DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on March 26, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1, 4, 13, 15, and 19 have been amended. Claim 2-3, 5-12, 14, and 16-18 have not been modified. Claims 20 and 21 have been cancelled. Claims 1-19 are pending and are provided to be examined upon their merits.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on March 26, 2026 have been considered but are not fully persuasive. Response has been provided below.
Applicant argues 35 U.S.C. §101 Rejections, pg. 7 of Remarks:
Regarding Step 2A, Prong Two, Applicant argues that the claims provide a practical application by improving healthcare facility systems, specifically by “improv[ing] upon conventional healthcare facility management systems that rely on manual observation and subjective assessment by providing an automated, data-driven analysis mechanism that integrates input data from multiple healthcare facility systems (…) to generate objective burden scores and issue alerts with integrated interactive functionality.” Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Mere automation of manual processes does not constitute an improvement to the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field, as noted in MPEP 2106.05(a)I. In the present application, healthcare facility systems are applied to perform an insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) to perform and improve upon the abstract idea of generating burden scores to alert overburdened caregivers, which is an abstract idea of managing staff workloads (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)(III) stating “it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology. For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology.”).
Applicant further argues that the claims improve healthcare facility computer systems function by providing new technical capabilities for real-time workload monitoring and interactive alert generation. Examiner respectfully disagrees, as the new technical capabilities are solutions provided to solve a problem that is abstract in nature, not technical. This assertion is supported by [0001] of Applicant specification, which identify staff workload and stress as the issues that are to be solved rather than a technical barrier that was overcome in computing technologies (“some caregivers have an unequal patient workload that requires more attention than other caregivers. Unequal patient workloads can cause increased stress for caregivers while decreasing a healthcare facility’s efficiency in treating patients.”). Please see MPEP 2106.05(a)I for examples of improvements to computer functionality.
Applicant further argues that the “selectable element” that performs actions including “reassignment of the patient to another caregiver” reflects an improvement that goes beyond mere data display. Examiner agrees with Applicant that reassignment of a patient is not mere data display. However, it is an action that is directed to an abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity as managing personal behaviors. Reassignment of patients is a human activity typically performed by supervisors or managers in healthcare environments. Any computing devices or selectable elements are only applied to perform the abstract idea.
Examiner further disagrees with Applicant’s parallels with Ex Parte Desjardins. The decision is specific to the facts before the Appeals Review Panel and follows the subject matter eligibility analysis set forth in MPEP 2106. As found by the Panel, the claimed “training strategy allows the model to preserve performance on earlier tasks even as it learns new ones, directly addressing the technical problem of 'catastrophic forgetting' in continual learning systems" represents “technical improvements over conventional systems by addressing challenges in continual learning and model efficiency by reducing storage requirements and preserving task performance across sequential training.” This analysis represents implementation of the practical application-“improvement” analysis of MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) to the facts before the Panel. Applicant’s claims provide no such technical improvement to machine learning or any other technical field.
Regarding Applicant assertion of not considering the additional elements of the claims in an ordered combination, Examiner respectfully disagrees. The combination of additional elements, as recited in claim 1, are only the processing device, memory device, caregiver call system, and real-time locating system. The functions of these elements (analyzing call frequency data, determining patient burden scores, calculating caregiver workloads, and issuing interactive alerts) are considered part of the abstract idea and are not relevant under the consideration of the combination of additional elements. Examiner notes that receiving healthcare facility input data from multiple systems is instead an insignificant extra-solution activity of gathering data performed by the processor in conjunction with the multiple systems (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Regarding Step 2B, Applicant argues that the steps of the claim reinforce a non-conventional and non-generic arrangements of known elements. However, the consideration under Step 2B is if the additional elements, alone or in combination, (at least one processing device, memory device, caregiver call system, real-time locating system) are well-understood, routine and conventional in the field – the novelty of the abstract idea is not considered relevant under the Step 2B analysis. Here, the additional elements, alone or in combination, amount to instruction to implement the abstract idea by applying a general purpose computer to data received from a generic caregiver call system and real-time locating system. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 1357 (2014).
Regarding Berkheimer and requiring evidence, Examiner notes that evidence has been provided using Applicant’s specification on pages 10-12 of the previous Office Action provided on December 12, 2025.
Regarding addressing a specific technical problem, Examiner submits that the problem identified by Applicant is abstract in nature, not technical; as noted above.
Regarding Desjardins, Examiner notes that the Desjardins decision has no bearing on the examination of the instant application as the fact patterns of Desjardins are specific to technical improvements in the training of machine learning models, which is not relevant to the present application.
