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
In the response filed on 26 November 2025, the following has occurred: claims 1, 11 and 20 have been amended.
Now claims 1-20 are pending.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1, 11 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite method and systems for performing the limitations of:
Claim 1, which is representative of claims 11 and 20
[… collecting at …] a healthcare facility, patient information for each of a plurality of patients of the healthcare facility; identifying, for each of the plurality of patients and […] based upon the patient information, at least one procedure to be performed for and that is scheduled for the patient of the plurality of patients at the healthcare facility; identifying, for each of the plurality of patients and […], a plurality of events corresponding to the at least one procedure for the patient of the plurality of patients, an order of performance of the plurality of events for the at least one procedure, and locations within the healthcare facility for at least a subset of the plurality of events, wherein the identifying of the plurality of events comprises [… obtaining …] information corresponding to the at least one procedure […] and identifying the plurality of events and a workflow of the at least procedure, wherein a granularity of steps identified as the plurality of events for a given procedure are based at least in part on an amount of variation in the length of time a step within the at least one procedure has taken across historical patients, wherein steps within the given procedure occur at a different granularity as compared to other steps within the given procedure; identifying, […], at least one healthcare professional associated with at least one of the plurality of events wherein the identifying comprises identifying at least one possible healthcare professional who fulfills attributes required for a healthcare professional to perform a given of the plurality of events, correlating the at least one possible healthcare professional against at least scheduling information of the at least one possible healthcare professional and information related to the scheduling and the locations of the given of the plurality of events, and identifying the at least one healthcare professional based upon the correlating; and automatically generating, […], an optimized schedule for the healthcare facility, wherein the optimized schedule comprises a schedule for resources within the healthcare facility to be used for the plurality of patients, the optimized schedule being generated based upon the plurality of events and the at least one healthcare professional, wherein the optimized schedule is generated for a particular perspective within the healthcare facility and for an identified time frame of the healthcare facility.
, as drafted, is a system which under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a method of organizing human activity (i.e., managing personal behavior including following rules or instructions) but for recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a scheduling system, a database of a procedure system, a display device (claims 1, 11 and 20), a processor and memory device (claim 11), a processor and computer-readable storage device (claim 20), the claimed invention amounts to managing personal behavior or interaction between people, the Examiner notes as stated in 2106.04(a)(2), “certain activity between a person and a computer… may fall within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping”. For example, but for a scheduling system, a database of a procedure system, a display device (claims 1, 11 and 20), a processor and memory device (claim 11), a processor and computer-readable storage device (claim 20), the claim encompasses collecting and organizing data for a patient and health core professionals to schedule their interactions within a medical facility for a procedure. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or interactions between people but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “method of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of a scheduling system, a database of a procedure system, a display device (claims 1, 11 and 20), a processor and memory device (claim 11), a processor and computer-readable storage device (claim 20), which implements the abstract idea. The scheduling system (claims 1, 11 and 20), a processor and memory device (claim 11), a processor and computer-readable storage device (claim 20) are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., a general-purpose computers/ computer components implementing generic computer functions; see Applicant’s Specification Figure 2, paragraphs [0072]-[0076]) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional element does 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.
The claim recites the additional elements of “obtaining… accessing a database…” and “outputting on at least one display device”. The “obtaining… accessing a database…” steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a general means of receiving/transmitting data) and amounts to the mere transmission and/or receipt of data, which is a form of extra-solution activity. The “outputting on at least one display device” is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic display interface for presentation of information to a user) and amounts to generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of a scheduling system, a database of a procedure system, a display device (claims 1, 11 and 20), a processor and memory device (claim 11), a processor and computer-readable storage device (claim 20), to perform the noted steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic hardware components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic hardware component cannot provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”).
Also, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “obtaining… accessing a database…” and “outputting on at least one display device” were considered extra-solution activity and/or generally linking the abstract idea to particular technological environment. The “obtaining… accessing a database…” steps have been re-evaluated under the “significantly more” analysis and determined to amount to be well-understood, routine, and conventional elements/functions. As described in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i) “Receiving or transmitting data over a network” is well-understood, routine, and conventional. The “outputting on at least one display device” has been re-evaluated under the “significantly more” analysis and determined to amount to be well-understood, routine, and conventional elements/functions. As described in Asselmann (2021/0313051): See below but at least Figure 7, paragraph [0092]; Wang (2014/0039906): paragraph [0015]; Fletcher (10,679,746): see below but at least Figure 6, Column 1, lines 55-end; generic presentation of data on a user interface is well-understood, routine, and conventional. Well-understood, routine, and conventional elements/functions cannot provide “significantly more.” As such the claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 2-9 and 11-19 are similarly rejected because either further define the abstract idea and/or do not further limit the claim to a practical application or provide as inventive concept such that the claims are subject matter eligible.
