DETAILED ACTION
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
Applicant's response filed 04 September 2025 has been considered and entered. Accordingly, claims 1-20 are pending in this application. Claims 1, 4-8, 11, 14, 16, and 19 are currently amended; claims 2-3, 9-10, 12-13, 15, 17-18, and 20 are original.
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.
3. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Independent claim 1 recites “determining that the census event causes the patient to have an unexpected census state regarding the location of the patient in the one or more facilities, deleting a second history of census events stored at the computing system for the patient, and processing the first history of census events to rebuild the census data for the patient stored at the computing system to recover from the network error or maintenance”, which is merely a concept can be performed in the human mind. These limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of a computing system. If a claim limitation under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” groupings of abstract ideas and are directed to a judicial exception.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim recites “receiving, from a source of truth via a network, a census event indicating a change of a location of a patient in one or more facilities for updating census data stored at a computing system, the census data defining historical locations of the patient in the one or more facilities; wherein the unexpected census state is caused by a network error or maintenance in the network coupling the source of truth to the computing system; receiving, via the network, a first history of census events from the source of truth corresponding to the patient, wherein each of the first history of census events affects the location of the patient; wherein each of the second history of census events affects the location of the patient” which indicates mere data gathering activity that the courts have found to be insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept. The remaining limitations “transmitting, via the network, a reconciliation request to the source of truth” of the above independent claims are also insignificant extra solution activity. The courts have recognized the computer function, i.e., “Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information). See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). As such, merely rebuilding the census data for the patient by processing the first history of census events, which can be performed by human mind as explained above, merely generally links the use of the judicial exception of a particular technological environment or field of use and is not significantly more than the judicial exception itself. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Furthermore, Examiner notes that independent claims 11 and 16 further include use of generic computer components including a processor and a memory. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., obtaining by a device) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). See MPEP 2106.05(f). The addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2016.05(h). The claim 1 is directed to the abstract idea.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two above, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. The Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs. court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that receiving or transmitting data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Thus, the claim 1 is ineligible.
As such, the independent claims 11 and 16 are also directed to the abstract idea for the same reason as the claim 1 above.
Regarding claims 2, 12, and 17, claims further recite the limitations “receiving from the source of truth corresponding census events at the computing system every time the source of truth updates locally stored census data so that the census data at the computing system mirrors the locally stored census data at the source of truth”, which indicates mere data gathering activity that the courts have found to be insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). As such, the claims include data related to mental processes are insignificant extra solution activity which are well-understood, routine, and conventional. MPEP 2106.05(g). As such, the claims are directed to perform mental processes that fall into the “Mental Processes” groupings of abstract ideas and are directed to a judicial exception. Furthermore, claims include no additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, the claims are ineligible.
Regarding claims 3, 13, and 18, claims further recite the limitations “wherein receiving the corresponding census events from the source of truth further comprises: receiving, at the computing system, the corresponding census events from a message queue communicatively coupled between the source of truth and the computing system”, which indicates mere data gathering activity that the courts have found to be insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). As such, the claims include data related to mental processes are insignificant extra solution activity which are well-understood, routine, and conventional. MPEP 2106.05(g). As such, the claims are directed to perform mental processes that fall into the “Mental Processes” groupings of abstract ideas and are directed to a judicial exception. Furthermore, claims include no additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, the claims are ineligible.
Regarding claim 4, claim further recites the limitations “wherein the first history of census events comprises all the census events for the patient stored at the source of truth, wherein the first history of census events is transmitted to the computing system along a path in the network that bypasses the message queue”, are just insignificant extra solution activity which are well-understood, routine, and conventional. MPEP 2106.05(g). As such, the claim is directed to perform mental processes that fall into the “Mental Processes” groupings of abstract ideas and are directed to a judicial exception. Furthermore, claim includes no additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Regarding claim 5, claim further recites the limitations “wherein the first history of census events is part of an electronic health record (EHR) for the patient that contains all the census events for the patient, wherein the EHR is transmitted from the source of truth to the computing system in response to the reconciliation request”, which indicates mere data gathering activity that the courts have found to be insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). As such, the claim includes data related to mental processes are insignificant extra solution activity which are well-understood, routine, and conventional. MPEP 2106.05(g). As such, the claim is directed to perform mental processes that fall into the “Mental Processes” groupings of abstract ideas and are directed to a judicial exception. Furthermore, claim includes no additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Regarding claims 6, 14, and 19, claims further recite the limitations “wherein determining that the census event causes the patient to have the unexpected census state comprises: identifying a processing rule corresponding to the census event, the processing rule listing at least one prerequisite census event; and upon determining that the prerequisite census event is not in the census data stored at the computing system for the patient, determining that the census event causes the patient to have the unexpected census state”, which further recites mental processes and are directed to perform mental processes that fall into the “Mental Processes” groupings of abstract ideas and are directed to a judicial exception. Furthermore, claims include no additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, the claims are ineligible.
