DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on January 5, 2026, has been entered.
Claims 1, 10, 13, and 19 are amended.
Claims 4-7, 14, 16-18, and 20 are canceled.
Claims 1-3, 8-13, 15, and 19 are pending.
Response to Remarks/Amendments
35 USC §101 Rejections
The Applicant traverses the rejection of the claims as being directed to an ineligible abstract idea, contending that the claims are subject matter eligible because they do not fall within the category of mental processes. See Remarks pp. 9-10. In response, the Examiner points to the rejection, below, which categorizes the claims as a method of organizing human activity. The claims recite steps for mitigating the effects of an austere event that could be implemented on paper by a human being. The process is not rooted in computer technology. The present claims are properly categorized as a method of organizing human activity because the claims recite steps or rules a human being could follow to mitigate the effects of an austere event. Therefore, the attempt to manage personal behavior. The claims merely recite the use of generic computer hardware operating in a machine learning environment for implementation. As indicated in the rejection, below, the use of machine learning implies that output is iteratively used as feedback to improve the predictive accuracy and performance of the machine learning algorithm.
The Applicant additionally contends that the machine learning elements recite an improvement in technology. See Remarks p. 12. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. No apparent improvement in machine learning technology is recited in the claims. “Scheduling” is not a technology or technical field. “Scheduling” is a human behavior, which supports the conclusion of the rejection below, that the claims are directed to a method of organizing human behavior. Providing a mitigation action, such as an alert or an alarm, does not represent an improvement to a technology or technical field. No apparent improvement in efficiency of computing resources is recited in the claims. Contrary to the example case in Ex Parte DesJardins, referenced by the Applicant, no apparent improvement to machine learning is recited in the claims. Instead, the present claims recite the use of machine learning at a highly generalized level to implement the abstract idea of mitigating the effects of an austere event.
The Applicant further submits that the claims recite elements that amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea. See Remarks p. 15. In response, the Examiner points to the rejection, below, which considers each and every limitation of exemplary independent claim 1 in arriving at the conclusion of ineligibility. Additional elements outside the scope of the abstract idea of mitigating the effects of an austere event have been considered, but they have been found to amount to generic computer hardware operating in a machine learning environment. Lack of conventionality does not imply subject matter eligibility. Again, the Examiner reiterates that additional elements outside the scope of the abstract idea have been considered, but they have been found to amount to generic computer hardware operating in a machine learning environment.
The rejection for lack of subject matter eligibility is updated and maintained.
35 USC §102/103 Rejections
Amendments to the claims changed the scope of the claims, necessitating further search and consideration of the prior art. A new search returned the Palladino reference, which is cited in the prior art rejection of the independent claims, below. The claims now stand rejected as being obvious over Johnson in view of Palladino. The Applicant traverses the rejection of the claims, contending that Johnson does not predict the occurrence of an austere event. See Remarks p. 17. The Examiner respectfully disagrees, and points to ¶[0052] and [0067] of Johnson. Those passages discuss a prediction in a delay of schedule, start, or a diminished objective, such as patient satisfaction. This meets the broadest reasonable interpretation of “austere event.” Johnson issues an alert, which is a mitigating action. See Johnson ¶[0054]-[0055]. The discussion by Johnson noting difficulties does not obviate Johnson’s explicit teachings. The claims are obvious over Johnson in view of Palladino.
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.
The Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) provides detailed rules for determining subject matter eligibility for claims in §2106. Those rules provide a basis for the analysis and finding of ineligibility that follows.
