing the discharge date.
Thomas teaches that it was old and well known in the art of healthcare communications before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize mobility information (Thomas, paragraph 77.) a discharge date indication and changing the discharge date (See Thomas, Fig. 15 wherein the system indicates a discharge date for a patient and paragraph 36 where the system continually recalculates estimated discharge dates.), because to do so improves forecasting models in planning for post-discharge care.
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 discharge prediction system of Adhikari to include the use of mobility information, as shown by Thomas, because to do so would result in a discharge prediction system that improves forecasting models in planning for post-discharge care.
Adhikari and Thomas are all directed to the electronic processing of patient healthcare data and specifically to the communication of digital healthcare information. 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).
As per claims 2, 3, 10, 14, 17 and 20, Adhikari/Thomas discloses claims 1, 9 and 15. Adhikari/Thomas also discloses:
2,20. receiving additional mobility information from an electronic health record associated with the patient (System is operative to receive vital and clinical data from various monitoring devices that submit data to a database that is then sent to the system, see Adhikari paragraphs 33, 44, 53, 58, 64, 66 and 82. System continually receives new physiological and vitals data, see Adhikari paragraph 53. Thomas discloses the use of mobility information as shown above.); and
determining the estimated discharge date and the confidence metric based at least partly on the additional mobility information (Based on the new information, the system determines a new estimated length of stay, the residual length of stay, see Adhikari paragraph 53. Each prediction of Adhikari is utilized in pair with a confidence metric, see paragraphs 64 and 70.);
3,17. wherein the mobility information is tracked using a plurality of sensors, a camera, or a mobility assistance device (System is operative to receive vital and clinical data from various monitoring devices that submit data to a database that is then sent to the system, see Adhikari paragraphs 33, 44, 53, 58, 64, 66 and 82. Adhikari discloses mobile phones, which are well known to contain cameras, GPS sensors and accelerometers, see paragraphs 65 and 75. Thomas discloses the use of mobility information as shown above.);
10. determine, based at least partly on the mobility information, a confidence metric associated with the estimated discharge date (Each prediction of Adhikari is utilized in pair with a confidence metric, see paragraphs 64 and 70. Thomas discloses the use of mobility information as shown above.);
determine that the confidence metric is greater than a threshold metric (Adhikari discloses a confidence band for confidence amounts, which would comprise comparing a confidence metric to plural thresholds, see paragraph 70.);
determine that the estimated discharge date is earlier than the initial discharge date by more than a second threshold period of time (Adhikari is operative to be continually updated based on new information to update the predicted length of stay and generate a new patient flow, thereby comprising a plurality of length of stay comparisons based on a plurality of thresholds, see paragraphs 16, 53, 60, 64 and 66.); and
determine that the confidence metric is greater than a second threshold metric (Adhikari discloses a confidence band for confidence amounts, which would comprise comparing a confidence metric to plural thresholds, see paragraph 70.);
wherein the controller generates the alert based at least in part on determining that the estimated discharge date is earlier by more than the second threshold period of time and the confidence metric is greater than the second threshold metric (If the deviation exceeds a threshold, system generates a visual alert on a user interface and a suggested action, see Adhikari paragraphs 67-69 and 73.); and
14. wherein the plurality of sensors comprise one or more cameras, motion sensors, GPS sensors, accelerometers, and real-time locating system tags (Adhikari discloses mobile phones, which are well known to contain cameras, GPS sensors and accelerometers, see paragraphs 65 and 75.).