Claims 2-3 and 12-13 further describe the characteristics of patient information, but does not recite any additional elements and therefore cannot provide a practical application and/or significantly more.
Claims 4, 7, 14 and 17 describe use of historical data, but do not recite any additional elements and therefore cannot provide a practical application and/or significantly more.
Claims 5-6 and 15-16 describe generating schedules for individuals or locations, but does not recite any additional elements and therefore cannot provide a practical application and/or significantly more.
Claims 8 and 18 describe transmission of data, however transmission of data to a user was already considered above, and is incorporated herein.
Claims 9 and 19 recite the additional element of a user device, however this user device is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., general purpose computers with processors and memory, performing/ implementing generic computer functions; see Applicant's specification: Figure 2, paragraph [0069]) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, this additional element does 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.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of a user device, to perform the noted steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic hardware components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic hardware component cannot provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”).
Claim 10 recites the additional element of a graphical user interface, however output of generic data in a generic user interface was already considered above, and is incorporated herein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-12 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2010/0185465 (hereafter “Rana”; already of record in the IDS), in view of U.S. Patent No. 10,679,746 (hereafter “Fletcher”), in further view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 20140039906 (hereafter “Wang”).
Regarding (Currently Amended) claim 1, Rana teaches a method (Rana: Figures 2-4, paragraph [0007], “a system for electronically scheduling medical resources”, paragraphs [0016]-[0020], “a flow chart showing the steps of data flow”. Also see, paragraphs [0021], [0046]. The Examiner notes the broadest reasonable of a system implementing the steps of figures 2-4 is a computer implemented method under the broadest reasonable interpretation and teaches what is required to one of ordinary skill in the art), the method comprising:
obtaining, at a scheduling system of a healthcare facility, patient information for […] a […] patients of the healthcare facility (Rana: Figures 2-4, paragraph [0012], “receive data from the patient interface terminal to identify a patient making a request, and to filter medical services available to the patient based on the patient identity”, paragraph [0027], “Data received by the web server 22 from the patient 30 is marked with a patient identification number and forwarded along the patient communication channel 14 as a patient identified message 36 to the interface module 12”);
identifying, for […] the […] patient[…] and using the scheduling system and based upon the patient information, at least one procedure to be performed and that is scheduled for the patient […] at the healthcare facility (Rana: Figures 2-4, paragraph [0007], “Based on the information received, the computer system identifies a requested medical service, identifies resources required for the service, and presents schedule options at the interface terminal based on the identified medical services and resources”, paragraph [0009], “The scheduling system can also receive from the patient interface terminal a notice of appointment cancellation and submit cancellation data”, paragraph [0012], “receive data from the patient interface terminal to identify a patient making a request, and to filter medical services available to the patient based on the patient identity”, paragraphs [0037]-[0039], “based on the patient identification, the scheduler 70 in process block 81 retrieves data from the EMR 18… recognize combinations that warrant unique resource scheduling… The data request can be… retrieved from stored preferences selected by the patient. This information can include, for example, medical history, patient preferences such as language and gender of the caregiver, time and place of appointment, and other information required or desirable to process the request for an appointment”);
identifying, for […] the […] patient[…] and using the scheduling system, a plurality of events corresponding to the at least one procedure for the patient […], an order of performance of the plurality of events for the at least one procedure, and locations within the healthcare facility for at least a subset of the plurality of events (Rana: Figures 2-4, paragraphs [0007]-[0008], “Based on the information received, the computer system identifies a requested medical service, identifies resources required for the service, and presents schedule options at the interface terminal based on the identified medical services and resources… The resources scheduled can include a medical practitioner, and can also be a geographic office location, medical equipment, laboratory time, or other resource necessary for a selected healthcare service… indicate only healthcare providers and resources that can be coordinated in both time and geography to provide the healthcare service”, paragraphs [0010]-[0011], “identify healthcare providers for the service and identify resources required for the service to present schedule options according to common schedule openings of healthcare providers and resources… accommodate the scheduling of healthcare services requiring multiple sequential steps. The computer system can identify healthcare providers and resources for each step of the service”, paragraph [0039], “the scheduler 70 determines if multiple steps are required. For example, a procedure can be a visit to a medical practitioner, or consist of a multi-step process including laboratory testing and analysis followed by an appointment with a medical practitioner to review the results”, claim 17, “the healthcare service requires multiple sequential steps and wherein the computer system identifies healthcare providers and resources for each step of the service”. The Examiner notes a sequential step reads on an order of performance under the broadest reasonable interpretation),
