DETAILED ACTION
This action is made in response to the amendments/remarks filed on March 17, 2026. This action is made final.
Claims 1, 3-11, 13-22 are pending. Claims 1 and 12 are cancelled. Claims 1, 5, 6, 10, 15, 16, and 20 have been amended. Claims 21 and 22 are newly added. Claims 1, 10, and 20 are independent claims.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed March 17, 2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the previous 102 rejection has been fully considered but is moot in light of the new grounds of rejection.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the previous 101 rejection has been fully considered but is not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims are not directed to certain methods of organizing human activity. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
MPEP 2106. 04(a)(2)(II) states that a claimed invention is directed to certain methods of organizing human activity if the identified claim elements contain limitations that encompass fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). The Examiner submits that the identified claim elements represent a series of rules or instructions that a person or persons, with or without the aid of a computer, would follow to analyze healthcare action items to identify complications and reduce or eliminate those complications. The Examiner notes that Applicant’s Background describes identifying conflicts as a task performed by healthcare professionals (see Spec. [0004]). Furthermore, the Examiner submits that healthcare itself is inherently represents the organization of human activity. Applicant has not pointed to anything in the claims that fall outside of this characterization. Because the claim elements fall under a series of rules or instructions that a person or persons would follow to identify and remove a healthcare complication from a healthcare action plan, the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea.
Applicant further asserts the claims are an improvement to other technology or technical field and/or applies the judicial exception with or by use of a particular machine. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
As previously stated, the claimed invention recites the abstract idea of identifying and removing a healthcare complication from a healthcare action plan and represent certain method of organizing human activity, which is further evidenced by the originally filed specification and Applicant’s remarks which state the present invention is intended to improve healthcare delivery by reducing or eliminating conflicts, redundancy, and complexity in healthcare action items (e.g., see [0003]-[0004] of Spec and Page 12 of Remarks), which is neither technical in nature nor a problem confined to Applicant’s argued technology of “medical stations”. The additional element of “applications executed on the medical station” represent generally linking the claimed invention to a particular technological environment or field of use (“generally linking”). Accordingly, the problem of healthcare providers inadequately identifying conflicts and resolving them in healthcare plans is not a problem caused by “applications executed on medical stations”, but rather is a problem that exists regardless of whether applications executed on a medical station are involved in the process. At best, Applicant’s identified problem is a healthcare management problem. Because no technological problem is present, the claims do not provide a practical application.
As previously stated, the steps of “generating a plurality of first healthcare action items…”, “determining complications…”, and “converting the plurality of the first healthcare action items…” are rules and instructions a person can follow to identify and remove a healthcare complication from a healthcare action plan and represent certain methods of organizing human activity. Insomuch as the generating is performed by “applications executed on the medical station” amount to generally linking the claims to a particular technological environment or field of use. Furthermore, while being implemented on a medical station, Applicant’s specification nonetheless states the steps are implemented by a general-purpose computer/processor (e.g., see Figs. 1, 2, [0030], [0041] reciting computing device/processor controlling components of the medical station). MPEP 2106.05(b)(I) indicates that applying the judicial exception “by use of conventional computer functions does not qualify as a particular machine.” Because there is no particularity with respect to the medical station that implements the abstract idea, thus requiring that the Examiner to conclude that the abstract idea is implemented by a general-purpose computer, a practical application is not present.
Furthermore, looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually, and there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the function of a computer, technology, or technical field, and their collective functions merely provided conventional computer implementation. Accordingly, whether taken individually or as an ordered combination, the claims are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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, and 13-22 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, 3-9, and 21 recite a method of identifying and removing a healthcare complication from a healthcare action plan, which is within the statutory category of a process. Claims 10, 11, 13-19, and 22 recites a computing device for identifying and removing a healthcare complication from a healthcare action plan, which is within the statutory class of a machine. Claim 20 recites a non-transitory computer readable memory performing instructions for identifying and removing a healthcare complication from a healthcare action plan, which is within the statutory class of a manufacture.
