DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 20 January 2026 has been entered.
Status
This First Action Final Office Action is in response to the communication filed on 20 January 2026. Claims 2, 4-8, 11, 15-19, and 28-29 have been cancelled, claim 1 has been amended, and no new claims have been added. Therefore, claims 1, 3, 9-10, 12-14, and 20-27 are pending and presented for examination.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
A summary of the Examiner’s Response to Applicant’s amendment:
Applicant’s amendment does not overcome the rejection(s) under 35 USC § 101; therefore, the Examiner maintains the rejection(s) while updating phrasing in keeping with current examination guidelines.
Applicant’s amendment overcomes the rejection(s) under 35 USC §§ 102 and/or 103; therefore, the Examiner indicates allowability over the prior art.
Applicant’s arguments are found to be not persuasive; please see the Response to Arguments below.
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, 3, 9-10, 12-14, and 20-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Please see the following Subject Matter Eligibility (“SME”) analysis:
For analysis under SME Step 1, the claims herein are directed to a system (claims 1, 3, 9-10, 12-14, and 21-27) and method (claim 20), which would be classified under one of the listed statutory classifications (SME Step 1=Yes).
For analysis under revised SME Step 2A, Prong 1, independent claim 1 recites a system for managing caregiver communications in a healthcare facility, the system comprising: a contact information database storing contact information of a plurality of caregivers in the healthcare facility; one or more fixed reference points associated with a predefined area within the healthcare facility, the one or more fixed reference points including one or more of a sensor, an emitter for an identification signal, or a camera; at least one processing device; and a memory device storing instructions which, when executed by the at least one processing device, cause the system to: detect a presence of a first caregiver in the predefined area based on one or more of data from the sensor, the identification signal, or one or more images from the camera; detect a presence of a second caregiver in the predefined area based on one or more of the data from the sensor, the identification signal, or the one or more images from the camera; detect an interaction between the first caregiver and the second caregiver based on the first caregiver and the second caregiver each being present in the predefined area within a predetermined time window wherein the predefined area is defined by a predetermined proximity to the one or more fixed reference points including at least one of the sensor, the emitter for the identification signal, and the camera, wherein the interaction is detected by comparing a first time stamp from when the first caregiver visits the predefined area with a second time stamp from when the second caregiver visits the predefined area, and the interaction is detected when a difference between the first and second time stamps is less than the predetermined time window; determine whether the second caregiver is a contact of the first caregiver; determine whether the first caregiver is permitted to receive the contact of the second caregiver based on at least one of: an assigned department or unit within the healthcare facility, assigned patients identified from electronic medical records, assigned patient rooms or patient areas within the healthcare facility, and scheduled shifts in the healthcare facility; monitor movements of the first and second caregivers over a predetermined time window using the one or more fixed reference points to determine movement patterns; determine a frequency of interaction between the first and second caregivers over the predetermined time window; and send an invitation to a mobile device of the first caregiver based on the frequency of interaction, the invitation allowing the first caregiver to accept or decline adding the contact of the second caregiver when the first caregiver is permitted to receive the contact of the second caregiver; upon acceptance of the invitation, pull contact information of the second caregiver from the contact information database; send the contact information to the mobile device of the first caregiver and display an interaction timeline on the mobile device of the first caregiver, the interaction timeline including interactions with other caregivers in the healthcare facility, wherein the interaction timeline is filtered to include only interactions with the other caregivers who are not contacts of the first caregiver.
Claim 20 is directed to a method for managing caregiver communications in a healthcare facility, the method comprising: detecting an interaction between a first caregiver and a second caregiver; determining whether the second caregiver is a contact of the first caregiver; determining whether sharing the contact of the second caregiver is permitted based on at least one of a unit, a team, a department, a patient, a patient room, and a shift assigned to the first and second caregivers; and sending an invitation to a mobile device of the first caregiver, the invitation allowing the first caregiver to add the contact of the second caregiver, where claim 20 is further amended to add that “upon acceptance of the invitation, pulling contact information of the second caregiver from the contact information database; sending the contact information to the mobile device of the first caregiver; and displaying an interaction timeline on the mobile device of the first caregiver, the interaction timeline including interactions with other caregivers in the healthcare facility; wherein the interaction timeline is filtered to include only interactions with the other caregivers who are not contacts of the first caregiver”.
The dependent claims (claims 3, 9-10, 12-14, and 21-27) appear to be encompassed by the abstract idea of the independent claims since they merely indicate the second caregiver’s preferences (claim 3), facial recognition in a camera video stream (claims 9 and 24), mobile device data (claim 10) emitter signals (claim 12), mobile device of Wi-Fi, UWB, and/or RFID (claims 13 and 25), obtaining a signal from a badge or mobile device for identification and location determination (claims 14 and 21-23), determining proximity based on signal strength (claim 25), anticipate a need for contacting the second caregiver based on a patient EMR (claim 26), and/or the invitation to share contact information including one of a second caregiver ID, an interaction time stamp or location, or shared patients (claim 27).
