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
Response to Amendment
In the Amendment dated 03 November 2025, the following occurred:
Claims 1, 11, and 20 were amended;
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Subject Matter Free of Art
Claims 1-20 include subject matter that is free of prior art. The cited prior art of record fails to expressly teach or suggest, either alone or in combination, the features found within independent claims 1, 11, and 20. In particular, the cited prior art fails to expressly teach or suggest the combination of:
identifying, using an event data identification and collection system, a plurality of events that can affect a healthcare facility, wherein each of the events constrains or modifies a normal functioning of the healthcare facility into an abnormal functioning state;
generating, using the event data identification and collection system and for each of the plurality of events, a set of questions identifying data that assists in supporting a given of the plurality of events, wherein the generating comprises identifying data that can be correlated to the given of the plurality of events and adding the data to the set of questions, wherein the set of questions comprises an identification of a resource to be monitored;
receiving, at the event data identification and collection system, an indication of an event affecting a healthcare facility, wherein the event constrains or modifies a normal functioning of the healthcare facility into an abnormal operating state 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 a given of the events;
providing, from the event data identification and collection system to a user interface of a healthcare facility, the set of questions corresponding to the event affecting the healthcare facility;
and automatically pulling data from the healthcare facility that is responsive to the set of questions, wherein the automatically pulling comprises identifying at least one system of the healthcare facility that is tracking data that is responsive to the set of questions, connecting, using a network device, to the at least one system of the healthcare facility, generating, using the event data identification and collection system, instructions to pull the data from the at least one system, and receiving, responsive to transmitting the instructions to the at least one system, the data pulled from the at least one system.
The closest prior art Kaliraman et al. (U.S. 2023/0130914) teaches identifying events that can affect a healthcare facility, generating questions related to the identified event, transmitting a notification of the identified event to an entity for assistance, providing a set of questions corresponding to the identified event to a user interface, and capturing information from databases automatically. However, Kaliraman fails to teach pulling data from the healthcare facility that is responsive to the set of questions.
The prior art Devarakonda et al. (U.S. 2018/0121603) teaches analyzing medical records in response to a set of questions. However, Devarakonda fails to teach that the set of questions comprises an identification of a resource to be monitored.
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.
Step 1
The claims recite a method, a system, and a product for generating a set of questions for each of a plurality of events and providing an appropriate set of the questions when an event affects a healthcare facility, and therefore meet step 1.
Step 2A1
The limitations of (Claim 1 being representative) identifying, using an event data identification and collection system, a plurality of events that can affect a healthcare facility, wherein each of the events constrains or modifies a normal functioning of the healthcare facility into an abnormal functioning state; generating, using the event data identification and collection system and for each of the plurality of events, a set of questions identifying data that assists in supporting a given of the plurality of events, wherein the generating comprises identifying data that can be correlated to the given of the plurality of events and adding the data to the set of questions, wherein the set of questions comprises an identification of a resource to be monitored; receiving, at the event data identification and collection system, an indication of an event affecting a healthcare facility, wherein the event constrains or modifies a normal functioning of the healthcare facility into an abnormal operating state 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 a given of the events; providing, from the event data identification and collection system to… a healthcare facility, the set of questions corresponding to the event affecting the healthcare facility; and automatically pulling data from the healthcare facility that is responsive to the set of questions, wherein the automatically pulling comprises identifying at least one system of the healthcare facility that is tracking data that is responsive to the set of questions, connecting… to the at least one system of the healthcare facility, generating, using the event data identification and collection system, instructions to pull the data from the at least one system, and receiving, responsive to transmitting the instructions to the at least one system, the data pulled from the at least one system, as drafted, is a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, falls in the grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity (i.e., managing personal behavior including following rules or instructions).
That is, other than reciting a method, a system, and a product implemented by a processor (claims 11 and 20) and a computer-readable storage device (claim 20), the claimed invention amounts to organizing human activity. The Examiner notes that Claim 1 is not tied to any particular technological environment. 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 “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A2
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of a processor (claims 11 and 20) and a computer-readable storage device (claim 20), that implement the identified abstract idea. These additional elements are not exclusively described by the applicant and are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., a “circuit”, “module”, or “system”, see, e.g., Para. 0078) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, 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. The claims are directed to an abstract idea. Further, receiving an indication is considered insignificant extra solution activity such as pre-solution activity e.g., data gathering (performed by receiving/providing/etc.) See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The claims recite the additional elements of a user interface and a network device. The user interface and network device merely generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) indicates that generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use is insufficient to provide a practical application. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
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, the additional element of using a general-purpose computer to perform the noted steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a processing unit cannot provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”).