wherein the identifying of the plurality of events comprises accessing a database of a procedure system and accessing information corresponding to the at least one procedure from the database and identifying the plurality of events and a workflow of the at least procedure (Rana: paragraphs [0007]-[0010], “the scheduling system can include a central database holding schedules for healthcare providers and resources, and can accesses the central database to identify healthcare providers for the service and identify resources required for the service to present schedule options according to common schedule openings of healthcare providers and resources. The common schedule openings can also be provided for healthcare providers and resources”, paragraph [0034], “a scheduler 70 which includes a set of rules for scheduling appointments based on scheduling data found in a schedule database”, paragraph [0040], “the scheduler proceeds to scheduling an appointment”, paragraph [0045], “the present invention simplifies and improves the efficiency of patient scheduling… the scheduler 70 can tailor the length of an appointment to the requested medical procedure”), […];
identifying, using the scheduling system, at least one healthcare professional associated with at least one of the plurality of events (Rana: Figures 2-4, paragraphs [0007]-[0008], “Based on the information received, the computer system identifies a requested medical service, identifies resources required for the service, and presents schedule options at the interface terminal based on the identified medical services and resources… The resources scheduled can include a medical practitioner, and can also be a geographic office location, medical equipment, laboratory time, or other resource necessary for a selected healthcare service… indicate only healthcare providers and resources that can be coordinated in both time and geography to provide the healthcare service”, paragraphs [0010]-[0011], “identify healthcare providers for the service and identify resources required for the service to present schedule options according to common schedule openings of healthcare providers and resources… accommodate the scheduling of healthcare services requiring multiple sequential steps. The computer system can identify healthcare providers and resources for each step of the service”),
wherein the identifying comprises identifying at least one possible healthcare professional who fulfills attributes required for a healthcare professional to perform a given of the plurality of events, correlating the at least one possible healthcare professional against at least scheduling information of the at least one possible healthcare professional and information related to the scheduling and the locations of the given of the plurality of events, and identifying the at least one healthcare professional based upon the correlating (Rana: Figures 2-4, paragraphs [0007]-[0008], “identifies resources required for the service… The resources scheduled can include a medical practitioner… indicate only healthcare providers and resources that can be coordinated in both time and geography to provide the healthcare service”, paragraphs [0010]-[0011], “identify healthcare providers for the service and identify resources required for the service to present schedule options according to common schedule openings of healthcare providers and resources… accommodate the scheduling of healthcare services requiring multiple sequential steps. The computer system can identify healthcare providers and resources for each step of the service”, paragraphs [0040]-[0041], “the scheduler 70 identifies common schedule openings between the resources required within the time frame specified by the patient… common schedule openings are found… Once options are determined by the scheduler 70, the process proceeds to allow a patient to select a scheduling appointment from at least one and preferably a series of possible appointments as shown in FIG. 5”. Also see claim 17. The Examiner notes determination and use of a common schedule to coordinate based on time and location (i.e., attributes), reads on correlating and using the correlation to identify providers under the broadest reasonable interpretation); and
automatically generating, using the scheduling system, and outputting on at least one display device, an optimized schedule […], wherein the optimized schedule comprises a schedule for resources within the healthcare facility to be used for the plurality of patients, the optimized schedule being generated based upon the plurality of events and the at least one healthcare professional, wherein the schedule is generated […] for an identified time frame of the healthcare facility (Rana: Figures 2-5, paragraph [0007], “a patient interface terminal, such as an internet terminal or a kiosk”, paragraph [0010], “a central database holding schedules for healthcare providers and resources”, paragraoh [0024], “connect a number of patient terminals 26 (only one shown for clarity) implementing a browser and/or a kiosk 28, provided, for example, at a doctor's office or elsewhere”, paragraphs [0040]-[0041], “the scheduler 70 identifies common schedule openings between the resources required within the time frame specified by the patient”, paragraphs [0042]-[0043], “the scheduler 70 allocates the selected resources by revising the associated calendars in database 76 for each of the providers and/or resources that are required… The appointment data, instructions provided to the patient, the questionnaire data, and any necessary history required from the EMR 18 are also provided to the service providers and/or resource managers preferably through electronic communications such as secure messaging”, paragraphs [0043]-[0045], “detailed information about the patient can be easily and efficiently provided to medical service providers and managers”, claim 5, “the patient interface terminal is further configured to present schedule”. Also see claim 17. The Examiner notes that “to be used for the plurality of patients,” is an intended use of the optimized schedule that is not required to occur. This feature has been fully considered by the Examiner; however, the limitation does not provide patentable distinction over the cited prior art because it is an intended use or result of the optimized schedule. The Examiner notes a schedules is generated via determination of openings of resources for a specified time period using a plurality of provider schedules for various providers in a facility, additionally providers are able to receive appointment details for their scheduled events, the claim does not require anything other than generation of a schedule, which under the broadest reasonable interpretation is taught by Rana).