Regarding the reminder on deciding whether to make an SME Rejection, Examiner thanks Applicant for the reminder. However, the present application is not a “close call”. As such, the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection is maintained.
Applicant argues 35 U.S.C. §103 Rejections, pg. 16 of Remarks:
Applicant argues that Janssen in view of Wiggermann does not teach the amended limitations. Applicant argument is moot as a new reference is supplied below to address the claim amendments.
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 1-19 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.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria – Step 1:
The claims recite subject matter within a statutory category as a process and a machine
(claims 1-19). Accordingly, claims 1-19 are all within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria – Step 2A – Prong One:
Regarding Prong One of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, the claim limitations are to be analyzed to determine whether, under their broadest reasonable interpretation they “recite” a judicial exception or in other words whether a judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claims. MPEP §2106.04(II)(A)(1). An “abstract idea” judicial exception is subject matter that falls within at least one of the following groupings: a) certain methods of organizing human activity, b) mental processes, and /or c) mathematical concepts. MPEP §2106.04(a).
The Examiner has identified system Claim 1 and device claim 19 as the claims that represents the claimed invention for analysis; claim 1 being similar to method claim 13.
Claim 1:
A caregiver workload management system comprising:
at least one processing device; and
a memory device storing instructions which, when executed by the at least one processing device, cause the at least one processing device to:
receive healthcare facility input data from healthcare facility systems including a caregiver call system;
analyze the healthcare facility input data to determine a frequency of calls by a patient based on data from the caregiver call system;
determine a patient burden score based on at least the frequency of calls by the patient;
determine a caregiver workload score based on a plurality of patient burden scores determined for a plurality of patients assigned to a caregiver; and
issue an alert when the caregiver workload score exceeds a threshold value, wherein the alert includes an element that is selectable to perform one or more actions, wherein the one or more actions include reassignment of the patient to another caregiver;
wherein the healthcare facility systems include a real-time locating system (RTLS), and wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processing device, further cause the at least one processing device to:
analyze location data from the RTLS to determine whether time spent by the caregiver with the patient is changing, and wherein the alert further includes another element that when selected displays information showing whether the time spent by the caregiver with the patient is changing.
These above limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity under managing personal behaviors of people. The claim elements are directed towards analyzing data to determine patient burden scores, determining caregiver burden scores based on patient burden, and issuing an alert when the caregiver burden score exceeds a threshold value for the purpose of monitoring and managing workload of caregivers and how much time they spend with their patients, which is managing the interactions between patients and their caregivers. Furthermore, the steps of the claim can be performable by a hospital staffing manager.
Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
Claim 13 is abstract for similar reasons.
Claim 19:
A device for managing caregiver workload in a healthcare facility, the device comprising:
at least one processing device; and
a memory device storing instructions which, when executed by the at least one processing device, cause the at least one processing device to:
receive an overburden alert indicating at least one caregiver workload score exceeds a threshold value, the at least one caregiver workload score associated with at least one caregiver on shift in the healthcare facility, the at least one caregiver workload score being generated based on a plurality of patient burden scores determined for a plurality of patients assigned to the at least one caregiver, each patient burden score of the plurality of patient burden scores being generated based on at least a frequency of calls by a patient determined from data collected by a caregiver call system;
analyze location data from a real-time locating system (RTLS) to determine whether time spent by the caregiver with a particular patient is changing;
present the overburden alert to the at least one caregiver, overburden alert including a first element that is selectable to perform one or more actions, wherein the one or more actions include reassignment of one or more patients from the at least one caregiver to another caregiver on shift in the healthcare facility, and wherein the overburden alert further includes a second element that when selected displays information showing whether the time spent by the caregiver with the particular patient is changing; and
update a workload assigned to the at least one caregiver based on a selection of the first element in the overburden alert.
These above limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity under managing personal behaviors of people. The claim elements are directed towards managing workload of an employee on shift and monitoring a caregiver’s time spent with patients, which is managing the personal behaviors of the caregiver and their work burden. The claim also recites presenting the alert to the caregiver, which is an interaction between a caregiver and their device.
Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria – Step 2A – Prong Two:
Regarding Prong Two of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, it must be determined whether the claim as a whole integrates the idea into a practical application. As noted at MPEP §2106.04 (ID)(A)(2), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.” MPEP §2106.05(I)(A).
