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 04 June 2026, 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; and invoking a data transmission that transmits information responsive to the set of questions to a requesting entity, the information being generated based upon the data pulled from the healthcare facility, 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
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:
These newly added limitations recite concrete technical operations that are not related to managing personal behavior including following rules or instructions. Rather, these claim limitations are those that are required so that computing devices can automatically provide data responsive to a set of questions so that the healthcare facility can obtain resources, without needing manual intervention. Such claim limitations are inherently technological operations that require computer implementation.
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 amended claims… encompass a technological improvement in how information is provided in response to questions… [the] limitations describe a specific technical solution that improves the functioning of computing devices…
Regarding (b), 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.
These recitations apply the to automatically transmit information responsive to a set of questions and that is automatically pulled from systems that are tracking the data, which is a specific technological improvement over manual provision of information to indicate what resources that a healthcare facility needs while under the effects of an event.
Regarding (c), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. That the claim purportedly performs the steps “automatically” does not remove it from being directed to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. Humans perform actions automatically all the time. When you get in your car to go somewhere you automatically turn the engine on. Even assuming that this is not true (which it is), performing the steps “automatically” is a consequence of confining the abstract idea to a computer. This is supported by MPEP 2106.05(a)(I) which states: “Examples that the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality: […] iii. Mere automation of manual processes….”
…the combination of identifying a system of a healthcare facility that is tracking data responsive to the set of questions, pulling the data from the system, and invoking a data transmission that transmits the information to a requesting entity provides significantly more than the alleged abstract idea. This ordered combination of elements is not well-understood, routine, conventional.
Regarding (d), 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.
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:
Paripally et al. (U.S. 2023/0009081) which discloses systems and methods for providing evacuation monitoring and assistance.
Chang et al. (U.S. 2022/0328172) which discloses a method for determining the optimal transfer hospital.
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
/ROBERT W MORGAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3683
Prosecution Insights