DETAILED ACTION
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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 December 18, 2025 has been entered.
Priority
The current application claims benefit of foreign application KR10-2022-0160924, filed on November 25th, 2022. Examiner acknowledges the applicant’s claim for priority.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 3-13 and 15-18 are pending.
Claims 2 and 14 are canceled.
Claims 1, 10-13, 15 and 17-18 are amended.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on October 16, 2025 is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments on pages 10-23 filed in response to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been considered but are not persuasive. Independent claims 1, 13, and 18 remain directed to abstract ideas, including mathematical concepts, mental processes, and methods of organizing human activity, namely, calculating utilization rates from time-related operating room data and allocating operating rooms based on the resulting values. The additional limitations reciting an entry/exit record database, a processor, and, in claim 18, a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium, are recited at a high level of generality and merely apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. The claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they do not improve the functioning of a computer or any other technology, but instead use conventional computing elements to perform data collection, calculation, and allocation of resources in a scheduling context. The specific conditional calculation rules recited in the claims merely define the abstract computation with greater detail and do not supply a technological improvement. Applicant’s reliance on McRO, Enfish, Core Wireless, and Finjan is unpersuasive because the present claims do not recite a comparable improvement to computer functionality or another technical field. Claims 3–12 and 15–17, and the remaining dependent claims fall with the independent claims and are likewise rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for the reasons stated above. Accordingly, the rejection of claims 1, 3–13, and 15–18 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments traversing the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been considered but are not persuasive. Chatterjee discloses extracting real-time data from multiple sources, processing and transforming that data into utilization data, analyzing the utilization data, and generating reports and utilization models for improving surgical block utilization. See Chatterjee, e.g., Abstract; ¶¶ [0006]–[0008], [0021]–[0034], [0039]–[0054]. Larson discloses retrieving historical usage statistics for operating rooms, predicting unused time for future time blocks based on historical information and a planned schedule, and generating recommendations for releasing, rescheduling, or closing intervals within a block. See Larson, e.g., Abstract; ¶¶ [0016]–[0024], [0034]–[0102]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the utilization-analysis system of Chatterjee in view of Larson in order to improve operating-room allocation decisions by using historical and time-based usage information to generate more granular interval-based recommendations and scheduling outputs. Applicant’s contention that the amended limitations are not expressly taught is unpersuasive because the rejection is based on the combined teachings of the references as a whole, which would have suggested the claimed subject matter to a person of ordinary skill in the art. The recited calculations based on time intervals, entry/exit times, and average utilization rate represent predictable refinements of known operating-room utilization analysis techniques and would have been obvious design choices. Accordingly, the rejection of claims 1, 3–13, and 15–18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 12 and 17 recites the limitation within a certain range. The term within a certain range as recited in claims 12 and 17 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term within a certain range is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1-18 recite subject matter within a statutory category as a process (claims 13, 15-17), machine (claims 1 and 3-12), and/or article of manufacture (claim 18). (Step 1- Yes)
Step 2A- Prong 1
Independent claim 1 recites steps that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover mathematical equations, mental processes, and/or organizing human activity because each bolded limitation can practically be performed by the human mind or with pen and paper. Specifically, claim 1 recites
An operating room allocation apparatus comprising:
a processor configured to:
obtain information about patient's entry and exit times in each of a plurality of operating rooms by retrieving at least one of records of actual patient entry times and exit times or standard times for a patient's entry in and exit from each of the plurality of operating rooms within a plurality of time periods, in conjunction with an entry/exit record database that records the patient's entry time, the patient's exit time, and downtime, wherein the downtime is a time an operating room is occupied;
calculate a utilization rate of the operating room for each of certain time period intervals within the plurality of time periods based on the patient's entry time, and the patient's exit time, and the downtime of the operating room, and calculation methods;
receive certain time information from a user and calculate an average utilization rate by time period interval for the plurality of time periods corresponding to the received certain time information; and
allocate each of the plurality of operating rooms for each of the certain time period[[s]] intervals in accordance with the average utilization rate by time period interval for each of the plurality of operating rooms corresponding to the received certain time information, thereby improving efficiency of operating room allocation,
wherein the calculation methods perform different computations depending on a value of the certain time period interval, on whether values of an hour of the patient's entry time and the patient's exit time are different, and on whether a value of the certain time period intervals of the plurality of time periods values of minutes of the patient's entry time and the patient's exit time include non-zero values of minutes of the patient's entry time and the patient's exit time.
But for the recitation of generic computer components like a processor (claims 1, 13 and 18) and non-transitory computer-readable recoding medium (claim 18), the italicized functions, when considered as a whole, describe a situation where a person obtains patient entry and exit time information, calculates a utilization rate for operating rooms over certain time-period intervals, calculates an average utilization rate based on user-supplied time information; and then allocates operating rooms based on the calculated utilization rate. Accordingly, claim 1 recites an abstract idea in the form mathematical equations, mental processes, and/or organizing human activity because each italicized limitation can practically be performed by the human mind or with pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mathematical Equations”, “Mental Processes”, or “Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. It is noted that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the steps in claim 1 (including claims 13 and 18) include multiple abstract ideas that will be identified as a single abstract idea moving forward.
Independent claims 13 and 18 cover similar steps of obtaining patient entry and exit time information, calculating a utilization rate for operating rooms over certain time-period intervals, calculating an average utilization rate based on user-supplied time information; and then allocating operating rooms based on the calculated utilization rate. Claim 18 does so through non-transitory computer readable recording medium that uses a processor. These claims fall under the same category of an abstract idea and follows the same rationale as claim 1.
Dependent claims 3–12 and 15–17 inherit the limitations that recite an abstract idea from their dependence on claims 1 and 13, and thus these claims also recite an abstract idea under the Step 2A- Prong 1 analysis. In addition, claims 3–12 and 15–17 recite additional limitations that further describe the abstract idea identified in the independent claims. Examiner notes that dependent claims 3-12 recite additional element processor which will be analyzed later.