Claims are eligible for patent protection under § 101 if they are in one of the four statutory categories and not directed to a judicial exception to patentability. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. ___ (2014). Claims 1, 3-11, and 13-22, each considered as a whole and as an ordered combination, are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
MPEP 2106 Step 2A – Prong 1:
The bolded limitations of:
Claims 1, 10, 20 (claim 1 being representative)
generating a plurality of first healthcare action items for a patient or a visitor of a medical station by at least a plurality of healthcare applications executed on the medical station, each of the plurality of healthcare applications covering different fields of healthcare operations by the medical station, using patient information and diagnostic information of the patient or the visitor; determining complications caused by performance of the plurality of first healthcare action items on the patient or the visitor; and converting the plurality of the first healthcare action items to one or more second healthcare action items responsive to determining the complications, performance of the one or more second healthcare action items reducing or eliminating the complications relative to performance of the plurality of first healthcare action items.
as presently drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a method of organizing human activity (i.e., managing personal behavior including following rules or instructions). For example, but for the noted computer elements, the claim encompasses a person following rules or instructions to analyze data and generate a healthcare plan in a manner described by the claims. The examiner further notes that “methods of organizing human activity” includes a person’s interaction with a computer (see October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility at Pg. 5). If the claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing persona behavior or interactions between people but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “method of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Additionally, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitations are process steps that cover mental processes including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of a generic computer component. For example, but for the noted computer elements, the claim encompasses a person analyzing patient data to develop a healthcare plan including identifying and resolving any conflicts. If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the "Mental Process" grouping of abstract ideas. A person would readily be able to perform this process either mentally or with the assistance of pen and paper. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2).
MPEP 2106 Step 2A – Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no meaningful limitations that transform the exception into a patent eligible application. The additional elements merely amount to instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (“application”, “computing device”, “one or more processors”, “memory”, and "a non-transitory computer readable medium”—all recited at a high level of generality). Although they have and execute instructions to perform the abstract idea itself, this also does not serve to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as it merely amounts to instructions to "apply it." (See MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) indicating mere instructions to apply an abstract idea does not amount to integrating the abstract idea into a practical application). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The “medical station
” is not a generic computer component; however it is recited at a high levels of generality and similarly amount to generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. (See MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) indicating generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment does not amount to integrating the abstract idea into a practical application).
The claims only manipulate abstract data elements as part of performing the abstract idea. They do not set forth improvements to another technological field or the functioning of the computer itself and instead use computer elements as tools in a conventional way to improve the functioning of the abstract idea identified above. 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. None of the additional elements recited "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment,' that is, implementation via computers." Alice Corp., slip op. at 16 (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)).
At the levels of abstraction described above, the claims do not readily lend themselves to a finding that they are directed to a nonabstract idea. Therefore, the analysis proceeds to step 2B. See BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("The Enfish claims, understood in light of their specific limitations, were unambiguously directed to an improvement in computer capabilities. Here, in contrast, the claims and their specific limitations do not readily lend themselves to a step-one finding that they are directed to a nonabstract idea. We therefore defer our consideration of the specific claim limitations’ narrowing effect for step two.") (citations omitted).
MPEP 2106 Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as presented in Step 2A Prong 2. Moreover, the additional elements recited are known and conventional generic computing elements (“application”, “computing device”, “one or more processors”, “memory”, and "a non-transitory computer readable medium”—see Specification Figs. 2, 3, [0029]-[0033], [0041] describing the various components as general purpose, common, standard, known to one of ordinary skill, and at a high level of generality, and in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy the statutory disclosure requirements). Therefore, these additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept that amounts to significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The Federal Circuit has recognized that "an invocation of already-available computers that are not themselves plausibly asserted to be an advance, for use in carrying out improved mathematical calculations, amounts to a recitation of what is 'well-understood, routine, [and] conventional.'" SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 890 F.3d 1016, 1023 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (alteration in original) (citing Mayo v. Prometheus, 566 U.S. 66, 73 (2012)). Apart from the instructions to implement the abstract idea, they only serve to perform well-understood functions (e.g., receiving, translating, and displaying data—see Specification above as well as Alice Corp.; Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2015) covering the well-known nature of these computer functions).
