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 .
Status of Claims
In the preliminary amendment filed August 25, 2023, Applicant amended claims 8, 9, 17, 18, and 22. Claims 6, 7, 15, 19-21, 25, and 28-58 were canceled. Claims 1-5, 8-14, 16-18, 22-24, 26, and 27 are pending in the current application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) received on August 25, 2023 has been considered by examiner.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 23 be found allowable, claim 24 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Applicant is advised that should claim 26 be found allowable, claim 27 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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 1-5, 8-14, 16-18, 22-24, 26, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims are not directed to patent eligible subject matter.
Claims 1-5, 8-14, 16-18, 22-24, 26, and 27 do fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claims recite a machine (i.e., system).
Although claims 1-5, 8-14, 16-18, 22-24, 26, and 27 fall under at least one of the four statutory categories, it should be determined whether the claim wholly embraces a judicially recognized exception, which includes laws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas, or is it a particular practical application of a judicial exception (See MPEP 2106 I and II).
Claims 1-5, 8-14, 16-18, 22-24, 26, and 27 are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea) without significantly more.
Part I: Step 2A, Prong One: Identify the Abstract Idea
Under step 2A, Prong One of the Alice framework, the claims are analyzed to determine if the claims are directed to a judicial exception. MPEP §2106.04(a). The determination consists of a) identifying the specific limitations in the claim that recite an abstract idea; and b) determining whether the identified limitations fall within at least one of the three subject matter groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, mental processes, and certain methods of organizing human activity).
The identified limitations of independent claim 1 recite (in bold and italics):
an activator;
a display; and
a controller comprising one or more processors, wherein the one or more processors are configured to perform controller operations comprising:
indicating, via the display, that a timer associated with a particular patient has exceeded a threshold duration;
associating the activator with the particular patient;
detecting that the activator has been activated;
responsive to detecting that the activator has been activated, resetting the timer; and
updating an indication on the display to reflect that the timer has been reset
The identified limitations recite rounding system within a healthcare environment, which is managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including following rules or instructions). The claim limitations fall within the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities groupings of abstract ideas. The performance of the claim limitations using generic computing components (i.e., display, processor, activator, and controller) does not preclude the claim limitations from being in the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping. Thus, the claimed invention recites an abstract idea.
Part I: Step 2A, prong two: additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application
Under step 2A, Prong Two of the Alice framework, the claims are analyzed to determine whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. In particular, the claims are evaluated to determine if there are additional elements or a combination of elements that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claims are more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.
As a whole, the additional elements recite using a display, processor, activator, and controller to perform the abstract idea. The display, processor, activator, and controller in the steps are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-5, 8-14, 16-18, 22-24, 26, and 27, when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea. For example, the dependent claims recite locating the patient and nurse and determining whether is nurse is proximate to the patient. This recites interactions between people in a healthcare environment.
Since these claims are directed to an abstract idea, the Office must determine whether the remaining limitations “do significantly more” than describe the abstract idea.
Part II. Determine whether any Element, or Combination, Amounts to“Significantly More” than the Abstract Idea itself
Under Part II, the steps of claims, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not improve another technology or technical field, do not improve the functioning of the computer itself, and are not enough to qualify as "significantly more". For example, the steps require no more than a conventional computer to perform generic computer functions. As stated above, the display, processor, activator, and controller in the steps are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Therefore, based on the two-part Mayo analysis, there are no meaningful limitations in the claim that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the exception itself. Claims 1-5, 8-14, 16-18, 22-24, 26, and 27, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, are rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Dependent claims 2-5, 8-14, 16-18, 22-24, 26, and 27 when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional claims do no recite significantly more than an abstract idea.
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 1-5, 8-14, 16-18, 22-24, 26, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Durlach et al. (US 2022/0122724 A1) in view of Girardeau et al. (US 2017/0004264 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Durlach discloses a system comprising:
an activator (Paragraph [0190] and Fig. 2: controls 72);
a display (Paragraph [0190] and Fig. 2: display 70); and
a controller comprising one or more processors (Paragraph [0190]: controller 48 includes any one or more microprocessors), wherein the one or more processors are configured to perform controller operations comprising:
associating the activator with the particular patient (Paragraph [0329]: caregiver assistance application 124 maintains and updates timers for rounding tasks associated with each room and/or patient);
detecting that the activator has been activated (Paragraph [0329]: caregiver assistance application 124 may be configured to update the task list 886 to reflect that the caregiver just completed one of the rounding tasks on the list);
responsive to detecting that the activator has been activated, resetting the timer (Paragraph [0329]: As a result, reminder algorithm 145 resets the reminder timer for that particular rounding task according to the prescribed cadence for re-completing the rounding tasks); and
updating an indication on the display to reflect that the timer has been reset (Paragraph [0329]: The corresponding time information displayed on the screens of mobile electronic devices 104a is therefore also automatically reset).