Additional elements cited in the claims:
at least one processing device (1-2,5,79,11-12,19); memory device (1,19); caregiver call system (1,4,13,15,19); electronic medical records (EMR) system (4,15); admission, discharge, and transfer (ADT) system (4,15); real-time locating system (RTLS), (1,4,13,15,19); an artificial intelligence model (10,11); device (19)
Any computing devices (processing device, device) that would be able to perform the method and the modules that are used within the computing environment are taught at a high level of generality such that the claim elements amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using any generic component capable of performing the claim limitations. [0018] of Applicant specification recites: “Each of the caregivers C operate a communications device 102 on which a caregiver workload management application 112 is installed or is accessible. Examples of the communications devices 102 can include smartphones, tablet computers, or other type of portable computing devices. In further examples, the communications devices 102 can include workstation computers.” As no limitation exists on the type of computer, the Examiner asserts that no specific, technical improvements are being made to computing devices as generic devices with software modules are simply being used to perform the abstract idea.
Machine learning is also taught at a high level of generality. [0049] of Applicant specification recites: “In some examples, this includes utilizing artificial intelligence models 408 to process the healthcare facility input data 300 and generate caregiver workload management outputs 404. The artificial intelligence models 408 can be applied to process the healthcare facility input data 300 to generate the caregiver workload management outputs 404 for certain applications. For instance, a machine learning algorithm can be trained using healthcare facility input data 300 from a large number of patients P. Examples of applications using artificial intelligence are illustrated and described in further detail with respect to FIGS. 5-9.” No specific, technical improvements are being made to the field of machine learning as any generic model is simply applied to perform the abstract idea of analyzing data to determine caregiver burden and how much time they spend with their patients.
Memory devices are also taught at a high level of generality. [0050] of Applicant specification recites: “The system memory 402 includes one or more memories configured to store the healthcare facility input data 300 received via the communications network 116 and the caregiver workload management outputs 404. The system memory 402 can be of various types, including volatile and nonvolatile, removable, and non-removable, and/or persistent media. In some examples, the system memory 402 is an erasable programmable read only memory (EPROM) or flash memory.” No specific, technical improvements are being made to the field of memory devices as generic devices are applied to perform the insignificant extra-solution activities of storing and transmitting data.
Healthcare facility systems (electronic medical records (EMR) system, admission, discharge, and transfer (ADT) system, a real-time locating system (RTLS), a caregiver call system) are also taught at a high level of generality. [0039] of Applicant specification recites: “In certain examples, the one or more healthcare facility systems can include the examples illustrated and described above with reference to FIG. 1, such as the ADT system 108, the RTLS 110, the EMR system 124, and the caregiver call system 120. These systems generate the healthcare facility input data 300, which can be communicated to the caregiver workload management system 122 via the communications network 116.” No specific, technical improvements are being made to the healthcare facility systems as each system is applied to perform the insignificant extra-solution activity of gathering data.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole with the limitations reciting the at least one abstract idea, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea. MPEP §2106.05(I)(A) and §2106.04(IID)(A)(2).
The remaining dependent claim limitations not addressed above fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as set forth below:
Claim 2: This claim recites wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processing device, further cause the at least one processing device to: issue a recommendation when the caregiver workload score exceeds the threshold value; which is abstract as certain methods of organizing human activity under the managing personal behaviors sub-grouping due to issuing a recommendation when a caregiver is given an excessive workload.
Claim 3: This claim recites wherein the recommendation includes a redeployment of the caregiver, or the reassignment of the patient; which is abstract as certain methods of organizing human activity under the managing personal behaviors sub-grouping due to recommending deploying another worker or assigning a patient to a different worker.
Claims 4 and 15: These claims recite wherein the healthcare facility input data is received from at least one of an electronic medical records (EMR) system, an admission, discharge, and transfer (ADT) system, the RTLS, and the caregiver call system; which teaches healthcare facility systems at a high level of generality. This claim further teaches an insignificant extra-solution activity of selecting a data source for manipulation.
Claim 5 and 16: These claims recite wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processing device, further cause the at least one processing device to: generate a heat map that illustrates the patient burden score positioned within a floor plan of a healthcare facility; which teaches an abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity as illustrating levels of patient burden as related to location. Examiner notes the map is simply a display output, as described in Fig. 8 and [0080] of Applicant specification.
Claim 6: This claim recites wherein the heat map visually distinguishes the patient burden score from other patient burden scores in the floor plan; which only serves to limit the visualization of the heat map.
Claim 7: This claim recites wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processing device, further cause the at least one processing device to: continuously receive the healthcare facility input data; and update the patient burden score over time; which teaches an abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes, as a person is capable of continuously receiving data and updating scores over time.