Regarding claim 7, claim further recites the limitations “wherein the processing rule lists a plurality of prerequisite census events and a required order of the plurality of prerequisite census events that, if not met by the census data stored at the computing system, indicate the census events has caused the patient to have the unexpected census state”, which further recites mental processes and are directed to perform mental processes that fall into the “Mental Processes” groupings of abstract ideas and are directed to a judicial exception. Furthermore, claim includes no additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Regarding claim 8, claim further recites the limitations “after processing the first history of census events to rebuild the census data for the patient stored at the computing system: generating a suggestion for prophylaxis treatment for the patient based on the census data or a medical diagnosis for the patient based on the census data”, which further recites mental processes and are directed to perform mental processes that fall into the “Mental Processes” groupings of abstract ideas and are directed to a judicial exception. Furthermore, claim includes no additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Regarding claims 9, 15, and 20, claims further recite the limitations “at intervals: retrieving census data for multiple persons from the source of truth; retrieving census data for the multiple persons from the computing system; identifying at least one discrepancy between the census data for a first person of the multiple persons in the source of truth and the census data for the first person in the computing system; and performing a reconciliation process to update the census data for the first person in the computing system to correct the discrepancy”, which further recites mental processes and are directed to perform mental processes that fall into the “Mental Processes” groupings of abstract ideas and are directed to a judicial exception. Furthermore, claims include no additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, the claims are ineligible.
Regarding claim 10, claim further recites the limitations “selecting the multiple persons by identifying the census data in the source of truth where a new census event has been added to a person's history since the last time a system-wide census check was performed”, which further recites mental processes and are directed to perform mental processes that fall into the “Mental Processes” groupings of abstract ideas and are directed to a judicial exception. Furthermore, claim includes no additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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, 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.
5. Claims 1, 11 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schuck et al. (US 11,342,074 B1) hereinafter Schuck, in view of SCHLAPFER et al. (previously presented) (US 2017/0048323 A1) hereinafter SCHLAPFER, and further in view of Porter et al. (US 2015/0127358 A1) hereinafter Porter.
As to claim 1, Schuck discloses a method, comprising: receiving, from a source of truth via a network (Col. 8 lines 1-8), a census event indicating a change of a location of a patient in one or more facilities for updating census data stored at a computing system (Fig. 1, Col. 6 lines 44-50, the system updates the status of the patient within a system of the hospital. At 104 updating the status of the patient within the system is performed in response to the location being an expected location. At 105 updating the status of the patient within the system is performed in response to the location being an unexpected location, i.e., a census event indicating a change of a location of a patient. Col. 3 lines 35-40, “With the use of the identification wristbands, these systems may be updated automatically without needing hospital personnel to update the status of the patient. Additionally, any personnel that need to be notified of the change can be notified automatically.”. Thus, a census event indicating a change of a location of a patient in one or more facilities for updating census data stored at a computing system.), the census data defining historical locations of the patient in the one or more facilities (Col. 7 lines 54-61, “Using the passive wristband, the system can detect the patient at different locations that are configured as different identified locations (e.g., gateway location, discharge location, transport location, etc.). Thus, when the patient is detected at the location, the system can check the status of the patient in the operational system and update the patient status within a system based upon whether the location is expected or unexpected.”. Col. 4 lines 12-19, “if a patient removes the wristband but does not leave the hospital, the system is unaware of where the patient is actually located within the facility. Additionally, if a patient is being transferred between facilities within the healthcare enterprise, the wristband of the patient needs to be removed before leaving one facility and a new wristband needs to be attached to the patient when arriving at the new facility.”. Thus, the census data defining historical locations of the patient in the one or more facilities.);
determining that the census event causes the patient to have an unexpected census state regarding the location of the patient in the one or more facilities (Col. 6 lines 26-43, if the patient is detected at a discharge location, and the status of the patient within the operational system is discharged, the location may be determined to be an expected location. If, however, the status of the patient within the operational system is not discharged, the discharge location is an unexpected location of the patient, i.e., unexpected census state. As another example, if the patient status within the operational system is transferred, the patient being detected at a gateway location or transport location is expected, while the patient being detected at a discharge location is unexpected. Thus, the status of the patient within the operational system is compared with the detected location of the patient to determine if the patient should have been detected at the predetermined location. In other words, the detected location of the patient is compared to the status of the patient within the operational system to determine if the detected location is an expected or unexpected location. Thus, determining that the census event causes the patient to have an unexpected census state regarding the location of the patient in the one or more facilities.), and