Claim 3 recites wherein the processor divides a time from time information specified as the entry time to time information specified as the exit time by preset time intervals, calculate a ratio of the operating room used for each of the preset time intervals, and calculate a utilization rate of the operating room. (Mathematical Equation or Formula or Calculation)
Claim 4 recites wherein, when the entry time is x1:y1, the exit time is x2:y2, x1 = x2, and the certain time period interval is set at 30-minute intervals, the processor calculates a utilization rate from x1:00 to x1:30 as
PNG
media_image1.png
28
55
media_image1.png
Greyscale
when minute information y1 of the entry time and minute information y2 of the exit time are 30 minutes before or 30 minutes, calculates a utilization rate from x1:30 to x1:60 as
PNG
media_image1.png
28
55
media_image1.png
Greyscale
when minute information y1 of the entry time and minute information y2 of the exit time are 30 minutes after, and calculates a utilization rate from x1:00 to x1:30 as
PNG
media_image2.png
28
54
media_image2.png
Greyscale
and calculates a utilization rate from x1:30 to x1:60 as
PNG
media_image3.png
28
48
media_image3.png
Greyscale
when minute information y1 of the entry time is 30 minutes before or 30 minutes, and minute information y2 of the exit time is 30 minutes after. (Mathematical Equation or Formula or Calculation)
Claim 5 recites wherein, when the entry time is x1:y1, the exit time is x2:y2, x1# x2, and the certain time period interval is set at 30-minute intervals, the processor calculates a utilization rate from x1:00 to x1:30 as
PNG
media_image4.png
28
54
media_image4.png
Greyscale
and calculates a utilization rate from x1:30 to x1:60 as 1 when minute information y1 of the entry time is 30 minutes before or 30 minutes, calculates a utilization rate from x1:30 to x1:60 as
PNG
media_image5.png
28
51
media_image5.png
Greyscale
when minute information y1 of the entry time is 30 minutes after, calculates a utilization rate from x2:00 to x2:30 as
PNG
media_image6.png
27
15
media_image6.png
Greyscale
when minute information y2 of the exit time is 30 minutes before or 30 minutes, calculates a utilization rate from x2:00 to x2:30 as 1 and calculates a utilization rate from x2:30 to x2:60 as
PNG
media_image7.png
28
51
media_image7.png
Greyscale
when minute information y2 of the exit time is 30 minutes after, and calculates a utilization rate from a:00 to a:30 as 1, and a utilization rate from a:30 to a:60 as 1 for an integer 'a' that satisfies condition x1< a <x2. (Mathematical Equation or Formula or Calculation)
Claim 6 recites wherein, when x1> x2, the processor calculates a utilization rate from b:00 to b:30 as 1, and a utilization rate from b:30 to b:60 as 1 for an integer b that satisfies condition x1< b <23, and calculates a utilization rate from c:00 to c:30 as 1, and a utilization rate from c:30 to c:60 as 1 for an integer c that satisfies condition 0< c <x2
Claim 7 recites wherein, when the entry time is x1:y1, the exit time is x2:y2, x1 = x2, and the certain time period interval is set at 1 hour intervals, the processor calculates a utilization rate at x1 o'clock as (y2-y1)/60. (Mathematical Equation or Formula or Calculation)
Claim 8 recites wherein, when the entry time is x1:y1, the exit time is x2:y2, x1# x2, and the certain time period interval is set at 1 hour intervals, the processor calculates a utilization rate at x1 o'clock as
PNG
media_image8.png
28
48
media_image8.png
Greyscale
and calculates a utilization rate at x2 o'clock as
PNG
media_image9.png
27
19
media_image9.png
Greyscale
and calculates a utilization rate at 'a' o'clock as 1 for an integer 'a' that satisfies condition x1< a <x2. (Mathematical Equation or Formula or Calculation)
Claim 9 recites wherein, when x1> x2, the processor calculates a utilization rate at b o'clock as 1 for an integer b that satisfies condition x1< b <23, and calculates a utilization rate at c o'clock as 1 for an integer c that satisfies condition 0< c <x2. (Mathematical Equation or Formula or Calculation)
Claim 10 recites wherein the processor receives time information of at least one of day of the week, time period, and period from a user, filters a utilization rate by time period that satisfies the received time information. (Mathematical Equation or Formula or Calculation)
Claim 11 recites wherein the processor further allocates, from among operating rooms, an operating room where a patient can be operated on based on an average utilization rate of each of the operating rooms by time period. (Mental Process)
Claim 12 recites wherein the processor allocates an operating room where a patient can be operated on from among the operating rooms, so that an average utilization rate of each of the operating rooms by time period falls within a certain range. (Mathematical Equation or Formula or Calculation)
Claim 15 recites wherein the calculating of the average utilization rate by time period comprises: receiving time information of at least one of day of the week, time period, and period from a user, filtering a utilization rate by time period that satisfies the received time information and then calculating an average utilization rate by time period by averaging the filtered utilization rate by time period in the received time information. (Mathematical Equation or Formula or Calculation)
Claim 16 recites allocating, from among operating rooms, an operating room where a patient can be operated on based on the average utilization rate. (Mental Process)
Claim 17 recites wherein the allocating comprises: allocating an operating room where a patient can be operated on from among the operating rooms, so that an average utilization rate of each of the operating rooms by time period falls within a certain range. (Mental Process)
(Step 2A- Prong 1: Yes. The claims are abstract.)
Step 2A- Prong 2
This judicial exception of “Mathematical Equations”, “Mental Processes”, or “Organizing Human Activity” is not integrated into a practical application. Independent Claim 1’s apparatus recites additional elements such as a processor. This processor will be considered a generic computer component. Independent claim 18’s system recites additional elements such as the non-transitory computer-readable recording medium and a processor that will be treated as a generic computer component. In particular, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements:
amount to mere instructions to apply an exception (such as Independent claim 18’s recitation of “An operating room allocation apparatus comprising: a processor configured to:” amounts to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea, see applicant’s specification “the devices, the methods, and components described in the embodiments may be implemented by using general-purpose computers” [0086], see MPEP 2106.05(f))
add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea (such as recitation of “receive certain time information from a user” amounts to mere data gathering, recitation of “allocate each of the plurality of operating rooms for each of the certain time periods in accordance with the average utilization rate by time period for each of the plurality of operating rooms corresponding to the received time information, thereby improving efficiency of operating room allocation” amounts to insignificant application, see MPEP 2106.05(g))
Dependent claims 3-12 recites additional element processor but does not integrate the aforementioned abstract idea into a practical application.
Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation and do not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. (Step 2A- Prong 2: No. The additional claimed elements are not integrated 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 discussion of integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception. Additionally, the additional limitations, amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As previously noted, the claim recites additional elements of non-transitory computer readable recording medium and processor. Per MPEP 2106.05(d), storing and retrieving information in memory has been recognized by the courts as a conventional computer function. Thus, processors and non-transitory computer readable recording mediums were conventional long before the priority data of the claimed invention. As such, this additional elements, individually and in combination with the prior additional elements, does not amount to significantly more. Additionally:
“receive certain time information from a user” , is equivalently, storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv);
“allocate each of the plurality of operating rooms for each of the certain time periods in accordance with the average utilization rate by time period for each of the plurality of operating rooms corresponding to the received time information, thereby improving efficiency of operating room allocation” is equivalently, arranging a hierarchy of groups, sorting information, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(vi)
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, amount to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which amount to limitations consistent with the additional elements in the independent claims. These additional limitations amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. (Step 2B- The claims do not provide significantly more.)
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.
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.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chatterjee et al. (US20230098876) in view of Larson et al. (US20220285017).
Regarding claim 1, Chatterjee teaches.