Claims 1-3, 8-13, 15, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. The claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claimed invention recites a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Although claims(s) 1-3, 8-13, 15, and 19 are all directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, the claims are directed to mitigating the effects of an austere event (as evidenced by exemplary independent claim 1; “implement the schedule change responsive to the mitigation command value in real- time, and thereby eliminate or mitigate the impact of the austere event”), an abstract idea. Certain methods of organizing human activity are ineligible abstract ideas, including managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. See MPEP §2106.04(a). The limitations of exemplary claim 1 include: “interpret a time sequence data;” “generate austere event data;” “detect a trend in the time sequence data;” “generate . . . a mitigation action command value;” “transmit the mitigation action command value;” and “implement a schedule change responsive to the mitigation command.” The steps are all steps for managing personal behavior related to the abstract idea of mitigating the effects of an austere event that, when considered alone and in combination, are part of the abstract idea of mitigating the effects of an austere event. The dependent claims further recite steps for managing personal behavior that are part of the abstract idea of mitigating the effects of an austere event. These claim elements, when considered alone and in combination, are considered to be abstract ideas because they are directed to a method of organizing human activity which includes generating alerts regarding a predicted risk to a shortage in staffing or operational resources for an enterprise.
Under step 2A of the subject matter eligibility analysis, a claim that recites a judicial exception must be evaluated to determine whether the claim provides a practical application of the judicial exception. Additional elements of the independent claims amount to generic computer hardware that does not provide a practical application (an apparatus with circuits in independent claim 1; a method with circuits in independent claim 1; and a network with circuits in independent claim 19). See MPEP §2106.04(d)[I]. The claims do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, nor do they recite an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself. See MPEP §2106.05(a). The claims do recite machine learning elements, including a trained neural network, but the abstract idea of mitigating the effects of an austere event is generally linked to a computer in a machine learning environment with a neural network for implementation. Therefore, the neural network merely amounts to a technological environment for implementing the abstract idea that does not provide a practical application or significantly more than an abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(h). The Examiner notes that the use of machine learning and a neural network implies the use of training steps and training data to iteratively “learn” from past events. The claims require no more than a generic computer (an apparatus with circuits in independent claim 1; a method with circuits in independent claim 1; and a network with circuits in independent claim 19) to implement the abstract idea, which does not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(f). Because the claims only recite use of a generic computer, they do not apply the judicial exception with a particular machine. See MPEP §2106.05(b). For these reasons, the claims do not provide a practical application of the abstract idea, nor do they amount to significantly more than an abstract idea under step 2B of the subject matter eligibility analysis. Using a generic computer to implement an abstract idea does not provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claims recite ineligible subject matter under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 8-13, 15, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20090089092 A1 to Johnson et al. (hereinafter ‘JOHNSON’) in view of US 20210075700 A1 to Palladino et al. (hereinafter ‘PALLADINO’).
Claim 1 (Currently Amended)
JOHNSON discloses an apparatus (see ¶[0023]; a system with a processor) comprising: a time sequence interpretation circuit structured to interpret a time sequence data (see abstract and ¶[0022]; a scheduling plan that includes predictions. Generate a recommendation regarding tasks of resources) generated via an artificial intelligence (AI) model (see ¶[0072]; the decision support rules can be example-based, evidential reasoning based, fuzzy logic-based, case-based, and/or other artificial intelligence-based, for example);
an austere event detection circuit structured to generate austere event data by automatically predicting (see abstract; calculating a predicted duration to deliver the healthcare to each patient), based at least in part on the time sequence data (see ¶[0073]; automatically tracking or receiving input of additions and deletions in workload, and re-calculate the availability in scheduling of resources 110 accordingly to meet the change in workload), an occurrence of an austere event (see ¶[0052] and [0067]; An embodiment the system 100 can manage interdependencies in such a way that the appropriate factors can be given action (e.g., re-scheduling other resources 105 of same function) if those factors left unmanaged or along current trend increase a likelihood of delay in the schedule start or duration of procedure or diminish objectives of the institution (e.g., patient satisfaction, capacity, low infection rates, costs, revenue, resource utilization, rate of return (ROI), etc. An embodiment of the "what will-be" view 715 can include predicted or trend information (e.g., risk or confidence, interdependencies, availability/readiness of resources 110 or patients 115, variation from forecast duration, etc.) a future time period.), using a first neural network trained to detect a trend in the time sequence data indicative of the austere event (see again ¶[0052] and [0067]; An embodiment the system 100 can manage interdependencies in such a way that the appropriate factors can be given action (e.g., re-scheduling other resources 105 of same function) if those factors left unmanaged or along current trend increase a likelihood of delay in the schedule start or duration of procedure or diminish objectives of the institution (e.g., patient satisfaction, capacity, low infection rates, costs, revenue, resource utilization, rate of return (ROI), etc. An embodiment of the "what will-be" view 715 can include predicted or trend information (e.g., risk or confidence, interdependencies, availability/readiness of resources 110 or patients 115, variation from forecast duration, etc.) a future time period.).
