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
In the amendment dated 11 May 2026, the following occurred: Claims 1 8, 9, 11, 18, 19, 21, 28, and 29 have been amended; Claims 2, 12, and 22 have been cancelled.
Claims 1, 3-11, 13-21, and 23-30 are pending.
Priority
This application claims priority to U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 63/518,241 dated 08 August 2023.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 11, and 21 are objected to because they recite “the operations management score” which lacks antecedent basis. Appropriate corrections/clarification required.
Claims 9, 19, and 29 are objected to because they recite
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement(s) (lDS) submitted on
28 April 2026,
09 March 2026, and
21 January 2026
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 1, 3-11, 13-21, and 23-30 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, wherein the operations management report is based, at least in part, upon a patient acuity score, and wherein monitoring one or more operations within a medical environment includes: monitoring a plurality of data signals associated with a plurality of patients over time, the one or more data signals associated with one or more medical devices utilized on a patient; calculating an acuity score for each of the plurality of patients including scoring each of a plurality of parameters based on each of the plurality of parameter's deviation from normal ranges; and providing the operations management report to a user, wherein the operations management report includes one or more of: 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) 3, 4, 5, 6, 13, 14, 15, 16, 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 1, 3-11, 13-21, and 23-30 are rejected for lack of adequate written description.
Claims 1, 3-6, 11, 13-16, 21, and 23-36 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 1 (being representative of claims 11 and 21): 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.
By virtue of their dependence from Claim 1, 11, or 21, this basis of rejection also applies to dependent Claims 3-10, 13-20, and 23-30.
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 8, 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 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, 3-8, 11, 13-18, 21, and 23-28 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 Cantillon et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Patent Publication No. 2023/0290454).
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 […], [Para. 0058, 0060, 0206 teaches determining an operations score based on one or more operations within the business and creating an interactive report therefrom.]
wherein the operations management report is based, at least in part, upon a patient acuity score, and […]; [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).]
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: […] [Para. 0058, 0060, 0141 teaches that an operations score (an operations management score, which is undefined) is included in one or more reports.]
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.
Rosen may not explicitly teach that the report includes
an explanation of the operations management score, and
a justification for the operations management score.
However, the limitation claims information/labels that do not result in a manipulative difference between the information/labels of the prior art and the functionally of the claimed method. The function taught by the prior art would be performed the same regardless of whether the information/labels was substituted with nothing. Because Ronen teaches outputting a report that includes information/labels, substituting the information/labels of the claimed invention for the information/labels of the prior art would be an obvious substitution of one known element for another, producing predictable results. Therefore, would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have substituted the information/labels applied to the stored data of the prior art with any other information/labels because the results would have been predictable. The Examiner notes that the data in the report is non-functional with respect to the claim.
Ronen may not explicitly teach
within a medical environment
within the medical environment
wherein monitoring one or more operations within a medical environment includes:
monitoring a plurality of data signals associated with a plurality of patients over time, the one or more data signals associated with one or more medical devices utilized on a patient;
calculating an acuity score for each of the plurality of patients including scoring each of a plurality of parameters based on each of the plurality of parameter's deviation from normal ranges; and
Cantillon at Para. 0038, 0041, 0044-0046, 0056, 0059 teaches that it was known in the art of hospital data analysis, at the time of filing, to monitor patient data streams within a hospital and provide a GUI indicating the acuity of each patient
within a medical environment [Cantillon at Para. 0038 teaches monitoring operations within a hospital.]
within the medical environment [Cantillon at Para. 0038 teaches displaying a GUI (a report; the interactive report of Ronen) for each hospital.]
wherein monitoring one or more operations within a medical environment includes: [Cantillon at Para. 0038 teaches monitoring patients within a hospital.]
monitoring a plurality of data signals associated with a plurality of patients over time, the one or more data signals associated with one or more medical devices utilized on a patient; [Cantillon at Para. 0041 teaches monitoring one or more data streams from monitoring equipment that describes a hospitalized patient. Cantillon at Para. 0044-0046 teaches that the monitoring is performed for multiple patients at a hospital.]
calculating an acuity score for each of the plurality of patients including scoring each of a plurality of parameters based on each of the plurality of parameter's deviation from normal ranges; and [Cantillon at Para. 0056 teaches calculating risk score for each patient that are representative of patient acuity. Thus, the risk score is interpreted as an acuity score. Cantillon at Para. 0056, 0059 teaches that the risk score is calculated by monitoring vital signs (each of a plurality of parameters) and comparing those to normal vital signs (i.e., normal ranges; the Examiner notes that vital signs are necessarily within a range).]