An operating room allocation apparatus comprising: a processor configured to: ([0008] “a system that comprises one or more processors”)
obtain information about patient's entry and exit times in each of a plurality of operating rooms ([0039-0054] “The report 300 illustrates multiple surgical blocks for several operating rooms on the surgical date 304. For example, the rectangle or “block” 308 illustrates the scheduled surgical block of time for a procedure from 8:00 AM (scheduled start time) until 5:00 PM (scheduled stop time). The start and stop times of the scheduled surgical time block may be predetermined, preset, and/or may be based on historical usage data” where the operating room information occurs over multiple surgical rooms”) by retrieving at least one of records of actual patient entry times and exit times or standard times for a patient's entry in and exit from each of the plurality of operating rooms within a plurality of time periods, in conjunction with an entry/exit record database that records the patient's entry time, the patient's exit time, and downtime, wherein the downtime is a time an operating room is occupied; ([0021-0034] “In aspects, the application 109 may be another component of a healthcare management solution system, such as a RFID scanner that is used in an operating room to scan computer-readable indicia in order to automatically and electronically log the start time of a procedure, end time of the procedure, room cleansing start time, and/or room cleaning end time. where surgery started, surgery ending is patient’s entry and exit times” where the RFID scanner shares information about the patient’s entry and exit times; se optionally [0041] “The start time, stop time, and duration of block 310 is determined based on the first set of data and second set of data extract from the first and second sources. The report 300 graphically displays the unused minutes or unused amount of time within the scheduled surgical block 308 to illustrate the time unused within the scheduled surgical block 308, which resulted in waste of operating room resources and loss of potential profit. By displaying the procedure duration time blocks inside/within the scheduled surgical blocks, the report 300 provides time waste information at a glance” where the start, stop and downtime are recorded for the user)
calculate a utilization rate of the operating room for each of certain time period intervals within the plurality of time periods ([Fig. 3] “block (310) is the actual time used in surgery, which comprise the time period intervals within the plurality of time periods) based on the patient's entry time, and the patient's exit time, and the downtime of the operating room; ([0039-0054] “The start time, stop time, and duration of block 310 is determined based on the first set of data and second set of data extract from the first and second sources… the report 300 graphically displays the unused minutes or unused amount of time within the scheduled surgical block 308 to illustrate the time unused within the scheduled surgical block 308, which resulted in waste of operating room resources and loss of potential profit.” where the first and second sources are a patient’s entry and exit and the unused amount of time within the surgical block comprise the utilization rate calculated via calculation methods)
receive certain time information from a user and calculate an average utilization rate by time period interval for the plurality of time periods corresponding to the received certain time information.; and ([Fig. 3] “block (308)” is the scheduled time for surgery and “utilization %” is a utilization rate by time period; see also [0041] “For example, the rectangle or "block" 308 illustrates the scheduled surgical block of time for a procedure from 8:00 AM (scheduled start time) until 5:00 PM (scheduled stop time). The start and stop times of the scheduled surgical time block may be predetermined, preset, and/or may be based on historical usage data.” Where the preset time block [i.e., time information from a user] is received time information blocked out into time periods; see optionally [0049] “FIG. 4 further illustrates an average utilization 404 for the time period analyzed (from Oct. 7, 2020-Dec. 9, 2020)” where the plurality of time periods over a duration of dates comprise calculating an average utilization rate by time period for the plurality of time periods corresponding to the received time information)
wherein the calculation methods perform different computations depending on a value of the certain time period interval, on whether values of an hour of the patient's entry time and the patient's exit time are different, and on whether values of minutes of the patient's entry time and the patient's exit time include non-zero values of minutes of the patient's entry time and the patient's exit time. ([0039-0054] “While it is critical for surgery blocks that are scheduled to include some buffer or “cushion” time to account for any potential complications occurring during the procedure and/or occurring due to delayed start times, only about a one-third of the scheduled surgical block 308 for operating room A was actually utilized by the procedure shown block 310. This resulted in 434 unused block minutes or about 7 hours of unused time that went to waste, as calculated by the manager 110 and shown in the report 300. The utilization rate for this surgical block for operating room A was calculated by the manager 110 to be 23.86%. By contrast, the scheduled surgical block 312 for operating room B that was scheduled from 8:00 AM until 6:30 PM only had 273 unused block minutes and a higher utilization rate of 60.43%, as determined by the manager 110, relative to operating room A on the same date. Unlike operating room A, operating Room B had two procedures take place back to pack—314 and 316 which also shows more effective utilization of the surgical resources.” Where Operating Room A and B depict different calculation methods based on the entry and exit times and the utilization ate comprises a non-zero value of minutes of the entry and exit times)
Regarding claim 1, Chatterjee does not explicitly teach, as taught by Larson:
allocate each of the plurality of operating rooms for each of the certain time period intervals in accordance with the average utilization rate by time period interval for each of the plurality of operating rooms corresponding to the received certain time information, thereby improving efficiency of operating room allocation, ([0016-0024] “Once the estimate is obtained, the recommendation for the unused time can be based at least partially on an identification of one or more intervals in a future time block that are associated with an open operating room (e.g., predicted dead time, windows without a scheduled procedure and/or predicted to open up, time predicted to be open based on variances in procedure time from planned timed, and the like) … the recommendation can include: releasing one or more of the identified intervals for additional procedures in the operation room; rescheduling one or more procedures during the future block into one or more of the identified intervals to increase an amount of continuously available time during the future block; rescheduling one or more procedures during the future block into one or more of the identified intervals to reduce down time for operating room personnel (e.g., surgeons, nurses, anesthesiologists, radiologists, surgical assistants, cleaning personnel, and the like) the future block; closing the operating room during one or more of the identified intervals; and/or various other suitable changes to the operating room schedule”; see also [0028] “the method can include updating the planned usage rates during the future block based on the recommendation”)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Chatterjee with the teachings of Larson, with a reasonable expectation of success, by explicitly reallocating operating room time slots based on the use of operating rooms by time period. This would have automated optimizing operating room utilization with the recommendations of the system. Larson is adaptable to Chatterjee as both inventions optimize operating room availability through general purpose computer systems [Larson 0085]. Chatterjee would have found Larson’s teaching while searching for solutions to the industry need that [Larson 0016] “some estimates put the opportunity cost of an idle operating room at $15-20 per minute after factoring in staff time, equipment, administrative costs, etc.”.