As per claims 4, 5 and 19, Adhikari/Thomas discloses claims 1 and 18, discussed above. Adhikari/Thomas also discloses:
4. transmitting the alert to an electronic device via the network, the alert comprising a selectable option … for the patient (If the deviation exceeds a threshold, system generates a visual alert on a user interface and a suggested action, see Adhikari paragraphs 67-69 and 73. Adhikari discloses a plurality of selectable items, see paragraphs 53 and 80.);
5. wherein the input comprises a first input), the method further comprising: receiving, from the electronic device, a second input indicating acceptance of the selectable option … (If the deviation exceeds a threshold, system generates a visual alert on a user interface and a suggested action, see Adhikari paragraphs 67-69 and 73. Adhikari discloses a plurality of selectable items, see paragraphs 53 and 80.);
19. wherein the alert comprises an indication … (If the deviation exceeds a threshold, system generates a visual alert on a user interface and a suggested action, see Adhikari paragraphs 67-69 and 73.).
Adhikari fails to explicitly disclose a suggestion to schedule an appointment for a patient.
Thomas 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 suggestion to schedule an appointment for a patient because to do so ensures patients receive needed resources.
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 discharge prediction system of Adhikari/Thomas to include a suggestion to schedule an appointment for a patient, as taught by Thomas, because to do so would result in a discharge prediction system that ensures patients receive needed resources.
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).
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Adhikari/Thomas, further in view of Martindale et al. (U.S. PG-Pub 2020/0211701 A1), hereinafter Martindale.
As per claims 11 and 12, Adhikari/Thomas discloses claims 1 and 10, discussed above. Adhikari/Thomas also discloses:
12. send, via the network, the alert to the computing device, the computing device being associated with at least one of an additional caregiver, a nurse, or a doctor, wherein the alert causes the computing device to display a suggestion to change the initial discharge date to an earlier date (If the deviation exceeds a threshold, system generates a visual alert on a user interface and a suggested action, see Adhikari paragraphs 67-69 and 73.).
Adhikari/Thomas fails to explicitly disclose:
11. wherein the suggestion is to change the initial discharge date to an earlier date; and
12. cause the initial discharge date to be updated to the earlier date based at least in part on sending the alert.
Martindale 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 an alert/indication of changing an initial discharge date to a different discharge date and doing so (Martindale, paragraph 71), because to do so improves forecasting models in planning for post-discharge care.
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 discharge prediction system of Adhikari/Thomas to include provision of an alert/indication of changing an initial discharge date to a different discharge date and doing so, as taught by Martindale, because to do so would result in a discharge prediction system that improves forecasting models in planning for post-discharge care.
Both Adhikari and Martindale are directed to the electronic processing of patient healthcare data and specifically to the forecasting of hospital demands based on patient data. 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).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Adhikari/Thomas further in view of Shnuck et al. (U.S. Patent 11,342,074 B1), hereinafter Schnuck.
As per claim 16, Adhikari/Thomas discloses claim 15, discussed above. Adhikari/Thomas also discloses wherein determining the at least one of the mobility requirement or the discharge event is achievable by date that is later than the initial discharge date is based at least in part on a data associated with the patient (Patient flow is based on initial and revised patient length of stays; then system compares a deviation between predicted patient flow and a data point, such as actual patient flow, to determine whether a deviation exceeds a threshold, see Adhikari paragraphs 66-68. Thomas discloses the use of mobility information as shown above.).
Adhikari/Thomas fails to explicitly disclose making determinations based at least in part on a target discharge location associated with the patient.
Schnuck 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 determinations based at least in part on a target discharge location associated with the patient (Schuck determines whether a patient is currently discharged based on their location, see C6L44-67.).
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 discharge prediction system of Adhikari/Thomas to include provision of determinations based at least in part on a target discharge location associated with the patient, as taught by Schuck, because to do so would result in a discharge prediction system that considers location information in consideration of discharge timing.
Both Adhikari and Schuck are directed to the electronic processing of patient healthcare data and specifically to the forecasting of hospital demands based on patient data. 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).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Adhikari/Thomas further in view of Jayaraman et al. (U.S. PG-Pub 2020/0405217 A1), hereinafter Jayaraman.