Rana may not explicitly teach (underlined below for clarity):
obtaining, at a scheduling system of a healthcare facility, patient information for each of a plurality of patients of the healthcare facility; identifying, for each of the plurality of patients and using the scheduling system and based upon the patient information, at least one procedure to be performed and that is scheduled for the patient of the plurality of patients at the healthcare facility; identifying, for each of the plurality of patients and using the scheduling system, a plurality of events corresponding to the at least one procedure for the patient of the plurality of patients, an order of performance of the plurality of events for the at least one procedure, and locations within the healthcare facility for at least a subset of the plurality of events,
automatically generating, using the scheduling system, and outputting on at least one display device, an optimized schedule for the healthcare facility, wherein the optimized schedule comprises a schedule for resources within the healthcare facility to be used for the plurality of patients, the optimized schedule being generated based upon the plurality of events and the at least one healthcare professional, wherein the schedule is generated for a particular perspective within the healthcare facility and for an identified time frame of the healthcare facility.
Fletcher teaches obtaining, at a scheduling system of a healthcare facility, patient information for each of a plurality of patients of the healthcare facility; identifying, for each of the plurality of patients and using the scheduling system and based upon the patient information, at least one procedure to be performed and that is scheduled for the patient of the plurality of patients at the healthcare facility; identifying, for each of the plurality of patients and using the scheduling system, a plurality of events corresponding to the at least one procedure for the patient of the plurality of patients, an order of performance of the plurality of events for the at least one procedure, and locations within the healthcare facility for at least a subset of the plurality of events (Fletcher: Fig. 6, Column 12, line 30-end, “list of patient names 615… include the new patient name from the assignment request in patient names 615 in the row corresponding to the bed indicated in the assignment request for the patient… Patient names 615 list names of patients”. The Examiner notes as seen in at least Fig. 6A, Fletcher teaches a plurality of patients),
automatically generating, using the scheduling system, and outputting on at least one display device, an optimized schedule for the healthcare facility, wherein the optimized schedule comprises a schedule for resources within the healthcare facility to be used for the plurality of patients, the optimized schedule being generated based upon the plurality of events and the at least one healthcare professional, wherein the schedule is generated for a particular perspective within the healthcare facility and for an identified time frame of the healthcare facility (Fletcher: Figures 6-8, Column 2, lines 5-20, “improved systems and methods are provided for automated caregiver assignment… generate a comprehensive and robust graphical user interface that can provide large quantities of information quickly and efficiently to users”, Column 15, lines 50-end, “Computer terminal 140 may determine staff assignment data for each patient… nurse and physician assignments may be determined automatically based on one or more schedules stored in a database… Computer terminal 140 may transmit staff assignments to interface 600 to update the display”, Column 19, lines 60-Column 20, line 25, “generate and display the caregiver assignment graphical user interface”, Column 25, lines 45-end, “the graphical user interface may allow a user, such as a charge nurse or staff nurse, to quickly and efficiently see multiple caregiver-to bed assignments for the current shift and the next shift, to facilitate a proper handoff and knowledge transfer between shifts”. The schedule is for a caregiver, (i.e., a particular perspective within the facility), which teaches what is required of the claim under the broadest reasonable interpretation).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to use a plurality of patients and generating a schedule for a particular perspective within a healthcare facility as taught by Fletcher within the scheduling a procedure using various schedules for a particular time as taught by Rana with the motivation of providing “improves coordination of care, saving time and minimizing errors” (Fletcher: Column 2, lines 15-25).
Rana and Fletcher may not explicitly teach (underlined below for clarity):
wherein the identifying of the plurality of events comprises accessing a database of a procedure system and accessing information corresponding to the at least one procedure from the database and identifying the plurality of events and a workflow of the at least procedure, wherein a granularity of steps identified as the plurality of events for a give procedure are based at least in part on an amount of variation in the length of time a step within the at least one procedure has taken across historical patients, wherein steps within the given procedure occur at a different granularity as compared to other steps within the given procedure;
Wang teaches wherein the identifying of the plurality of events comprises accessing a database of a procedure system and accessing information corresponding to the at least one procedure from the database and identifying the plurality of events and a workflow of the at least procedure, wherein a granularity of steps identified as the plurality of events for a give procedure are based at least in part on an amount of variation in the length of time a step within the at least one procedure has taken across historical patients, wherein steps within the given procedure occur at a different granularity as compared to other steps within the given procedure (Wang: paragraph [0007], “The scheduling process may be very complex… coordinate many expensive resources (e.g., operating rooms, surgeons, anesthesiologists, nurses, medical equipment, etc.) to ensure that the right resources are available at the right place at the right time. Moreover, uncertainties exist in many phases of surgical operations (e.g., patient arrival times, patient cancellations, unexpected emergency cases, surgery duration, post-anesthesia care unit (PACU) stay duration, etc.), which further complicates the scheduling process. As the number of operating rooms in a surgical facility increase, the complexity of determining an appropriate operating schedule may increase dramatically”, paragraphs [0016]-[0018], “system 108 may store or otherwise be configured to access surgeon/procedure specific historical data that includes, for example, how long particular surgeries or types of surgeries have taken a specific surgeon in the past. System 108 may also store or otherwise be configured to access aggregated surgical data that