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of a user interface and a network device were considered to generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. This has been re-evaluated under the “significantly more” analysis and has also been found insufficient to provide significantly more. MPEP 2106.05(A) indicates that generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide significantly more. As such, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 2-10 and 12-19 are similarly rejected because they either further define/narrow the abstract idea and/or do not further limit the claim to a practical application or provide an inventive concept such that the claims are subject matter eligible even when considered individually or as an ordered combination. Claims 2, 3, 6, 8, 12, 13, 16, and 18 merely describe what is generated, which further defines the abstract idea. Claims 3 and 13 further recite the additional element of a machine-learning model. The Examiner notes that the machine-learning models are described in the Specification at Para. 0042 as encompassing a neural network, decision tree and/or forest, classifiers, random tree forest or classifier, or a combination thereof, which are simple enough to be included in the abstract idea.
Claims 4 and 14 merely describe the set of questions, which further defines the abstract idea. Claims 5 and 15 merely describe identifying at least one dashboard, which further defines the abstract idea. The additional element of a dashboard is considered part of the computer, and therefore part of the abstract idea.
Claims 7 and 17 merely describe identifying a frequency, which further defines the abstract idea. Claims 9 and 19 merely describe receiving an indication, which further defines the abstract idea. Claim 10 merely describes automatically pulling data, which further defines the abstract idea.
Response to Arguments
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Regarding the rejection of Claims 1-20, the Examiner has considered Applicant’s arguments in light of the present amendments and withdraws the prior art rejection.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101
Regarding the prior art rejection of Claims 1-20, the Examiner has considered the arguments but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues:
Applicant respectfully submits that the claims are not directed toward "managing personal behavior including following rules or instructions."
Regarding (a), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. MPEP 2106. 04(a)(2)(II) states that a claimed invention is directed to certain methods of organizing human activity if the identified claim elements contain limitations that encompass fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). The Examiner submits that the identified claim elements represent a series of rules or instructions that a person or persons, with or without the aid of a computer, would follow to (to paraphrase the claims) identify an event, provide a set of questions, and pull information. Furthermore, the Examiner submits that healthcare itself inherently represents the organization of human activity. Applicant has not pointed to anything in the claims that fall outside of this characterization. Because the claim elements fall under a series of rules or instructions that a person or persons would follow to (to paraphrase the claims) identify an event, provide a set of questions, and pull information, the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea.
The claims are drafted in a manner where any judicial exception is very narrowly tailored to a specific application, specifically, an application of generating and providing a set of questions to a healthcare facility where the questions are specific to an event affecting the healthcare facility.
Regarding (b), the Examiner respectfully submits that whether or not a claim or a judicial exception is narrowly tailored does not remove the claim from being characterized as a judicial exception. A more specific abstract idea, is still an abstract idea.
…this judicial exception is integrated into a very particular application within the claims and does not monopolize the judicial exception… the claims do not "tie up" a particular technological field, but are rather directed toward a very particular application of any judicial exception. To allege that these claims would "monopolize the judicial exception," MPEP § 2106.04(d), appears to be overreaching.
Regarding (c), the Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s assertion. The Examiner reiterates the response to argument (b); whether or not the abstract idea is specific or not is immaterial. Regarding the “monopolize” argument, MPEP 2106.04(I) states that “questions of preemption are inherent in and resolved by the two-part framework from Alice Corp. and Mayo (the Alice/Mayo test referred to by the Office as Steps 2A and 2B).” Thus, pre-emption concerns are fully addressed and made moot upon application of the two-part Alice Corp. subject matter eligibility analysis, as provided in the basis of rejection. Further, by definition, the claimed invention would preempt or tie up or monopolize the identified abstract idea.
In other words, 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.
Regarding (d), The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims (except for Claim 1 which is purely directed to an abstract idea) are implemented on a generic computer. MPEP § 2106.04(d)(I) indicates that implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer cannot provide a practical application or significantly more.
Applicant respectfully submits that, based upon the guidance of Updated MPEP,
the Office is not to take into account what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in making an "improvement" determination under Step 2A. Applicant respectfully submits that the Office incorrectly performs this analysis by taking into account what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity.
