Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This action is in response to applicant arguments filled on 12/22/2025 for application 18/396950.
Claims 1, 3, 4, and 12 have been amended.
Claim 2 has been canceled.
Claims 1 and 3-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Detailed Action
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 and 3-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 1 and 3-20 are drawn to a method and system, which is/are statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A Prong One:
Independent claims 1 and 12 recite determining a score for each item that constitutes the surgical information on medical personnel on the basis of information on on-duty records of the medical personnel; determining a medical personnel score corresponding to the surgical information on the basis of a weighted value corresponding to the score for the each item; determining a first score for each item on the basis of the number of times that each of the medical personnel for each item participates in the surgeries; determining a second score for each item on the basis of the time for which each of the medical personnel for each item participates in the surgeries; and determining the score for each item on the basis on the first score and the second score.
The recited limitations, as drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover certain methods of organizing human activity by identifying and reporting events preceding a pattern in a set of user data. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong One: YES).
Step 2A Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims are abstract but for the inclusion of the additional elements including a memory and a processor, which are additional elements that are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using generic computer components. See: MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional elements are merely incidental or token additions to the claim that do not alter or affect how the process steps or functions in the abstract idea are performed (e.g., the “processor” language is incidental to what it is “configured” to perform). Therefore, the claimed additional elements do not add meaningful limitations to the indicated claims beyond a general linking to a technological environment. See: MPEP 2106.05(h).
The claims recite the additional element of receiving surgical information and providing information; and assigning an available medical professional to participate in a surgery based on the on-duty records and a highest value of the determined score for each item, which are considered limitations directed to insignificant extra-solution activity that does not amount to an inventive concept because the limitations do not impose meaningful limits on the claim such that is it not nominally or tangentially related to the invention. In the claimed context, the claimed receiving limitations are incidental to the performance of the recited abstract idea of identifying and reporting events preceding a pattern in a set of user data. See: MPEP 2106.05(g).
The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Hence, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong Two: NO).
Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, using the additional elements to perform the abstract idea amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic components cannot provide an inventive concept. See: MPEP 2106.05(f).
Further, the claimed additional elements, identified above, are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are generic components that are not integrated into the claim because they are merely incidental or token additions to the claim that do not alter or affect how the process steps or functions in the abstract idea are performed. Therefore, the claimed additional elements do not add meaningful limitations to the indicated claims beyond a general linking to a technological environment. See: MPEP 2106.05(h).
Further, the claimed additional elements, identified above, are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are generic components that are configured to perform well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry. See: MPEP 2106.05(d). Said additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and provide conventional functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea. The originally filed specification supports this conclusion at Figure 1, and
Paragraph 88-90, where “With reference to FIG. 8, the electronic apparatus 800 may include one or more processor 810 and a memory 820. [0089] Instructions readable from a computer may be stored in a memory 820 according to an implementation example. When the instructions stored in the memory 820 are executed by the processor 810, the processor 810 may perform operations defined by the instructions. Example of the memory 820 may include a random access memories (RAMs), dynamic random access memories (DRAMs), static random access memories (SRAMs), and other types of non-volatile memories that are known in the technical field.
[0090] One or more processors 810 according to an implementation example may control the overall operation of the electronic apparatus 800. The processor 810 may be a device that is realized in hardware having a circuit employing a physical structure for performing desired operations. The desired operations may involve the execution of codes or instructions included in a program. The devices realized in hardware may include a microprocessor, a central processing unit (CPU), a graphic processing unit (GPU), a processor core, a multi-core processor, a multiprocessor, an application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC), a field programmable gate array (FPGA), a neural processing unit (NPU), and the like.”
Paragraph 16, where “receiving surgical information including information on a medical treatment department performing a surgery, information on an operating surgeon, surgical category information, and surgical code information, determining a score for each item that constitutes the surgical information on medical personnel on the basis of information on on-duty records of the medical personnel, determining a medical personnel score corresponding to the surgical information on the basis of a weighted value corresponding to the score for the each item, and providing information on the medical personnel that includes the medical personnel score.”
