Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is in reference to the communication filed on 25 NOV 2025.
Amendments to claims 29, 36-37, 39, 41, 48-49, 51 have been entered and considered.
Claims 29-53 are present 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 29-53 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. As explained below, the claim(s) are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step One: Is the Claim directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? YES
With respect to claim(s) 29-53 the independent claim(s) 29, 41, 53 recite(s) processes and an apparatus, both of which are a statutory category of invention.
Step 2A – Prong One: Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature) or an abstract idea? YES
With respect to claim(s) 29-53, the independent claim(s) (claims 29, 41, 53) is/are directed, in part, to:
displaying a first layout comprising a date indicator associated with a calendar date, a first section comprising a current schedule associated with a type of healthcare resource, wherein the current schedule indicates a total supply of the type of healthcare resource for each of one or more time periods of the calendar date; a visual representation of a differential demand for each time period…wherein the visual representation of the differential demand is generated based on predictive modeling using appointment data, the appointment data comprising at least an appointment type and an appointment time…and wherein the visual representation of the differential demand is updated in real time as the appointment data is updated at the resources scheduling; one or more suggested resource assignments…selectable...generated by an optimization engine based on the differential demand; receiving an operator input comprising a selection of a suggested resource assignment; in response to receiving the first input, querying one or more healthcare resource datasets to identify a list of available resources associated with the selected suggested resource assignment, and in response to receiving the first operator input causing a rendering comprising the list of available resources; receiving a second operator input…comprising a selection of the first available resource from the list of available resources; and in response to receiving the second operator input, causing an updated section based on the selection of the first available resource.
These claim elements are considered to be abstract ideas because they are directed to a method of organizing human activity which include managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, and following rules or instructions). Using a current schedule, resources, and forecasted demand to display an updated schedule based on those factors is a combination of social activities and following rules/instructions.
The claims are further directed to a mental process, in that the claims ensconce concepts performed in the human mind including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion functions. Reviewing a current schedule, current demands, evaluating suggested assignments, identifying the appropriate resources, and displaying an updated schedule based on the above factors requires concepts performed in the human mind.
The claims are further directed to mathematical concepts, in that the claims recite the use of a predictive modeling. Modeling is an example of a mathematical relationship, formula/equation, or calculations. Modeling is therefore found to fall within the mathematical concepts category.
If a claim limitation under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers managing personal behavior or relationships then it falls within the “method of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract idea(s). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a concept performed in the human mind, then it/they falls/ fall into the “mental processes” category. If a claim limitation under its broadest reasonable interpretation recites mathematical relationships, formulas, equations, or calculations, then it falls into the mathematical concepts category. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? NO.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim(s) recite(s) additional elements to perform the claimed steps. Claim 29 recites the use of a user interface for display on an operator device; and the user interface “displaying” elements and the updated schedule, as well as a resource scheduling server, and an “operator input system” and a “user device” while claim 41 recites, in addition to the identified elements, a non-transitory storage device and at least one processing device. Newly added claim 53 recites elements analogous to those in claim 29. The interface and display elements – i.e. entering and displaying data, are at best adding insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception(s) identified (see MPEP 2106.05g). Similarly, a server storing information is also found to be insignificant extra solution activity. The computing elements in claim 29, 41, 53 – such as the resource server, the input system and the user device, as well as the processor and non transitory storage device are further found to be analogous to adding the words “apply it’ with the judicial exception or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer (see MPEP 2106.05f). No improvement to the functioning of the computer or any other technology or technical field in the computing elements as identified above/as claimed (see MPEP 2106.05a), nor any other application or use of the judicial exception in some meaningful way beyond a general like between the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment is found (see MPEP 2106.05e). Accordingly, this/these additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? NO.
The independent claim(s) is/are additionally directed to claim elements. Claim 29 recites the use of a user interface for display on an operator device; and the user interface “displaying” elements and the updated schedule, as well as a resource scheduling server, and an “operator input system” and a “user device” while claim 41 recites in addition to the identified elements of claim 29, a non-transitory storage device and at least one processing device. Newly added claim 53 recites elements analogous to those in claim 29. When considered individually, the “input display and operator devices” common to the claims, as well as the server, input system, and user device, as well as the additional computing elements in claim 41 claim elements only contribute generic recitations of technical elements to the claims. It is readily apparent, for example, that the claim is not directed to any specific improvements of these elements. Examiner looks to Applicant’s specification:
[030] Accordingly, as used herein the term “operator device” or “user device” may refer to laptops, mobile phones, personal computing devices, tablet computers, wearable devices, and/or any portable electronic device capable of receiving and/or storing data therein and are owned, operated, or managed by a managing entity.
[040] the system 130 may include a processor 102, memory 104, a storage device 106, a high-speed interface 108 connecting to memory 104, and a low-speed interface 112 connecting to low speed bus 114 and storage device 106. Each of the components 102, 104, 106, 108, 111, and 112 are interconnected using various buses, and may be mounted on a common motherboard or in other manners as appropriate. The processor 102 can process instructions for execution within the system 130, including instructions stored in the memory 104 or on the storage device 106 to display graphical information for a GUI on an external input/output device, such as display 116 coupled to a high-speed interface 108. In other implementations, multiple processors and/or multiple buses may be used, as appropriate, along with multiple memories and types of memory. Also, multiple systems, same or similar to system 130 may be connected, with each system providing portions of the operations (e.g., as a server bank, a group of blade servers, or a multi-processor system).
