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 .
The following is a non-final, first office action on the merits, in response to application filed 5/3/2024. Claims 1-15 have been examined and are currently pending.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for a provisional application filed on 5/4/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5/3/3024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Alice Corp. also establishes that the same analysis should be used for all categories of claims, regardless of a system/apparatus, a method, or a product claim.
The claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) abstract ideas including “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”, “an idea of itself”, “mental process” which have been identified/found by the courts as abstract ideas in new 101 memos of the subject matter eligibility in here (https://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/subject-matter-eligibility) including 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because It/they is/are recited at a high level of generality and/or are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in the computer applications:
Independent claim 13 (Step 2A, Prong I): is directed to multiple abstract ideas including “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”, “an idea of itself”, and “Mental process”.
Claim 13, Steps of,
receiving, via a controller having a processor and a memory, one or more patient encounter records, wherein each one of the one or more patient encounter records comprises patient attribute data and patient length of stay (LoS) data;
generating, via an LoS estimation model of the controller, one or more LoS estimations based on the patient attribute data of each of the one or more patient encounter records; and
generating, via a metric analyzer of the controller, one or more evaluation metrics based on the one or more LoS estimations and the patient LoS data of each of the one or more patient encounter records.
falls within “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract idea because these steps mainly describe an idea itself. For example, a person may follow rules or instructions to observe/receive a patient’s records, observe/create/generate length of stay prediction based on a patient’s data, can observe/create/generate evaluation metrics based on length of stay information.
In addition, claim 13, steps mentioned above also falls within the abstract
“Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas since these limitation covers performance of the limitations in the mind or by paper and pen. For example,
observe/receive a patient’s records, observe/create/generate length of stay prediction based on a patient’s data, can observe/create/generate evaluation metrics based on length of stay information.
Further, steps of (“receiving….”) are considered as “insignificant extra-solution activity” to the judicial exception since they are merely receiving/collecting/providing data/data.
Independent claim 13, Step 2A (Prong II): Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea(s) as pointed out above. This judicial exception(s) is/are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements (via a controller having a processor and a memory) that are not significant more than the abstract ideas. The instant steps are not actually performed by a machine or a computer. Besides, reciting “via a controller”), nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind, and is simply organized information through human activity or merely mental tasks, and is part of, or a related, judicial exception and does not meaningfully limit the application of the identified judicial exception, and as such does not constitute significantly more.
There is no specificity regarding any technology, just broadly, execute the programming instructions to collect data, receive/generate data. The steps are mainly receiving data, generating/creating data. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, there is neither improvement to another technology or technical field nor an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Independent claim 13, (step 2B):
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea(s) as pointed out above. There are no additional elements in claim 13 actually perform the steps. The additional element (“a controller having a processor and a memory”), is recited at a high level of generality, and add nothing of substance to the underlying abstract idea; thus, they are not significantly more than the identified abstract idea.
In light of the specification, ([0012, 0020, 0025]), the components are merely recited at a high level of generality and/or are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in the computer applications; thus, they are not significantly more than the identified abstract idea. Generic computer/device components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and convention activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. The use of generic computer components to receive/transmit/display information does not impose any meaningful limit on the computer implementation of the abstract idea. At best, the claim(s) are merely providing an environment to implement the abstract idea. (see analysis in claim 13).
According to MPEP 2106.05 (d), elements that the Courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity in particular fields are e.g., "Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward
information); Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93” (evidence required by Berkeimer memo). Further, according to Berkheimer memo 04/19/2018, section III.A.1, “A specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of additional elements when it describes the additional elements as well-understood or routine or conventional (or an equivalent term), as a commercially available product, or in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a)”.
Dependent claims 14-15, are merely add further details of the abstract steps/elements recited in claim 13 without including an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, dependent claims 14-15 are also non-statutory subject matter.
Independent claim 1: Alice Corp. also establishes that the same analysis should be used for all categories of claims. Therefore, independent system/apparatus claim 1 is also rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 for substantially the same reasons as the method claim(s) 13.
Further, the components (i.e., a controller having a processor and a memory, a system) described in independent claims 1, add nothing of substance to the underlying abstract idea. Similarly, as it relates to the computer system claims, the limitations appear to be performed by a generic computing system/device. These components are merely recited at a high level of generality and/or are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in the computer applications; thus, they are not significantly more than the identified abstract idea. Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and convention activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. The use of generic computer components to receive/access/create/generate /transmit/send/display information over communication network/internet does not impose any meaningful limit on the computer implementation of the abstract idea. At best, the claim(s) are merely providing an environment to implement the abstract idea. (see analysis in claim 13).
According to MPEP 2106.05 (d), elements that the Courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity in particular fields are e.g., "Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward
information); Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93” (evidence required by Berkeimer memo). Further, according to Berkheimer memo 04/19/2018, section III.A.1, “A specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of additional elements when it describes the additional elements as well-understood or routine or conventional (or an equivalent term), as a commercially available product, or in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a)”.