Durlach discloses the limitations above. Durlach does not explicitly disclose:
indicating, via the display, that a timer associated with a particular patient has exceeded a threshold duration.
Girardeau teaches:
indicating, via the display, that a timer associated with a particular patient has exceeded a threshold duration (Fig. 2: counter 48 and Paragraph [0033]: example of screen 40 in FIG. 2, a plus sign (i.e., “+”) is shown in front of the time (e.g. 0:02:19) on counter 48 to indicate the amount of time past the expiration of the time interval established for checking the amount of intravenous (IV) solution).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Durlach to disclose indicating, via the display, that a timer associated with a particular patient has exceeded a threshold duration as taught by Girardeau. Durlach discloses helping caregivers manage the care of patients and the beds that support the patients by monitoring tasks associated with the patients, such as caregiver rounding tasks, bed sore assessments, and/or fall risk assessments, and forwards completed tasks to an EMR server (Durlach Abstract). Using the caregiver rounding communication system of Girardeau would provide tracking of rounding intervals for caregivers to determine whether the caregivers successfully complete their rounds in a timely manner using a real time locating system (RTLS) that tracks locations of the plurality of caregivers (Girardeau Abstract).
Regarding claim 2, Durlach discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the controller operations further comprise:
detecting a location of a nurse (Paragraph [0346]);
detecting a location of the particular patient (Paragraph [0346]); and
determining that the location of the nurse is proximate to the location of the particular patient, wherein resetting the timer responsive to detecting that the activator has been activated comprises resetting the timer responsive to detecting that the activator has been activated and that the location of the nurse is proximate to the location of the particular patient (Paragraph [0346]).
Regarding claim 3, Durlach discloses the system of claim 2, wherein determining that the location of the nurse is proximate to the location of the particular patient comprises determining that the location of the nurse is proximate to the location of the particular patient for more than a threshold period of time, wherein resetting the timer responsive to detecting that the activator has been activated comprises resetting the timer responsive to detecting that the activator has been activated and that the location of the nurse is proximate to the location of the particular patient for more than the threshold period of time (Paragraph [0329]).
Regarding claim 4, Durlach discloses the system of claim 2, further comprising:
a first sensor, wherein detecting the location of the nurse comprises detecting, via the first sensor, a first sound, infrared, or radio-frequency signal that is indicative of the location of the nurse (Paragraph [0518]: patient support apparatuses 20 may be modified to include a short range transceiver 320 that sends out short range signals that are detectable by mobile electronic devices 104a when the mobile electronic device 104a is positioned in proximity to such a modified patient support apparatus ); and
a second sensor, wherein detecting the location of the particular patient comprises detecting, via the second sensor, a second sound, infrared, or radio-frequency signal that is indicative of the location of the particular patient, and wherein determining that the location of the nurse is proximate to the location of the particular patient comprises determining that the first sound, infrared, or radio-frequency signal corresponds to the second sound, infrared, or radio- frequency signal (Paragraph [0518]: patient support apparatuses 20 may be modified to include a short range transceiver 320 that sends out short range signals that are detectable by mobile electronic devices 104a when the mobile electronic device 104a is positioned in proximity to such a modified patient support apparatus).
Regarding claim 5, Durlach discloses the system of claim 2, further comprising: recording, in a database, an indication of a timing of the activation of the activator, an identity of the nurse, and an identity of the particular patient (Paragraphs [0501], [0503], and [0504]: timing, caregiver identity, patient identity).
Regarding claim 8, Durlach does not explicitly disclose the system of claim 1,
wherein indicating, via the display, that the timer associated with the particular patient has exceeded the threshold duration comprises providing an indication having a first color for the particular patient, and
wherein the controller operations further comprise:
determining that the timer has exceeded an additional, greater threshold duration and responsively changing the indication from the first color to a second, different color.
Girardeau teaches:
wherein indicating, via the display, that the timer associated with the particular patient has exceeded the threshold duration comprises providing an indication having a first color for the particular patient (Paragraph [0051]: Green cells 98 in table 92 indicate a successful rounding event which means an assigned caregiver visited the patient room during the rounding time interval and remained in the patient room for at least the threshold amount of time), and
wherein the controller operations further comprise:
determining that the timer has exceeded an additional, greater threshold duration and responsively changing the indication from the first color to a second, different color (Paragraph [0053]: other cell colors may be used For example, if a rounding event was suspended using buttons 88, then the cell corresponding to the time interval(s) of the suspension are colored gray in tables).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Durlach to disclose wherein indicating, via the display, that the timer associated with the particular patient has exceeded the threshold duration comprises providing an indication having a first color for the particular patient, and determining that the timer has exceeded an additional, greater threshold duration and responsively changing the indication from the first color to a second, different color as taught by Girardeau. Durlach discloses helping caregivers manage the care of patients and the beds that support the patients by monitoring tasks associated with the patients, such as caregiver rounding tasks, bed sore assessments, and/or fall risk assessments, and forwards completed tasks to an EMR server (Durlach Abstract). Using the caregiver rounding communication system of Girardeau would provide tracking of rounding intervals for caregivers to determine whether the caregivers successfully complete their rounds in a timely manner using a real time locating system (RTLS) that tracks locations of the plurality of caregivers (Girardeau Abstract).