processing the first history of census events to rebuild the census data for the patient stored at the computing system (Col. 4 lines 54-56, Once the status of the patient has been determined and the wristband has been detected at a predetermined location, the system may be updated with the location of the patient, i.e., rebuild the census data for the patient. Col. 6 lines 44-59, “the system updates the status of the patient within a system of the hospital. At 104 updating the status of the patient within the system is performed in response to the location being an expected location. At 105 updating the status of the patient, i.e., processing the first history of census events, within the system is performed in response to the location being an unexpected location. Thus, the system updates, based upon the determined status of the patient within the operational system and the detected location, the system of the hospital. Updating the system includes updating the status of the patient within the system. For example, if the patient has been detected at a gateway location (e.g., the patient enters the operating room, the patient enters the waiting room, the patient arrives at a new facility, etc.), updating the status of the patient includes updating the location of the patient within the system.”. Thus, processing the first history of census events to rebuild the census data for the patient stored at the computing system.).
Schuck does not explicitly disclose wherein the unexpected census state is caused by a network error or maintenance in the network coupling the source of truth to the computing system; transmitting, via the network, a reconciliation request to the source of truth; receiving, via the network, a first history of census events from the source of truth corresponding to the patient, wherein each of the first history of census events affects the location of the patient; deleting a second history of census events stored at the computing system for the patient, wherein each of the second history of census events affects the location of the patient.
However, in the same field of endeavor, SCHLAPFER discloses transmitting, via the network, a reconciliation request to the source of truth (Para. 37, When accurate care team assignment data from one server is not represented in the data associated with the other server, the sync server may transmit update messages to correct and/or supplement care team assignment data, i.e., transmitting a reconciliation request, stored on the other server, thus synchronizing care team assignment information stored in the two systems. Thus, transmitting, via the network, a reconciliation request to the source of truth.);
receiving, via the network, a first history of census events from the source of truth corresponding to the patient (Para. 63, “As the data structure 202 may be received from the voice communications server, it may be considered to include location-based and/or shift-based care team assignment data, i.e., a first history of census events, and thus may be assumed to include accurate, up-to-date data for care team members that are location-based and/or shift-based. For example, data related to nurses, nurse assistants, and other shift or location-based hospital workers from the data structure 202 may be more trusted or relied upon by the sync server when executing embodiment synchronizing operations. In other words, the voice communications server may typically (but not always) be determined as the "source of truth" for shift-based and/or location-based care team assignment data.”. Thus, receiving, via the network, a first history of census events from the source of truth corresponding to the patient.), wherein each of the first history of census events affects the location of the patient (Para. 119, “the sync server may utilize a heuristic or intelligence comparison algorithm to compare care team assignment data stored in obtained data records (or common terms database) to identify incorrect or out-of-date records in data from the voice communications server.”. Thus, each of the first history of census events affects the location of the patient.);
deleting a second history of census events stored at the computing system for the patient, wherein each of the second history of census events affects the location of the patient (Para. 90, When inaccurate or out-of-date data is detected in the data received from the voice communications server 130 and/or the EHR server 120, the sync server 110 may generate an assignment event that causes the sync server 110 to transmit updates to the servers 120, 130 having data in need of adjustment. In particular, if changes are needed to the data currently stored at the voice communications server 130, the sync server 110 may transmit an update message 448 to the voice communications server 130 that is configured to cause the voice communications server 130 to replace, delete, add, and/or otherwise update care team assignment data, i.e., deleting a second history of census events, according to the determinations of the sync server 110. For example, the sync server 110 may transmit an update message 448 indicating that a data record needs to add a member (e.g., a patient has been moved to a room associated with a nurse, etc.) and/or remove a member (e.g., a patient is no longer associated with a particular room worked by a nurse, etc.). Thus, a second history of census events stored at the computing system for the patient being deleted, wherein each of the second history of census events affects the location of the patient.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Schuck by synchronizing correct data such as the expected location data of Schuck between different servers in order to obtain accurate location-based care team assignment data as disclosed by SCHLAPFER (Para. 37). The sync server may bring together multiple data sources to ensure more complete and accurate data is represented in both the datasets of the EHR server and the voice communications server. One of the ordinary skills in the art would have motivated to make this modification in order to ensure hospital personnel may potentially use either system to easily identify and communicate with current care team members, improving both efficiency for workers and care for patients by using the reliable and synced data as suggested by SCHLAPFER (Para. 37).