includes, for example, how long particular surgeries or types of surgeries have taken various surgeons in the past… estimate one or more operational metrics that may be expected for the proposed surgery schedule”, paragraphs [0024]-[0028], “Estimation engine 116 may perform a hierarchical analysis of available historical data to determine estimates, such as estimates of surgery durations, estimates of PACU stay durations, and the like… the optimization model may consider uncertainties associated with staffing and resource constraints as well as procedure duration uncertainties to ensure the availability of operating rooms, critical surgical equipment, qualified anesthesiologists, and post-anesthesia care unit (PACU) beds so that patient flow is seamless throughout the entire perioperative process… Simulation engine 120 may incorporate the uncertainty of the surgery durations, PACU stays, and other stochastic parameters to test the performance of the optimized schedule under these types of uncertainties, and may also produce estimates of how much variation may be expected in the metrics. These operational metrics and the expected variation (or confidence intervals around the operational metrics) may be displayed”, paragraph [0036], “procedures with lower variance… procedures with higher uncertainties”, paragraphs [0040]-[0045], “variance of duration for procedure… procedures with smaller variance will have larger weights”, paragraphs [00070]-[0071], “Simulating the proposed surgery schedule may also include estimating post-anesthesia care unit (PACU) stay durations for the surgical procedures to be performed based on historical PACU data… confidence intervals around the metrics”. The Examiner notes a surgical operation is described as consisting of various phases (i.e., steps), each phase has an estimated duration and confidence interval/other metrics (i.e., granularity of durations and other metrics) based on a determined uncertainty/variance in duration of steps using historic data reads on what is required under the broadest reasonable interpretation);
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to include using granularity of scheduled events based on an amount of variation in steps as taught by Wang within the scheduling as taught by Rana and Fletcher with the motivation of “increasing utilization to improve the facility's bottom line” (Wang: paragraph [0027]).
Regarding (Original) claim 2, Rana, Fletcher and Wang teach the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the patient information identifies characteristics of the at least one patient (Rana: Figures 2-4, paragraph [0022], “the EMR database 18 includes biographical information describing the patient, including the patient's age, gender, height and weight, and medical history information including the patient's medical conditions, previous medical procedures, medications, and laboratory test results”, paragraphs [0037]-[0039], “based on the patient identification, the scheduler 70 in process block 81 retrieves data from the EMR 18 (FIG. 1) regarding, for example, the age, sex, and medical condition of the patient”. The Examiner notes patient EMR data reads on at least characteristics of the patient under the broadest reasonable interpretation).
The motivation to combine is the same as in claim 1, incorporated herein.
Regarding (Original) claim 4, Rana, Fletcher and Wang teaches the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the automatically generating comprises identifying historical procedures for the at least one patient and generating the schedule based upon the historical procedures for the at least one patient (Rana: paragraph [0012], “By identifying the patient, it is possible to filter healthcare services, information, and data based on the age, sender, or history of the patient, to provide improved healthcare service”, paragraph [0022], “the EMR database 18 includes biographical information describing the patient, including the patient's age, gender, height and weight, and medical history information including the patient's medical conditions, previous medical procedures, medications, and laboratory test results”, paragraphs [0042]-[0043], “the scheduler 70 allocates the selected resources by revising the associated calendars in database 76 for each of the providers and/or resources that are required… The appointment data, instructions provided to the patient, the questionnaire data, and any necessary history required from the EMR 18 are also provided to the service providers and/or resource managers preferably through electronic communications such as secure messaging”).
The motivation to combine is the same as in claim 1, incorporated herein.
Regarding (Previously Presented) claim 5, Rana, Fletcher and Wang teaches the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the particular perspective comprise a perspective for the patient (Rana: Figures 2-5, paragraph [0005], “allow patients access to scheduling of their procedures in order to improve efficiency, a number of medical communities have used the Internet to allow patients to directly schedule appointments”, paragraph [0012], “a system for scheduling patient appointments”, paragraphs [0042]-[0043], “the finalized scheduling data is provided to the patient and the patient is provided with any special instructions required for the procedure”).
The motivation to combine is the same as in claim 1, incorporated herein.
Regarding (Currently Amended) claim 6, Rana, Fletcher and Wang teaches the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the particular perspective comprises a perspective of at least one of: a healthcare professional or a location within the healthcare facility based upon patient information for a plurality of patients (Rana: Figures 2-4, paragraphs [0007]-[0008], “Based on the information received, the computer system identifies a requested medical service, identifies resources required for the service, and presents schedule options at the interface terminal based on the identified medical services and resources… The resources scheduled can include a medical practitioner, and can also be a geographic office location, medical equipment, laboratory time, or other resource necessary for a selected healthcare service… indicate only healthcare providers and resources that can be coordinated in both time and geography to provide the healthcare service”, paragraphs [0010]-[0011], “identify healthcare providers for the service and identify resources required for the service to present schedule options according to common schedule openings of healthcare providers and resources… accommodate the scheduling of healthcare services requiring multiple sequential steps. The computer system can identify healthcare providers and resources for each step of the service”, paragraphs [0042]-[0043], “The appointment data, instructions provided to the patient, the questionnaire data, and any necessary history required from the EMR 18 are also provided to the service providers and/or resource managers preferably through electronic communications such as secure messaging”).