Regarding claim 9, Durlach discloses the system of claim 1, wherein associating the activator with the particular patient comprises:
associating the activator with a particular room (Paragraph [0249]); and
determining that the particular patient is located proximate to the particular room (Paragraph [0249]).
Regarding claim 10, Durlach discloses the system of claim 9, further comprising:
a device that comprises the activator and an activator sensor (Paragraph [0209]), wherein associating the activator with the particular room comprises:
detecting, via the activator sensor, a third sound, infrared, or radio-frequency signal that is indicative of the location of the activator (Paragraph [0209]); and
determining that the third sound, infrared, or radio-frequency signal is indicative of the location of the particular room (Paragraph [0209]).
Regarding claim 11, Durlach discloses the system of claim 9, wherein determining that the particular patient is located proximate to the particular room comprises accessing a database that contains a record that is indicative of at least one of the location of the particular patient or of a scheduled procedure of the particular patient (Paragraph [0655]).
Regarding claim 12, Durlach discloses the system of claim 1, wherein associating the activator with the particular patient comprises:
detecting a location of the particular patient (Paragraph [0690]); and
determining that the location of the particular patient is proximate to a location of the activator, wherein resetting the timer responsive to detecting that the activator has been activated comprises resetting the timer responsive to detecting that the activator has been activated and that the location of the particular patient is proximate to the location of the activator (Paragraph [0609]).
Regarding claim 13, Durlach discloses the system of claim 12, further comprising: a third sensor, wherein determining the location of the particular patient comprises detecting, via the third sensor, a fourth sound, infrared, or radio-frequency signal that is indicative of the location of the patient sensor (Paragraph [0249]).
Regarding claim 14, Durlach discloses the system of claim 13, further comprising:
a device that comprises the activator and an activator sensor (Paragraph [0609]), wherein associating the activator with the particular patient further comprises:
detecting a location of the activator by detecting, via the activator sensor, a fifth sound, infrared, or radio-frequency signal that is indicative of the location of the activator, wherein determining that the location of the particular patient is proximate to a location of the activator comprises determining that the fourth sound, infrared, or radio- frequency signal corresponds to the fifth sound, infrared, or radio-frequency signal (Paragraph [0609]).
Regarding claim 16, Durlach discloses the system of claim 13, wherein the third sensor is part of or configured to be mounted on or within a hospital bed (Paragraph [0217]).
Regarding claim 17, Durlach discloses the system of claim 12, wherein resetting the timer responsive to detecting that the activator has been activated comprises resetting the timer responsive to detecting that the activator has been activated and that the location of the particular patient is proximate to the location of the activator (Paragraph [0609]).
Regarding claim 18, Durlach discloses the system of claim 12, wherein the controller operations further comprise:
determining that the location of the particular patient is not proximate to the location of the activator and responsively performing at least one of resetting the timer or pausing the timer (Paragraph [0690]).
Regarding claim 22, Durlach discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the particular patient is located within a first region of a healthcare facility, and wherein the controller operations further comprise:
maintaining a first plurality of additional timers for additional patients located within the first region of the healthcare facility (Paragraph [0276]);
maintaining a second plurality of additional timers for additional patients located within a second region of the healthcare facility (Paragraph [0276]);
determining a first level of staff need for the first region based on the timer associated with the particular patient and the first plurality of additional timers (Paragraph [0276]);
determining a second level of staff need for the second region based on the second plurality of additional timers (Paragraph [0276]); and
transmitting, to at least one of a user device or the display, an indication of at least one of the first level of staff need or the second level of staff need (Paragraph [0276]).
Regarding claim 23, Durlach discloses the system of claim 1,
wherein the timer associated with the particular patient is a first timer associated with the particular patient (Paragraph [0504]),
wherein the threshold duration is a first threshold duration (Paragraph [0504]),
wherein detecting that the activator has been activated comprises detecting that a first input of the activator has been activated (Paragraph [0504]),
wherein resetting the timer responsive to detecting that the activator has been activated comprises resetting the first timer responsive to detecting that the first input of the activator has been activated (Paragraph [0508]), and
wherein updating the indication on the display to reflect that the timer has been reset comprises updating a first indication on the display to reflect that the first timer has been reset (Paragraph [0508]), and
wherein the controller operations further comprise:
indicating, via the display, that a second timer associated with the particular patient has exceeded a second threshold duration (Paragraph [0505]);
detecting that a second input of the activator has been activated (Paragraph [0505]));
responsive to detecting that the second input of the activator has been activated, resetting the second timer (Paragraph [0508]); and
updating a second indication on the display to reflect that the second timer has been reset (Paragraph [0508]).