Combination of Schuck and SCHLAPFER do not explicitly disclose wherein the unexpected census state is caused by a network error or maintenance in the network coupling the source of truth to the computing system.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Porter discloses wherein the unexpected census state is caused by a network error or maintenance in the network coupling the source of truth to the computing system (Para. 76, “the computing device 206 may determine proximities between the patient's location and the locations of these healthcare facilities. For this reason, PM system 100 may send locations of the specified healthcare facilities, and/or locations of healthcare facilities of the specified type(s), to a computing device 206 associated with the patient. In some embodiments, practice management system 100 may transmit the healthcare facility locations to the computing device 206 associated with the patient periodically, in response to receiving a request for updated facility locations from computing device 206, or in response to receiving an indication that the patient's location has changed from computing device 206.”. Para. 90, a computing device 206 associated with a patient may have difficulty communicating with a network 210, i.e., a network error in the network, connected to practice management system 100, due to the difficulty of transmitting signals of certain frequencies through some structures. Thus, in some cases, after a patient enters a healthcare facility, practice management system 100 may not receive further transmissions from the computing device 206 associated with the patient until the patient exits the healthcare facility. Thus, in embodiments where proximity management component 306 facilitates coordination of care for a patient only after receiving a certain number of consecutive transmissions of tracking data indicating that the patient's proximity to a healthcare facility satisfies a care coordination criterion, practice management system 100 may fail to facilitate coordination of care when a patient approaches and enters a healthcare facility before the computing device 206 associated with the patient sends the requisite number of tracking data transmissions because the computing device 206 has lost contact with network 210. Thus, the unexpected census state is caused by a network error or maintenance in the network coupling the source of truth to the computing system.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Porter into the combined method of Schuck and SCHLAPFER by periodically transmitting the tracking data to the practice management system by the computing device to determine the patient's proximity to a healthcare facility satisfies a care coordination criterion by using the last transmitted tracking data during network failure as disclosed by Porter (Para. 51). Thus, as combined, rendering obvious, “processing the first history of census events to rebuild the census data for the patient stored at the computing system to recover from the network error or maintenance” as claimed. The last transmission of tracking data made by computing device prior to entering the healthcare facility indicates that the patient's proximity to the healthcare facility satisfies the criterion. One of the ordinary skills in the art would have motivated to make this modification in order to ensure failure of the computing device to continue transmitting tracking data after the patient enters the healthcare facility may not interfere with a determination by the practice management system's of whether the patient's proximity to the healthcare facility satisfies a care coordination criterion as suggested by Porter (Para. 91).