Applicant’s Specification, [0012, 0020, 0025] indicate a general-purpose/generic computer perform the instant steps and demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the information processing device (a processor/a memory/a computer) in any computing implementation. Thus, evidence has been provided to show these additional elements are well-understood, routine, conventional activity according to Berkheimer memo. Therefore, for the above mentioned reasons, viewed as a whole, even in combination, the above steps do not amount to significantly more/do not provide an inventive concept.
Dependent claims 2-12, are merely add further details of the abstract steps/elements recited in claim 1, without including an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, dependent claims 2-12 are also non-statutory subject matter.
Viewed as a whole, the claims (1-15) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Thus, the claims do NOT recite limitations that are “significantly more” than the abstract idea because the claims do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Thus, the claimed invention, as a whole, does not provide 'significantly more' than the abstract idea, and is non-statutory subject matter.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Bhavani (US 2021/0391062).
As per claim 1, 13, Bhavani discloses a system, a method, for infection treatment evaluation comprising a controller having a processor and a memory, wherein the controller is configured to:
receive one or more patient encounter records, wherein each of the one or more patient encounter records comprises patient attribute data and patient length of stay (LoS) data ([0017, 0020, 0025]);
generate, via an LoS estimation model, one or more LoS estimations based on the patient attribute data of each of the one or more patient encounter records (Fig. 3, item 316, 326, 336, Abstract, [0008, 0015--0018, 0025]); and
generate, via a metric analyzer, one or more evaluation metrics based on the one or more LoS estimations and the patient LoS data of each of the one or more patient encounter records (Fig. 2, [0024, 0027—0028, 0029]).
As per claim 2, 14, Bhavani further discloses, further comprising a user interface configured to display at least a portion of the one or more evaluation metrics (Fig. 2, [0013, 0027, 0028]).
As per claim 3, Bhavani further discloses, wherein the controller is further configured to extract, via a feature extractor, at least a portion of the one or more patient encounter records from contemporary electronic medical records (EMR) ([0025]).
As per claim 4, Bhavani further discloses, wherein the patient attribute data comprises vital sign data, patient demographic data, laboratory data, medical condition data, infection type data, medication administration data, and/or discharge type ([0017, 0020, 0025]).
As per claim 5, 15, Bhavani further discloses, wherein the controller is further configured to train the LoS estimation model with a plurality of historical encounter records, wherein each of the plurality of historical encounter records comprises historical attribute data and historical recovery data (Abstract, Fig. 3, Day 1, Admitting, Day 3, Discharge, [0022, 0025, 0028, 0029], claim 19).
As per claim 6, Bhavani further discloses, wherein the historical recovery data comprises right-censored recovery data corresponding to patient discharge prior to recovery (Fig. 3, Day 1, Admitting, Day 3, Discharge, [0028--0030]).
As per claim 7, Bhavani further discloses, wherein the historical attribute data comprises historical vital sign data, historical demographic data, historical laboratory data, historical medical condition data, historical infection type data, historical medication administration data, and/or historical discharge type (Fig. 3, [0020, 0025, 0028]).
As per claim 8, Bhavani further discloses, wherein the controller is further configured to extract, via a feature extractor, at least a portion of the plurality of historical encounter records from historical electronic medical records (EMR) ([0025, 0038]).
As per claim 9, Bhavani further discloses, wherein the controller is further configured to generate, via the plurality of historical encounter records, a concordance index value of the LoS estimation model ([0018, 0024, 0025, 0027], claim 11).
As per claim 10, Bhavani further discloses, wherein the controller is further configured to divide the plurality of historical encounter records into five folds ([0018, 0020, 0025, As LOS engine 110 considers local demographic and social data, it is uniquely able to tune its predictions to the specific ecosystem and environment of any given healthcare facility, for example considering local age of population, local risk factors, local
nursing homes, or local skilled nursing facilities]).
As per claim 11, Bhavani further discloses, wherein the plurality of historical encounter records is divided in the five folds based on historical gender and historical discharge type (Fig. 2, item 220, status ring, [0024, 0027]).
As per claim 12, Bhavani further discloses, wherein the controller is further configured to adjust one or more regularization parameters of the LoS estimation model based on the concordance index value (Fig. 2, item 220, status ring, [0018, 0024, 0025, 0027], claim 10).
The prior art made of record and relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Khotilovich et al. (US 2023/0215552, describes extracting feature values from patient data in an electronic health record of the target patient; and determining, utilizing a machine learning model, predicting patient qualification for application of coordinated healthcare resources).
Bellin et al. (US 2009/0076845, providing management of health care in medical facilities such as hospitals, clinics, emergency rooms, etc., for example by monitoring and assessing the quality of patient care. Data is collected and operated on relating to medical conditions, treatment, cost, care, events, outcomes and results of treatments, and data representing the collective experience of similar patients is mined to discover opportunities to improve the quality of health care).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUN M LI whose telephone number is (571)270-5489. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thurs, 8:30am--5pm. Fax is 571-270-6489.
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 on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Should you have questions on access to the Patent Center system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SUN M LI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3685