The underlined portions of the claims are an indication of elements additional to the abstract idea (to be considered below).
The claim elements may be summarized as the idea of following permission rules regarding contact information; however, the Examiner notes that although this summary of the claims is provided, the analysis regarding subject matter eligibility considers the entirety of the claim elements, both individually and as a whole (or ordered combination). This idea is within at least the Certain methods of organizing human activity (e.g. … commercial or legal interactions such as agreements, contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities/behaviors, or business relations; and/or managing personal behavior or relationships between people such as social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) grouping of subject matter, as based on the rules and following contact permission rules or instructions that are managing the relationships between people.
Therefore, the claims are found to be directed to an abstract idea.
For analysis under revised SME Step 2A, Prong 2, the above judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements do not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception when evaluated individually and as a combination. The additional elements are a system comprising: at least one processing device; and a memory device storing instructions which, when executed by the at least one processing device, cause the system to perform activities, the system including one or more fixed reference points associated with a predefined area within the healthcare facility, the fixed reference points including one or more of a sensor, an emitter for an identification signal, or a camera; that the communications are in a healthcare facility, and use of one or more fixed reference points and the a mobile device (at claims 1 and 20), additionally, the use of a second mobile device for communications and contact (at claim 15). These additional elements do not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or technical field, effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (there is no medical disease or condition, much less a treatment or prophylaxis for one), implement the judicial exception with, or by using in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (there is no transformation/reduction of a physical article), and/or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generically linking use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
The system elements, i.e., the processing device, memory device, reference points (including one of a sensor, emitter, or camera) are all recited and described at a high level of generality. These components are not indicated as having an invention or discovery associated with them such that they could or would be regarded as constituting a practical application. Further, the component arrangements also appear, when considered as a whole, appear to be the normal or expected arrangement with each component merely performing its usual designed or intended function.
The claims appear to merely apply the judicial exception, include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. The additional elements appear to merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception and/or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
For analysis under SME Step 2B, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, as indicated above, are merely “[a]dding the words ‘apply it’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp.” that MPEP § 2106.05(I)(A) indicates to be insignificant activity.
The individual elements therefore do not appear to offer any significance beyond the application of the abstract idea itself, and there does not appear to be any additional benefit or significance indicated by the ordered combination, i.e., there does not appear to be any synergy or special import to the claim as a whole other than the application of the idea itself.
The dependent claims, as indicated above, appear encompassed by the abstract idea since they merely limit the idea itself; therefore the dependent claims do not add significantly more than the idea.
Therefore, SME Step 2B=No, any additional elements, whether taken individually or as an ordered whole in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, including analysis of the dependent claims.
Please see the Subject Matter Eligibility (SME) guidance and instruction materials at https://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/subject-matter-eligibility, which includes the latest guidance, memoranda, and update(s) for further information.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3, 9-10, 12-14, and 21-27 are indicated as allowable over the prior art.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest art of record appears to be Ahuja (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0280904), which discloses most of the elements at the independent claims (as cited per the rejection recitations at the 20 October 2025 Final Office Action). Ahuja, however, does not appear to explicitly disclose users as being caregivers and the permission to receive contact information being based on at least one of: an assigned department or unit within the healthcare facility, assigned patients identified from electronic medical records, assigned patient rooms or patient areas within the healthcare facility, scheduled shifts in the healthcare facility; the interaction being in the healthcare facility, and to determine movement patterns and a frequency of interaction between the first and second caregivers over the predetermined time window; and send the invitation based on the frequency of interaction.
Coney (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0051391), though, teaches managing caregiver communications in a healthcare facility using fixed reference points. Where Ahuja nor Coney appear to disclose or teach RFID tags on badges worn by the first and second caregivers, Derenne et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0109442, hereinafter Derenne) teaches a RF ID badge reader positioned in the rooms to detects RF ID badges worn by personnel of the healthcare facility. Ahuja, Coney, and Derenne do not appear, though, to teach displaying an interaction data timeline. Morita et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0114808, hereinafter Morita) indicates displaying a timeline that includes event symbols, where “[t]he data/event can include the names of all caregivers that came into contact or provided medical care to the patient during the visit” (Morita at 0032). Although all the claim elements appear taught, it does not appear reasonable at this time to combine the various references so as to arrive at the claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 20 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant first argues the 112(d) rejections (Remarks at 9); however, the amendment cancelling claims 28 and 29 overcomes the rejection. Therefore, the rejections are withdrawn and the argument is considered moot and not persuasive.