The motivation to combine is the same as in claim 1, incorporated herein.
Regarding (Original) claim 7, Rana, Fletcher and Wang teaches the limitations of claim 6, and further teaches wherein the generating a schedule comprises optimizing the schedule for the at least one of a healthcare professional and a location based upon historical procedure information and schedules (Rana: paragraph [0012], “By identifying the patient, it is possible to filter healthcare services, information, and data based on the age, sender, or history of the patient, to provide improved healthcare service”, paragraph [0022], “the EMR database 18 includes biographical information describing the patient, including the patient's age, gender, height and weight, and medical history information including the patient's medical conditions, previous medical procedures, medications, and laboratory test results”, paragraphs [0042]-[0043], “the scheduler 70 allocates the selected resources by revising the associated calendars in database 76 for each of the providers and/or resources that are required… The appointment data, instructions provided to the patient, the questionnaire data, and any necessary history required from the EMR 18 are also provided to the service providers and/or resource managers preferably through electronic communications such as secure messaging”. The Examiner notes historical procedure information for the patient is used to generate the schedule and teaches what is required of the claim under the broadest reasonable interpretation).
The motivation to combine is the same as in claim 1, incorporated herein.
Regarding (Previously Presented) claim 8, Rana, Fletcher and Wang teach the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches further comprising generating and transmitting a checklist to at least one healthcare professional based upon the schedule, wherein the checklist identifies at least one of: tasks and objects needed to fulfill the schedule or a time of need of the at least one of tasks and objects (Rana: paragraph [0034], “a list of resources required for the requested procedure and special instructions associated with the requested procedure. Such instructions can include information required”; Fletcher: Column 15, lines 50-end, “Computer terminal 140 may determine staff assignment data for each patient nurse and physician assignments may be determined automatically based on one or more schedules stored in a database… Computer terminal 140 may transmit staff assignments to interface 600 to update the display”, Column 16, lines 5-65, “generate a customized checklist of milestones that must be completed before the patient 55 is ready for discharge. Interface 600 may reflect the milestones in the customized list by indicating the completion status of the milestone list”).
The motivation to combine is the same as in claim 1, incorporated herein.
Regarding (Original) claim 9, Rana, Fletcher and Wang teach the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches further comprising generating and transmitting automatic notifications to a user device corresponding to a person associated with the at least one patient (Rana: Figures 2-4, paragraph [0028], “allowing communication with healthcare sources 20 via terminals 42 associated, for example, with a primary care physician 44”, paragraphs [0042]-[0043], “The appointment data, instructions provided to the patient, the questionnaire data, and any necessary history required from the EMR 18 are also provided to the service providers and/or resource managers preferably through electronic communications such as secure messaging”),
wherein the automatic notifications provide information identifying a current location of the at least one patient and an expected length of time at the current location as identified from the schedule (Fletcher: figures 1-3, 6, Column 11, line 30-end, “FIGS. 6A and 6B are illustrations of an example of patient tracking interface 600. Interface 600 is described herein as being provided by computer terminal 140 for display… present patient information in an organized format such as a table. For example, interface 600 may include a plurality of cells organized in a grid. The cells may be organized in rows corresponding to bed identifiers (e.g., numbers). Interface 600 may include a list of bed identifiers 610 in a column… bed identifiers 610 may be a code corresponding to a space in a room. For example, bed identifiers 610 may be alphanumeric values that correspond to permanent room locations. While a hospital may reassign beds to different nursing units, the bed identifier may always refer to the same physical space in a particular room… An additional room identifier (not shown) may designate a physical space in a room”, Column 14, line 60-Column 15, line 35, “patient status information may include length of stay (LOS) data 650”, Column 17, lines 10-35, “interface 600 may display projected discharge data 690… provide the estimated discharge date to interface 600 for display in projected discharge data 690”, Column 21, lines 15-45, “generate notifications and workflows for generating one more reports”).
The motivation to combine is the same as in claim 1, incorporated herein.
