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 .
Status of claims
Claims 1-20 have been reviewed and addressed below.
Response to Arguments/Amendments
Applicants amendments filed on 7-6-26 has been entered and are addressed below.
Applicants argue that the claims are not directed to a judicial exception based on the amendments. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As addressed below, the identification that an event is affecting the healthcare facility is part of the abstract idea since providing information to a requesting entity still falls under certain methods of organizing human activity since it’s interaction between entity and the system. Additionally gathering and analyzing data and presenting data is mental process (see Electric Power Group V Alstom).
Applicant argues that the amended claims clarified the claim implementation therefore integrating it into a practical application, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Pe4r applicant’s specifications in paragraph 38 “data that may be monitored and may provide an indication of an abnormal functioning condition include staffing values, staff-to-patient ratios, patient bed occupancy, resource usage and availability ratios, and/or the like. Values for those data that run within the normal value or range may indicate a normal functioning of the healthcare facility. If the values meet or exceed a predetermined threshold, the system may identify that the facility is no longer functioning normally. To identify an abnormal functioning condition, the system may require that multiple data values are outside predetermined thresholds, that data values run outside the predetermined thresholds for a predetermined period of time, and/or the like. In addition to learning the normal functioning state values, a user may also program the system with some default values and threshold values”, which is a threshold of data that being part of what is analyzed.
Applicant argues that the amended claims are tailored to a specific application specifically to automatically identify data responsive to a request then creating a modified dataset to a requesting entity. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Providing information to a requesting entity still falls under certain methods of organizing human activity since it’s interaction between entity and the system. Additionally gathering and analyzing data and presenting data is mental process (see Electric Power Group V Alstom).
Applicant argues that the system is able to communicate with and automatically pull data from other systems of the healthcare facility, the amount of processing resources needed to respond to requests can be reduced. The claimed limitations also reduce the amount of communications that occur across a network, by providing a dataset that is responsive to the entity without requiring multiple communications back and forth between the entity and the healthcare entity to get the desired dataset. This reduces the network resources that are needed, thereby also reducing the computing resources needed for the communications. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The extraction of data the interaction of the entity and the facility still fall under the bucket of certain methods of organizing human activity. Per the MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) “the sub-groupings encompass both activity of a single person (for example, a person following a set of instructions or a person signing a contract online) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial interaction), and thus, certain activity between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping. It is noted that the number of people involved in the activity is not dispositive as to whether a claim limitation falls within this grouping. Instead, the determination should be based on whether the activity itself falls within one of the sub-groupings”.
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.
Step 1:
Claims 1-20 are drawn to method, system and non-transitory computer-readable medium, which is/are statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A Prong One:
Independent claims 1, 11, 20 recite “identifying an event data identification and event affecting the healthcare facility, wherein the event modified the normal functioning of the healthcare facility, wherein the healthcare facility needs resources in view of the event and wherein at least one entity can assist the healthcare facility in view of the event wherein the identifying that an event is affecting the healthcare facility comprises detecting an abnormal functioning state of the healthcare facility by at least monitoring a components of the healthcare facility, wherein a loss of the component detected through the monitoring indicates the abnormal functioning state of the healthcare facility”, “receiving in a form of a request and an identification to provide data that assists in supporting the healthcare facility in view of the event and a set of questions that have been generated for the even that is affecting the healthcare facility”, “creating a modified dataset to be transmitted to the entity by modifying an original dataset to include the data wherein the creating the modified dataset comprises identifying data to be included in the modified dataset and that would be responsive to the request wherein the modifying comprise identifying a system of the healthcare facility that is tracking the data providing instructions to pull the data and receiving data”, “invoking a data transmission that accesses the modified dataset and transmits the modified dataset to the entity wherein the transmission of the modified dataset occurs until a data transmission end trigger event occurs and upon detection of the data transmission end trigger event, the modified dataset reverts to the original dataset, wherein the data transmission end trigger event comprises monitoring the healthcare facility and detecting the healthcare facility is operating at the normal operating state”.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions), then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Additionally, the steps can also fall under mental process. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong One: YES).