Applicant next argues the § 101 rejections (Id. at 9-14), first repeating much of claim 1 (Id. at 9-10), indicating written support (Id. at 10), and alleging that “display[ing] an interaction timeline … filtered to show only interactions with caregivers who are not yet contacts…. provides an improvement to user interface technology for mobile devices, analogous to the eligible claims in Core Wireless” (Id. at 11, Pt. I.A.). However, Core Wireless was deemed eligible based on re-arranging icons in an application summary so as to improve the interface (e.g., a user can/could more readily or quickly find the icon to select it) (see, e.g., Example 37 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Examples). The mere showing of a timeline (in this case of interactions with persons that are not listed as a contact) does not improve the interface – it merely shows a chart or result that could be provided except for the claim recitation of displaying on a mobile device (i.e., e.g., a hard copy paper printout could be provided). As such, the use of the mobile device for display is considered an element additional to the abstract idea, but this displaying is not considered to be a practical application.
Applicant argues “the amended claims improve workflow efficiency on the mobile device” by comparing timestamps, filtering the data to be displayed, and “Enabling efficient decision-making” (Id. at 12, Pt. I.B.). However, this is part of the abstract idea – defining the data for analysis and display and then displaying it. This apparently is what almost every science project or research paper would do (as one of certain methods of organizing human activity). The Examiner further notes that the “Enabling efficient decision-making” is NOT what the device is doing – the decision making is what the person observing the display would do, the device is merely doing what a mobile device does (i.e., display the information sent to it for display).
Applicant then argue that “The filtered interaction timeline improves the functioning of the mobile device itself by providing a more efficient and targeted user interface” by “Improving information access efficiency” and “Enhancing decision-making capability” (Id. at 12-13, Pt. I.C.). However, the device is merely displaying whatever has been sent to the device for display, there is no improvement to information access, nor is there any decision-making capability. If Applicant’s arguments could be believed, it would appear that literally anything that is sent to a computer to be displayed would automatically qualify as improved access to that information and an enhancement to any decisions that may be somehow based on that displayed information. Therefore, the display of a timeline does NOT appear to (in any manner) approach or constitute a practical application.
Applicant then argues that “The Interaction Timeline Combined with Filtering Is Not Well-Understood, Routine, or Conventional Activity Under Step 2B” (Id. at 13, Pt. II header), since the Office Action indicates it would not be reasonable to combine the prior art to arrive at the claimed invention (Id. Pt. II.A.). Applicant’s argument is at least belied by the plethora of issued patents that are and have been found to be directed to an abstract idea – those patents have therefore necessarily either overcome, or would not reasonably have, prior art rejections. Furthermore, at least Ultramercial indicates that prior art analysis is used as part of, or in place of, eligibility analysis.
Applicant then argues (as part of the Step 2B analysis) analogy to BASCOM, since “the specific ordered combination of the claims provides an inventive concept” by “1. Detecting caregiver interactions …; 2. Creating an interaction timeline …; 3. Filtering the timeline …; and 4. Presenting this filtered timeline” and this “specific arrangement of limitations in the claims of the present application, taken as an ordered combination, transforms the abstract idea into a practical application” (Id. at 13-14, Pt. II.B.). However, practical application analysis is part of Step 2A, Prong 2, not Step 2B. Furthermore, the elements indicated by Applicant are part of the abstract idea, so even if or when regarded as this being an argument regarding significantly more than the abstract idea, it is the elements additional to the abstract idea that are considered for well-understood, routine, conventional (“WURC”) analysis. Applicant does not explain how gathering data by detecting interactions, plotting that data on a timeline, filtering the timeline and/or the data plotted on the timeline, and displaying the timeline is anything more than what apparently every school child does when they draw out a timeline of events. The Examiner, at the rejection, indicates the alleged elements as insignificant for reasons beyond WURC analysis since those elements are merely the abstract idea being implement via use of computers and technology that is not itself or in combination improved.
Applicant then argues the prior art rejections (Remarks at 14-15); however, the prior art rejections are withdrawn and therefore the argument is considered moot and not persuasive.
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The ONC Patient Engagement Playbook - Chap. 4, from HealthIT.com, the Official Website of the Assistant Secretary for Technology Policy/Office of the National Coordinator for Health IT, downloaded from the WayBack Machine of Archive.org at https://web.archive.org/web/20190506222556/https://www.healthit.gov/playbook/pe/chapter-4/ on 21 August 2024, dated 6 May 2016, describing that at least HIPAA indicates control of portal access for caregivers.