Regarding (Original) claim 10, Rana, Fletcher and Wang teach the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches providing an application for accessing the scheduling system and providing within a graphical user interface of the application information associated with the schedule (Fletcher: Figures 3-4, 6, Column 7, lines 15-55, “Program(s) 252 may also include app(s) 254, such as a task administration app, which when executed causes computer terminal 140 to perform processes related to managing, prioritizing, and scheduling multiple pending tasks. For example, app(s) 254 may configure computer terminal 140 to perform operations including receiving input of task information, displaying pending tasks, monitoring task status, assigning tasks to employees, and displaying employee task assignments”, Column 20, lines 65-end, “the graphical user interface may appear as a pop-up superimposed on the graphical user interface for an application”).
The motivation to combine is the same as in claim 1, incorporated herein.
REGARDING CLAIM(S) 11 AND 20
Claim(s) 11 and 20 is/are analogous to Claim(s) 1, thus Claim(s) 11 and 20 is/are similarly analyzed and rejected in a manner consistent with the rejection of Claim(s) 1.
REGARDING CLAIM(S) 12 and 14-19
Claim(s) 12 and 14-19 is/are analogous to Claim(s) 2 and 4-9, thus Claim(s) 12 and 14-19 is/are similarly analyzed and rejected in a manner consistent with the rejection of Claim(s) 2 and 4-9.
Claim(s) 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2010/0185465 (hereafter “Rana”; already of record in the IDS), U.S. Patent No. 10,679,746 (hereafter “Fletcher”) and U.S. Patent Pub. No. 20140039906 (hereafter “Wang”) as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 20210313051 (hereafter “Asselmann”).
Regarding (Original) claim 3, Rana, Fletcher and Wang teach the limitations of claim 2, but may not explicitly teach wherein the automatically generating comprises identifying historical procedure schedules for patients having a set of characteristics having a similarity to the characteristics of the at least one patient and generating the schedule based upon the historical procedure schedules.
Asselmann teaches wherein the automatically generating comprises identifying historical procedure schedules for patients having a set of characteristics having a similarity to the characteristics of the at least one patient and generating the schedule based upon the historical procedure schedules (Asselmann: paragraph [0014], “analyzing a plurality of video frames of prior surgical procedures performed by a particular surgeon to ascertain a skill level of the particular surgeon and accessing a data structure containing patient characteristics associated with the prior surgical procedures.… analyzing the plurality of video frames of prior surgical procedures to ascertain an expected amount of time for the particular surgeon to perform at least one particular prospective surgical procedure from among the plurality of prospective surgical procedures”, paragraphs [0087]-[0088], “The plurality of surgical video frames may be associated with differing patients. For example, a number of different patients who underwent the same or similar surgical procedure, or who underwent surgical procedures where a similar technique was employed may be included within a common set or a plurality of sets… The plurality of surgical procedures may be of the same type, for example, all including appendectomies… the plurality of surgical procedures may share common characteristics, such as the same or similar phases or intraoperative events”, paragraph [0326], “the output may be used for scheduling purposes”, paragraph [0339]-[0341], “assigning and scheduling surgeons to prospective surgeries based on characteristics of prospective surgeries and characteristics of surgical teams determined by analyzing video frames of prior surgical procedures”).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to use similar patient data as taught by Asselmann within the automatic scheduling using a patient identifier as taught by Rana, Fletcher and Wang with the motivation of “improve efficiency and accuracy in data analysis” (Asselmann: paragraph [0089]).
REGARDING CLAIM(S) 13
Claim(s) 13 is/are analogous to Claim(s) 3, thus Claim(s) 13 is/are similarly analyzed and rejected in a manner consistent with the rejection of Claim(s) 3.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 26 November 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicants’ arguments will be addressed herein below in the order in which they appear in the response filed on 26 November 2025.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101
Regarding claims 1-20, the Examiner has considered the Applicant’s arguments but does not find them persuasive. Any arguments inadvertently not addressed are unpersuasive for at least the following reasons:
Applicant argues:
The claims are directed toward a system that automatically generates a schedule for a healthcare facility… Thus, Applicant respectfully submits that the claims are not directed to "managing personal behavior including following rules or instructions." MPEP § 2106.04(a). Thus, Applicant respectfully submits that the claims are not directed to a judicial exception, particularly, one of the groupings identified by Updated MPEP… In the event that the claims are directed to a judicial exception, this judicial exception is integrated into a very particular application within the claims and does not monopolize the judicial exception… the claims are not drafted as a generic function performed by a generic component. Rather, the claims delineate a specific function performed by a specific component of the claimed method and/or system… Applicant respectfully submits that the generation of a schedule for a healthcare facility and optimizing the schedule is an improvement to the technology… Generally, the conventional techniques require a user to manually schedule events for a procedure… Thus, the scheduling and optimization of the scheduling for the healthcare facility, is unique to the claimed limitations and represents a technological improvement to the healthcare technological field… This ability to pull the information from a system that already includes the information reduces the processing and computing resources by allowing for the sharing of information between systems instead of having to store the same information in multiple computing locations… This optimization is performed using an artificial intelligence model that is trained on historical event information and that is able to identify more accurately how long particular events will take.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
It is respectfully submitted, the claims amount to collection and organization of data to provide to a human user the organized data via optimized scheduling (i.e., organization of data), via the use of generic off-the-shelf computers which as stated in 2106.04(a)(2), “certain activity between a person and a computer… may fall within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping”. The claim is directed at scheduling the activity between various users for a healthcare procedure and is directed toward the certain method of organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas.