Claim 8 and 17: These claims recite wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processing device, further cause the at least one processing device to: predict whether the patient burden score or the caregiver burden score is likely to increase or decrease; which teaches an abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity, as a person is capable of predicting whether a patient’s burden or a caregiver’s workload will increase or decrease over time.
Claim 9: This claim recites wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processing device, further cause the at least one processing device to: determine an average caregiver workload score from a plurality of caregiver workload scores calculated for a healthcare facility; and compare the caregiver workload score to the average caregiver workload score; which teaches an abstract idea of mathematical processes, as determining and analyzing average scores.
Claim 10: This claim recites wherein the healthcare facility input data is analyzed using an artificial intelligence model; which teaches artificial intelligence at a high level of generality, with no details as to what type of model it may be. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the model may include linear regression models, which are able to be determined using by human means.
Claim 11: This claim recites wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processing device, further cause the at least one processing device to: train the artificial intelligence model by receiving an input from the caregiver to validate or reject a recommendation based on the alert; which teaches training at a high level of generality, with no details as to how the model is trained using the input data.
Claim 12 and 18: These claims recite wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processing device, further cause the at least one processing device to: issue a recommendation to reassign the patient when the caregiver workload score exceeds a second caregiver workload score by a certain threshold; which is abstract as certain methods of organizing human activity under the managing personal behaviors sub-grouping due to recommending assigning a patient to a different worker.
Claim 14: This claim is rejected for the same reasons as claims 2 and 3, above.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria – Step 2B:
Regarding Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, representative independent claims do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for reasons the same as those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
These claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to discussion of integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception, add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, and generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field use. Additionally, the additional limitations, other than the abstract idea per se, amount to no more than limitations which:
Amount to elements that have been recognized as activities in particular fields (such as 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), MPEP §2106.05(d)(II)(i);storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, MPEP §2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, amount to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which amount to limitations consistent additional subject matter which amount to limitations consistent with the additional elements in the independent claims (such as claims 2-12 and 14-18 additional limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as activities in particular fields, claims 2-12 and 14-18, e.g., performing repetitive calculations, Flook, MPEP §2106.05(d)(II)(ii); claims 2-12 and 14-18, e.g., storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, MPEP §2106.05(d)(II)(iv). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Therefore, whether taken individually or as an ordered combination, claims 1-19 are nonetheless rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4, 7-10, 12-15, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Janssen (US 20200258624) in view of Wildman (US 20170287316).
Regarding claim 1, Janssen teaches a caregiver workload management system comprising:
at least one processing device ([0066], “the CMU 30 houses an assignment management module 42 comprising computer executable instructions housed in software 202 and executable by one or more processors 44 comprised in a processing system 206”); and
a memory device storing instructions which, when executed by the at least one processing device, cause the at least one processing device ([0070], “The central computing system 40 includes a processing system 206, storage system 204, software 202, and a communication interface 208. The processing system 206 loads and executes software 202 from the storage system 204, including the assignment management module 42, which is an application within the software 202.”)to:
receive healthcare facility input data from healthcare facility systems ([0053], “FIG. 1 depicts one exemplary embodiment of a centralized monitoring unit (CMU) 30 in communication with and receiving patient monitoring data, including alarm-related data, from multiple patient monitoring devices 16.” [0004], “clinicians who must divert time and attention from other care tasks or activities to attend to these alarms.”);
analyze the healthcare facility input data to determine a frequency of calls ([0036], “The load index for each monitoring technician station is calculated based on at least one of a number of alarms at the monitoring technician station”). Examiner notes that the alarms are functionally analogous to calls, as both are an alert that the patient requires attention from a clinician.
determine a patient score based on at least the frequency of calls by the patient ([0029], “FIG. 10 is a flow chart illustrating one such example where load index 72 is calculated based on patient-specific values. A patient burden value is calculated for each patient at step 180. The patient burden value may be calculated based on an alarm burden schedule as described herein. Referencing FIG. 3A as an example, a burden value may be calculated for each patient (e.g., patient 234, patient 345, etc.) based on the listed activity for that patient and using appropriate burden schedules.”);
determine a caregiver workload score based on a plurality of patient burden scores determined for a plurality of patients assigned to a caregiver ([0029], “In one embodiment, a patient burden value may be calculated for each patient, and the assignment management module 42 may then calculate the load index 72 for each MTS 32 as the total of the patient burden values for the patients assigned thereto.” [0017], “The CMU 30 includes two or more monitoring technician stations (MTSs) 32 (e.g., 32a-32c).”). Examiner interprets the MTS to be analogous to a caregiver, as monitoring patients is an important aspect of patient care in hospitals.