As to claim 11, Schuck discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions to be executed in a processor, the instructions when executed in the processor perform an operation (Col. 8 lines 60-66), the operation comprising: receiving, from a source of truth via a network (Col. 8 lines 1-8), a census event indicating a change of a location of a patient in one or more facilities for updating census data stored at a computing system (Fig. 1, Col. 6 lines 44-50, the system updates the status of the patient within a system of the hospital. At 104 updating the status of the patient within the system is performed in response to the location being an expected location. At 105 updating the status of the patient within the system is performed in response to the location being an unexpected location, i.e., a census event indicating a change of a location of a patient. Col. 3 lines 35-40, “With the use of the identification wristbands, these systems may be updated automatically without needing hospital personnel to update the status of the patient. Additionally, any personnel that need to be notified of the change can be notified automatically.”. Thus, a census event indicating a change of a location of a patient in one or more facilities for updating census data stored at a computing system.), the census data defining historical locations of the patient in the one or more facilities (Col. 7 lines 54-61, “Using the passive wristband, the system can detect the patient at different locations that are configured as different identified locations (e.g., gateway location, discharge location, transport location, etc.). Thus, when the patient is detected at the location, the system can check the status of the patient in the operational system and update the patient status within a system based upon whether the location is expected or unexpected.”. Col. 4 lines 12-19, “if a patient removes the wristband but does not leave the hospital, the system is unaware of where the patient is actually located within the facility. Additionally, if a patient is being transferred between facilities within the healthcare enterprise, the wristband of the patient needs to be removed before leaving one facility and a new wristband needs to be attached to the patient when arriving at the new facility.”. Thus, the census data defining historical locations of the patient in the one or more facilities.);
determining that the census event causes the patient to have an unexpected census state regarding the location of the patient in the one or more facilities (Col. 6 lines 26-43, if the patient is detected at a discharge location, and the status of the patient within the operational system is discharged, the location may be determined to be an expected location. If, however, the status of the patient within the operational system is not discharged, the discharge location is an unexpected location of the patient, i.e., unexpected census state. As another example, if the patient status within the operational system is transferred, the patient being detected at a gateway location or transport location is expected, while the patient being detected at a discharge location is unexpected. Thus, the status of the patient within the operational system is compared with the detected location of the patient to determine if the patient should have been detected at the predetermined location. In other words, the detected location of the patient is compared to the status of the patient within the operational system to determine if the detected location is an expected or unexpected location. Thus, determining that the census event causes the patient to have an unexpected census state regarding the location of the patient in the one or more facilities.), and
processing the first history of census events to rebuild the census data for the patient stored at the computing system (Col. 4 lines 54-56, Once the status of the patient has been determined and the wristband has been detected at a predetermined location, the system may be updated with the location of the patient, i.e., rebuild the census data for the patient. Col. 6 lines 44-59, “the system updates the status of the patient within a system of the hospital. At 104 updating the status of the patient within the system is performed in response to the location being an expected location. At 105 updating the status of the patient, i.e., processing the first history of census events, within the system is performed in response to the location being an unexpected location. Thus, the system updates, based upon the determined status of the patient within the operational system and the detected location, the system of the hospital. Updating the system includes updating the status of the patient within the system. For example, if the patient has been detected at a gateway location (e.g., the patient enters the operating room, the patient enters the waiting room, the patient arrives at a new facility, etc.), updating the status of the patient includes updating the location of the patient within the system.”. Thus, processing the first history of census events to rebuild the census data for the patient stored at the computing system.).
Schuck does not explicitly disclose wherein the unexpected census state is caused by a network error or maintenance in the network coupling the source of truth to the computing system; transmitting, via the network, a reconciliation request to the source of truth; receiving, via the network, a first history of census events from the source of truth corresponding to the patient, wherein each of the first history of census events affects the location of the patient; deleting a second history of census events stored at the computing system for the patient, wherein each of the second history of census events affects the location of the patient.
However, in the same field of endeavor, SCHLAPFER discloses transmitting, via the network, a reconciliation request to the source of truth (Para. 37, When accurate care team assignment data from one server is not represented in the data associated with the other server, the sync server may transmit update messages to correct and/or supplement care team assignment data, i.e., transmitting a reconciliation request, stored on the other server, thus synchronizing care team assignment information stored in the two systems. Thus, transmitting, via the network, a reconciliation request to the source of truth.);