Regarding claim 24, Durlach discloses the system of claim 1,
wherein the timer associated with the particular patient is a first timer associated with the particular patient (Paragraph [0504]),
wherein the threshold duration is a first threshold duration (Paragraph [0504]),
wherein detecting that the activator has been activated comprises detecting that a first input of the activator has been activated (Paragraph [0504]),
wherein resetting the timer responsive to detecting that the activator has been activated comprises resetting the first timer responsive to detecting that the first input of the activator has been activated (Paragraph [0508]), and
wherein updating the indication on the display to reflect that the timer has been reset comprises updating a first indication on the display to reflect that the first timer has been reset (Paragraph [0508]), and
wherein the controller operations further comprise:
indicating, via a second display, that a second timer associated with the particular patient has exceeded a second threshold duration (Paragraph [0505]);
detecting that a second input of the activator has been activated (Paragraph [0505]));
responsive to detecting that the second input of the activator has been activated, resetting the second timer (Paragraph [0508]); and
updating a second indication on the second display to reflect that the second timer has been reset [0508]).
Regarding claim 26, Durlach discloses the system of claim 1,
wherein the timer associated with the particular patient is a first timer associated with the particular patient (Paragraph [0504]),
wherein the threshold duration is a first threshold duration (Paragraph [0504]),
wherein detecting that the activator has been activated comprises detecting that the activator has been activated at a first point in time (Paragraph [0504]), and
wherein the controller operations further comprise:
detecting a location of a first staff person (Paragraph [0503]);
determining that the location of the first staff person is proximate to a location of the activator within a time period that includes the first point in time (Paragraph [0504]),
wherein resetting the timer responsive to detecting that the activator has been activated comprises resetting the first timer responsive to detecting that the activator has been activated at the first point in time and that the location of the first staff person is proximate to the location of the activator within a time period that includes the first point in time (Paragraph [0508]), and
wherein updating the indication on the display to reflect that the timer has been reset comprises updating a first indication on the display to reflect that the first timer has been reset (Paragraph [0508]);
indicating, via the display, that a second timer associated with the particular patient has exceeded a second threshold duration (Paragraph [0505]);
detecting that the activator has been activated at a second point in time (Paragraph [0505]);
detecting a location of a second staff person (Paragraph [0506]);
determining that the location of the second staff person is proximate to the location of the activator within a time period that includes the second point in time (Paragraph [0507]);
responsive to detecting that the activator has been activated at the second point in time and that the location of the second staff person is proximate to the location of the activator within a time period that includes the second point in time, resetting the second timer (Paragraph [0508]); and
updating a second indication on the display to reflect that the second timer has been reset (Paragraph [0508]).
Regarding claim 27, Durlach discloses the system of claim 1,
wherein the timer associated with the particular patient is a first timer associated with the particular patient (Paragraph [0504]),
wherein the threshold duration is a first threshold duration (Paragraph [0504]),
wherein detecting that the activator has been activated comprises detecting that the activator has been activated at a first point in time (Paragraph [0504]), and
wherein the controller operations further comprise:
detecting a location of a first staff person (Paragraph [0503]);
determining that the location of the first staff person is proximate to a location of the activator within a time period that includes the first point in time (Paragraph [0504]),
wherein resetting the timer responsive to detecting that the activator has been activated comprises resetting the first timer responsive to detecting that the activator has been activated at the first point in time and that the location of the first staff person is proximate to the location of the activator within a time period that includes the first point in time (Paragraph [0508]), and
wherein updating the indication on the display to reflect that the timer has been reset comprises updating a first indication on the display to reflect that the first timer has been reset (Paragraph [0508]);
indicating, via the display, that a second timer associated with the particular patient has exceeded a second threshold duration (Paragraph [0505]);
detecting that the activator has been activated at a second point in time (Paragraph [0505]);
detecting a location of a second staff person (Paragraph [0506]);
determining that the location of the second staff person is proximate to the location of the activator within a time period that includes the second point in time (Paragraph [0507]);
responsive to detecting that the activator has been activated at the second point in time and that the location of the second staff person is proximate to the location of the activator within a time period that includes the second point in time, resetting the second timer (Paragraph [0508]); and
updating a second indication on the display to reflect that the second timer has been reset (Paragraph [0508]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHINYERE MPAMUGO whose telephone number is (571)272-8853. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-5pm.
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, Kambiz Abdi can be reached at (571) 272-6702. 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.
/CHINYERE MPAMUGO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3685