DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Notice for all US Patent Applications filed on or after March 16, 2013
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Status of the Claims
This communication is in response to communications received on 9/14/26. Claim(s) 1, 5-6, 13, and 17 is/are amended, claim(s) 8-9 is/are cancelled, claim(s) 22-24 is/are new, and applicant does not provide any information on where support for the amendments can be found in the instant specification. Therefore, Claims 1-6,10-20, and 22-24 is/are pending and have been addressed below.
Claims Without Prior Art Rejections
Claim(s) 1-6, 10-20, and 22-24 do/does not have prior art rejections. The remaining rejections are 101 as noted below.
Closest prior art to the invention claims without rejections include
Thomas et al. (US 2020/0411168 A1) in view of Akella et al. (US 2019/0138973 A1), Tsuria et al. (US 2021/0241890 A1), Santarone et al. (US 2020/0250356 A1), and Zebarjadi et al. (US 2015/0371350 A1) for claim(s) 1, 3-4, 10-11, 13, 15-16, 17, 19-20, and 22-24,
Thomas in view of Akella, Tsuria, Santarone, and Zebarjadi as applied to claim(s) 1 above and further in view of Haspert et al. (US 2021/0265065 A1) for claim(s) 2, 5-6, 14, and 18, and
Thomas in view of Akella, Tsuria, Santarone, and Zebarjadi as applied to claim(s) 1 above and further in view of Brandt et al. (US 2003/0045958 A1) for claim(s) 12.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see applicant’s remarks, filed 9/14/26, with respect to rejections under 35 USC 101 for claim(s) 1-6, 10-20, and 22-24 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive as far as they apply to the amended 101 rejection(s) below.
Applicant respectfully traversed the rejection on pg. 9-11.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees because while the amendment furthers the 101 argument, the claims are still directed to task assignment.
Applicant is relying on 2106.05(d) “well understood, routine, and conventional” however Examiner is relying on 2106.05(f) “apply it.” Examiner relied on “apply it” because of item (2) Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process of 2106.05(f).
Thus, the argument(s) are unpersuasive.
Applicant’s arguments, see applicant’s remarks, filed 9/14/26, with respect to rejections under 35 USC 103 for claim(s) 1-6, 10-20, and 22-24 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive as far as they apply to the amended 103 rejection(s) below.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 10-20, and 22-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter as noted below.
The limitation(s) below for representative claim(s) 1, 13, and 17 that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, is/are directed to task assignment.
Step 1: The claim(s) as drafted, is/are a process (claim(s) 13-16 recites a series of steps) and system (claim(s) 1-6, 10-12, 17-20, and 22-24 recites a series of components).
Step 2A – Prong 1: The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s): (emphasis added)
Claim 13: communicating, by a task assignment server, with a real-time locating system and an admission, discharge, and transfer system;
continuously monitoring a staffing level of a first type of personnel by determining, from location data acquired from one or more antennas of the real-time locating system, a number of the first type of personnel present in a care facility;
determining, from patient data acquired from the admission, discharge, and transfer system, a number of patients admitted to the care facility;
determining a staff shortage in a clinical care environment exists by comparing the staffing level of the first type of personnel relative to a patient volume of the care facility, wherein the patient volume is determined based on the number of patients admitted to the care facility;
in response to determining that the staff shortage exists, categorizing tasks based on skill level, the tasks being categorized into a first group of tasks for completion by the first type of personnel, and into a second group of tasks for completion by a second type of personnel, the second type of personnel having a skill set different from that of the first type of personnel;
routing a task of the second group to a member of the second type of personnel based upon:
proximity of the member to a location of the task determined using location data acquired from the one or more antennas of the real-time locating system;
current tasks in queue for the member; and
physical capabilities of the member relative to requirements of the task;
displaying a task request on a device of the member, wherein the task request identifies the task and provides a first option to accept the task request and a second option to decline the task request;
upon acceptance of the task request, monitoring, using the one or more antennas, performance of the task by:
receiving updated location data captured by the one or more antennas from a tag worn by the member while the member moves in the care facility; and
determining, based on the updated location data, whether the member has moved toward the location of the task; and
dynamically updating a task list based on the performance of the task, including automatically updating routing of at least one additional task in real-time as the updated location data indicates changes in proximity of available members to corresponding task locations.
Claim(s) 1 and 17: same analysis as claim(s) 13.
Dependent claims 2-6, 10-12, 14-16, 18-20, and 22-24 recite the same or similar abstract idea(s) as independent claim(s) 1, 13, and 17 with merely a further narrowing of the abstract idea(s): .
The identified limitations of the independent and dependent claims above fall well-within the groupings of subject matter identified by the courts as being abstract concepts of:
a method of organizing human activity (commercial or legal interactions including advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, or business relations) because the invention is directed to economic and/or business relationships as they are associated with task assignment for a business,
a method of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior or
relationships or interactions between people including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) because the invention is directed to task assignment for a business, and
a mental process (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) because the invention is directed to task assignment for a business.
Step 2A – Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
The additional elements unencompassed by the abstract idea include server, one or more antennas, real-time locating system, system, automatically (claim(s) 1, 13, 17), the system comprising: at least one processing device; and at least one memory storage device (claim(s) 1) a non-transitory computer readable storage medium, one or more computing devices (claim(s) 17), system (claim(s) 5), a second system (claim(s) 6), antenna (claim(s) 21).
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements as described above with respect to Step 2A Prong 2 fails to describe:
Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a)
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition – see Vanda Memo
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine – see MPEP 2106.05(b)
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP 2106.05(c)
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo.
Thus the additional elements as described above with respect to Step 2A Prong 2 merely amount to (as additionally noted by instant specification [0070]) invoked as a tool and/or general purpose computer to apply instructions of an abstract idea in a particular technological environment, and/or mere application of an abstract idea in a particular technological environment and merely limiting the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological field do not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(f)&(h)).
Step 2B: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus the additional elements as described above with respect to Step 2A Prong 2 merely amount to (as additionally noted by instant specification [0070]) invoked as a tool and/or a general purpose computer to apply instructions of an abstract idea in a particular technological environment, and/or mere application of an abstract idea in a particular technological environment and merely limiting the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological field do not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application and thus similarly the combination and arrangement of the above identified additional elements when analyzed under Step 2B also fails to necessitate a conclusion that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the same reasons as set forth above (MPEP 2106.05(f)&(h)).
Conclusion
When responding to the office action, any new claims and/or limitations should be accompanied by a reference as to where the new claims and/or limitations are supported in the original disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES WEBB whose telephone number is (313)446-6615. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 10-3.
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, Jerry O’Connor can be reached on (571) 272-6787. 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.
/JAMES WEBB/Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights