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 .
DETAILED ACTION
The present office action represents the first action on the merits.
Claims 1-30 are pending.
Priority
This application claims priority to U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 63/518,241 dated 08 August 2023.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(I) because the following figure(s) is/are unreadable and/or are unsatisfactory for reproduction:
Fig. 13B-13D, 14B-14D, 15B-15D, 16B, 18B, 18C, 19B, 19C, 20B, 21B.
The drawings are further objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(3) because following figure(s) contain text that is smaller than the permissible limit of 1/8”:
Fig. 13B-13D, 14B-14D, 15B-15D, 16B, 18B, 18C, 19B, 19C, 20B, 21B.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 8, 18, 28 are objected to because they recite the abbreviation “ML.” All acronyms or abbreviations should be written out for clarity, whether or not they may be considered well known. Appropriate corrections/clarification required.
Claims 9, 19, 29 are objected to because they recite the abbreviation “AI.” The first instance of all acronyms or abbreviations should be written out for clarity, whether or not they may be considered well known. Appropriate corrections/clarification required.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement(s) (lDS) submitted on
05 November 2025,
22 August 2025,
07 November 2024,
08 January 2025, and
30 April 2025
is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and has/have been fully 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 11-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 11 is rejected because it does not sufficiently recite a non-transitory computer readable storage medium. The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is obliged to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification during proceedings before the USPTO. See In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319(Fed. Cir. 1989) (during patent examination the pending claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow). The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer readable medium (also called machine readable medium and other such variations) typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media, particularly when the specification is silent. See MPEP 2111.01. When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (transitory embodiments are not directed to statutory subject matter) and Interim Examination Instructions for Evaluating Subject Matter Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. §101, Aug. 24, 2009; p. 2. See also, Specification at Para. 0513 describing the computer-readable medium as a signal.
The USPTO recognizes that applicants may have claims directed to computer readable media that cover signals per se, which the USPTO must reject under 35 U.S.C. §101 as covering both non-statutory subject matter and statutory subject matter. In an effort to assist the patent community in overcoming a rejection or potential rejection under 35 U.S.C. §101 in this situation, the USPTO suggests the following approach. A claim drawn to such a computer readable medium that covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. §101 by adding the limitation "non-transitory" to the claim. Cf. Animals – Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (suggesting that applicants add the limitation "non-human" to a claim covering a multi-cellular organism to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. §101). Such an amendment would typically not raise the issue of new matter, even when the specification is silent because the broadest reasonable interpretation relies on the ordinary and customary meaning that includes signals per se. The limited situations in which such an amendment could raise issues of new matter occur, for example, when the specification does not support a non-transitory embodiment because a signal per se is the only viable embodiment such that the amended claim is impermissibly broadened beyond the supporting disclosure. See, e.g., Gentry Gallery, Inc. v. Berkline Corp., 134 F.3d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
Claims 12-19 depend from Claim 11 and are rejected for the reasons noted in the rejection(s) of Claim 11, above.
Claims 1-30 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.
Claims 1, 11, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
The claim recites a method, computer-readable medium (“CRM”), and system for formulating an operations management report, which are within a statutory category (or are interpreted to be within a statutory category for subject matter eligibility analysis purposes; see non-transitory rejection, supra).
Step 2A1
The limitations of (Claim 1 being representative) monitoring one or more operations within a medical environment; generating an operations management report based, at least in part, upon the one or more operations monitored within the medical environment; and providing the operations management report to a user, wherein the operations management report includes one or more of: an operations management score, an explanation of the operations management score, and a justification for the operations management score, as drafted, is a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers certain methods of organizing human activity (i.e., managing personal behavior including following rules or instructions) but for recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a method, CRM, or system (a computer), the claimed invention amounts to managing personal behavior or interaction between people. For example, but for the computer, this claim encompasses a person collecting operations data, creating a report, and providing the report in the manner described in the identified abstract idea, supra. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or interactions between people but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A2
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of (Claim 1) a computer (though see 112(b) rejection, infra), (Claim 11) a CRM/processor, or (Claim 21) a processor/memory that implements the identified abstract idea. These items are not described by the applicant and are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., generic computer components) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. See Spec. Para. 0080. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
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 element of using (Claim 1) a computer, (Claim 11) a CRM/processor, or (Claim 21) a processor/memory to perform the noted steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”).
Claims 2-10, 12-20, and 22-30 are similarly rejected because they either further define/narrow the abstract idea and/or do not further limit the claim to a practical application or provide as inventive concept such that the claims are subject matter eligible even when considered individually or as an ordered combination.
Claim(s) 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 merely describe(s) a score that the report is based on, which further defines the abstract idea.
Claim(s) 7, 17, 27 merely describe(s) the user, which further defines the abstract idea.
Claim(s) 8, 9, 18, 19, 28, 29 merely describe(s) the data and how the report is generated, which further defines the abstract idea.
Claim(s) 8, 18, 28 also includes processing “by ML.” The Specification at Para. 00143 describe the recited ML as encompassing linear regression and decision trees. As such, the ML is interpreted to be part of the abstract idea because they fall under data manipulations that humans perform and thus are part of the rules or instructions for a person or persons to follow, i.e., they fall under Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.
Claim(s) 9, 19, 29 also includes the additional element of “prompt engineering” and an associated “generative AI model” which generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) and MPEP 2106.05(A) indicate that merely “generally linking” the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide a practical application or significantly more.
Further, and for completeness, the prior art of record indicates that generative AI in the form of Large Language Models (“LLM”) or Generative Pre-trained Transformer (“GPT”) models and associated prompt engineering are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field of data processing. See:
US 2025/0061351 to Domeniconi at Para. 0002;
US 2025/0021548 to Petersen at Para. 0008;
US 11,971,914 to Watson at Col. 3, Lns. 16-46;
US 2023/0368284 to Shelkh at Para. 0080.
US 2024/0427813 to Spuck at Para. 0261.
US 2024/0242040 to Cogswell at Para. 0029
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 2-6, 12-16, and 22-26 are rejected for lack of adequate written description.
Claims 2-6, 12-16, and 22-26 recite functional steps for which the Applicant has not adequately described the steps in sufficient detail for one of ordinary skill in the art to conclude that the Applicant had possession of the invention at the time of filing.
Specifically, the claims recite:
Claim 2 (being representative of claims 12 and 22): The computer-implemented method of claim 1 wherein the operations management report is based, at least in part, upon a patient acuity score.
Claim 3 (being representative of claims 13 and 23): The computer-implemented method of claim 1 wherein the operations management report is based, at least in part, upon a caregiver proficiency score.
Claim 4 (being representative of claims 14 and 24): The computer-implemented method of claim 1 wherein the operations management report is based, at least in part, upon a caregiver employee attrition risk score.
Claim 5 (being representative of claims 15 and 25): The computer-implemented method of claim 1 wherein the operations management report is based, at least in part, upon a unit/ facility operational efficiency score.
Claim 6 (being representative of claims 16 and 26): The computer-implemented method of claim 1 wherein the operations management report is based, at least in part, upon a benchmarking score.
The Applicant has provided no disclosure of how these scores are determined and thus how the report can be “based on” the scores.
Regarding the patient acuity score, the Specification at Para. 00436, 00495 describes information that may or may not be included in the determination of a patient acuity score; however, there is no description as to how the score is actually calculated/determined based on the described information. There is thus also no written description as to how the report is “based on” the patient acuity score. A person having skill in the art would not understand how to calculate the score based on Applicant’s lack of disclosure and thus would not understand how the report is based on the score.
Regarding the caregiver proficiency score, the Specification at Para. 00497 describes information that may or may not be included in the determination of a caregiver proficiency score; however, there is no description as to how the score is actually calculated/determined based on the described information. There is thus also no written description as to how the report is “based on” the caregiver proficiency score. A person having skill in the art would not understand how to calculate the score based on Applicant’s lack of disclosure and thus would not understand how the report is based on the score.