Regarding claim 2, Chatterjee- Larson as a combination teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Chatterjee also teaches:
wherein the processor further obtains information about downtime of the operating room, and specifies a time obtained by adding the downtime to the exit time as a final exit time, calculate a time from the entry time to the final exit time as a time the operating room was used, and calculate a utilization rate of the operating room for the each certain time period. ([0039-0054] “the table includes the month, date, and year of the surgical procedures 401, the slot or surgical block start time 403, the slot end time 405, total allocated minutes 408, total released minutes 411, total in-block minutes (e.g., hours and minutes used for performing the procedure within the scheduled surgical block), total out-of-block minutes (e.g., hours and minutes used for performing the procedure that occur outside of the start time and/or stop time of the scheduled surgical block—for example when a surgery runs past the expected stop time of that scheduled surgical block), and the total turnover minutes” Where turnover time [comprising downtime of the operating room], utilization rate, entry time, and final exit time are calculated for each certain time period delineated; see also [0025] “In aspects, the application 109 may be another component of a healthcare management solution system, such as a RFID scanner that is used in an operating room to scan computer-readable indicia in order to automatically and electronically log the start time of a procedure, end time of the procedure, room cleansing start time, and/or room cleaning end time. where surgery started, surgery ending is patient’s entry and exit times” where the RFID scanner shares information about the patient’s entry and exit times;)
Regarding claim 3, Chatterjee- Larson as a combination teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Chatterjee also teaches:
wherein the processor divides a time from time information specified as the entry time to time information specified as the exit time by preset time intervals, calculate a ratio of the operating room used for each of the preset time intervals, and calculate a utilization rate of the operating room. (see [0008] “a system that comprises one or more processors”; see also [0039-0054] “line 420 illustrates a date in which the operating surgical block is the same as line 414, but the total allocated minutes 409 were 450 minutes. Of 342 in-block minutes, 43 minutes were utilized and 92 out-of-block minutes 415 occurred, which resulted in a 76.00% utilization rate.” Where the entry time and exit times are used to extract preset intervals, which can comprise minute intervals, and are used to calculate a ratio/utilization rate for the operating room)
Regarding claim 4, Chatterjee- Larson as a combination teaches all of the limitations of claim 3. Larson also teaches:
wherein, when the entry time is x1:y1, the exit time is x2:y2, x1 = x2, and the certain time period interval is set at 30-minute intervals, the processor calculates a utilization rate from x1:00 to x1:30 as
PNG
media_image1.png
28
55
media_image1.png
Greyscale
when minute information y1 of the entry time and minute information y2 of the exit time are 30 minutes before or 30 minutes, calculates a utilization rate from x1:30 to x1:60 as
PNG
media_image1.png
28
55
media_image1.png
Greyscale
when minute information y1 of the entry time and minute information y2 of the exit time are 30 minutes after, and calculates a utilization rate from x1:00 to x1:30 as
PNG
media_image2.png
28
54
media_image2.png
Greyscale
and calculates a utilization rate from x1:30 to x1:60 as
PNG
media_image3.png
28
48
media_image3.png
Greyscale
when minute information y1 of the entry time is 30 minutes before or 30 minutes, and minute information y2 of the exit time is 30 minutes after. ([0034-0102]; see also [0024] “In some implementations, generating the recommendation includes determining an amount of available time in each of the identified intervals (e.g., thirty minutes… and/ or any other amount of time”; see also [Table 2] where room utilization calculates a percentage use of scheduled cases using the scheduled procedure time minus the actual procedure time divided by the total minutes of prime time scheduled)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Chatterjee with the teachings of Larson, with a reasonable expectation of success, by explicitly reallocating operating room time slots of various intervals, including one hour and 30 minutes, based on the utilization rates of operating rooms calculated via time periods. This would have automated optimizing operating room utilization with the recommendations of the system. Larson is adaptable to Chatterjee as both inventions optimize operating room availability through general purpose computer systems [Larson 0085]. Chatterjee would have found Larson’s teaching while searching for solutions to the industry need that [Larson 0016] “some estimates put the opportunity cost of an idle operating room at $15-20 per minute after factoring in staff time, equipment, administrative costs, etc.”.
Regarding claim 5, Chatterjee- Larson as a combination teaches all of the limitations of claim 3. Larson also teaches:
wherein, when the entry time is x1:y1, the exit time is x2:y2, x1# x2, and the certain time period interval is set at 30-minute intervals, the processor calculates a utilization rate from x1:00 to x1:30 as
PNG
media_image4.png
28
54
media_image4.png
Greyscale
and calculates a utilization rate from x1:30 to x1:60 as 1 when minute information y1 of the entry time is 30 minutes before or 30 minutes, calculates a utilization rate from x1:30 to x1:60 as
PNG
media_image5.png
28
51
media_image5.png
Greyscale
when minute information y1 of the entry time is 30 minutes after, calculates a utilization rate from x2:00 to x2:30 as
PNG
media_image6.png
27
15
media_image6.png
Greyscale
when minute information y2 of the exit time is 30 minutes before or 30 minutes, calculates a utilization rate from x2:00 to x2:30 as 1 and calculates a utilization rate from x2:30 to x2:60 as
PNG
media_image7.png
28
51
media_image7.png
Greyscale
when minute information y2 of the exit time is 30 minutes after, and calculates a utilization rate from a:00 to a:30 as 1, and a utilization rate from a:30 to a:60 as 1 for an integer 'a' that satisfies condition x1< a <x2. ([0034-0102]; see also [0024] “In some implementations, generating the recommendation includes determining an amount of available time in each of the identified intervals (e.g., thirty minutes… and/ or any other amount of time”; see also [Table 2] where room utilization calculates a percentage use of scheduled cases using the scheduled procedure time minus the actual procedure time divided by the total minutes of prime time scheduled)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Chatterjee with the teachings of Larson, with a reasonable expectation of success, by explicitly reallocating operating room time slots of various intervals, including one hour and 30 minutes, based on the utilization rates of operating rooms calculated via time periods. This would have automated optimizing operating room utilization with the recommendations of the system. Larson is adaptable to Chatterjee as both inventions optimize operating room availability through general purpose computer systems [Larson 0085]. Chatterjee would have found Larson’s teaching while searching for solutions to the industry need that [Larson 0016] “some estimates put the opportunity cost of an idle operating room at $15-20 per minute after factoring in staff time, equipment, administrative costs, etc.”.
Regarding claim 6, Chatterjee- Larson as a combination teaches all of the limitations of claim 5. Larson also teaches:
wherein, when x1> x2, the processor calculates a utilization rate from b:00 to b:30 as 1, and a utilization rate from b:30 to b:60 as 1 for an integer b that satisfies condition x1< b <23, and calculates a utilization rate from c:00 to c:30 as 1, and a utilization rate from c:30 to c:60 as 1 for an integer c that satisfies condition 0< c <x2 ([0034-0102]; see also [0024] “In some implementations, generating the recommendation includes determining an amount of available time in each of the identified intervals (e.g., thirty minutes… and/ or any other amount of time”; see also [Table 2] where room utilization calculates a percentage use of scheduled cases using the scheduled procedure time minus the actual procedure time divided by the total minutes of prime time scheduled)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Chatterjee with the teachings of Larson, with a reasonable expectation of success, by explicitly reallocating operating room time slots of various intervals, including one hour and 30 minutes, based on the utilization rates of operating rooms calculated via time periods. This would have automated optimizing operating room utilization with the recommendations of the system. Larson is adaptable to Chatterjee as both inventions optimize operating room availability through general purpose computer systems [Larson 0085]. Chatterjee would have found Larson’s teaching while searching for solutions to the industry need that [Larson 0016] “some estimates put the opportunity cost of an idle operating room at $15-20 per minute after factoring in staff time, equipment, administrative costs, etc.”.