a mitigation circuit (see ¶[0013] and Fig. 6; mitigate schedule risk) structured to generate, based at least in part on the time sequence data and the austere event data (see ¶[0051] and [0064]; forecast probability or confidence or risk of probability of delay of finishing the activity. Detect a nurse calling in to indicate absence or tardiness),
a mitigation action command value structured to trigger a real-time schedule change in advance of the occurrence of the austere event (see ¶[0054]-[0055]; output an alarm representative to an alert to a problem).
JOHNSON does not specifically disclose, but PALLADINO discloses, using a second neural network trained with data associating past austere events with schedule changes that successfully eliminated and/or otherwise mitigated the impact of the past austere events on one or more business operations (see ¶[0051]; the system 100 can calculate a ripple effect of these above-described example variations and interdependencies and can change the schedule of resources 110 to minimize delays and minimize schedule risk, where the changes can include adjusting the forecast start times, adjusting the forecast duration, adjusting the forecast completion time, suggesting added resources 105, or adjusting the forecast locations of the resources 110 to minimize the risk in the revised schedule of resources 110 in delivery of healthcare service to the patients 115. See also ¶[0044]; measure actual attributes and procedure times and use neural networks to refine or adjust the calculation of forecast durations),
JOHNSON further discloses wherein the schedule change is structured to effect a change of a property of the time sequence data prior to the occurrence of the austere event to eliminate or mitigate an impact of the austere event on one or more entities associated with the time sequence data (see again ¶[0013] and Fig. 6; mitigate schedule risk. See also ¶[0088] and [0107]; output an alert illustrative of a change in risk. Anticipatory alerts can be provided to resolve or revise the schedule of resources); and
a mitigation action provisioning circuit structured to transmit the mitigation action command value (see ¶[0088] and Fig. 10; output an alert to a user interface) to one or more systems external to the apparatus (see ¶[0110]-[0112]; program modules executed by machines in networked environments. Information is transferred over a network. Use logical connectors to one or more remote computers), said external systems being configured to implement the schedule change responsive to the mitigation command value in real- time, and thereby eliminate or mitigate the impact of the austere event (see again ¶[0013] and Fig. 6; mitigate schedule risk. See also ¶[0088] and [0107]; output an alert illustrative of a change in risk. Anticipatory alerts can be provided to resolve or revise the schedule of resources. See also ¶[0052] and [0067]; an embodiment the system 100 can manage interdependencies in such a way that the appropriate factors can be given action (e.g., re-scheduling other resources 105 of same function) if those factors left unmanaged or along current trend increase a likelihood of delay in the schedule start or duration of procedure or diminish objectives of the institution (e.g., patient satisfaction, capacity, low infection rates, costs, revenue, resource utilization, rate of return (ROI), etc. An embodiment of the "what will-be" view 715 can include predicted or trend information (e.g., risk or confidence, interdependencies, availability/readiness of resources 110 or patients 115, variation from forecast duration, etc.) a future time period.).
wherein the apparatus is structured to feed the mitigation action command value to the AI model to train the AI model to adapt to the trend (see Fig. 2; refine or adjust a prediction made using historical data).
JOHNSON discloses delivery of services to a patient that includes mitigating schedule risk in delivered services (see ¶[0003] and [0013]). PALLADINO discloses automatic repair of degrading services by using a neural network model trained with successful remedial actions. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to include the neural network trained with successful remedial actions as taught by PALLADINO in the system executing the method of JOHNSON with the motivation to mitigate risk to delivered services.