and issue an alert when the caregiver workload score exceeds a threshold value, wherein the alert includes an element that is selectable to perform one or more actions, wherein the one or more actions include reassignment of the patient to another caregiver ([0116], “Step 104 is executed to detect an overloaded MTS (e.g., 32a), after which at least one patient is removed from the overloaded MTS 32a at step 105 and reassigned to a different MTS 32b-32c at step 106—i.e., changing the MTS assignment 70 for that patient... In certain embodiments, the reassignment may be executed automatically by the central computing system 40 upon detecting an overloaded MTS, in other embodiments the central computing system may seek approval input from on or more CMU technicians 36 or an administrator prior to executing the reassignment.”).
Janssen does not teach wherein the healthcare facility systems include a caregiver call system; wherein the calls are by a patient based on data from the caregiver call system; and wherein the healthcare facility systems include a real-time locating system (RTLS), and wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processing device, further cause the at least one processing device to: analyze location data from the RTLS to determine whether time spent by the caregiver with the patient is changing, and wherein the alert further includes another element that when selected displays information showing whether the time spent by the caregiver with the patient is changing.
However, Wildman does teach wherein the healthcare facility systems include a caregiver call system; and wherein the calls are by a patient based on data from the caregiver call system ([0026], “nurse call equipment to receive nurse call requests from patients”);
wherein the healthcare facility systems include a real-time locating system (RTLS) ([0035], “using location technology such as RTLS system 12 to track time spent with patients by various caregivers”), and
wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processing device, further cause the at least one processing device ([0068], “software stored in memory of one or more of servers 26, 38, 46 and executed by the respective processors of the servers 26, 38, 46”) to:
analyze location data from the RTLS to determine whether time spent by the caregiver with the patient is changing, and wherein the alert further includes another element that when selected displays information showing whether the time spent by the caregiver with the patient is changing ([0069], “FIG. 2, at block 78 the patient experience module determines an amount of time that a caregiver spends in a patient's room during a response to a nurse call 20.” [0130], “FIG. 8 is an example of a fourth dashboard or scorecard 156 relating to staffing and time spent by caregivers with patients. In the Staffing section of dashboard 156, there are three columns including count, ratio and trend. In the Time Spent with Patient section of dashboard 156, there are four columns including Visits, Time, Average, and Average Trend.” [0127], “The right bar of the trend graph indicates the index value for the current shift and the three bars to the left of the current shift bar correspond to the index values of the preceding three shifts, respectively.”). Examiner notes that the trend shows that the time spent with patients is increasing in the current shift compared to previous shifts, which displays that the time spent by caregivers with the patient is changing. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, in the event that there is only one patient, the trend would display if the time spent with the patient is changing.
PNG
media_image1.png
257
587
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Janssen in view of Wildman are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of managing medical staff workload. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Janssen with Wildman for the advantage of “determin[ing] an amount of time that a caregiver spends in a patient's room during a response to a nurse call” (Wildman; [0069]).
Regarding claim 2, Janssen in view of Wildman teaches the system of claim 1. Janssen further teaches wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processing device, further cause the at least one processing ([0066], “the CMU 30 houses an assignment management module 42 comprising computer executable instructions housed in software 202 and executable by one or more processors 44 comprised in a processing system 206”) to:
issue a recommendation when the caregiver workload score exceeds the threshold value ([0055], “The load index 72 for a respective MTS 32 is determined based on the patient burden values, such as the sum of the patient burden values for the group of patients 5 assigned to a particular MTS 32. The load index 72 is then compared to a threshold at step 186 to identify whether there are any overloaded MTSs 32. Based on the MTS load indexes, the assignment management manager may then determine and provide, through optimization algorithms, reassignment recommendations, balancing the load levels of the MTSs in the CMU.”).
Regarding claim 3, Janssen in view of Wildman teaches the system of claims 1 and 2. Janssen does not teach wherein the recommendation includes a redeployment of the caregiver, or the reassignment of the patient ([0030], “that MTS 32 may be identified as an overloaded MTS indicating a need for reassignment of one or more patients in order to adjust the alarm load distribution.”).
Regarding claim 4, Janssen in view of Wildman teaches the system of claim 1. Janssen further teaches wherein the healthcare facility input data is received from at least one of an electronic medical records (EMR) system, an admission, discharge, and transfer (ADT) system, the RTLS, and the caregiver call system ([0031], “Alternatively or additionally, alarm probabilities 76 may be increased for a particular patient or patient monitoring device 16 based on the other active alarms for that patient 3 and/or based on patient information such as diagnosis or medical history.”).