Regarding claim 7, Chatterjee- Larson as a combination teaches all of the limitations of claim 3. Larson also teaches:
wherein, when the entry time is x1:y1, the exit time is x2:y2, x1 = x2, and the certain time period interval is set at 1 hour intervals, the processor calculates a utilization rate at x1 o'clock as (y2-y1)/60. ([0034-0102]; see also [0024] “In some implementations, generating the recommendation includes determining an amount of available time in each of the identified intervals (e.g., … 1 hour… and/ or any other amount of time”; see also [Table 2] where room utilization calculates a percentage use of scheduled cases using the scheduled procedure time minus the actual procedure time divided by the total minutes of prime time scheduled)
Regarding claim 8, Chatterjee- Larson as a combination teaches all of the limitations of claim 3. Larson also teaches:
The operating room allocation apparatus of claim 3, wherein, when the entry time is x1:y1, the exit time is x2:y2, x1# x2, and the certain time period interval is set at 1 hour intervals, the processor calculates a utilization rate at x1 o'clock as
PNG
media_image8.png
28
48
media_image8.png
Greyscale
and calculates a utilization rate at x2 o'clock as
PNG
media_image9.png
27
19
media_image9.png
Greyscale
and calculates a utilization rate at 'a' o'clock as 1 for an integer 'a' that satisfies condition x1< a <x2. ([0034-0102]; see also [0024] “In some implementations, generating the recommendation includes determining an amount of available time in each of the identified intervals (e.g., … 1 hour… and/ or any other amount of time”; see also [Table 2] where room utilization calculates a percentage use of scheduled cases using the scheduled procedure time minus the actual procedure time divided by the total minutes of prime time scheduled)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Chatterjee with the teachings of Larson, with a reasonable expectation of success, by explicitly reallocating operating room time slots of various intervals, including one hour and 30 minutes, based on the utilization rates of operating rooms calculated via time periods. This would have automated optimizing operating room utilization with the recommendations of the system. Larson is adaptable to Chatterjee as both inventions optimize operating room availability through general purpose computer systems [Larson 0085]. Chatterjee would have found Larson’s teaching while searching for solutions to the industry need that [Larson 0016] “some estimates put the opportunity cost of an idle operating room at $15-20 per minute after factoring in staff time, equipment, administrative costs, etc.”.
Regarding claim 9, Chatterjee- Larson as a combination teaches all of the limitations of claim 8. Larson also teaches:
wherein, when x1> x2, the processor calculates a utilization rate at b o'clock as 1 for an integer b that satisfies condition x1< b <23, and calculates a utilization rate at c o'clock as 1 for an integer c that satisfies condition 0< c <x2. ([0034-0102]; see also [0024] “In some implementations, generating the recommendation includes determining an amount of available time in each of the identified intervals (e.g., … 1 hour… and/ or any other amount of time”; see also [Table 2] where room utilization calculates a percentage use of scheduled cases using the scheduled procedure time minus the actual procedure time divided by the total minutes of prime time scheduled)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Chatterjee with the teachings of Larson, with a reasonable expectation of success, by explicitly reallocating operating room time slots of various intervals, including one hour and 30 minutes, based on the utilization rates of operating rooms calculated via time periods. This would have automated optimizing operating room utilization with the recommendations of the system. Larson is adaptable to Chatterjee as both inventions optimize operating room availability through general purpose computer systems [Larson 0085]. Chatterjee would have found Larson’s teaching while searching for solutions to the industry need that [Larson 0016] “some estimates put the opportunity cost of an idle operating room at $15-20 per minute after factoring in staff time, equipment, administrative costs, etc.”.
Regarding claim 10, Chatterjee- Larson as a combination teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Chatterjee also teaches:
wherein the processor receives time information of at least one of day of the week, time period, and period from a user, filters a utilization rate by time period that satisfies the received time information, ([0039-0054] “The report 400 utilizes the utilization data and models to generate a block utilization report for cardiac surgeons for one day (Wednesday) of the 4th quarter. As shown, the table includes the month, date, and year of the surgical procedures 401, the slot or surgical block start time 403, the slot end time 405, total allocated minutes 408, total released minutes 411, total in-block minutes (e.g., hours and minutes used for performing the procedure within the scheduled surgical block), total out-of-block minutes (e.g., hours and minutes used for performing the procedure that occur outside of the start time and/or stop time of the scheduled surgical block—for example when a surgery runs past the expected stop time of that scheduled surgical block), and the total turnover minutes” where gathering a utilization report for one day of the 4th quarter comprises filters a utilization rate by time period that satisfies the received time information) and then calculates an average utilization rate by time period by averaging the filtered utilization rate by time period in the received time information. ([0049] “FIG. 4 further illustrates an average utilization 404 for the time period analyzed (from Oct. 7, 2020-Dec. 9, 2020)”)
Regarding claim 11, Chatterjee- Larson as a combination teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Larson also teaches:
Wherein the processor further allocates, from among operating rooms, an operating room where a patient can be operated on based on an average utilization rate of each of the operating rooms by time period. ([0016-0024] “Once the estimate is obtained, the recommendation for the unused time can be based at least partially on an identification of one or more intervals in a future time block that are associated with an open operating room (e.g., predicted dead time, windows without a scheduled procedure and/or predicted to open up, time predicted to be open based on variances in procedure time from planned timed, and the like) … the recommendation can include: releasing one or more of the identified intervals for additional procedures in the operation room; rescheduling one or more procedures during the future block into one or more of the identified intervals to increase an amount of continuously available time during the future block; rescheduling one or more procedures during the future block into one or more of the identified intervals to reduce down time for operating room personnel (e.g., surgeons, nurses, anesthesiologists, radiologists, surgical assistants, cleaning personnel, and the like) the future block; closing the operating room during one or more of the identified intervals; and/or various other suitable changes to the operating room schedule”; see also [0028] “the method can include updating the planned usage rates during the future block based on the recommendation”; see also ([0024] “In some implementations, generating the recommendation includes determining an amount of available time in each of the identified intervals (e.g., … 1 hour… and/ or any other amount of time” where the openings comprise information on the required time period ; see also [Table 2] where recommendations comprise utilization as a percentage used for allocating rooms; see also [0088] any specific numbers noted herein are only examples such that alternative implementations can employ differing values or ranges)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Chatterjee with the teachings of Larson, with a reasonable expectation of success, by explicitly reallocating operating room time slots of various intervals, including one hour and 30 minutes, based on the utilization rates of operating rooms calculated via time periods. This would have automated optimizing operating room utilization with the recommendations of the system. Larson is adaptable to Chatterjee as both inventions optimize operating room availability through general purpose computer systems [Larson 0085]. Chatterjee would have found Larson’s teaching while searching for solutions to the industry need that [Larson 0016] “some estimates put the opportunity cost of an idle operating room at $15-20 per minute after factoring in staff time, equipment, administrative costs, etc.”.
Regarding claim 12, Chatterjee- Larson as a combination teaches all of the limitations of claim 11. Larson also teaches:
wherein the processor allocates an operating room where a patient can be operated on from among the operating rooms, so that an average utilization rate of each of the operating rooms by time period falls within a certain range. ([0016-0024] “Once the estimate is obtained, the recommendation for the unused time can be based at least partially on an identification of one or more intervals in a future time block that are associated with an open operating room (e.g., predicted dead time, windows without a scheduled procedure and/or predicted to open up, time predicted to be open based on variances in procedure time from planned timed, and the like) … the recommendation can include: releasing one or more of the identified intervals for additional procedures in the operation room; rescheduling one or more procedures during the future block into one or more of the identified intervals to increase an amount of continuously available time during the future block; rescheduling one or more procedures during the future block into one or more of the identified intervals to reduce down time for operating room personnel (e.g., surgeons, nurses, anesthesiologists, radiologists, surgical assistants, cleaning personnel, and the like) the future block; closing the operating room during one or more of the identified intervals; and/or various other suitable changes to the operating room schedule”; see also [0028] “the method can include updating the planned usage rates during the future block based on the recommendation”; see also [Table 2] where recommendations comprise utilization as a percentage used for allocating rooms; see also [0088] any specific numbers noted herein are only examples such that alternative implementations can employ differing values or ranges)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Chatterjee with the teachings of Larson, with a reasonable expectation of success, by explicitly reallocating operating room time slots of various intervals, including one hour and 30 minutes, based on the utilization rates of operating rooms calculated via time periods. This would have automated optimizing operating room utilization with the recommendations of the system. Larson is adaptable to Chatterjee as both inventions optimize operating room availability through general purpose computer systems [Larson 0085]. Chatterjee would have found Larson’s teaching while searching for solutions to the industry need that [Larson 0016] “some estimates put the opportunity cost of an idle operating room at $15-20 per minute after factoring in staff time, equipment, administrative costs, etc.”.
Regarding claim 13, Chatterjee teaches:
An operating room allocation method performed by an operating room allocation apparatus comprising a processor, ([0008] “a system that comprises one or more processors”) the operating room allocation method comprising: ([0006] “At a high level, the present disclosure discloses systems and methods for extracting data in real-time from one or more applications within a healthcare system, processing such data, and generating visual analytics, including utilization models, that provide insight to determine how to improve the utilization rate of a surgical block or understand and remedy why a particular surgical block is failing to perform”)
obtaining information about patient's entry and exit times in each of a plurality of an operating rooms ([0039-0054] “The report 300 illustrates multiple surgical blocks for several operating rooms on the surgical date 304. For example, the rectangle or “block” 308 illustrates the scheduled surgical block of time for a procedure from 8:00 AM (scheduled start time) until 5:00 PM (scheduled stop time). The start and stop times of the scheduled surgical time block may be predetermined, preset, and/or may be based on historical usage data” where the operating room information occurs over multiple surgical rooms”) by retrieving at least one of records of actual patient entry times and exit times or standard times for a patient's entry in and exit from each of the plurality of operating rooms within a plurality of time periods, in conjunction with an entry/exit record database that records patient's entry time, exit time, and downtime; ([0025] “In aspects, the application 109 may be another component of a healthcare management solution system, such as a RFID scanner that is used in an operating room to scan computer-readable indicia in order to automatically and electronically log the start time of a procedure, end time of the procedure, room cleansing start time, and/or room cleaning end time. where surgery started, surgery ending is patient’s entry and exit times” where the RFID scanner shares information about the patient’s entry and exit times; se optionally [0041] “The start time, stop time, and duration of block 310 is determined based on the first set of data and second set of data extract from the first and second sources. The report 300 graphically displays the unused minutes or unused amount of time within the scheduled surgical block 308 to illustrate the time unused within the scheduled surgical block 308, which resulted in waste of operating room resources and loss of potential profit. By displaying the procedure duration time blocks inside/within the scheduled surgical blocks, the report 300 provides time waste information at a glance” where the start, stop and downtime are recorded for the user)
calculating a utilization rate ([Fig 3] “utilization %” is a utilization rate) of the operating room for each of certain time period intervals within the plurality of time periods ([Fig. 3] “block (310) is the actual time used in surgery, which comprise the time period intervals within the plurality of time periods) based on the patient's entry and exit times, and calculation methods; ([0039-0054] “The start time, stop time, and duration of block 310 is determined based on the first set of data and second set of data extract from the first and second sources… the report 300 graphically displays the unused minutes or unused amount of time within the scheduled surgical block 308 to illustrate the time unused within the scheduled surgical block 308, which resulted in waste of operating room resources and loss of potential profit.” where the first and second sources are a patient’s entry and exit and the unused amount of time within the surgical block comprise the utilization rate calculated via calculation methods))
receiving certain time information from a user and calculating an average utilization rate by time period for the plurality of time periods corresponding to in the received time information; and ([Fig. 3] “block (308)” is the scheduled time for surgery and “utilization %” is a utilization rate by time period; see also [0039-0054] “For example, the rectangle or "block" 308 illustrates the scheduled surgical block of time for a procedure from 8:00 AM (scheduled start time) until 5:00 PM (scheduled stop time). The start and stop times of the scheduled surgical time block may be predetermined, preset, and/or may be based on historical usage data.” Where the preset time block [i.e., time information from a user] is received time information blocked out into time periods; see optionally [0039-0054] “FIG. 4 further illustrates an average utilization 404 for the time period analyzed (from Oct. 7, 2020-Dec. 9, 2020)” where the plurality of time periods over a duration of dates comprise calculating an average utilization rate by time period for the plurality of time periods corresponding to the received time information)
wherein the calculation methods perform different computations depending on whether values of an hour of entry and exit times are different, and on whether a value of the certain time period intervals of the plurality of time periods includes non-zero values of minutes of the entry and exit times. ([0039-0054] “While it is critical for surgery blocks that are scheduled to include some buffer or “cushion” time to account for any potential complications occurring during the procedure and/or occurring due to delayed start times, only about a one-third of the scheduled surgical block 308 for operating room A was actually utilized by the procedure shown block 310. This resulted in 434 unused block minutes or about 7 hours of unused time that went to waste, as calculated by the manager 110 and shown in the report 300. The utilization rate for this surgical block for operating room A was calculated by the manager 110 to be 23.86%. By contrast, the scheduled surgical block 312 for operating room B that was scheduled from 8:00 AM until 6:30 PM only had 273 unused block minutes and a higher utilization rate of 60.43%, as determined by the manager 110, relative to operating room A on the same date. Unlike operating room A, operating Room B had two procedures take place back to pack—314 and 316 which also shows more effective utilization of the surgical resources.” Where Operating Room A and B depict different calculation methods based on the entry and exit times and the utilization ate comprises a non-zero value of minutes of the entry and exit times)
Regarding claim 13, Chatterjee does not explicitly teach, as taught by Larson:
allocating each of the plurality of operating rooms for each of the certain time periods in accordance with the average utilization rate by time period for each of the plurality of operating rooms corresponding to the received time information, thereby improving efficiency of operating room allocation; ([0016-0024] “Once the estimate is obtained, the recommendation for the unused time can be based at least partially on an identification of one or more intervals in a future time block that are associated with an open operating room (e.g., predicted dead time, windows without a scheduled procedure and/or predicted to open up, time predicted to be open based on variances in procedure time from planned timed, and the like) … the recommendation can include: releasing one or more of the identified intervals for additional procedures in the operation room; rescheduling one or more procedures during the future block into one or more of the identified intervals to increase an amount of continuously available time during the future block; rescheduling one or more procedures during the future block into one or more of the identified intervals to reduce down time for operating room personnel (e.g., surgeons, nurses, anesthesiologists, radiologists, surgical assistants, cleaning personnel, and the like) the future block; closing the operating room during one or more of the identified intervals; and/or various other suitable changes to the operating room schedule”; see also [0028] “the method can include updating the planned usage rates during the future block based on the recommendation”)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Chatterjee with the teachings of Larson, with a reasonable expectation of success, by explicitly reallocating operating room time slots based on the use of operating rooms by time period. This would have automated optimizing operating room utilization with the recommendations of the system. Larson is adaptable to Chatterjee as both inventions optimize operating room availability through general purpose computer systems [Larson 0085]. Chatterjee would have found Larson’s teaching while searching for solutions to the industry need that [Larson 0016] “some estimates put the opportunity cost of an idle operating room at $15-20 per minute after factoring in staff time, equipment, administrative costs, etc.”.