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 patient data streams within a hospital and provide a GUI indicating the acuity of each patient as taught by Cantillon, with the motivation of increasing operational efficiency of a hospital.
REGARDING CLAIM 3
Ronen/Cantillon teaches the claimed computer-implemented method of Claim 1. Ronen/Cantillon 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/Cantillon teaches the claimed computer-implemented method of Claim 1. Ronen/Cantillon 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/Cantillon teaches the claimed computer-implemented method of Claim 1. Ronen/Cantillon 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/Cantillon teaches the claimed computer-implemented method of Claim 1. Ronen/Cantillon 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/Cantillon teaches the claimed computer-implemented method of Claim 1. Ronen/Cantillon 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. Cantillon teaches that the user of the GUI (report) is a monitoring personnel (interpreted as a manager, the Examiner noting that “manager” is a non-functional label).]
a supervisor of the medical environment; and
an owner of the medical environment.
REGARDING CLAIM 8
Ronen/Cantillon teaches the claimed computer-implemented method of Claim 1. Ronen/Cantillon further teaches
wherein generating an operations management report includes: utilizing massive data sets processed by machine learning (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 AND 13-18
Claim(s) 11 and 13-18 is/are analogous to Claim(s) 1 and 3-8, respectively, thus Claim(s) 11 and 13-18 is/are similarly analyzed and rejected in a manner consistent with the rejection of Claim(s) 1 and 3-8.
REGARDING CLAIM(S) 21 AND 23-28
Claim(s) 21 and 23-28 is/are analogous to Claim(s) 1 and 3-8, respectively, thus Claim(s) 21 and 23-28 is/are similarly analyzed and rejected in a manner consistent with the rejection of Claim(s) 1 and 3-8.
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 Cantillon et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Patent Publication No. 2023/0290454) in view of Galusha et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Patent Publication No. 2024/0070585).
REGARDING CLAIM 9
Ronen/Cantillon teaches the claimed computer-implemented method of Claim 1. Ronen/Cantillon 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/Cantillon may not explicitly teach
a generative artificial intelligence (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 artificial intelligence (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 patient data streams within a hospital and providing of a GUI indicating the acuity of each patient of Cantillon 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/Cantillon/Galusha teaches the claimed computer-implemented method of Claims 1 and 9. Ronen/Cantillon/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.
Response to Arguments
Claim Objections
Regarding the objection(s) to Claims 8, 9, 18, 19, 28, and 29, the Applicant has amended the claims to overcome the basis/bases of objection.
Drawings
Regarding the drawing objection(s), the Applicant has submitted replacement drawings which have alleviated the drawing issues. The drawings are accepted.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101
Regarding the “non-transitory” rejection of Claims 11-19, the Applicant has amended the claims to overcome the basis of rejection.
Regarding the subject matter eligibility rejection of Claims 1-30, Applicant has cancelled claims 2, 12, and 22 rendering the rejection of those claims moot. Regarding the remaining claims, the Examiner has considered the Applicant’s arguments; however, the arguments are not persuasive. Applicant argues:
Without conceding the assertions that the claims are directed toward and abstract idea, as discussed in detail below, the independent claims have been amended to recite additional features. As such, the amended independent claims are not believed to recite features that are not practically performable in the human mind and/or with pen and paper.
Regarding (a), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Initially, the Examiner is unsure what the Applicant is arguing given that the abstraction was not characterized as a mental process. The claims recite an abstraction in the form of certain methods of organizing human activity. There are no arguments directed to that characterization.