Regarding (e), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. MPEP 2106.05(d) states: “Another consideration when determining whether a claim recites significantly more than a judicial exception is whether the additional element(s) are well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry (emphasis added).” Further, MPEP 2106.05(I) states: “As made clear by the courts, the novelty of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the § 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter (internal quotations omitted, emphasis original).” As such, it is only the additional elements identified by the Examiner to not be part of the abstract idea that are analyzed to determine whether they represent well-understood, routine, conventional activities in the field of the invention. And, only those additional elements characterized as extra-solution activity under step 2A2 require Berkheimer evidence. The only additional elements in the claim are a generic computer and network. The generic computer is found to be “apply it” under Step 2A2 and Step 2B, while the network was found to generally link. Therefore, no well-understood routine conventional analysis is required.
…Applicant respectfully submits that the generating and providing a set of questions to a healthcare facility where the questions are specific to an event affecting the healthcare facility and automatic pull of data that is responsive to the set of questions is an improvement to the technology.
Regarding (f), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) states that a practical application may be present where the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or improves another technology. The technological environment of Applicant’s claim is a general-purpose computer. Applicant has not identified nor can the Examiner locate any physical improvement to the functioning of the computer that results from the implementation of Applicant’s claim. Further, no other technology is recited in the claims. Because neither the computer nor another technology is improved, a practical application is not present.
With all of the limitations of the claims, taken individually and as an ordered
combination, there is clearly no risk that the claims would monopolize certain methods of organizing human activity."
Regarding (g), Examiner respectfully disagrees for the reasons noted above. It is only the additional elements that can provide a practical application, not the abstract idea. And, the claim would monopolize the abstract idea by definition.
…the provision of an event-specific set of questions and automatic pull of responsive data is unique to the claimed limitations and represents a technological improvement to the healthcare technological field.
Regarding (h), The Examiner respectfully disagrees. MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) states “the word ‘improvements’ in the context of this consideration is limited to improvements to the functioning of a computer or any other technology/technical field, whether in Step 2A Prong Two or in Step 2B.” Here, there is no improvement to the computer nor is there an improvement to another technology. Because neither type of improvement is present in the claims, an improvement to technology is not present and there is no practical application.
Applicant’s argument that the field of healthcare is a technology and the claimed invention improves this field is not reflected in the claimed invention. The claims are confined to a general-purpose computer. Moreover, the entire field of healthcare is not reasonably understood to be a problem arising in technology. The claimed invention is using a computer as a tool and any improvement present is an improvement to the abstract idea of, to paraphrase, identifying an event, providing a set of questions, and pulling information. Finally, were Applicant’s line of reasoning correct, the invention in Alice Corp. would have been subject matter eligible because it was an improvement to the technology of settlement risk mitigation.
Specifically, Applicant respectfully submits that at least the newly added
limitations are integrated into the claims and other limitations such that the claims require the use of the additional limitations and are not just generally linked to the particular technological environment, thereby qualifying as "significantly more" and being patent eligible under § 101.
Regarding (i), The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The additional limitations are part of the abstract idea and do not provide significantly more.
… reduces the amount of network traffic that is required for responding to the set of questions… reduces the amount of network traffic and bandwidth required for responding to a request… reduces the amount of network traffic for responding to queries… reduces the amount of computing resources that are needed to respond to a request…
Regarding (j), Examiner respectfully disagrees for several reasons. First, the as-filed disclosure does not describe any problems associated with “network traffic,” “bandwidth,” or “computing resources.” This is mere supposition on the part of Applicant’s representative that is unsupported by the disclosure. Second, it is unclear if Applicant’s claimed invention actually solves these alleged problems, because the claims are not directed to reducing network traffic, bandwidth, or computing resources. Applicant’s claims may actually make these worse. Finally, even assuming these are actual problems, Applicant’s claimed invention is using a computer to solve these problems, which is using a computer for what it was designed to do.
Thus, Applicant respectfully submits that the claims represent an inventive
concept, as the claims when analyzed in combination and as a whole, adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative of an inventive concept, per Updated MPEP.
Regarding (k), Examiner respectfully disagrees for the reasons present in the response to argument (e).
Conclusion
Prior art made of record though not relied upon in the present basis of rejection are noted in the attached PTO 892 and include:
Zhen et al. (U.S. 2018/0039735) which discloses systems and methods for estimating healthcare resource demand.
DeGrandpre et al. (U.S. 2024/0212835) which discloses generating a checklist for a healthcare professional based on a schedule for a healthcare resource. The schedule for a healthcare facility is based on a plurality of events.
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 CAMRYN B LEWIS whose telephone number is (703)756-1807. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 11:00 am - 8:00 pm EST.
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, Robert W Morgan can be reached on 571-272-6773. 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.
/CAMRYN B LEWIS/
Examiner, Art Unit 3683
/JASON S TIEDEMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3683