Regarding claim 14, Chatterjee- Larson as a combination teaches all of the limitations of claim 13. Chatterjee also teaches:
wherein the obtaining comprises: obtaining information about downtime of the operating room, ([Fig. 3] “unused block minutes” is obtaining downtime of the operating room)
and the calculating of the utilization rate of the operating room comprises: calculating the utilization rate of the operating room for the each certain time period intervals by additionally considering the downtime. ([Fig 3] “Adj. Turnover utilization %” denotes the utilization rate and time obtained by adding the downtime to the exit time as a final exit time; see also [0041] “Report 300 illustrates an analysis of the activity occurring within an example operating room on a particular calendar date 304… the rectangle or "block" 308 illustrates the scheduled surgical block of time for a procedure from 8:00 AM (scheduled start time) until 5:00 PM (scheduled stop time). The start and stop times of the scheduled surgical time block may be predetermined, preset, and/or may be based on historical usage data… The report 300 graphically displays the unused minutes or unused amount of time within the scheduled surgical block 308 to illustrate the time unused within the scheduled surgical block” Where unused minutes between within scheduled surgical block is calculating a time from the entry time to the final exit time as a time the operating room was used)
Regarding claim 15, Chatterjee- Larson as a combination teaches all of the limitations of claim 13. Chatterjee also teaches:
wherein the calculating of the average utilization rate by time period comprises: receiving time information of at least one of day of the week, time period, and period from a user, ([0006] “The utilization models and analytics are generated in real-time,” where analytics comprise analysis on time information from a user received real-time that includes a time period, day and week; see also [0039-0054] “Report 300 illustrates an analysis of the activity occurring within … the scheduled surgical block of time for a procedure from 8:00 AM (scheduled start time) until 5:00 PM (scheduled stop time); see also [0039-0054] “FIG. 4 further illustrates an average utilization 404 for the time period analyzed (from Oct. 7, 2020-Dec. 9, 2020)”).
filtering a utilization rate by time period that satisfies the received time information, ([0039-0054] Report 300 illustrates an analysis of the activity occurring within an example operating room on a particular calendar date 304” where the calendar date filters the data for calculating the utilization rate)
and then calculating an average utilization rate by time period by averaging the filtered utilization rate by time period in the received time information. [Fig. 3] “block (308)” is the scheduled time for surgery and “utilization %” is a utilization rate by time period; see also [0039-0054] “For example, the rectangle or "block" 308 illustrates the scheduled surgical block of time for a procedure from 8:00 AM (scheduled start time) until 5:00 PM (scheduled stop time). The start and stop times of the scheduled surgical time block may be predetermined, preset, and/or may be based on historical usage data.” Where the preset time block [i.e., time period and period of a user] is filtered down to generate a utilization rate)
Regarding claim 16, Chatterjee- Larson as a combination teaches all of the limitations of claim 13. Chatterjee also teaches:
further comprising: allocating, from among operating rooms, an operating room where a patient can be operated on based on the average utilization rate. ([0039-0054] “the reports generated for the user may include near real-time surgical block utilizing and optimization 212, operating room (OR) & block utilization, which may include comparative analyses and workflow improvements 214 and accurate turnaround minute analysis 216” Where the report comprises analysis with allocating surgical block utilization to specific OR’s and is based on an average utilization rate of the operating rooms within a time period)
Regarding claim 17, Chatterjee- Larson as a combination teaches all of the limitations of claim 16. Larson also teaches:
wherein the allocating comprises: allocating an operating room where a patient can be operated on from among the operating rooms, so that an average utilization rate of each of the operating rooms by time period falls within a certain range. (([0016-0024] “Once the estimate is obtained, the recommendation for the unused time can be based at least partially on an identification of one or more intervals in a future time block that are associated with an open operating room (e.g., predicted dead time, windows without a scheduled procedure and/or predicted to open up, time predicted to be open based on variances in procedure time from planned timed, and the like) … the recommendation can include: releasing one or more of the identified intervals for additional procedures in the operation room; rescheduling one or more procedures during the future block into one or more of the identified intervals to increase an amount of continuously available time during the future block; rescheduling one or more procedures during the future block into one or more of the identified intervals to reduce down time for operating room personnel (e.g., surgeons, nurses, anesthesiologists, radiologists, surgical assistants, cleaning personnel, and the like) the future block; closing the operating room during one or more of the identified intervals; and/or various other suitable changes to the operating room schedule”; see also [0028] “the method can include updating the planned usage rates during the future block based on the recommendation”)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Chatterjee with the teachings of Larson, with a reasonable expectation of success, by explicitly reallocating operating room time slots based on the use of operating rooms by time period. This would have automated optimizing operating room utilization with the recommendations of the system. Larson is adaptable to Chatterjee as both inventions optimize operating room availability through general purpose computer systems [Larson 0085]. Chatterjee would have found Larson’s teaching while searching for solutions to the industry need that [Larson 0016] “some estimates put the opportunity cost of an idle operating room at $15-20 per minute after factoring in staff time, equipment, administrative costs, etc.”.