Paragraph 11, where “wherein the providing of the information on the medical personnel may comprise: matching the information on the location where the surgery is performed with information on a location corresponding to the medical personnel; and providing the information on medical personnel on the basis of the result of the matching.”
The claims recite the additional element of receiving surgical information and providing information on the medical personnel and assigning an available medical professional, which amounts to extra-solution activity concerning mere data gathering and displaying. The specification (e.g., as excerpted above) does not provide any indication that the additional elements are anything other than well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (as they are here). See: MPEP 2106.05(g).
Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination, the claims simply instruct the additional elements to implement the concept described above in the identification of abstract idea with routine, conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment.
Hence, the claims as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (Step 2B: NO).
Dependent claim(s) 3-11 and 13-20 when analyzed as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and/or as an ordered combination, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. These claims fail to remedy the deficiencies of their parent claims above, and are therefore rejected for at least the same rationale as applied to their parent claims above, and incorporated herein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1 and 3-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tiwary et al. (US 2023/0402167 A1) in view of Wiggermann et al. (US 2023/0114135 A1) and in further in view of Makrinich et al. (US 2021/0313052 A1).
In claim 1, a method of providing information on medical personnel, the method comprising:
Tiwary teaches:
receiving surgical information including information on a medical treatment department performing a surgery, information on an operating surgeon, surgical category information, and surgical code information (Para. 97, 106, and 114 wherein scoring equipment use, surgeon, surgery protocols, and etc. is taught) wherein “;
determining a score for each item that constitutes the surgical information on medical personnel on the basis of information on on-duty records of the medical personnel (Para. 114 wherein scoring different surgery protocols is taught);
determining a medical personnel score corresponding to the surgical information on the basis of a weighted value corresponding to the score for the each item (Para. 114-116 wherein scoring weights for different items corresponding to the surgery is taught ); and
providing information on the medical personnel that includes the medical personnel score (Para. 114-116); and
Tiwary does not explicitly teach however Makrinich teaches:
automatically assigning an available medical professional to participate in a surgery based on the on-duty records and a highest value of the determined score for each item (Para. 339-340 wherein the system automates the assignments of surgical teams based on different parameters gathered by the system) ;
Tiwary and Makrinich do not explicitly teach however Wiggermann teaches:
wherein the determining of the score for each item further comprises:
determining a first score for the each item on the basis of the number of times that each of the medical personnel for the each item participates in the surgeries (Para. 117 wherein scoring the compliance. Para. 44 and 53 wherein sub scores are used to calculate workload conditions. The workload conditions include the number of procedures/surgeries the provider participates in) ;
determining a second score for the each item on the basis of the time for which each of the medical personnel for the each item participates in the surgeries (Para. 44 and 53 wherein sub scores are used to calculate workload conditions. The workload conditions include the number of procedures/surgeries the provider participates in); and
determining the score for the each item on the basis of the first score and the second score (Para. 44 and 64 wherein a weighted score is calculated).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filling to combine the system and method for non-compliance detection in a surgical environment as taught in Tiwary with system and method that tracks burnout risk of a provider as taught in Wiggermann further with system and method that ranks surgeons as taught in Makrinich. The well-known elements described are merely a combination of old elements, and in combination, each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 3, Tiwary teaches the method of claim 1, wherein in the determining of the score for each item further comprises:
determining a weighted value of a point in time corresponding to a point in time at which each of the medical personnel participates in the surgeries (Para. 115); and
determining the score for the each item by adjusting the first score and the second score on the basis of the weighted value of the point in time (Para. 115).
As per claim 4, Tiwary in view of Wiggermann teach the method of claim 1. Tiwary does not explicitly teach however Wiggermann teaches wherein the determining of the first score for the each item further comprises:
determining the first score by normalizing the number of times that each of the medical personnel for the each item participates in the surgeries to fall within the same range, and wherein the determining of a second score for the each item comprises (P:
determining the second score by normalizing the time for which each of the medical personnel for the each time participates in the surgeries to fall within the same range (Para. 85 wherein normalizing the separate sub scores is taught). The motivation to combine references is the same as seen in claim 1.
