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 .
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.
Step 1
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 1-13 are directed to a system, and, claims 14-20 are directed towards a method; thus, each of the pending claims are directed to a statutory category of invention.
Step 2A Prong One
Claim 1, recites the steps of a processor that “tracks caregiver response time for nurse call requests, how long at least one caregiver is present in a patient room based on information received by the nurse call computer from the locating equipment, how often a patient calls the caregivers, and the status of rounds that the caregivers undertake, and patient experience module configured to receive information from the nurse call equipment, the locating equipment, and information about staffing assignments, update a patient experience counter associated with a particular patient in real time based on the information received, prepare a patient experience report and a staff optimization report comprising the patient experience counter for each patient based on the information received and issue a notification of the change in patient experience counter to adjust staffing and take corrective measures while the patient is in the healthcare facility.” Claim 10 recites a processor that “tracks caregiver response time to each nurse call request, how long at least one caregiver is present in each patient room based on information received by the nurse call computer from the locating equipment, how often each patient calls the caregivers, and status of each round outcome that the caregivers undertake, and a patient experience module configured to receive information from the nurse call equipment, the locating equipment, and information about staffing assignments, update a staff load counter associated with a plurality of patients based on the information, divide the plurality of patients into groups based, and assign a new unassigned patient to a group with the lowest total staff load counter value.” Claim 14 recites “acquiring, using locating equipment, the location of each of the plurality of caregivers, acquiring, using nurse call equipment, call requests from patients located in patient rooms of the healthcare facility, the patient rooms being divided up into at least a first unit of the healthcare facility and a second unit of the healthcare facility, the nurse call equipment including at least one nurse call computer that keeps track of an amount of time it takes caregivers to respond to each nurse call and that keeps track of how long at least one caregiver is present in each patient room based on information received by the nurse call computer from the locating equipment to establish call response data by patient, utilizing a patient experience module to consider the call response data to establish a patient care experience score and a staff load score, and when a patient experience score varies, notify the applicable caregiver of the variation of the patient care experience score to permit the caregiver to adjust staffing in real-time to improve the patient care experience score.”
The limitations above, as drafted, recite a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, encompass mental processes and also certain methods of organizing human activity. The claimed steps recite several steps that include observations, evaluations, judgments and opinions, and “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper” which have been considered by the courts to be a mental process. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). The courts do not distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. Versata Dev. Group v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1702 (Fed. Cir. 2015). See also Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (‘‘[W]ith the exception of generic computer-implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper.’’); Mortgage Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324, 117 USPQ2d 1693, 1699 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that computer-implemented method for "anonymous loan shopping" was an abstract idea because it could be "performed by humans without a computer"). The claimed steps also are directed towards managing personal behavior (e.g., staff assignments and work quality assurance).
Apart from the use of generic technology (discussed further below), each of the limitations recited above describes activities that would encompass actions performed in collecting information regarding employee activities, reporting, and assignments.
Based on the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, these activities describe concepts relating to managing personal behavior and mental processes in that the activities relate to collecting information regarding employee activities, reporting, and assignments. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, commercial interactions, or fundamental economic practices, then it falls within the “Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The recited steps also are considered to be a mental process as methods that can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claims 1, 10, and 14 recite the additional elements of a locating and nurse call equipment and a module configured to receive. The equipment and module are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of receiving information, performing calculations, and providing/transmitting information) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Likewise, the machine learning model is implemented as a tool to perform an abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The claim does 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 elements of using a processor to perform the steps of in claim 1 a processor that “tracks caregiver response time for nurse call requests, how long at least one caregiver is present in a patient room based on information received by the nurse call computer from the locating equipment, how often a patient calls the caregivers, and the status of rounds that the caregivers undertake, and patient experience module configured to receive information from the nurse call equipment, the locating equipment, and information about staffing assignments, update a patient experience counter associated with a particular patient based on the information received on an hourly basis, and issue a notification to a caregiver of the change in patient experience counter.” Claim 10 recites a processor that “tracks caregiver response time to each nurse call request, how long at least one caregiver is present in each patient room based on information received by the nurse call computer from the locating equipment, how often each patient calls the caregivers, and status of each round outcome that the caregivers undertake, and a patient experience module configured to receive information from the nurse call equipment, the locating equipment, and information about staffing assignments, update a staff load counter associated with a plurality of patients based on the information, divide the plurality of patients into groups based, and assign a new unassigned patient to a group with the lowest total staff load counter value.” Claim 14 recites “acquiring, using locating equipment, the location of each of the plurality of caregivers, acquiring, using nurse call equipment, call requests from patients located in patient rooms of the healthcare facility, the patient rooms being divided up into at least a first unit of the healthcare facility and a second unit of the healthcare facility, the nurse call equipment including at least one nurse call computer that keeps track of an amount of time it takes caregivers to respond to each nurse call and that keeps track of how long at least one caregiver is present in each patient room based on information received by the nurse call computer from the locating equipment to establish call response data by patient, utilizing a patient experience module to consider the call response data to establish a patient care experience score and a staff load score, and when a patient experience score varies, notify the applicable caregiver of the variation of the patient care experience score to permit the caregiver to adjust staffing in real-time to improve the patient care experience score.” 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.
Step 2B
Limitations that the courts have found to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include:
i. Improvements to the functioning of a computer, e.g., a modification of conventional Internet hyperlink protocol to dynamically produce a dual-source hybrid webpage, as discussed in DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258-59, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106-07 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (see MPEP § 2106.05(a));
ii. Improvements to any other technology or technical field, e.g., a modification of conventional rubber-molding processes to utilize a thermocouple inside the mold to constantly monitor the temperature and thus reduce under- and over-curing problems common in the art, as discussed in Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191-92, 209 USPQ 1, 10 (1981) (see MPEP § 2106.05(a));
iii. Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, e.g., a Fourdrinier machine (which is understood in the art to have a specific structure comprising a headbox, a paper-making wire, and a series of rolls) that is arranged in a particular way to optimize the speed of the machine while maintaining quality of the formed paper web, as discussed in Eibel Process Co. v. Minn. & Ont. Paper Co., 261 U.S. 45, 64-65 (1923) (see MPEP § 2106.05(b));
iv. Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, e.g., a process that transforms raw, uncured synthetic rubber into precision-molded synthetic rubber products, as discussed in Diehr, 450 U.S. at 184, 209 USPQ at 21 (see MPEP § 2106.05(c));
v. Adding a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, or adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application, e.g., a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of various computer components for filtering Internet content, as discussed in BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1350-51, 119 USPQ2d 1236, 1243 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); or
vi. Other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, e.g., an immunization step that integrates an abstract idea of data comparison into a specific process of immunizing that lowers the risk that immunized patients will later develop chronic immune-mediated diseases, as discussed in Classen Immunotherapies Inc. v. Biogen IDEC, 659 F.3d 1057, 1066-68, 100 USPQ2d 1492, 1499-1502 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (see MPEP § 2106.05(e)).
Claims 1 and 13 are not similar to any of these limitations.
Limitations that the courts have found not to be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include:
i. Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(f));
ii. Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d));
iii. Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea such as a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions so that the information can be analyzed by an abstract mental process, as discussed in CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)); or
iv. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, e.g., a claim describing how the abstract idea of hedging could be used in the commodities and energy markets, as discussed in Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 595, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (2010) or a claim limiting the use of a mathematical formula to the petrochemical and oil-refining fields, as discussed in Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-90, 198 USPQ 193, 197-98 (1978) (MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
Claims 1, 10, and 14 recite additional elements that are regarded as “apply it” as seen in the Step 2A Prong 2 discussion above. The claims do not set forth a solution to a problem rooted in technology (e.g., technical solution), as collecting and analyzing user behavior to identify deficiencies and recommendations to correct or remedy said deficiencies predate the use of computers or machine learning models.
Looking at the limitations of claims 1, 10, and 14 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, effects a transformation of subject matter to a different state or thing, applies the use of a particular machine, integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide any meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Therefore, claims 1, 10, and 14 are not patent eligible.
The dependent claims further describe the abstract idea and do not recite a practical application or significantly more than the judicial exception. None of dependent claims 2-9, 11-13 or 15-20 recite any further additional elements.
Dependent claims 2-9, 11-13 or 15-20 further narrow the scope of the abstract idea in claims 11, 10, and 14 by providing additional information or considerations used in the analysis.
Thus, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1, 7, 9-14 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent 10,068,461 to Wildman et al.
As to claim 1, Wildman discloses a system for providing real-time patient experience feedback to a caregiver comprising
locating equipment configured to track the location of caregivers in a healthcare facility (Wildman column 6 lines 59-67 and column 7 lines 1-37),
nurse call equipment configured to receive nurse call requests from patients located in patient rooms of the healthcare facility, the nurse call equipment including at least one nurse call computer that tracks caregiver response time for nurse call requests, how long at least one caregiver is present in a patient room based on information received by the nurse call computer from the locating equipment (Wildman column 7 lines 51-67), how often a patient calls the caregivers (Wildman column 4 lines 1-8), and the status of rounds that the caregivers undertake (Wildman column 3 lines 55-67), and
a patient experience module configured to receive information from the nurse call equipment, the locating equipment, and information about staffing assignments, update a patient experience counter associated with a particular patient in real time based on the information received, prepare a patient experience report and staff optimization report comprising the patient experience counter for each patient based on the information received, and issue a notification to a caregiver of the change in patient experience counter (Wildman column 3 lines 28-45 see key performance parameters see also column 3 lines 55-67 and column 4 lines 1-15 see performance information including “average patient call 60 response time , average time spent with one or more patients , average number of patient calls , rounding compliance per centage , incontinence response time , bed safety information , patient deterioration information , safe patient handling information , number of rewards points earned by caregivers, hand washing compliance percentage , patient satisfaction information , a patient needs score, etc.”)Examiner notes the use of intended use type language, “to adjust staffing and take corrective measures while the patient is in the healthcare facility” this does not patentably distinguish the claim from the prior art.
As to claim 7, see the discussion of claim 1, additionally, Wildman discloses the system wherein the notification further comprises at least one of the following: (1) a message appearing on a wireless communication device carried by at least one caregiver or (2) a message appearing on a status board display located in a caregiver work area, and the notification includes whether nurse calls are being answered by caregivers within acceptable time thresholds (Wildman column 2 lines 21-40).
As to claim 9, see the discussion of claim 1, additionally, Wildman discloses the system wherein the nurse call equipment is configured to include nurse call input devices including handheld pillow speaker units having a plurality of nurse call buttons, each nurse call button corresponding to a call type that is different than each of the other nurse call buttons (Wildman column 2 lines 21-40).
As to claim 10, Wildman discloses a system for providing real-time patient experience feedback to a caregiver comprising;
locating equipment configured to track the location of caregivers in a healthcare facility (Wildman column 6 lines 59-67 and column 7 lines 1-37),
nurse call equipment configured to receive nurse call requests from patients located in patient rooms of the healthcare facility, the nurse call equipment including at least one nurse call computer that tracks caregiver response time for nurse call requests, how long at least one caregiver is present in a patient room based on information received by the nurse call computer from the locating equipment (Wildman column 7 lines 51-67), how often a patient calls the caregivers (Wildman column 4 lines 1-8), and the status of rounds that the caregivers undertake (Wildman column 3 lines 55-67), and
a patient experience module configured to receive information from the nurse call equipment, the locating equipment, and information about staffing assignments, update a staff load counter associated with a plurality of patients based on the information in real time and an average benchmark, generate a staffing optimization report that includes the staff load counter, staffing assignments and patient data (Wildman column 25 lines 4-33) , divide the plurality of patients into groups based on the staffing optimization report, and assign a new unassigned patient to a group with the lowest total staff load counter value (Wildman column 25 lines 4-33).
As to claim 11, see the discussion of claim 10, additionally, Wildman discloses the system wherein the patient experience module is configured to create the groups by computing a descending worst fit algorithm, rank the plurality of patients with a highest staff load counter to a lowest staff load counter, and divide the plurality of patients into groups based on an input parameter (Wildman column 25 lines 4-33).
As to claim 12, see the discussion of claim 10, additionally, Wildman discloses wherein the patient experience module is configured to assign the new patient to a group that minimizes bedside shift handoffs if there is a tie for the group with the lowest total staff load score (Wildman column 25 lines 4-33).
As to claim 13, see the discussion of claim 10, additionally, Wildman discloses wherein the information regarding types of nurse calls is used to calculate the staff load counter (Wildman column 25 lines 4-33).