[0045] The system 130 may be implemented in a number of different forms, as shown in FIG. 1. For example, it may be implemented as a standard server, or multiple times in a group of such servers. Additionally, the system 130 may also be implemented as part of a rack server system or a personal computer such as a laptop computer.
[047] The processor 152 is configured to execute instructions within the user input system 140, including instructions stored in the memory 154. The processor may be implemented as a chipset of chips that include separate and multiple analog and digital processors. The processor may be configured to provide, for example, for coordination of the other components of the operator input system 140 and the resource input system 141, such as control of user interfaces, applications, and wireless communication.
These passages, as well as others, makes it clear that the invention is not directed to a technical improvement. Instead, the element(s) are described in functional terms only – i.e. any device capable of executing the claimed limitations is suitable. As such, no improvement to the functioning of the computer or any other technology or technical field in the identified elements as claimed (see MPEP 2106.05a), nor any other application or use of the judicial exception in some meaningful way beyond a general like between the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05e).
When the claims are considered individually and as a whole, the additional elements noted above, appear to merely apply the abstract concept to a technical environment in a very general sense – i.e. a generic computer receives information from another generic computer, processes the information and then sends information back. The most significant elements of the claims, that is the elements that really outline the inventive elements of the claims, are set forth in the elements identified as an abstract idea. The fact that the generic computing devices are facilitating the abstract concept is not enough to confer statutory subject matter eligibility.
As per the dependent claims:
Dependent claims 30-40, 42-52 are not directed any additional abstract ideas and are also not directed to any additional non-abstract claim elements. Rather, these claims offer further descriptive limitations of elements found in the independent claims and addressed above – such as various parameters of creating the schedule, including demand issues, availability issues, and interactions with the schedule along the process of approval. While these descriptive elements may provide further helpful context for the claimed invention these elements do not serve to confer subject matter eligibility to the invention since their individual and combined significance is still not heavier than the abstract concepts at the core of the claimed invention.
Non-Obvious Subject Matter
Claims 29-53 have been previously found to be free of the prior art; the following discussion is as mailed in the 26 JUN 2025 Final Rejection and included for convenience.
The closest prior art of record is believed to be:
Bergman (US 20190304595) a
Brown (US 20200411169)
Souissi (US 20220020476)
Thompson (US 20040039628)
Bergman as cited teaches a user interface showing time periods and demands for a given type of scheduling demands, and a means through which a suggested resource assignment can be created or reviewed by the scheduler. The scheduler can then accept or decline the suggestion, or make more specific changes therein using the interface and can make approvals or denials of several suggestions/resources available to schedule, thereby making an updated schedule. Brown discusses a means of modeling and using historical demand information to inform future staffing choices in a medical environment, and making changes based on those demands. Souissi discloses a means of scheduling the physical spaces of operating rooms in a surgical environment based on the demand for the elements in the room. Thompson discloses a means of optimizing employee scheduling in a hospital based on demand, and updating future staffing needs based on the optimized staffing/demand information.
However, the references taken separately or in combination do not fairly disclose the separate sections of the displays and contents therein as they pertain to staffing demands, which are modeled as claimed, as well as the relationships between the sections as currently amended/claimed. Examiner finds the combination of interfaces/information to be novel.
The Examiner hereby asserts that the totality of the evidence neither anticipates nor renders obvious the particular combination of elements as claimed. That is, the Examiner emphasizes the claims as a whole and hereby asserts that the totality of the evidence fails to set forth, either explicitly or implicitly, an appropriate rationale for combining or otherwise modifying the available prior art to arrive at the claimed invention. The combination of features as claimed would not be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because any combination of the evidence at hand to reach the combination of features as claimed would require a substantial reconstruction of Applicant’s claimed invention relying on improper hindsight bias.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks as filed on 25 NOV 2025 are fully considered.
Applicant’s remarks on page 1 regarding the interview held on 17 SEPT 2025 are noted.
Applicant’s remarks on page 1 regarding support for the amendments are noted.
Applicant begins with various elements of USPTO policy regarding the rejection under 35 USC 101, on page 2. Examiner respectfully disagrees that the claims do not include mathematical calculations – the claims specifically recite the use of a predictive model, I.e. a mathematical relationship. Similarly, Examiner respectfully notes that aspects of the claims being executed on a computing system does not preclude the identification of a mental process as an abstract idea, and notes that the additional elements as identified have been analyzed at subsequent steps of the analysis.
Applicant turns to a discussion of the practical application on page 3, specifically asserting that an improvement is found in the functioning of the computer based scheduling system. Examiner respectfully disagrees, and finds that the improvement is to the scheduling system at best, rather than to the functioning of the computer. A scheduling system is not itself a technical field per MPEP 2106.05a. Applicant’s remarks into page 4 appear to provide additional context to the improvement to the scheduling process rather than an improvement to the computing elements or interfaces. Applicant’s remarks regarding the interactions with the user on the interface appear to, as noted above, recite the equivalent of adding “apply it” to the abstract idea(s) identified above. Examiner does not find any limitations regarding a dataset or structured results in the claims themselves, only additional embodiments/context of a user operating an interface to execute a scheduling process. Examiner finds no improvement to the interface itself. Applicant’s remaining remarks on page are found to support Examiner’s position that the computing elements as claimed are merely executing the abstract idea or using the computer as a tool.
Applicant’s remaining conclusions are noted and are found unpersuasive.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHERINE KOLOSOWSKI-GAGER whose telephone number is (571)270-5920. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday.
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, Mamon Obeid can be reached on 571-270-1813. 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.
/KATHERINE KOLOSOWSKI-GAGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3687