receiving, via the network, a first history of census events from the source of truth corresponding to the patient (Para. 63, “As the data structure 202 may be received from the voice communications server, it may be considered to include location-based and/or shift-based care team assignment data, i.e., a first history of census events, and thus may be assumed to include accurate, up-to-date data for care team members that are location-based and/or shift-based. For example, data related to nurses, nurse assistants, and other shift or location-based hospital workers from the data structure 202 may be more trusted or relied upon by the sync server when executing embodiment synchronizing operations. In other words, the voice communications server may typically (but not always) be determined as the "source of truth" for shift-based and/or location-based care team assignment data.”. Thus, receiving, via the network, a first history of census events from the source of truth corresponding to the patient.), wherein each of the first history of census events affects the location of the patient (Para. 119, “the sync server may utilize a heuristic or intelligence comparison algorithm to compare care team assignment data stored in obtained data records (or common terms database) to identify incorrect or out-of-date records in data from the voice communications server.”. Thus, each of the first history of census events affects the location of the patient.);
deleting a second history of census events stored at the computing system for the patient, wherein each of the second history of census events affects the location of the patient (Para. 90, When inaccurate or out-of-date data is detected in the data received from the voice communications server 130 and/or the EHR server 120, the sync server 110 may generate an assignment event that causes the sync server 110 to transmit updates to the servers 120, 130 having data in need of adjustment. In particular, if changes are needed to the data currently stored at the voice communications server 130, the sync server 110 may transmit an update message 448 to the voice communications server 130 that is configured to cause the voice communications server 130 to replace, delete, add, and/or otherwise update care team assignment data, i.e., deleting a second history of census events, according to the determinations of the sync server 110. For example, the sync server 110 may transmit an update message 448 indicating that a data record needs to add a member (e.g., a patient has been moved to a room associated with a nurse, etc.) and/or remove a member (e.g., a patient is no longer associated with a particular room worked by a nurse, etc.). Thus, a second history of census events stored at the computing system for the patient being deleted, wherein each of the second history of census events affects the location of the patient.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Schuck by synchronizing correct data such as the expected location data of Schuck between different servers in order to obtain accurate location-based care team assignment data as disclosed by SCHLAPFER (Para. 37). The sync server may bring together multiple data sources to ensure more complete and accurate data is represented in both the datasets of the EHR server and the voice communications server. One of the ordinary skills in the art would have motivated to make this modification in order to ensure hospital personnel may potentially use either system to easily identify and communicate with current care team members, improving both efficiency for workers and care for patients by using the reliable and synced data as suggested by SCHLAPFER (Para. 37).
Combination of Schuck and SCHLAPFER do not explicitly disclose wherein the unexpected census state is caused by a network error or maintenance in the network coupling the source of truth to the computing system.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Porter discloses wherein the unexpected census state is caused by a network error or maintenance in the network coupling the source of truth to the computing system (Para. 76, “the computing device 206 may determine proximities between the patient's location and the locations of these healthcare facilities. For this reason, PM system 100 may send locations of the specified healthcare facilities, and/or locations of healthcare facilities of the specified type(s), to a computing device 206 associated with the patient. In some embodiments, practice management system 100 may transmit the healthcare facility locations to the computing device 206 associated with the patient periodically, in response to receiving a request for updated facility locations from computing device 206, or in response to receiving an indication that the patient's location has changed from computing device 206.”. Para. 90, a computing device 206 associated with a patient may have difficulty communicating with a network 210, i.e., a network error in the network, connected to practice management system 100, due to the difficulty of transmitting signals of certain frequencies through some structures. Thus, in some cases, after a patient enters a healthcare facility, practice management system 100 may not receive further transmissions from the computing device 206 associated with the patient until the patient exits the healthcare facility. Thus, in embodiments where proximity management component 306 facilitates coordination of care for a patient only after receiving a certain number of consecutive transmissions of tracking data indicating that the patient's proximity to a healthcare facility satisfies a care coordination criterion, practice management system 100 may fail to facilitate coordination of care when a patient approaches and enters a healthcare facility before the computing device 206 associated with the patient sends the requisite number of tracking data transmissions because the computing device 206 has lost contact with network 210. Thus, the unexpected census state is caused by a network error or maintenance in the network coupling the source of truth to the computing system.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Porter into the combined method of Schuck and SCHLAPFER by periodically transmitting the tracking data to the practice management system by the computing device to determine the patient's proximity to a healthcare facility satisfies a care coordination criterion by using the last transmitted tracking data during network failure as disclosed by Porter (Para. 51). Thus, as combined, rendering obvious, “processing the first history of census events to rebuild the census data for the patient stored at the computing system to recover from the network error or maintenance” as claimed. The last transmission of tracking data made by computing device prior to entering the healthcare facility indicates that the patient's proximity to the healthcare facility satisfies the criterion. One of the ordinary skills in the art would have motivated to make this modification in order to ensure failure of the computing device to continue transmitting tracking data after the patient enters the healthcare facility may not interfere with a determination by the practice management system's of whether the patient's proximity to the healthcare facility satisfies a care coordination criterion as suggested by Porter (Para. 91).