Furthermore, as discussed above, the additional element of a “medical station” is recited at high levels of generality and were determined to generally link the abstract idea into a particular technological environment or field of use. This additional element have been re-evaluated under step 2B and have also been found insufficient to provide significantly more. (See MPEP 2106.05(A) indicating generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment does not amount to significantly more). Furthermore, the Background section of Applicant' s Specification (e.g., see [0030], [0041]) indicates that the control/operation of the medical station is performed by general purpose computing device/processor, and as such the additional element amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept that amounts to significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above. Furthermore, looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually, and there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the function of a computer, technology, or technical field, and their collective functions merely provided conventional computer implementation. Accordingly, whether taken individually or as an ordered combination, the claims are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent Claims
The limitations of dependent but for those addressed below merely set forth further refinements of the abstract idea without changing the analysis already presented. Claims 3-9 (13-19) merely recites the type of data as covering different healthcare fields, from whom the healthcare action items are received, the type of complication identified and the rules for converting the healthcare plan and additional steps of managing operations of the medical station and performing analysis of treatment efficacy, claims 21 and 22 merely recite verifying the generated second healthcare action items and reducing a complication upon determination of a new complication, which covers a method of organizing human activity (i.e., managing personal behavior including following rules or instructions).
Claims 6, 11, 16 include the additional element of a “database” that is analyzed in the same manner as the generic computer components of the independent claims and which does not provide a practical application or amounts to significantly more for the same reasons detailed above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 3-11, 13-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dettinger et al. (USPPN: 2020/0335189; hereinafter Dettinger) in further view of Manetta et al. (USPPN: 2009/0125335; hereinafter Manetta).
As to claim 1, Dettinger teaches A method of managing healthcare action items (e.g., see Title, Abstract), comprising:
generating a plurality of first healthcare action items for a patient or a visitor of a medical station by at least a plurality of healthcare applications using patient information and diagnostic information of the patient or the visitor (e.g., see Abstract, Fig. 2, [0018], [0028], [0029] teaching a care platform server including various applications and data to create and manage a care plan for a patient based on their diagnosed medical condition);
determining complications caused by performance of the plurality of first healthcare action items on the patient or the visitor (e.g., see [0021], [0022] teaching a conflict resolution rule to identify tasks that conflict or overlap); and
converting the plurality of the first healthcare action items to one or more second healthcare action items responsive to determining the complications, performance of the one or more second healthcare action items reducing or eliminating the complications relative to performance of the plurality of first healthcare action items (e.g., see [0017], [0021], [0022] wherein the conflicting task can be merged or otherwise reconciled to avoid the conflict and increase compliance).
While Dettinger teaches the care platform includes various applications in which care providers can care for a patient, wherein the care can include different medical fields (e.g., see Fig. 1, [0028], [0029]), Dettinger fails to explicitly teach the plurality of healthcare applications executed on the medical station, each of the plurality of healthcare applications covering different fields of healthcare operations performed by the medical station.
However, in the same field of endeavor of managing patient care, Manetta teaches a plurality of healthcare applications executed on the medical station, each of the plurality of healthcare applications covering different fields of healthcare operations performed by the medical station (e.g., see Fig. 1, [0011]-[0013], [0026], [0027] teaching a plurality of applications executed on a server or single processing device (i.e., medical station), wherein each applications covers different aspects related to healthcare operations).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to modify Dettinger in view of Manetta before the effective filing date with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make the modification in order to reduce errors associated with providing care plans to respective applications (e.g., see [0011] of Manetta).
As to claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Dettinger further teaches wherein at least a subset of the first healthcare action items is received from one or more of medical professionals, medical service providers, medical publications or public entities (e.g., see [0032], [0033] wherein the healthcare plans are generated by a care provider using various policy information which may include guidelines set by the hospital, standards organizations, insurance, etc.).
As to claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Dettinger further teaches wherein the complications caused by the performance of the plurality of first healthcare action items comprises at least one of: conflicts between the plurality of first healthcare action items, redundancy in the plurality of first healthcare action items, and increase in complexity associated with performing the plurality of first healthcare action items (e.g., see [0017], [0021], [0022] wherein the conflicting task can be overlapping tasks that can be merged or otherwise reconciled to avoid the conflict and increase compliance).