Regarding claim 7, Janssen in view of Wiggerman teaches the system of claim 1. Janssen further teaches wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processing device, further cause the at least one processing device ([0066], “the CMU 30 houses an assignment management module 42 comprising computer executable instructions housed in software 202 and executable by one or more processors 44 comprised in a processing system 206”) to:
continuously receive the healthcare facility input data ([0024], “The continual monitoring for that patient over time may then be transferred to various MTSs 32a-32c based on a load index for each MTS 32a-32c, a forecasted load index for each MTS 32a-32c, an overall alarm load for the CMU 30, particular skill levels and/or expertise of CMU technicians 36a-36c (who may change shifts, etc.), or any other various factors disclosed herein.”); and
update the patient burden score over time ([0108], “the assignment management module 42 may employ machine learning algorithms to update the burden schedules 58, such as to update the expected response durations and/or expected documentation duration values in the burden schedule based on actual response times 78 for the various alarm types and actual documentation durations. Likewise, the complexity values may be updated, such as based on the technician response inputs 54 measured for certain alarm types compared to the expected response inputs reflected in the burden value schedule 58.”).
Regarding claim 8, Janssen in view of Wildman teaches the system of claim 1. Janssen further teaches wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processing device, further cause the at least one processing device ([0037], “The module 42 includes computer-readable instructions that, when executed by the computing system 40 (including the processing system 206), direct the processing system 206 to operate as described in herein in further detail”) to:
predict whether the patient burden score or the caregiver workload score is likely to increase or decrease ([0032], “Load rebalancing may further account for forecasted values indicating future load, and thus rebalancing may occur prior to a load index 72 exceeding a load threshold… the forecasted load index 74 may account for alarm probabilities 76, which indicate the probability of an alarm being generated within a predetermined future time period based on the patient monitoring data 50 or related patient information.” [0029], “A patient burden value is calculated for each patient at step 180. The patient burden value may be calculated based on an alarm burden schedule as described herein.” [0029], “The load index 72 for a respective MTS 32 is determined based on the patient burden values, such as the sum of the patient burden values for the group of patients 5 assigned to a particular MTS 32.”).
Regarding claim 9, Janssen in view of Wildman teaches the system of claim 1. Janssen further teaches wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processing device, further cause the at least one processing device ([0037], “The module 42 includes computer-readable instructions that, when executed by the computing system 40 (including the processing system 206), direct the processing system 206 to operate as described in herein in further detail”) to:
determine an average caregiver workload score from a plurality of caregiver workload scores calculated for a healthcare facility ([0046], “Either way, the load index determined based on the modified burden value already accounts for the various skill levels of the technicians, and any other burden factors dictated by the load threshold schedule 60 discussed above. Thus, the load indexes for the various MTSs 32 can be directly compared to one another in order to determine whether the load distribution needs to be adjusted. For example, the assignment management module 42 may be configured to determine a mean load index and compare the load indexes 72 for each MTS 32 to the mean value in order to identify one or more overloaded MTS and one or more low-load MST, which is represented at step 122.”); and
compare the caregiver workload score to the average caregiver burden workload ([0046], “Thus, the load indexes for the various MTSs 32 can be directly compared to one another in order to determine whether the load distribution needs to be adjusted. For example, the assignment management module 42 may be configured to determine a mean load index and compare the load indexes 72 for each MTS 32 to the mean value in order to identify one or more overloaded MTS and one or more low-load MST, which is represented at step 122.”).
Regarding claim 10, Janssen in view of Wildman teaches the system of claim 1. Janssen does not teach wherein the healthcare facility input data is analyzed using an artificial intelligence model ([0036], “the assignment management module 42 may be configured to automatically adjust the burden value schedules 58 based on actual occurrences and operation at the CMU 30. For example, the assignment management module 42 may employ machine learning algorithms to update the burden schedules 58”).
Regarding claim 12, Janssen in view of Wildman teaches the system of claim 1. Janssen further teaches wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processing device, further cause the at least one processing device ([0037], “The module 42 includes computer-readable instructions that, when executed by the computing system 40 (including the processing system 206), direct the processing system 206 to operate as described in herein in further detail”) to:
issue a recommendation to reassign the patient when the caregiver workload score exceeds a second caregiver workload score by a certain threshold ([0042], “The overloaded MTS and low-load MTS may be identified as MTS with load indexes that deviate from the mean by more than the threshold amount or threshold percentage. At the point, one or more patients are removed from the overloaded MTS and assigned to the low-load MST at step 123.”). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that if an overloaded caregiver’s score is above the mean by a certain threshold and a low-loaded caregiver’s score is below the mean by a certain threshold, then the score of the overloaded caregiver would be above the score of the low-loaded caregiver by at least the sum of the two threshold distances, which constitutes a difference threshold between the two caregiver burdens.