As to claim 14, Wildman discloses a method of optimizing staffing for a plurality of caregivers to care for a plurality of patients comprising,
acquiring, using locating equipment, the location of each of the plurality of caregivers (Wildman column 6 lines 59-67 and column 7 lines 1-37),
acquiring, using nurse call equipment, call requests from patients located in patient rooms of the healthcare facility, the patient rooms being divided up into at least a first unit of the healthcare facility and a second unit of the healthcare facility, the nurse call equipment including at least one nurse call computer that keeps track of an amount of time it takes caregivers to respond to each nurse call and that keeps track of how long at least one caregiver is present in each patient room based on information received by the nurse call computer from the locating equipment to establish call response data by patient(Wildman column 7 lines 51-67, column 4 lines 1-8, and column 3 lines 55-67), and
utilizing a patient experience module to consider the call response data to establish a patient care experience score and a staff load score (Wildman column 25 lines 4-33), and
when a patient experience score varies, notify the applicable caregiver of the variation of the patient care experience score to permit the caregiver to adjust staffing in real-time to improve the patient care experience score (Wildman column 25 lines 4-33 and column 3 lines 28-45).
As to claim 20, see the discussion of claim 14, additionally, Wildman discloses the method wherein the patient experience module divides patients into groups, and assigns a new unassigned patient to a group with the lowest total staff load counter value (Wildman column 25 lines 4-33).
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.
Claim(s) 2-6, 8, 15-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 10,068,461 to Wildman et al.
As to claim 2-6, 8, see the discussion of claim 1. However, Wildman does not explicitly teach that a counter is increased based on an employee performing particular metrics for a particular period of time. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to structure a point system using any desired metric as an indicator of employee performance or patient satisfaction using the data collected by Wildman with the claimed product merely arranging known elements in a configuration functionally equivalent to a known configuration. See In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975).
As to claim 15-19 see the discussion of claim 1. However, Wildman does not explicitly teach that a counter is increased based on an employee performing particular metrics. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to structure a point system using any desired metric as an indicator of employee performance or patient satisfaction using the data collected by Wildman with the claimed product merely arranging known elements in a configuration functionally equivalent to a known configuration. See In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/29/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues with respect to the 101 rejection that because the steps are performed in real time they can not be practically performed in the human mind. This feature amounts to no more than instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computing environment. That is, it is merely an instruction to use a computer to perform the abstract idea, which is analyzed in prong two. Applicant argues that updating in real time, preparing a report, and issuing a notification provide a practical application. Preparing a report, and issuing a notification are part of the abstract idea and cannot provide a practical application. Instructions to process data in real time amounts to no more than instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computing environment. Applicant argues that the claim enhances patient treatment and provides care. These features are not claimed.
With respect to the 102 rejection applicant argues that Wildman does not teach a patient experience report and a staff optimization report comprising the patient experience counter. (Examiner notes that the quoted claim language in bold on page 11 differs from the claims submitted 12/29). Applicant does not provide a special definition of a patient experience counter (only that it is “based on the information received” in the prior step). Wildman teaches “The nurse call equipment may include at least one nurse call computer that keeps track of the following key performance parameters: (1) a number of calls, (2) an amount of time it takes caregivers to respond to each nurse call, (3) a number of times at least one caregiver enters a patient room of a respective patient, and (4) how long at least one caregiver is present in each patient room. The key performance parameters may be determined by the nurse call computer based on information received from other nurse call equipment and received from the locating equipment. The system may further have a patient experience module that may initiate an alert to provide a notification that any one or more of the key performance parameters may exceed a respective parameter threshold.” A report displaying more than one key performance parameters meets applicants argued counter affected by multiple variables (not claimed.) Applicant argues that Wildman does not teach a generation of a report based on a staff counter or the division of patient into groups based on such a report. Wildman teaches divide the plurality of patients into groups based on the staffing optimization report (patient needs scores) (Wildman column 25 lines 1-33).
The rejections are therefore maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Eliza Lam whose telephone number is (571)270-7052. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-4:30PST.
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, Peter Choi can be reached at 469-295-9171. 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.
/ELIZA A LAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3681
Prosecution Insights