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 .
A preliminary amendment has been received on 09/01/2025. Claims 21-32 have been canceled and therefore, claims 1-20 remain pending in this application.
Claim Objections
Claims 4 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 4 recites “The method according to claim 1 wherein the some sub-sets belong to a first set of partially cooperative ORAMs, to a second set of fully cooperative ORAMs, and to a third set of ORAMs, wherein the third set of OSRAMs comprises a first sub-set of partially cooperative ORAMs and a second sub-set of fully cooperative ORAMs.”, and claim 20 recites “The non-transitory computer readable medium according to claim 17 wherein the some sub-sets belong to a first set of partially cooperative ORAMs, to a second set of fully cooperative ORAMs, and to a third set of ORAMs, wherein the third set of OSRAMs comprises a first sub-set of partially cooperative ORAMs and a second sub-set of fully cooperative ORAMs”. There is no description in the current specification for the term “OSRAMs”. Examiner considers that there is a typographical error. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 1-16 are drawn to a method which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. process). Claims 17-20 are drawn to a non-transitory medium which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. manufacture).
Step 2A, Prong 1:
Claims 1 and 17 recite “a. obtaining, by multiple operating rooms managing agents (ORAMs), roles and assignment preferences of parties that are represented by the multiple ORAMs, wherein the parties are associated with the surgical operations; and b. performing multiple sets of assignment iterations for assigning the surgical operations to the operating rooms; c. wherein each set of assignment iterations is executed by a set of ORAMs of the multiple ORAMs and comprises exchanging assignment messages without exposing an entirety of the assignment preferences of the parties represented by the set of ORAMs; and d. wherein some sub-sets of one or more sets of ORAMs differ from each other by type of cooperation”, and these limitations correspond to “certain methods of organizing human activity”. This is a method of managing interactions between people, such as user following rules and instructions. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Dependent claims also correspond to managing interactions between people, such as user following rules and instructions, and therefore are directed to an abstract idea of “certain methods of organizing human activity”. Claim 10 recites “…determining, by the first set of assignment iterations, an allocation of operating room per ward per day over a first period of time”, claim 11 recites “…determining, by the second set of assignment iterations, an allocation of surgical operations per operating room per day and per ward”, claim 12 recites “…determining, by the third set of assignment iterations, an ordered assignment of the surgical operations per operating room per day”, claim 15 recites “…the determining of the allocation of surgical operations per operating room per day and per ward is executed based on a limited number of ward constraints”, and claim 16 recites “…analyzing a quality of the assignment of the surgical operations in the operating rooms”. These limitations are directed to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (such as, following rules or instructions).
After considering all claim elements, both individually and in combination and in ordered combination, it has been determined that the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claims 2-16 and 18-20 are ultimately dependent from claims 1, 17 and include all the limitations of claims 1, 17. Therefore, claims 2-16 and 18-20 recite the same abstract idea. Claims 2-16 and 18-20 describe a further limitation regarding the basis for performing multiple sets of assignment iterations for surgical operations. These are all just further describing the abstract idea recited in claims 1, 17, without adding significantly more.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claims 17-20 recite additional elements, such as “At least one non-transitory computer readable medium for assigning surgical operations to operating rooms, the least one non- transitory computer readable medium that stores instructions for:…”. Therefore, claims recite a computer readable medium for performing the obtaining preferences data, performing multiple sets of assignment iterations for assigned surgical operations to the operating rooms, which amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
The current specification recites “Any reference in the specification to a method should be applied mutatis mutandis to a system capable of executing the method and should be applied mutatis mutandis to a non-transitory computer readable medium that stores instructions that once executed by a computer result in the execution of the method.” in [0043]. Therefore, the non-transitory computer readable medium corresponds to 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 claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a non-transitory computer readable medium to perform both the obtaining data and performing iterations steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Larson et al. (hereinafter Larson) (US 2022/0285017 A1).