Regarding the caregiver employee attrition risk score, the Specification at Para. 00499 describes information that may or may not be included in the determination of a caregiver employee attrition risk score; however, there is no description as to how the score is actually calculated/determined based on the described information. There is thus also no written description as to how the report is “based on” the caregiver employee attrition risk score. A person having skill in the art would not understand how to calculate the score based on Applicant’s lack of disclosure and thus would not understand how the report is based on the score.
Regarding the unit/ facility operational efficiency score, the Specification at Para. 00501 describes information that may or may not be included in the determination of a unit/ facility operational efficiency score; however, there is no description as to how the score is actually calculated/determined based on the described information. There is thus also no written description as to how the report is “based on” the unit/ facility operational efficiency score. A person having skill in the art would not understand how to calculate the score based on Applicant’s lack of disclosure and thus would not understand how the report is based on the score.
Regarding the benchmarking score, the Specification at Para. 00503 describes information that may or may not be included in the determination of a benchmarking score; however, there is no description as to how the score is actually calculated/determined based on the described information. There is thus also no written description as to how the report is “based on” the benchmarking score. A person having skill in the art would not understand how to calculate the score based on Applicant’s lack of disclosure and thus would not understand how the report is based on the score.
As can be seen, there is no specific description as to how the various scores are calculated/determined and how the report might be “based on” these scores. As such, the claimed invention lacks adequate written description. MPEP 2161.01.
The Examiner prospectively notes that this written description rejection is not based on whether one skilled in the art would know how to program a computer to calculate/determine any form of the noted scores (i.e., an enablement rejection), but rather is directed to the Applicant’s lack of specificity as to how the calculate/determine of the noted scores is specifically performed with respect to the Applicant’s claimed invention
The Examiner further notes that how the operation management score is calculated/determined is also not described. See Specification Para. 00486, 00505, 00506. However, this score currently represents non-functional descriptive information because it is not functionally used by the claim, it is merely included in the report; the report is not based on it. Should the claim be amended such that the operation management score is functional within the claim, a written description rejection of the operation management score would be warranted.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10, 18, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 1-10 each recite a “computer-implemented method” without any recitation in the body of each of the claims describing which step is implemented by a computer or how the computer may be involved. Each of the limitations purely pertain to data manipulation without describing whether a computer may be involved in any particular step or how it may be involved. See, e.g., Ex Parte Langemyr, Appeal No. 2008-1495 at Pg. 20, 2008 Pat App. LEXIS 13 (B.P.A.I. May 28, 2008) (finding that nominal recitation of computer-implementation in the preamble is insufficient to tie the particular steps of the method to the computer). Accordingly, it is unclear where and to what extent the computer-implementation described in the preamble may take place within the body of the claim. The Examiner suggests reciting “wherein each of the following steps are performed by the computer” or similar language.
Claims 8, 18, 28 recite (Claim 8 being representative) “utilizing massive data sets processed by ML to generate the operations management report.” The term “massive” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “massive” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The Specification actually states at Para. 00139 that “The term ‘massive’ is relative and can vary depending on the context and available resources.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 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 of this title, 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) 1-8, 11-18, and 21-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ronen et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Patent Publication No. 2019/0073615) in view of Lancaster et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Patent Publication No. 2004/0249674).
REGARDING CLAIM 1
Ronen teaches the claimed computer-implemented method, executed on a computing device, [Para. 0068, 0081 teaches an operations management server computer.] comprising:
monitoring one or more operations […]; [Para. 0054 teaches compiling information from a variety of sources (monitoring). Para. 0129 teaches receiving or obtaining (i.e., monitoring) operational events for an organization.]
generating an operations management report based, at least in part, upon the one or more operations monitored […]; and , [Para. 0058, 0060, 0206 teaches determining an operations score based on one or more operations within the business and creating an interactive report therefrom.]
providing the operations management report to a user, [Para. 0141 teaches that the interactive report is provided to a user.]
wherein the operations management report includes one or more of:
an operations management score, [Para. 0058, 0060, 0141 teaches that an operations score (an operations management score, which is undefined) is included in one or more reports.]
an explanation of the operations management score, and
a justification for the operations management score.