Hill-Rom Hospital Beds, Sherman Oaks Medical Equipment, from the Archive.org WayBack Machine, dated 6 August 2020, and downloaded 19 December 2024 from https://web.archive.org/web/20200806153956/https://shermanoaksmedical.com/shop/hill-rom-hospital-beds-1, “Convert to PDF” copy indicating that common hospital beds (“The Hill-Rom Careassist is the exact same bed frame used in 75% of hospital across the United States”) are wheeled for mobility. Noting 2 print copies are included – the Print to PDF capture (for some reason) includes the images, but not the full text; whereas the Convert to PDF capture (for some reason) includes the text, but not the images – both PDFs being from the same web page as shown by the URL listed on each.
Hill-Rom Hospital Beds, Sherman Oaks Medical Equipment, from the Archive.org WayBack Machine, dated 6 August 2020, and downloaded 19 December 2024 from https://web.archive.org/web/20200806153956/https://shermanoaksmedical.com/shop/hill-rom-hospital-beds-1, “Print to PDF” copy indicating that common hospital beds (“The Hill-Rom Careassist is the exact same bed frame used in 75% of hospital across the United States”) are wheeled for mobility. Noting 2 print copies are included – the Print to PDF capture (for some reason) includes the images, but not the full text; whereas the Convert to PDF capture (for some reason) includes the text, but not the images – both PDFs being from the same web page as shown by the URL listed on each.
Kamel Boulos, M.N., Berry, G. Real-time locating systems (RTLS) in healthcare: a condensed primer. Int J Health Geogr 11, 25 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1186/1476-072X-11-25, Published 28 June 2012, downloaded 28 April 2025 from https://ij-healthgeographics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1476-072X-11-25, indicating that “This paper provides a condensed primer of RTLS in healthcare, briefly covering the many options and technologies that are involved, as well as the various possible applications of RTLS in healthcare facilities and their potential benefits” (at Abstract).
Derenne et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0075464) as indicating a pink alert is issued for alerts regarding a child location (at 0152).
Williams et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0253521, hereinafter Williams) indicates that “Controlled environment facilities, such as prisons, hospitals, nursing homes, assisted living centers, schools, and the like, typically utilize some method of monitoring the location of individuals therewithin” (Williams at 0004).
Brans (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0221166) indicates “Monitoring the location of persons is known in the art and used, inter alia, by law enforcement and in hospitals” (Brans at 0002).
Stokes (U.S. Patent No. 5,512,879) indicates “It is thus well known that an electronic method may be employed to monitor persons or objects using either active or passive security tags affixed by a band to the subject being monitored” (Stokes at column:lines 3:44-47; citation hereafter by number only) in reference to discussion of “U.S. Pat. No. 4,899,134 to Wheeless (1990)” (Stokes at 1:62-2:17), “U.S. Pat. No. 4,853,692 to Wolk et. al. (1989)” (Stokes at 2:18-39), “U.S. Pat. No. 5,014,040 to Weaver et al. (1991)” (Stokes at 2:40-57), “U.S. Pat. No. 4,851,815 to Enkelmann (1989)” (Stokes at 2:58-3:10), “U.S. Pat. No. 4,952,913 to Pauley (1990)” (Stokes at 3:11-30), and “U.S. Pat. No. 4,682,155 to Shirley (1987)” (Stokes at 3:31-43) and indicating the use is envisioned in a hospital (Stokes at 1:11-45).
Koller et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,130,707, hereinafter Koller) indicates that “Video systems are well known in the field of security systems. In a typical security system, one or more video cameras are placed so as to provide a field of view of the area under surveillance. These video cameras convert a visual image into an electronic form suitable for transmission. A control station, either co-located within the surveillance area or remote from the area, receives the signals from these cameras and displays the video image at a console, for security assessment and recording. Typically, a person monitors the images from the cameras on a video screen and initiates security measures if the received image indicates unauthorized activities. Often the monitoring person (hereinafter the monitor) is responsible for monitoring the images from multiple cameras simultaneously, and means are provided to assist in this process” (Koller at 1:13-28).
Trimble et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0084920, hereinafter Trimble) indicates that “Security systems that monitor assets or persons are also generally known. Such security systems may include devices such as transponders or transmitters attached, for example, to an asset or person to monitor or locate the asset or person and to provide a signal (such as an alarm) in the event that the asset or person is in an unauthorized location” (Trimble at 0004).
Bunn et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0028556, hereinafter Bunn) indicates “The use of security surveillance video cameras to provide visual images to security personnel for monitoring people places and things is well known” (Bunn at 0013).
Kadiyala (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0032585) indicates “The method includes generating one or more suggested contacts based on current operating context information, historical operating context information, and contact information by determining at least one contextual similarity between the current operating context information and historical operating context information corresponding to at least one contact. The method also includes associating the current operating context information with the contact information. The method further includes updating the historical operating context information based on the current operating context information associated with the contact information” (Kadiyala at 0005).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT D GARTLAND whose telephone number is (571)270-5501. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 AM - 5 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kambiz Abdi can be reached on 571-272-6702. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SCOTT D GARTLAND/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3685