Step 2A Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims are abstract but for the inclusion of the additional elements including “event data “identification and collection system”, “healthcare facility”, “processor”, “memory device”, “computer readable storage device” , “user interface”, “application programming interface”, which are additional elements that are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using generic computer components. See: MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional elements are merely incidental or token additions to the claim that do not alter or affect how the process steps or functions in the abstract idea are performed (e.g., the “processor” language is incidental to what it is “configured” to perform). Therefore, the claimed additional elements do not add meaningful limitations to the indicated claims beyond a general linking to a technological environment. See: MPEP 2106.05(h).
The claims recite the additional element of “receiving an indicated to provide data that assists in supporting healthcare facility in view of the event”, which is considered limitations directed to insignificant extra-solution activity that does not amount to an inventive concept because the limitations do not impose meaningful limits on the claim such that is it not nominally or tangentially related to the invention. In the claimed context, the claimed displaying limitations are incidental to the performance of the recited abstract idea. See: MPEP 2106.05(g).
The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Hence, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong Two: NO).
Step 2B:
The claims do 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, using the additional elements to perform the abstract idea amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic components cannot provide an inventive concept. See: MPEP 2106.05(f).
Further, the claimed additional elements, identified above, are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are generic components that are not integrated into the claim because they are merely incidental or token additions to the claim that do not alter or affect how the process steps or functions in the abstract idea are performed. Therefore, the claimed additional elements do not add meaningful limitations to the indicated claims beyond a general linking to a technological environment. See: MPEP 2106.05(h).
Further, the claimed additional elements, identified above, are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are generic components that are configured to perform well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry. See: MPEP 2106.05(d). Said additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and provide conventional functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea. The originally filed specification supports this conclusion at Figure 1, and
paragraph 75 that “circuits, circuitry or components may be utilized in information handling devices, with a computer, server, client device or the like, an example device that may be used in implementing one or more embodiments includes a computing device in the form of a computer 10′ as illustrated in FIG. 3. This example device may be a server used in one of the systems in a hospital network, or one of the remote computers connected to the hospital network. Components of computer 10′ may include, but are not limited to, a processing unit 20′, a system memory 30′, and a system bus 22′ that couples various system components including the system memory 30′ to the processing unit 20′. Computer 10′ may include or have access to a variety of computer readable media, including databases. The system memory 30′ may include non-signal computer readable storage media, for example in the form of volatile and/or nonvolatile memory such as read only memory (ROM) and/or random access memory (RAM). By way of example, and not limitation, system memory 30′ may also include an operating system, application programs, other program modules, and program data.”
Paragraph 28 recites “a system which includes a processor, memory device, output devices (e.g., display device, printer, etc.), input devices (e.g., keyboard, touch screen, mouse, microphones, sensors, biometric scanners, etc.), image capture devices, and/or other components, for example, those discussed in connection with FIG. 3. While the system may include known hardware and software components and/or hardware and software components developed in the future, the system itself is specifically programmed to perform the functions as described herein to provide an event data identification and collection system for a healthcare facility that can generate a set of questions for each of a plurality of events that may affect a healthcare facility and that can invoke a data transmission that is responsive to a request to provide data that assists in supporting the affected healthcare facility. Additionally, the event data identification and collection system includes modules and features that are unique to the described system”.
The claims recite the additional element of “receiving an indicated to provide data that assists in supporting healthcare facility in view of the event”, which is considered limitations directed to insignificant extra-solution activity that does not amount to an inventive concept because the limitations do not impose meaningful limits on the claim such that is it not nominally or tangentially related to the invention. In the claimed context, the claimed displaying limitations are incidental to the performance of the recited abstract idea. See: MPEP 2106.05(g).
Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination, the claims simply instruct the additional elements to implement the concept described above in the identification of abstract idea with routine, conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment.
Hence, the claims as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (Step 2B: NO).
Dependent claim(s) 2-10, 12-19 when analyzed as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and/or as an ordered combination, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. These claims fail to remedy the deficiencies of their parent claims above, and are therefore rejected for at least the same rationale as applied to their parent claims above, and incorporated herein.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any 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 REGINALD R REYES whose telephone number is (571)270-5212. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:30 M-F.
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 R. Merchant can be reached at (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.
REGINALD R. REYES
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3684
/REGINALD R REYES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3684
Prosecution Insights