Regarding claim 18, Chatterjee teaches:
A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having recorded thereon a computer program, the non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having recorded thereon instructions executable by a processor to: ([0060] “The control server 802 typically includes therein, or has access to, a variety of non-transitory computer-readable media. Computer-readable media can be any available media that might be accessed by control server 802… [0062] The control server 802 might operate in a computer network 806 using logical connections to one or more remote computers 808.”; see also [0056] The present technology might be operational with numerous other special-purpose computing system environments or configurations. Examples [include] multiprocessor systems])
obtain information about patient's entry and exit times in each of a plurality of an operating rooms ([0039-0054] “The report 300 illustrates multiple surgical blocks for several operating rooms on the surgical date 304. For example, the rectangle or “block” 308 illustrates the scheduled surgical block of time for a procedure from 8:00 AM (scheduled start time) until 5:00 PM (scheduled stop time). The start and stop times of the scheduled surgical time block may be predetermined, preset, and/or may be based on historical usage data” where the operating room information occurs over multiple surgical rooms”) by retrieving at least one of records of actual patient entry times and exit times or standard times for a patient's entry in and exit from each of the plurality of operating rooms within a plurality of time periods, in conjunction with an entry/exit record database that records patient's entry time, exit time, and downtime; ([0025] “In aspects, the application 109 may be another component of a healthcare management solution system, such as a RFID scanner that is used in an operating room to scan computer-readable indicia in order to automatically and electronically log the start time of a procedure, end time of the procedure, room cleansing start time, and/or room cleaning end time. where surgery started, surgery ending is patient’s entry and exit times” where the RFID scanner shares information about the patient’s entry and exit times; se optionally [0039-0054] “The start time, stop time, and duration of block 310 is determined based on the first set of data and second set of data extract from the first and second sources. The report 300 graphically displays the unused minutes or unused amount of time within the scheduled surgical block 308 to illustrate the time unused within the scheduled surgical block 308, which resulted in waste of operating room resources and loss of potential profit. By displaying the procedure duration time blocks inside/within the scheduled surgical blocks, the report 300 provides time waste information at a glance” where the start, stop and downtime are recorded for the user)
calculate a utilization rate ([Fig 3] “utilization %” is a utilization rate) of the operating room for each of certain time period intervals within the plurality of time periods ([Fig. 3] “block (310) is the actual time used in surgery, which comprise the time period intervals within the plurality of time periods) based on the patient's entry and exit times, and calculation methods; ([0039-0054] “The start time, stop time, and duration of block 310 is determined based on the first set of data and second set of data extract from the first and second sources… the report 300 graphically displays the unused minutes or unused amount of time within the scheduled surgical block 308 to illustrate the time unused within the scheduled surgical block 308, which resulted in waste of operating room resources and loss of potential profit.” where the first and second sources are a patient’s entry and exit and the unused amount of time within the surgical block comprise the utilization rate calculated via calculation methods))
receive certain time information from a user and calculate an average utilization rate by time period for the plurality of time periods corresponding to in the received time information; and ([Fig. 3] “block (308)” is the scheduled time for surgery and “utilization %” is a utilization rate by time period; see also [0039-0054] “For example, the rectangle or "block" 308 illustrates the scheduled surgical block of time for a procedure from 8:00 AM (scheduled start time) until 5:00 PM (scheduled stop time). The start and stop times of the scheduled surgical time block may be predetermined, preset, and/or may be based on historical usage data.” Where the preset time block [i.e., time information from a user] is received time information blocked out into time periods; see optionally [0049] “FIG. 4 further illustrates an average utilization 404 for the time period analyzed (from Oct. 7, 2020-Dec. 9, 2020)” where the plurality of time periods over a duration of dates comprise calculating an average utilization rate by time period for the plurality of time periods corresponding to the received time information)
wherein the calculation methods perform different computations depending on whether values of an hour of entry and exit times are different, and on whether a value of the certain time period intervals of the plurality of time periods includes non-zero values of minutes of the entry and exit times. ([0039-0054] “While it is critical for surgery blocks that are scheduled to include some buffer or “cushion” time to account for any potential complications occurring during the procedure and/or occurring due to delayed start times, only about a one-third of the scheduled surgical block 308 for operating room A was actually utilized by the procedure shown block 310. This resulted in 434 unused block minutes or about 7 hours of unused time that went to waste, as calculated by the manager 110 and shown in the report 300. The utilization rate for this surgical block for operating room A was calculated by the manager 110 to be 23.86%. By contrast, the scheduled surgical block 312 for operating room B that was scheduled from 8:00 AM until 6:30 PM only had 273 unused block minutes and a higher utilization rate of 60.43%, as determined by the manager 110, relative to operating room A on the same date. Unlike operating room A, operating Room B had two procedures take place back to pack—314 and 316 which also shows more effective utilization of the surgical resources.” Where Operating Room A and B depict different calculation methods based on the entry and exit times and the utilization ate comprises a non-zero value of minutes of the entry and exit times)
Regarding claim 18, Chatterjee does not explicitly teach, as taught by Larson:
allocate each of the plurality of operating rooms for each of the certain time periods in accordance with the average utilization rate by time period for each of the plurality of operating rooms corresponding to the received time information, thereby improving efficiency of operating room allocation, ([0016-0024] “Once the estimate is obtained, the recommendation for the unused time can be based at least partially on an identification of one or more intervals in a future time block that are associated with an open operating room (e.g., predicted dead time, windows without a scheduled procedure and/or predicted to open up, time predicted to be open based on variances in procedure time from planned timed, and the like) … the recommendation can include: releasing one or more of the identified intervals for additional procedures in the operation room; rescheduling one or more procedures during the future block into one or more of the identified intervals to increase an amount of continuously available time during the future block; rescheduling one or more procedures during the future block into one or more of the identified intervals to reduce down time for operating room personnel (e.g., surgeons, nurses, anesthesiologists, radiologists, surgical assistants, cleaning personnel, and the like) the future block; closing the operating room during one or more of the identified intervals; and/or various other suitable changes to the operating room schedule”; see also [0028] “the method can include updating the planned usage rates during the future block based on the recommendation”)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Chatterjee with the teachings of Larson, with a reasonable expectation of success, by explicitly reallocating operating room time slots based on the use of operating rooms by time period. This would have automated optimizing operating room utilization with the recommendations of the system. Larson is adaptable to Chatterjee as both inventions optimize operating room availability through general purpose computer systems [Larson 0085]. Chatterjee would have found Larson’s teaching while searching for solutions to the industry need that [Larson 0016] “some estimates put the opportunity cost of an idle operating room at $15-20 per minute after factoring in staff time, equipment, administrative costs, etc.”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAHID R MERCHANT whose telephone number is (571)270-1360. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5.
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, Namrata Boveja can be reached at 571-272-8105. 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.
/Shahid Merchant/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3684
Prosecution Insights