As per claim 21, Adhikari/Thomas discloses claims 1 and 10, discussed above. Adhikari/Thomas also discloses sending, by the controller and via the network, a prompt to the caregiver, mobility information and storing date in additional computers (Adhikari discloses communications via a controller and network and data stored in multiple computers, see Figs. 1 and 2. Adhikari also discloses prompting the caregiver, see paragraph 80. Thomas discloses mobility information, as shown above.).
Adhikari/Thomas fails to explicitly disclose updating information based on new validated information.
Jayaraman teaches that it was old and well known in the art of healthcare communications before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to update information based on new validated information (Jayaraman, paragraph 97.).
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 discharge prediction system of Adhikari/Thomas to include updating information based on new validated information, as taught by Jayaraman, because to do so would result in a discharge prediction system that confirms important information before entering it.
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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 24 October 2025 concerning the rejection of all claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 and 103(a) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to the rejection of the claims under 35 USC 101, Applicant argues on pages 9-14 that the claims comprise statutory material because:
A. Applicant’s claims do not recite an abstract idea as it recites computer technology;
B. The claims recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, such as updating a discharge date.
C. The claims recite an inventive concept in a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of features, similar to Bascom.
The Office respectfully disagrees. Please see the rejection of the claims, issued above, wherein the claims are shown to be directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding A, the claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The computer technology merely amounts to using an apply it function to the abstract idea, as shown above.
Regarding B, MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) states “the word ‘improvements’ in the context of this consideration is limited to improvements to the functioning of a computer or any other technology/technical field, whether in Step 2A Prong Two or in Step 2B.” Here, there is no improvement to the computer nor is there an improvement to another technology, updating discharge dates is not a technology. Because neither type of improvement is present in the claims, an improvement to technology is not present and there is no practical application.
Regarding C, although the Applicant cites various parts of the specification supporting this position, there is no nexus between the claimed improvement and the claims themselves. That is, it is unclear from reading the claims what, if any, technical improvement would be provided.
MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and MPEP 2106.05(a) indicates that a practical application may be present where the claimed invention provides a technical solution to a technical problem. See, e.g., DDR Holdings, LLC. v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1259 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (finding that claiming a website that retained the “look and feel” of a host webpage provided a technological solution to the problem of retention of website visitors by utilizing a website descriptor that emulated the “look and feel” of the host webpage, where the problem arose out of the internet and was thus a technical problem). Here, the Applicant’s argued problem is not a technological problem caused by the (the technological environment to which the claims are confined). The problem of patient management technology was not a problem cause by the computer/server, is it a problem that existed and/or exists regardless of whether a computer is involved in the process. At best, Applicant’s identified problem is a business problem. Because no technological problem is present, the claims do not provide a practical application.
Bascom indicates that “… when combined, an inventive concept may be found in the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of the additional elements …” (11/2/16 Update), or, in other words, eligibility may be found in “non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces”. This is distinct from the present invention, which utilizes generic computing structure to perform generic computing functions that provides an obvious result in view of the prior art, as indicated above.
With regard to the rejection of the claims under 35 USC 103, Applicant argues on pages 15-19 that the cited references fail to disclose the claims as amended, specifically fails to disclose an alert indicating a recommendation to change, and the changing of, a discharge date.
The Office respectfully disagrees. Thomas discloses the contested limitations, as shown above, at Fig. 15 and paragraph 36.
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection, specifically with reference to the previously cited reference, as necessitated by amendment, Thomas, as detailed above, or because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Accordingly, the prior art rejection is upheld.
In conclusion, all of the limitations which Applicant disputes as missing in the applied references, including the features newly added by amendment, have been fully addressed by the Office as either being fully disclosed or obvious in view of the collective teachings of Adhikari, Thomas, Orona, Schnuck and Martindale, based on the logic and sound scientific reasoning of one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of the invention, as detailed in the remarks and explanations given in the preceding sections of the present Office Action and in the prior Office Actions (24 June 2025, 26 February 2025 and 12 November 2024), and incorporated herein.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
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.
/MARK HOLCOMB/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3685
12 February 2026