Regarding claims 13, 15, 17, and 18, these claims are rejected for the same reasons as claims 1, 4, 8, and 9, respectively.
Regarding claim 14, this claim is rejected for the same reasons as claims 2 and 3.
Regarding claim 19, Janssen teaches a device for managing caregiver workload in a healthcare facility, the device comprising:
at least one processing device; and a memory device storing instructions which, when executed by the at least one processing device, cause the at least one processing device ([0037], “The module 42 includes computer-readable instructions that, when executed by the computing system 40 (including the processing system 206), direct the processing system 206 to operate as described in herein in further detail” [0040], “The storage system 204 can include volatile and non-volatile, removable and non-removable media implemented in any method or technology for storage of information, such as computer-readable instructions, data structures, program modules, or other data.”) to:
receive an overburden alert indicating at least one caregiver workload score exceeds a threshold value, the at least one caregiver workload score associated with at least one caregiver on shift in the healthcare facility ([0017], “The CMU 30 includes two or more monitoring technician stations (MTSs) 32 (e.g., 32a-32c)… Each patient 3a-3c is assigned via the CMU 30 to one of the MTS 32a-32c such that each MTS 32a-32c has an assigned group of patients for which it facilitates monitoring by a respective CMU technician 36a-36c.” [0029], “The load index 72 is then compared to a threshold at step 186 to identify whether there are any overloaded MTSs 32.”). Examiner interprets a CMU technician to be a caregiver, as the technician performs caregiver tasks, such as assessing patient condition and taking vital sign measurements in accordance with [0026] of Applicant specification.
the at least one caregiver workload score being generated based on a plurality of patient burden scores determined for a plurality of patients assigned to the at least one caregiver, each patient burden score of the plurality of patient burden scores being generated based on at least a frequency of calls;
present the overburden alert to the at least one caregiver, the overburden alert including an element that is selectable to perform one or more actions, wherein the one or more actions include reassignment of one or more patients from the at least one caregiver to another caregiver on shift in the healthcare facility (claim 7, “generate an alert if the load index or the forecasted load index for any technician station exceeds the load threshold” [0044], the central computing system may seek approval input from on or more CMU technicians 36 or an administrator prior to executing the reassignment.” [0025], “the technician response inputs 54 may include window or button selections, information input, etc. via the user input device(s) 34 at the MTS 32. Such information may be tracked in order to determine what review and response actions have been taken by the CMU technician 36.”). Examiner interprets a threshold alert that seeks approval from the technician/caregiver to encompass presenting the alert to the caregiver.
and update a workload assigned to the at least one caregiver based on a selection of the element in the overburden alert ([0044], “The group of patients assigned to each MTS is accessed at step 102, and a load index is calculated at step 103 for each MTS 32. Step 104 is executed to detect an overloaded MTS (e.g., 32a), after which at least one patient is removed from the overloaded MTS 32a at step 105 and reassigned to a different MTS 32b-32c at step 106—i.e., changing the MTS assignment 70 for that patient… the central computing system may seek approval input from on or more CMU technicians 36 or an administrator prior to executing the reassignment”).
Janssen does not teach wherein the calls are by a patient determined from data collected by a caregiver call system; analyze location data from a real-time locating system (RTLS) to determine whether time spent by the caregiver with a particular patient is changing; and wherein the overburden alert further includes a second element that when selected displays information showing whether the time spent by the caregiver with the particular patient is changing.
However, Wildman does teach wherein the calls are by a patient determined from data collected by a caregiver call system ([0026], “nurse call equipment to receive nurse call requests from patients”);
analyze location data from a real-time locating system (RTLS) to determine whether time spent by the caregiver with a particular patient is changing (RTLS) ([0035], “using location technology such as RTLS system 12 to track time spent with patients by various caregivers”), and
wherein the overburden alert further includes a second element that when selected displays information showing whether the time spent by the caregiver with the particular patient is changing ([0069], “FIG. 2, at block 78 the patient experience module determines an amount of time that a caregiver spends in a patient's room during a response to a nurse call 20.” [0130], “FIG. 8 is an example of a fourth dashboard or scorecard 156 relating to staffing and time spent by caregivers with patients. In the Staffing section of dashboard 156, there are three columns including count, ratio and trend. In the Time Spent with Patient section of dashboard 156, there are four columns including Visits, Time, Average, and Average Trend.” [0127], “The right bar of the trend graph indicates the index value for the current shift and the three bars to the left of the current shift bar correspond to the index values of the preceding three shifts, respectively.”). Examiner notes that the trend shows that the time spent with patients is increasing in the current shift compared to previous shifts, which displays that the time spent by caregivers with the patient is changing. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, in the event that there is only one patient, the trend would display if the time spent with the patient is changing.