As to claim 16, Schuck discloses a system, comprising: a processor; and memory storing code which, when executed by the processor (Col. 8 lines 60-66), performs an operation, the operation comprising: receiving, from a source of truth via a network (Col. 8 lines 1-8), a census event indicating a change of a location of a patient in one or more facilities for updating census data stored at a computing system (Fig. 1, Col. 6 lines 44-50, the system updates the status of the patient within a system of the hospital. At 104 updating the status of the patient within the system is performed in response to the location being an expected location. At 105 updating the status of the patient within the system is performed in response to the location being an unexpected location, i.e., a census event indicating a change of a location of a patient. Col. 3 lines 35-40, “With the use of the identification wristbands, these systems may be updated automatically without needing hospital personnel to update the status of the patient. Additionally, any personnel that need to be notified of the change can be notified automatically.”. Thus, a census event indicating a change of a location of a patient in one or more facilities for updating census data stored at a computing system.), the census data defining historical locations of the patient in the one or more facilities (Col. 7 lines 54-61, “Using the passive wristband, the system can detect the patient at different locations that are configured as different identified locations (e.g., gateway location, discharge location, transport location, etc.). Thus, when the patient is detected at the location, the system can check the status of the patient in the operational system and update the patient status within a system based upon whether the location is expected or unexpected.”. Col. 4 lines 12-19, “if a patient removes the wristband but does not leave the hospital, the system is unaware of where the patient is actually located within the facility. Additionally, if a patient is being transferred between facilities within the healthcare enterprise, the wristband of the patient needs to be removed before leaving one facility and a new wristband needs to be attached to the patient when arriving at the new facility.”. Thus, the census data defining historical locations of the patient in the one or more facilities.);
determining that the census event causes the patient to have an unexpected census state regarding the location of the patient in the one or more facilities (Col. 6 lines 26-43, if the patient is detected at a discharge location, and the status of the patient within the operational system is discharged, the location may be determined to be an expected location. If, however, the status of the patient within the operational system is not discharged, the discharge location is an unexpected location of the patient, i.e., unexpected census state. As another example, if the patient status within the operational system is transferred, the patient being detected at a gateway location or transport location is expected, while the patient being detected at a discharge location is unexpected. Thus, the status of the patient within the operational system is compared with the detected location of the patient to determine if the patient should have been detected at the predetermined location. In other words, the detected location of the patient is compared to the status of the patient within the operational system to determine if the detected location is an expected or unexpected location. Thus, determining that the census event causes the patient to have an unexpected census state regarding the location of the patient in the one or more facilities.), and
processing the first history of census events to rebuild the census data for the patient stored at the computing system (Col. 4 lines 54-56, Once the status of the patient has been determined and the wristband has been detected at a predetermined location, the system may be updated with the location of the patient, i.e., rebuild the census data for the patient. Col. 6 lines 44-59, “the system updates the status of the patient within a system of the hospital. At 104 updating the status of the patient within the system is performed in response to the location being an expected location. At 105 updating the status of the patient, i.e., processing the first history of census events, within the system is performed in response to the location being an unexpected location. Thus, the system updates, based upon the determined status of the patient within the operational system and the detected location, the system of the hospital. Updating the system includes updating the status of the patient within the system. For example, if the patient has been detected at a gateway location (e.g., the patient enters the operating room, the patient enters the waiting room, the patient arrives at a new facility, etc.), updating the status of the patient includes updating the location of the patient within the system.”. Thus, processing the first history of census events to rebuild the census data for the patient stored at the computing system.).
Schuck does not explicitly disclose wherein the unexpected census state is caused by a network error or maintenance in the network coupling the source of truth to the computing system; transmitting, via the network, a reconciliation request to the source of truth; receiving, via the network, a first history of census events from the source of truth corresponding to the patient, wherein each of the first history of census events affects the location of the patient; deleting a second history of census events stored at the computing system for the patient, wherein each of the second history of census events affects the location of the patient.
However, in the same field of endeavor, SCHLAPFER discloses transmitting, via the network, a reconciliation request to the source of truth (Para. 37, When accurate care team assignment data from one server is not represented in the data associated with the other server, the sync server may transmit update messages to correct and/or supplement care team assignment data, i.e., transmitting a reconciliation request, stored on the other server, thus synchronizing care team assignment information stored in the two systems. Thus, transmitting, via the network, a reconciliation request to the source of truth.);
receiving, via the network, a first history of census events from the source of truth corresponding to the