The Examiner notes that Ronen at Para. 0032 describes an organization as “a business, a company, an association, an enterprise, a confederation, or the like,” which likely encompasses “a medical environment” (i.e., a hospital or doctor’s office); however, Lancaster has been cited for completeness.
Ronen may not explicitly teach
within a medical environment
within the medical environment
Lancaster at Para. 0013, 0016 teaches that it was known in the art of business analysis, at the time of filing, to monitor operations within a hospital and produce a report on the operations
within a medical environment [Lancaster at Para. 0013 teaches monitoring operations of a clinical facility such as a hospital (the organization of Ronen).]
within the medical environment [Lancaster at Para. 0013, 0016 teaches creating reports (interpreted to include the report to of Ronen) about the operation of the hospital.]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of business analysis, at the time of filing, to modify the business operations management report generation system of Ronen to monitor operations within a hospital and produce a report on the operations as taught by Lancaster, with the motivation of improving operational knowledge of a hospital environment.
REGARDING CLAIM 2
Ronen/Lancaster teaches the claimed computer-implemented method of Claim 1. Ronen/Lancaster further teaches
wherein the operations management report is based, at least in part, upon a patient acuity score. [Ronen at Para. 0258 teaches that the operations health score and thus the report is based on organizational health sub-scores, one of which is interpreted as a patent acuity score (which is not defined as to what it must or must not entail).]
REGARDING CLAIM 3
Ronen/Lancaster teaches the claimed computer-implemented method of Claim 1. Ronen/Lancaster further teaches
wherein the operations management report is based, at least in part, upon a caregiver proficiency score. [Ronen at Para. 0258 teaches that the operations health score and thus the report is based on organizational health sub-scores, one of which is interpreted as a caregiver proficiency score (which is not defined as to what it must or must not entail).]
REGARDING CLAIM 4
Ronen/Lancaster teaches the claimed computer-implemented method of Claim 1. Ronen/Lancaster further teaches
wherein the operations management report is based, at least in part, upon a caregiver employee attrition risk score. [Ronen at Para. 0258 teaches that the operations health score and thus the report is based on organizational health sub-scores, one of which is interpreted as a caregiver employee attrition risk score (which is not defined as to what it must or must not entail). Further, Ronen at Para. 0137, 0140 teaches that the operations health score includes operations health scores that are indicative of an employee quitting (a caregiver employee attrition risk score).]
REGARDING CLAIM 5
Ronen/Lancaster teaches the claimed computer-implemented method of Claim 1. Ronen/Lancaster further teaches
wherein the operations management report is based, at least in part, upon a unit/ facility operational efficiency score. [Ronen at Para. 0258 teaches that the operations health score and thus the report is based on organizational health sub-scores, one of which is interpreted as a unit/ facility operational efficiency score (which is not defined as to what it must or must not entail).]
REGARDING CLAIM 6
Ronen/Lancaster teaches the claimed computer-implemented method of Claim 1. Ronen/Lancaster further teaches
wherein the operations management report is based, at least in part, upon a benchmarking score. [Ronen at Para. 0258 teaches that the operations health score and thus the report is based on organizational health sub-scores, one of which is interpreted as a benchmarking score (which is not defined as to what it must or must not entail).]
REGARDING CLAIM 7
Ronen/Lancaster teaches the claimed computer-implemented method of Claim 1. Ronen/Lancaster further teaches
wherein the user includes one or more of:
a manager of the medical environment; [Ronen at Para. 0224 teaches that the user is a manager. Lancaster at Para. 0016 teaches that the user is a unit director (interpreted as a manager).]
a supervisor of the medical environment; and [Ronen at Para. 0240, 0246 teaches that the user is an organizational leader (a supervisor). Lancaster at Para. 0016 teaches that the use is a medical director (interpreted as a supervisor of the medical environment).]
an owner of the medical environment.
REGARDING CLAIM 8
Ronen/Lancaster teaches the claimed computer-implemented method of Claim 1. Ronen/Lancaster further teaches
wherein generating an operations management report includes: utilizing massive data sets processed by ML to generate the operations management report. [Ronen at Para. 0048, 0049, 0158, 0188, 0198 teaches that the operations health model and operations health sub-score model, both of which are used to generate the operational score and thus the report, are generated using machine learning and/or linear regression (see Spec. Para. 00143 describe the recited ML as encompassing linear regression). The amount of data utilized by the machine learning models is interpreted to be massive, there being no indication as to what this entails.]