PNG
media_image1.png
257
587
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Janssen in view of Wildman are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of managing medical staff workload. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Janssen with Wildman for the advantage of “determin[ing] an amount of time that a caregiver spends in a patient's room during a response to a nurse call” (Wildman; [0069]).
Claims 5-6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Janssen (US 20200258624) in view of Wildman (US 20170287316) further in view of Kemp (US 20180197632).
Regarding claim 5, Janssen in view of Wildman teaches the system of claim 1. Janssen in view of Wildman does not teach wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processing device, further cause the at least one processing device to:
generate a heat map that illustrates the patient burden score positioned within a floor plan of a healthcare facility
However, Kemp does teach wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processing device, further cause the at least one processing device ([0], “”)to:
generate a heat map that illustrates the patient burden score positioned within a floor plan of a healthcare facility ([0002], “assessing staffing levels based on patient indicators” [0072], “As noted herein, the indicators can be used to assess the unique attributes of workload and/or care.” [0086], “Referring to FIG. 13, a schematic of a care unit 1300 showing rooms 1310-1340 and a nurse station 1305 is shown. A three-level coding scheme has been implemented and represented for illustration purpose by lines with decreased line reflecting a higher composite score for that particular patient. In practice, a three-level color coding scheme, e.g., red, yellow, green, can be implemented such that patients with higher composite scores can be coded red and patients with lower composite scores can be coded green.” [0131], “Patients' acuity and workload indicator scores are trended over time with composite patient indicator scores monitored prior to discharge.”). Examiner notes that as the composite scores may be used to reflect workload of each patient to determine staffing levels, the floor plan, as depicted in fig. 13 below, encompasses a heat map that illustrates patient burden scores.
PNG
media_image2.png
660
456
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Janssen in view of Wildman further in view of Kemp are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of managing medical staff workload. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Janssen in view of Wildman with Kemp for the advantage of “provid[ing] a visual indicator of the patient status in real time” (Kemp; [0081]).
Regarding claim 6, Janssen in view of Wildman further in view of Kemp teaches the system of claims 1 and 5. Janssen in view of Wildman does not teach wherein the heat map visually distinguishes the patient burden score from other patient burden scores in the floor plan.
However, Kemp does teach wherein the heat map visually distinguishes the patient burden score from other patient burden scores in the floor plan ([0086], “The composite score for the patient in room 1310 has decreased to the level where no shading is present”). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that each room in figs. 13 and 14, below, contains only one patient, based on the language describing room 1310. Thus, the differences in shading between rooms visually distinguishes patient workloads from each other.
PNG
media_image2.png
660
456
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
675
524
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 16, this claim is rejected for the same reasons as claim 5.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haspert (US 20210265065) further in view of Wildman (US 20170287316) in view of He (US 20210027878).
Regarding claim 11, Janssen in view of Wildman teaches the system of claims 1 and 10. Janssen in view of Wildman does not teach wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processing device, further cause the at least one processing device to:
train the artificial intelligence model by receiving an input from a caregiver to validate or reject a recommendation based on the alert.
However, He does teach wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processing device, further cause the at least one processing device ([0031], “A non-transitory storage medium stores (i) instructions which are readable and executable by the at least one electronic processor 20 of the first workstation 12 and to perform disclosed operations”) to:
train the artificial intelligence model by receiving an input from a caregiver to validate or reject a recommendation based on the alert ([0044], “The neural network of the RL system is trained in an ongoing adaptive fashion, based on positive or negative feedback, e.g. whether the proposed regimen update is accepted or rejected by the oncologist (or, in a more advance embodiment, based on an update rating assigned by the oncologist, e.g. between 1 and 5)... The feedback can be immediate (e.g. the physician accepts or rejects the update)”).
Janssen in view of Wildman further in view of He are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of patient care management. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Janssen in view of Wildman with He for the advantage of “train[ing] in an ongoing adaptive fashion” (He; [0028]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID CHOI whose telephone number is (571)272-3931. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 8:30-5:30 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, Shahid Merchant can be reached on (571)270-1360. 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.
/D.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3684
/Shahid Merchant/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3684
Prosecution Insights