As per claim 5, Tiwary in view of Wiggermann teaches the method of claim 1. Tiwary and in view of Wiggermann do not explicitly teach however Makrinich teaches wherein the providing of information on the medical personnel comprises: providing a list in which the medical personnel is ranked, on the basis of the medical personnel score (Para. 373 wherein surgeons may be ranked is taught). The motivation to combine references is the same as seen in claim 1.
As per claim 6, Tiwary teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising:
receiving additional information including information on a manager, information on off-duty and on-duty days of the medical personnel and information on assignment of the medical personnel (Para. 120,
wherein the providing of the information on medical personnel comprises:
providing the information on the medical personnel on the basis of the medical personnel score and the additional information (Para. 120).
As per claim 7, Tiwary teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising:
receiving information on a location where the surgery is performed (Para. 77 and 120),
wherein the providing of the information on the medical personnel comprises:
matching the information on the location where the surgery is performed with information on a location corresponding to the medical personnel (Para. 77 and 120); and
providing the information on medical personnel on the basis of the result of the matching (Para. 77 and 120).
As per claim 8, Tiwary teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising:
receiving evaluation information of the medical personnel score (Para. 114); and
modifying the weighted value on the basis of the evaluation information (para. 114 and 116).
As per claim 9, Tiwary teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: updating the information on on-duty records of the medical personnel at a predetermined time interval (Para. 119).
As per claim 10, Tiwary teach the method of claim 1. Tiwary does not explicitly teach however Wiggermann teaches wherein the information on on-duty records includes information on the time at which each of the medical personnel who participates in the surgeries starts to work on a per-surgery basis, information on the time at which each of the medical personnel ends working, information on an operating room, the information on the medical treatment department, the information on the operating surgeon, the surgical code information and information on surgery time (Para. 35, 39, 44, and 45). The motivation to combine references is the same as seen in claim 1.
As per claim 11, Tiwary teaches the non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having recorded thereon a computer program including instructions executable by a processor to perform the method of claim 1 (Para. 4).
Claims 12-20 recites substantially similar limitation as seen in the claims above and hence are rejected for similar rationale as noted above.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant argues the 101 rejection. The Applicant states that the claims are not directed towards an abstract idea and that the claims integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application by imposing meaningful limits on the judicial exception. The Examiner respectfully disagrees as noted in the rejection above. The Claims are directed towards an abstract without significantly more. The claims recite the steps of determining information which is directed towards the abstract idea of organizing human activity by identifying and reporting events preceding a pattern in a set of user data. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea. The additional steps of receiving and assigning information is an extra solution activity.
The Applicant further argues that the additional elements in the claims recite an improvement in the technical field of staffing medical professional including surgeries by automatically assigning available medical professional to participate in a surgery based on on-duty records and highest value of a determined score. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Scoring information and then assigning providers based on the scores is not a technical improvement. It does not offer any of the following technical improvements:
• An improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a);
• Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2);
• Implementing a judicial exception with, or using a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(b);
• Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(c); and
• 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, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(e).
Other applicant arguments with respect to the 101 simply rehash issues addressed above or in the rejection.
The Applicant argues the art rejection. The Applicant states that the references do not teach the elements of claims 1 and 12. The Applicant states that Tiwary fails to teach specifically calculated determined score and thereafter automatically assigning an available medical professional to participate in a surgery. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Tiwary teaches scoring equipment use, surgeon, surgery protocols, and etc. Tiwary is not relied upon for the in the “automatically assigning an available medical professional to participate in a surgery”, however this newly amended feature is taught by Makrinich in Paragraph 339-340 wherein the system automates the assignments of surgical teams based on different parameters gathered by the system.
Applicant other art rejections simply rehash arguments addressed in the Office action above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAROUN P KANAAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1497. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00.
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, Mamon Obeid can be reached at (571) 270-1813. 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.
MAROUN P. KANAAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3687
/MAROUN P KANAAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3687