REGARDING CLAIM(S) 11-18
Claim(s) 11-18 is/are analogous to Claim(s) 1-8, thus Claim(s) 11-18 is/are similarly analyzed and rejected in a manner consistent with the rejection of Claim(s) 1-8.
REGARDING CLAIM(S) 21-28
Claim(s) 21-28 is/are analogous to Claim(s) 1-8, thus Claim(s) 21-28 is/are similarly analyzed and rejected in a manner consistent with the rejection of Claim(s) 1-8.
Claim(s) 9, 10, 19, 20, 29, and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ronen et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Patent Publication No. 2019/0073615) in view of Lancaster et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Patent Publication No. 2004/0249674) in view of Galusha et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Patent Publication No. 2024/0070585).
REGARDING CLAIM 9
Ronen/Lancaster teaches the claimed computer-implemented method of Claim 1. Ronen/Lancaster further teaches
wherein generating an operations management report includes: utilizing a […] model to generate the operations management report. [Ronen at Para. 0049, 0058, 0140, Claim 1 teaches that the operational score is output by the operations model and the score is used to create the report.]
Ronen/Lancaster may not explicitly teach
a generative AI model
Galusha at Para. 0025, 0039, 0051, 0108, 0109 teaches that it was known in the art of report generation, at the time of filing, to generate a user interface displaying an assessment of hospital facilities using a GPT model
a generative AI model [Galusha at Para. 0025, 0039, 0051, 0108, 0109 teaches using foundational model systems that includes a generative pre-trained transformer (“GPT”) model (by definition a generative AI model) to produce a user interface that displays hospital data (the report of Ronen) that provides an assessment of hospital facilities.]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of business analysis, at the time of filing, to modify the business operations management report generation system of Ronen having the monitoring of operations within a hospital and produce a report on the operations of Lancaster to generate a user interface displaying an assessment of hospital facilities using a GPT model as taught by Galusha, with the motivation of providing actionable insights for improved performance, quality, patient safety and reduced costs (see Galusha at Para. 0003).
REGARDING CLAIM 10
Ronen/Lancaster/Galusha teaches the claimed computer-implemented method of Claims 1 and 9. Ronen/Lancaster/Galusha further teaches
wherein utilizing a generative AI model to generating the operations management report includes: utilizing prompt engineering and the generative AI model to generating the operations management report. [Galusha at Para. 0109 teaches that the GPT model of the invention utilities prompt engineering to produce a result (i.e., the user interface).]
The Examiner notes that prompt engineering is something performed by a user of the generative AI rather than the computer (see Spec. Para. 00358, 00428); however, the claim is merely “utilizing” prompt engineering (i.e., user input) to generate the report via generative AI and thus there is currently no indefiniteness issue.
REGARDING CLAIM(S) 19 AND 20
Claim(s) 19 and 20 is/are analogous to Claim(s) 9 and 10, thus Claim(s) 19 and 20 is/are similarly analyzed and rejected in a manner consistent with the rejection of Claim(s) 9 and 10.
REGARDING CLAIM(S) 29 AND 30
Claim(s) 29 and 30 is/are analogous to Claim(s) 9 and 10, thus Claim(s) 29 and 30 is/are similarly analyzed and rejected in a manner consistent with the rejection of Claim(s) 9 and 10.
Conclusion
Prior art made of record though not relied upon in the present basis of rejection are noted in the attached PTO 892 and include:
Gupta et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Patent Publication No. 2024/0029848) which discloses generating text reports using generative models.
Gonzales, Jr et al. (U.S. Patent No. 8,666,774) which discloses a system for clinical decision making by measuring core compliance documentation.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON S TIEDEMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4594. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00am-4:00pm, off alternate Fridays.
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, Robert Morgan can be reached at 571-272-6773. 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.
/JASON S TIEDEMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3683