Claim 2 (Original)
The combination of JOHNSON and PALLADINO discloses the apparatus as set forth in claim 1.
JOHNSON further discloses wherein the apparatus further comprises an external event interpretation circuit structured to interpret external event data (see ¶[0108]; manage changes to a schedule to accommodate changes that are internally or externally induced).
Claim 3 (Original)
The combination of JOHNSON and PALLADINO discloses the apparatus as set forth in claim 2.
JOHNSON further discloses wherein the external event data corresponds to at least one of: weather; a supply chain; equipment status; an employee health event; an employee life event; or a geo-political event (see ¶[0003]; can focus more fully on the value added core processes that achieve the stated mission and less on activity responding to variations such as delays, accelerations, backups, underutilized assets, unplanned overtime by staff and stock outs of material, equipment, people and space that is impacted during the course of delivering healthcare. See also ¶[0100]; costs associated with investment in additional or replacement resources 110 (e.g., capitalized equipment, consumable stock, physical plant, staffing levels, training of staff, recruiting staff, etc.), attraction or drop-off in admission of patients 115 to receive delivery of healthcare relative to threshold, or an ability to meet one or more financial targets relative to threshold. See also ¶[0045] and [0048]; medical equipment and equipment availability. See also ¶[0073]; a staff person calls in sick).
Claim 8 (Previously Presented)
The combination of JOHNSON and PALLADINO discloses the apparatus as set forth in claim 1.
JOHNSON further discloses wherein the trend is one of: an overuse of a piece of equipment (see ¶[0003] and [0046]-[0048]; stock outs of equipment. Occupation or use of resources, such as equipment. Tracked event data includes an unavailability of equipment); a number of vacations (see ¶[0082]; the surgeon desires not to be available due to vacation); timing of vacations (see again ¶[0082]; the surgeon desires not to be available due to vacation); or a shrinking resource pool (see ¶[0051], [0073], and [0107]; track deletions in workload. Examples include a staff person calls in sick).
Claim 9 (Original)
The combination of JOHNSON and PALLADINO discloses the apparatus as set forth in claim 1.
JOHNSON further discloses wherein the austere event is at least one of: an equipment malfunction (see ¶[0048]; malfunctions in personnel or equipment); a shortage in receiving equipment (see again ¶[0048]; an unavailability of equipment); a delay in receiving equipment (see again ¶[0048]; unavailability of equipment, including delay in procedure); a shortage in materials (see ¶[0003]; stock outs of material); a shortage of products for sale; a natural disaster; an inclement weather event; or a shortage in personnel (see ¶[0026]; staffing shortfalls).
Claim 10 (Currently Amended)
The combination of JOHNSON and PALLADINO discloses the apparatus as set forth in claim 1.
JOHNSON further discloses wherein the mitigation circuit is further structured to predict the occurrence of the austere event by analyzing the time sequence data (see ¶[0054]; output an alarm representative on an alert to a problem. Illustrate risk to the schedule of resources).
Claim 11 (Original)
The combination of JOHNSON and PALLADINO discloses the apparatus as set forth in claim 1.
JOHNSON further discloses wherein the mitigation action command value corresponds to generation of an alert (see ¶[0054]; output an alarm representative on an alert to a problem. Illustrate risk to the schedule of resources).
Claim 12 (Original)
The combination of JOHNSON and PALLADINO discloses the apparatus as set forth in claim 1.
JOHNSON further discloses wherein the mitigation action command value corresponds to adjusting a bias of a connector circuit in an agglomerate network (see ¶[0080]; calculating a weighted parametric mathematical algorithm. See also ¶[0044]; measure attributes using an artificial neural network).
Claim 13 (Currently Amended)
JOHNSON discloses a method comprising: interpreting, via a time sequence interpretation circuit (see ¶[0023]; a system with a processor), time sequence data (see abstract and ¶[0022]; a scheduling plan that includes predictions. Generate a recommendation regarding tasks of resources) generated via an artificial intelligence (AI) model (see ¶[0072]; the decision support rules can be example-based, evidential reasoning based, fuzzy logic-based, case-based, and/or other artificial intelligence-based, for example);
generating, via an austere event detection circuit, austere event data, by automatically predicting (see abstract; calculating a predicted duration to deliver the healthcare to each patient), based at least in part on the time sequence data (see ¶[0073]; automatically tracking or receiving input of additions and deletions in workload, and re-calculate the availability in scheduling of resources 110 accordingly to meet the change in workload), an occurrence of an austere event (see ¶[0052] and [0067]; An embodiment the system 100 can manage interdependencies in such a way that the appropriate factors can be given action (e.g., re-scheduling other resources 105 of same function) if those factors left unmanaged or along current trend increase a likelihood of delay in the schedule start or duration of procedure or diminish objectives of the institution (e.g., patient satisfaction, capacity, low infection rates, costs, revenue, resource utilization, rate of return (ROI), etc. An embodiment of the "what will-be" view 715 can include predicted or trend information (e.g., risk or confidence, interdependencies, availability/readiness of resources 110 or patients 115, variation from forecast duration, etc.) a future time period.), using a first neural network trained to detect a trend in the time sequence data indicative of the austere event (see ¶[0052] and [0067]; An embodiment the system 100 can manage interdependencies in such a way that the appropriate factors can be given action (e.g., re-scheduling other resources 105 of same function) if those factors left unmanaged or along current trend increase a likelihood of delay in the schedule start or duration of procedure or diminish objectives of the institution (e.g., patient satisfaction, capacity, low infection rates, costs, revenue, resource utilization, rate of return (ROI), etc. An embodiment of the "what will-be" view 715 can include predicted or trend information (e.g., risk or confidence, interdependencies, availability/readiness of resources 110 or patients 115, variation from forecast duration, etc.) a future time period.).
generating, via a mitigation circuit and based at least in part on the time sequence data and the austere event data (see ¶[0051] and [0064]; forecast probability or confidence or risk of probability of delay of finishing the activity. Detect a nurse calling in to indicate absence or tardiness), a mitigation action command value structured to trigger a real-time schedule change in advance of the occurrence of the austere event (see ¶[0054]-[0055]; output an alarm representative to an alert to a problem),
JOHNSON does not specifically disclose, but PALLADINO discloses, using a second neural network trained with data associating past austere events with schedule changes that successfully eliminated and/or otherwise mitigated the impact of the past austere events on one or more business operations (see ¶[0051]; the system 100 can calculate a ripple effect of these above-described example variations and interdependencies and can change the schedule of resources 110 to minimize delays and minimize schedule risk, where the changes can include adjusting the forecast start times, adjusting the forecast duration, adjusting the forecast completion time, suggesting added resources 105, or adjusting the forecast locations of the resources 110 to minimize the risk in the revised schedule of resources 110 in delivery of healthcare service to the patients 115. See also ¶[0044]; measure actual attributes and procedure times and use neural networks to refine or adjust the calculation of forecast durations),
wherein the schedule change is structured to effect a change of a property of the time sequence data prior to the occurrence of the austere event to eliminate or mitigate an impact of the austere event on one or more entities associated with the time sequence data (see again ¶[0013] and Fig. 6; mitigate schedule risk. See also ¶[0088] and [0107]; output an alert illustrative of a change in risk. Anticipatory alerts can be provided to resolve or revise the schedule of resources); and
transmitting, via a mitigation action provisioning circuit, the mitigation action command value (see ¶[0088] and Fig. 10; output an alert to a user interface) to one or more systems external to the apparatus (see ¶[0110]-[0112]; program modules executed by machines in networked environments. Information is transferred over a network. Use logical connectors to one or more remote computers), said external systems being configured to implement the schedule change responsive to the mitigation command value in real- time, and thereby eliminate or mitigate the impact of the austere event (see again ¶[0013] and Fig. 6; mitigate schedule risk. See also ¶[0088] and [0107]; output an alert illustrative of a change in risk. Anticipatory alerts can be provided to resolve or revise the schedule of resources. See also ¶[0052] and [0067]; an embodiment the system 100 can manage interdependencies in such a way that the appropriate factors can be given action (e.g., re-scheduling other resources 105 of same function) if those factors left unmanaged or along current trend increase a likelihood of delay in the schedule start or duration of procedure or diminish objectives of the institution (e.g., patient satisfaction, capacity, low infection rates, costs, revenue, resource utilization, rate of return (ROI), etc. An embodiment of the "what will-be" view 715 can include predicted or trend information (e.g., risk or confidence, interdependencies, availability/readiness of resources 110 or patients 115, variation from forecast duration, etc.) a future time period.). and
feeding the mitigation action command value to the AI model to train the AI model to adapt to the trend (see Fig. 2; refine or adjust a prediction made using historical data).