The newly amended limitations do not recite any machine learning models and certainly do not recite training of a machine learning model, the use of historic data is use of labeled data and amounts to organization of labeled data, therefore, it is unclear how non-claimed artificial intelligence could provide any alleged technical solution to a technical problem recited in Applicant’s specification and/or an improvement in the functionality of the computer.
The claims do not recite any additional elements that provide a technical solution to a technical problem recited in Applicant’s specification and/or an improvement in the performance of the computer. First, no sections of Applicant’s specification are argued for recitations of technical problems rooted in computer hardware technology, instead Applicant argues various human activity problem such as at least minimization of deadtime, more accurate scheduling of human users, however none of these are technical problems rooted in computer hardware technology. At best all of these argued problems are human activity (i.e., scheduling or user experience) problems, the identification and scheduling of various resources using generic computer components is a human activity solution to a human activity problem, which may improve upon the abstract idea, however an improved abstract idea is still an abstract idea. Second, the claims do not recite any improvements in the functionality of the computer, any alleged resource reduction is at best merely application of the abstract idea on generic computer components which are not particular, they are generic off-the shelf hardware (see Applicant’s Specification Figure 2, paragraphs [0072]-[0076]), and which as stated in 2106.05(f)(2) “claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer” does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA). As the claims do not recite any additional elements that provide a technical solution to a technical problem recited in Applicant’s specification and/or computer the argument is not persuasive.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Regarding claims 1-20, the Examiner has considered the Applicant's arguments but does not find them persuasive, as addressed herein. The Examiner has attempted to address all of the arguments presented by the Applicant; however, any arguments inadvertently not addressed are not persuasive for at least the following reasons:
Applicant argues:
Applicant respectfully submits that the Office has not articulated a reason why a person skilled in the art would combine the prior art references, does not have adequate evidentiary basis for that finding, and has not provided a satisfactory explanation for the motivation finding that includes an express and rational connection with the evidence presented… Thus, Rana is specifically designed to provide schedule options to a patient. In other words, Rana teaches a system that provides options to a patient so that a patient can schedule a medical service, where the options are based upon preferences selected by the patient. A schedule for the procedure is then generated for the patient based upon the selection of the patient. Thus, Rana teaches a system for scheduling procedures that were not previously scheduled. Such teachings are readily distinguishable from the claimed limitations… Rana does not discuss even providing an entire schedule to the service provider, let alone, "generating ... an optimized schedule for resources within/or the healthcare facility based upon the plurality of events and the at least one healthcare professional."… Using that example, the present application would present a schedule for the healthcare facility, that would identify each step within the procedure, the rooms or locations of each of those steps, the healthcare professionals associated with each step, and the timing for the use of each of these healthcare resources. Thus, the teachings of Rana are readily distinguishable from the claimed limitations… At the very least, Applicant respectfully submits that nothing in the secondary references accounts for the deficiencies of Rana, as briefly outlined above.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
It is respectfully submitted, that it is the combination of Fletcher within Rana which teaches providing of an optimized schedule of resources for the healthcare facility. Rana is relied on for explicitly teaches various schedules for various perspectives and teaches providing of schedules to the various perspectives (see above but at least paragraphs [0043]-[0045]), while Rana may not explicitly display the schedule to the service provider, Fletcher explicitly recites that the schedule is for a perspective of a caregiver of a patient in a medical facility and provides it to the caregiver (see above, but at least Figure 6, Column 19, lines 60-Column 20, line 25) and provides a motivation that one of ordinary skill in the art would find prima facie obvious to combine within Rana with the motivation of “improves coordination of care, saving time and minimizing errors” (Fletcher: Column 2, lines 15-25).
Regarding, the newly amended limitations are taught by the combination of Wang within the teachings of Rana and Fletcher, in particular “granularity” is not explicitly defined in Applicant’s specification, and therefore the Examiner must treat the language under the broadest reasonable interpretation, in which the teachings of a granularity of the events are based on an amount of variation in step length (see above but at least paragraphs [0024]-[0028]) and would be prima facie obvious to include with the motivation of “increasing utilization to improve the facility's bottom line” (Wang: paragraph [0027]), therefore as all of the claim limitations are taught by the combination of Rana, Fletcher and Wang the argument is not persuasive.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Andrew E Lee whose telephone number is (571)272-8323. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-5:00 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, Shahid Merchant can be reached on 571-270-1360. 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.
/A.E.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3684
/Shahid Merchant/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3684