Additionally to any extent that the amended independent claims could be considered to include an abstract idea, Applicant respectfully submits that any such abstract idea is integrated into a practical application thereof.
Regarding (b), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s belief is not part of the subject matter eligibility analysis. There is nothing in the claims that provide a practical application or significantly more.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112
Regarding the written description rejection of Claims 2-6, 12-16, and 22-26, the Applicant has amended the claims to place the subject matter of Claim 2 into Claim 1. Examiner has considered the Applicant’s arguments; however, the arguments are not persuasive. Applicant argues:
Applicant notes that patient acuity scores, as well as methods for calculating the same are described in the subject application, as published, for example, at paragraph [0728] et seq. […] Applicant notes that caregiver proficiency scores are described in the subject application, as publishes, for example, at least at paragraph [0807] et seq. […] Applicant notes that caregiver employee attrition risk scores are described in the subject application, as published, at least in paragraph [0809] et seq. […] Applicant notes that unit/facility operational efficiency scores are described in the subject application, as published, at least at paragraph [0811] et seq. […] Applicant notes that benchmarking scores are described in the subject application, as published, at least at paragraph [0813] et seq.
Regarding (a), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner has reviewed these portions of the published application and can find no description as to how these scores are actually calculated. This evidences a lack of possession. The Examiner notes that the issue is not that there is no description of the report being based on these, it is that there is no written description as to how the Applicant intended for these scores to be calculated.
Applicant respectfully submits that a person or ordinary skill in the art would understand the subject matter being claimed, and would further understand the considerations that make up such features. As such, a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily appreciate how such scores may be calculated consistent with the claimed invention. As such, it would be clear to a person of ordinary skill in the art that Applicant was in possession of the claimed subject matter at the time of filing.
Regarding (b), the Examiner respectfully disagrees and finds that a person having skill in the art would have no idea how to calculate these scores, as applicant has contemplated, based on the disclosure (or lack thereof).
Regarding the indefiniteness rejection of Claims 1-10, 18, and 28, the Examiner has considered the Applicant’s arguments; however, the arguments are not persuasive. Applicant argues:
Applicant respectfully notes that, as identified in the instant action, and as recited by the claims, claims 1-10 recite a computer-implemented method. That is, each of the recited operations are carried out by a computer. As the instant action also notes, the recited operations pertain to data manipulation, which is a type of task commonly carried out by computers. As such, it would be readily apparent that each operation is carried out by a computer, as the claim does not generally recite a general method with specific operations being performed by a computer, but rather the preamble indicates that the method as a whole is carried out by a computer.
Regarding (a), the Examiner has considered Applicant’s argument and statement on the record that all of the functions of the claim are performed by the recited computer and withdraws the rejection.
Regarding the indefiniteness rejection of Claims 8, 18, 28, the Examiner has considered the Applicant’s arguments; however, the arguments are not persuasive. Applicant argues:
Applicant respectfully notes that "massive data sets" is a well-known term of art, and would be readily understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art. Further, the conventional usage of the term is further found in the subject application, as published, for example at least in paragraph [0267] et seq.
Regarding (a), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. This is a term of relative degree having no fixed definition; therefore, the claim is indefinite. The Examiner disagrees that a person having skill in the are would understand the meets and bounds of the claim. The cited Spec. Para. 0267 and Spec. Para. 0268 fully supports the Examiner’s position because the term “massive” means different things to different people in different situations.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Regarding the rejection of Claims 1-30, Applicant has cancelled claims 2, 12, and 22 rendering the rejection of those claims moot. Regarding the remaining claims, the Examiner has considered the Applicant’s arguments; however, these arguments are moot given the new grounds of rejection as necessitated by amendment.
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:
Kramer (U.S. Pre-Grant Patent Publication No. 2020/0194124) which discloses generating two phases of acuity scores based on EMR data matching.
Kemp (U.S. Patent No. 9,946,840) which discloses scoring patient indicators to determine staffing levels.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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
Prosecution Insights