As to claim 5, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Dettunger further teaches wherein the converting of the plurality of the first healthcare action items comprises replacing one or more of the plurality of first healthcare action items with a healthcare action item that combines effects of the first healthcare action items (e.g., see [0017], [0021], [0022], [0035] wherein the conflicting task can be overlapping tasks that can be merged or otherwise reconciled based on various thresholds, including medication effects).
As to claim 6, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Dettinger further teaches further comprising storing, in a database, interactions between medical interventions or interchangeability between healthcare action items, the databased updated based on analysis of treatment efficacy performed on patients, wherein the converting of the plurality of the first healthcare action items is performed based on the stored interactions or the interchangeability (e.g., see [0025], [0035], [0044], [0059], [0066], [0067] teaching maintaining a set of tasks, threshold, and other metrics towards treating the certain condition such as various conflicts that may exist and resolution rules and storing other patient information such as effectiveness of certain treatments and updating care plan to indicate need for more urgent or new treatment).
As to claim 7, the rejection of claim 6 is incorporated. Dettinger further teaches wherein the converting of the plurality of the first healthcare action items comprises applying rules to the determined complications to generate the one or more second healthcare action items (e.g., see [0005], [0022] wherein rules are applied to the conflicting task and a new task or merged task is provided).
As to claim 8, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Dettinger further teaches further comprising updating the patient information according to the one or more second healthcare action items (e.g., see [0035], [0036] wherein patient information is updated with their care plan).
As to claim 9, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Dettinger further teaches further comprising: performing management operations of the medical station, and performing analysis to determine efficacy of treatments according to the first healthcare action items (e.g., see [0038], [0045], [0068], [0070] wherein the care platform further provides inventory management operations and monitors patient progress with their care plan).
As to claim 21, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Dettinger further teaches verifying the one or more second healthcare actions items to determine whether the converting introduced new complications; and in response to determining that the converting introduced the new complications, further converting the one or more second healthcare action items to reduce or eliminate the new complications (e.g., see [0017], [0021], [0022] wherein the conflicting task can be merged or otherwise reconciled to avoid the conflict and increase compliance. While Dettinger fails to explicitly teach verifying the merged/reconciled plan for new complications, Dettinger, having taught identifying and reconciling conflicts in care plans to generate a new care plan, it would have at least been obvious to duplicate the step in the generated new care plan as obvious, see MPEP 2144 wherein duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced).
Nonetheless, for the purposes of compact prosecution and in the same field of endeavor of managing patient healthcare, Manetta teaches verifying the one or more second healthcare actions items to determine whether the converting introduced new complications; and in response to determining that the converting introduced the new complications, further converting the one or more second healthcare action items to reduce or eliminate the new complications (e.g., see [0013], [0050], [0064] teaching second conflict checks of proposed data, wherein upon a conflict, action is taken to eliminate/prevent conflict).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to modify Dettinger in view of Manetta before the effective filing date with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make the modification in order to reduce errors associated with providing care plans to respective applications (e.g., see [0011] of Manetta).
As to claims 10, 13-19, and 22 the claims are directed to a computing device comprising one or more processors and memory storing instructions (e.g., see Figs. 1, 7) implementing the method of claims 1, 3-9, and 21 and are similarly rejected.
As to claim 11, the rejection of claim 10 is incorporated. Dettinger further teaches wherein the computing device further comprises a network interface configured to receive the plurality of healthcare action items from the medical station via a network (e.g., see Fig. 1 teaching a network interface for receiving the tasks).
As to claim 20, the claim is directed to the non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing instructions for implementing the method of claim 1 and is similarly rejected.
It is noted that any citation to specific pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. “The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). Further, a reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). See also Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Celeritas Technologies Ltd. v. Rockwell International Corp., 150 F.3d 1354, 1361, 47 USPQ2d 1516, 1522-23 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
Conclusion
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 STELLA HIGGS whose telephone number is (571)270-5891. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9-5PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Peter Choi can be reached at (469) 295-9171. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/STELLA HIGGS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3681
Prosecution Insights