JOHNSON discloses delivery of services to a patient that includes mitigating schedule risk in delivered services (see ¶[0003] and [0013]). PALLADINO discloses automatic repair of degrading services by using a neural network model trained with successful remedial actions. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to include the neural network trained with successful remedial actions as taught by PALLADINO in the system executing the method of JOHNSON with the motivation to mitigate risk to delivered services.
Claim 15 (Previously Presented)
The combination of JOHNSON and PALLADINO discloses the method as set forth in claim 13.
JOHNSON further discloses wherein the external event data corresponds to at least one of: weather; a supply chain; equipment status; an employee health event; an employee life event; or a geo-political event (see ¶[0003]; can focus more fully on the value added core processes that achieve the stated mission and less on activity responding to variations such as delays, accelerations, backups, underutilized assets, unplanned overtime by staff and stock outs of material, equipment, people and space that is impacted during the course of delivering healthcare. See also ¶[0100]; costs associated with investment in additional or replacement resources 110 (e.g., capitalized equipment, consumable stock, physical plant, staffing levels, training of staff, recruiting staff, etc.), attraction or drop-off in admission of patients 115 to receive delivery of healthcare relative to threshold, or an ability to meet one or more financial targets relative to threshold. See also ¶[0045] and [0048]; medical equipment and equipment availability. See also ¶[0073]; a staff person calls in sick).
Claim 19 (Currently Amended)
JOHNSON discloses an agglomerate network (see ¶[0110]; program modules executed by machines in networked environment), comprising: a time sequencer circuit structured to output a time sequence data (see abstract and ¶[0022]; a scheduling plan that includes predictions. Generate a recommendation regarding tasks of resources) generated via an artificial intelligence (AI) model (see ¶[0072]; the decision support rules can be example-based, evidential reasoning based, fuzzy logic-based, case-based, and/or other artificial intelligence-based, for example);
a connector circuit (see ¶[0023]; a controller comprising at least one processor) structured to adjust at least one of an input to the time sequencer circuit or the time sequence data outputted by the time sequencer circuit (see ¶[0033] and [0039]; receive an input and updates to values or probabilities or risk based on historical data. Generate a probability density function); and
an austere event circuit structured to: interpret the time sequence data (see ¶[0108]; manage changes to a schedule to accommodate changes that are internally or externally induced).
generate austere event data by automatically predicting (see abstract; calculating a predicted duration to deliver the healthcare to each patient), based at least in part on the time sequence data (see ¶[0073]; automatically tracking or receiving input of additions and deletions in workload, and re-calculate the availability in scheduling of resources 110 accordingly to meet the change in workload), an occurrence of an austere event (see ¶[0052] and [0067]; An embodiment the system 100 can manage interdependencies in such a way that the appropriate factors can be given action (e.g., re-scheduling other resources 105 of same function) if those factors left unmanaged or along current trend increase a likelihood of delay in the schedule start or duration of procedure or diminish objectives of the institution (e.g., patient satisfaction, capacity, low infection rates, costs, revenue, resource utilization, rate of return (ROI), etc. An embodiment of the "what will-be" view 715 can include predicted or trend information (e.g., risk or confidence, interdependencies, availability/readiness of resources 110 or patients 115, variation from forecast duration, etc.) a future time period.), using a first neural network trained to detect a trend in the time sequence data indicative of the austere event (see again ¶[0052] and [0067]; An embodiment the system 100 can manage interdependencies in such a way that the appropriate factors can be given action (e.g., re-scheduling other resources 105 of same function) if those factors left unmanaged or along current trend increase a likelihood of delay in the schedule start or duration of procedure or diminish objectives of the institution (e.g., patient satisfaction, capacity, low infection rates, costs, revenue, resource utilization, rate of return (ROI), etc. An embodiment of the "what will-be" view 715 can include predicted or trend information (e.g., risk or confidence, interdependencies, availability/readiness of resources 110 or patients 115, variation from forecast duration, etc.) a future time period.).