Claim 1 recites a method for assigning surgical operations to operating rooms, the method comprises:
a. obtaining, by multiple operating rooms managing agents (ORAMs), roles and assignment preferences of parties that are represented by the multiple ORAMs, wherein the parties are associated with the surgical operations (Larson discloses “Once a case request is submitted, the request is sent to an operating room scheduler. The operating room scheduler can review the request, a current schedule for the operating room, any relevant recommendations for updating the schedule ( e.g. , a recommendation that an interval in a block date will be available for an operation ) , and / or any related information on available resources ( e.g. , staff sched ules ) . The operating room scheduler can the approve or return the case request. And approved request is entered into Objective Turnover Time Average Capacity Management Room Utilization Scheduled Case Duration Duration Accuracy Scheduled Case Duration Duration Accuracy Start Time Tardiness Start Time Tardiness Sep. 8 , 2022 9 Metric the system and an indication of the approval is sent to the requesting users . A returned request is sent back to the requesting user, who then has an opportunity to update the request in view of any included information (e.g., the recommendation for the operating room indicates that no additional operations should be scheduled for a given day, that the request should be for an alternative time in a given day, that a conflict is present preventing scheduling at a certain time, and the like). The user can then waitlist the request in case the schedule is later updated and / or edit their request for another time” in [0062]); and
b. performing multiple sets of assignment iterations for assigning he surgical operations to the operating rooms (Larson; [0062]);
c. wherein each set of assignment iterations is executed by a set of ORAMs of the multiple ORAMs and comprises exchanging assignment messages without exposing an entirety of the assignment preferences of the parties represented by the set of ORAMs (Larson discloses “the optimized operating room block management system can manage permissions for viewing information related to the schedule user inter faces ( FIGS . 5A - 5K ) based on user roles . For example, a user with a “ Surgeon ” role can view the following information : all “ personal ” surgeon procedures ( completed , pending , scheduled , NOT canceled ) , all “ personal ” surgeon blocks ( scheduled , pending ) , recommended releases , group blocks for which this surgeon is a member ( when there are no procedures already scheduled into that block ) . The user with a “Surgeon” role can edit the following information : scheduled procedures ( all fields ) , scheduled “ personal ” sur geon blocks ( only the time fields in order to release a partial block ) , pending procedures ( all fields ) , pending " personal " surgeon blocks ( only the time fields ) , and so on . The user with a “ Surgeon ” role cannot edit the following information : completed procedures , cancelled procedures , recommended releases , and group blocks . The user with a “ Surgeon ” role can release the following information : scheduled “ personal ” surgeon blocks ( either by releasing the entire block or editing time fields to release partial ) , and recommended releases ( entire block ) and can also decline these . The user with a “ Surgeon ” role cannot release group blocks , can request procedure , and can cancel ( delete ) procedure . A user with a “ Group Admin ” role can view all surgeon procedures of surgeons within their group , all surgeon blocks of sur geons within their group , and group blocks” in [0066] and [0099]); and
d. wherein some sub-sets of one or more sets of ORAMs differ from each other by type of cooperation (Larson; [0066]).
Claim 2 recites the method according to claim 1 wherein the some sub-sets belong to different sets of ORAMs (Larson; [0066]).
Claim 3 recites the method according to claim 1 wherein the some sub-sets belong to a first set of partially cooperative ORAMs and a second set of fully cooperative ORAMs (Larson; [0066]-[0067]).
Claim 4 recites the method according to claim 1 wherein the some sub-sets belong to a first set of partially cooperative ORAMs, to a second set of fully cooperative ORAMs, and to a third set of ORAMs, wherein the third set of OSRAMs comprises a first sub-set of partially cooperative ORAMs and a second sub-set of fully cooperative ORAMs (Larson; [0066]-[0067]).
Claim 5 recites the method according to claim 1 wherein the some sub-sets belong to a first set of partially cooperative ORAMs, to a second set and to a third set, wherein each one of the second set and the third set comprise a first sub-set of partially cooperative ORAMs and a second sub-set of fully cooperative ORAMs (Larson; [0066]-[0067]).
Claim 6 recites the method according to claim 1 wherein two sub-sets of the some sub-sets belong to single set of ORAMs (Larson; [0066]-[0067]).
Claim 7 recites the method according to claim 1 wherein at least two sets of assignment iterations differ from each other by a granularity of assignment (Larson; [0067]).
Claim 8 recites the method according to claim 1 wherein at least two sets of ORAMs differ from each other by identities of ORAMs that populate each one of the at least two sets of ORAMs (Larson; [0066]-[0067]).
Claim 9 recites the method according to claim 1 wherein the multiple sets of assignment iterations comprise a first set of assignment iterations, a second set of assignment iterations and a third set of assignment iterations (Larson; [0057]).
Claim 10 recites the method according to claim 9 comprising determining, by the first set of assignment iterations, an allocation of operating room per ward per day over a first period of time (Larson; [0057]).
Claim 11 recites the method according to claim 10 comprising determining, by the second set of assignment iterations, an allocation of surgical operations per operating room per day and per ward (Larson; [0096]).
Claim 12 recites the method according to claim 11 comprising determining, by the third set of assignment iterations, an ordered assignment of the surgical operations per operating room per day (Larson; [0037, [0096]).
Claim 13 recites the method according to claim 11 wherein the third set of assignment iterations is executed by a sub-set of partially cooperative ORAMs and by a sub-set of fully cooperative ORAMs (Larson; [0066]-[0067]).
Claim 14 recites the method according to claim 12 wherein the sub-set of partially cooperative ORAMs represent ward specific parties and the sub-set of fully cooperative ORAMs represent non-ward specific parties (Larson; [0066]-[0067]).
Claim 15 recites the method according to claim 9 wherein the determining of the allocation of surgical operations per operating room per day and per ward is executed based on a limited number of ward constraints (Larson; [0037, [0096]).
Claim 16 recites the method according to claim 1 comprising analyzing a quality of the assignment of the surgical operations in the operating rooms (Larson; [0034], [0065]).
As per claims 17-20, they are article of manufacture claims which repeat the same limitations of claims 1-4, the corresponding method claims, as a collection of executable instructions stored on machine readable media as opposed to a series of process steps. Since the teachings of Larson disclose the underlying process steps that constitute the method of claims 1-4, it is respectfully submitted that they likewise disclose the executable instructions that perform the steps as well. As such, the limitations of claims 17-20, are rejected for the same reasons given above for claims 1-4.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DILEK B COBANOGLU whose telephone number is (571)272-8295. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:00 ET.
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, Obeid Mamon can be reached at (571) 270-1813. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DILEK B COBANOGLU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3687