generate, based at least in part on the time sequence data and the austere event data (see ¶[0051] and [0064]; forecast probability or confidence or risk of probability of delay of finishing the activity. Detect a nurse calling in to indicate absence or tardiness), a mitigation action command value structured to trigger an adjustment to the connector circuit in advance of the occurrence of the austere event to the connector circuit (see ¶[0054]-[0055]; output an alarm representative to an alert to a problem).
JOHNSON does not specifically disclose, but PALLADINO discloses, using a second neural network trained with data associating past austere events with schedule changes that successfully eliminated and/or otherwise mitigated the impact of the past austere events on one or more business operations (see abstract and ¶[0085]; employ hidden Markov models or convolution neural networks with a training history of successful conditions/states the anomalies were detected in and successful remedial actions),
JOHNSON further discloses wherein the adjustment is structured to effect a change of at least one of the input to the time sequencer circuit or the time sequence data outputted by the time sequencer circuit prior to the occurrence of the austere event to eliminate or mitigate an impact of the austere event on one or more entities associated with the time sequence data (see again ¶[0013] and Fig. 6; mitigate schedule risk. See also ¶[0088] and [0107]; output an alert illustrative of a change in risk. Anticipatory alerts can be provided to resolve or revise the schedule of resources); and
transmit the mitigation action command value (see ¶[0088] and Fig. 10; output an alert to a user interface) to one or more external systems (see ¶[0110]-[0112]; program modules executed by machines in networked environments. Information is transferred over a network. Use logical connectors to one or more remote computers), said external systems being configured to implement the schedule change responsive to the mitigation command value in real-time, and thereby eliminate or mitigate the impact of the austere event (see again ¶[0013] and Fig. 6; mitigate schedule risk. See also ¶[0088] and [0107]; output an alert illustrative of a change in risk. Anticipatory alerts can be provided to resolve or revise the schedule of resources. See also ¶[0052] and [0067]; an embodiment the system 100 can manage interdependencies in such a way that the appropriate factors can be given action (e.g., re-scheduling other resources 105 of same function) if those factors left unmanaged or along current trend increase a likelihood of delay in the schedule start or duration of procedure or diminish objectives of the institution (e.g., patient satisfaction, capacity, low infection rates, costs, revenue, resource utilization, rate of return (ROI), etc. An embodiment of the "what will-be" view 715 can include predicted or trend information (e.g., risk or confidence, interdependencies, availability/readiness of resources 110 or patients 115, variation from forecast duration, etc.) a future time period.). and
feed the mitigation action command value to the AI model to train the AI model to adapt to the trend (see Fig. 2; refine or adjust a prediction made using historical data).
JOHNSON discloses delivery of services to a patient that includes mitigating schedule risk in delivered services (see ¶[0003] and [0013]). PALLADINO discloses automatic repair of degrading services by using a neural network model trained with successful remedial actions. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to include the neural network trained with successful remedial actions as taught by PALLADINO in the system executing the method of JOHNSON with the motivation to mitigate risk to delivered services.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD N SCHEUNEMANN whose telephone number is (571)270-7947. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm 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, Patricia Munson can be reached at 571-270-5396. 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.
/RICHARD N SCHEUNEMANN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624