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
Response to Amendment
The present Office Action is in response to the Request for Continued Examination dated 22 June 2026.
In the amendment dated 22 June 2026, the following occurred: Claim 1 and 20 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Request for Continued Examination
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 22 June 2026 has been entered.
Priority
This application claims priority to U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 63/676,307 dated 26 July 2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement(s) (lDS) submitted on 25 March 2026, 07 May 2026, and 24 June 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 1-20 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 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
The claims recite methods for monitoring compliance with patient protocols, which are within a statutory category.
Step 2A1
The limitations of (Claim 1 being representative) receiving or accessing one or more hospital or physician orders for each patient of a set of patients within a healthcare location; determining a patient care protocol for each of the hospital or physician orders for each patient, wherein each patient care protocol comprises: one or more steps to be performed by a caregiver, one or more timers associated with the one or more steps, and one or more compliance indicators for each of the one or more steps, wherein the compliance indicators each include a proximity indicator indicating that a patient of the set of patients is within a predetermined distance of the caregiver and a time-stamped image providing visual confirmation of compliance of a step of the patient care protocol; displaying a time-ordered list of the patient care protocols for the set of patients, with a countdown time associated with each patient care protocol in the time-ordered list; [accessing] radio frequency (RF) signal [information] from a device of the patient of the set of patients and determining a received signal strength (RSSI) of the [accessed] RF signal to determine a proximity of the patient relative to the caregiver; determining an expiry of a timer associated with a patient care protocol for the patient of the set of patients; sending an alert to the caregiver to perform the patient care protocol based on the expiry of the timer and determined RSSI of the [accessed] RF signal; confirming compliance with each step of the patient care protocol of the time-ordered list of patient care protocols based on receipt of the proximity indicator and the time-stamped image, the proximity indicator associated with the patient care protocol, the determined proximity of the patient based on the RSSI of the [accessed] RF signal, and one or more times associated with the one or more steps; and outputting an indication that all or some of the one or more steps of the patient care protocol have been completed based on the confirmed compliance, 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 (discussed at Step 2A2).
That is, other than reciting a system implemented by (Claim 1) a mobile computing device having one or more processors and a user interface or (Claim 20) a mobile computing device having a processor, the claimed invention amounts to managing personal behavior or interaction between people. For example, but for the mobile device, this claim encompasses a person determining care protocols, displaying them, and confirming compliance with them 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 claim recites the additional element(s) of (Claim 1) a mobile computing device having one or more processors and a user interface or (Claim 20) a mobile computing device having a processor that implements the identified abstract idea. The mobile computing device having a processor(s) and/or user interface is not exclusively described by the applicant and is disclosed to encompass a generic laptop computer, tablet, or smartphone (see Spec. Para. 0019, 0045, 0058, 0093). These generic computer components are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., a generic computer performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The Examiner notes that a mobile device, such as a cell phone (i.e., a smartphone), has been held by the courts to be a generic computing component. See United Services Automobile Association v. PNC Bank, N.A., 139 F.4th 1332, 1334, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2025) (finding that claims confined to a “personal mobile device, like a cell phone” do not render eligible an otherwise ineligible claim because a “mobile device is a piece of generic hardware”). 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.
The claim further recites the additional element of receiving a radio frequency (RF) signal from a device of the patient. The receipt of a radio frequency (RF) signal from a device of the patient merely generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) indicates that generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide a practical application. Accordingly, even in combination, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
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(s) of using (Claim 1) a mobile computing device having one or more processors and a user interface or (Claim 20) a mobile computing device having a processor to perform the noted steps 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 (“significantly more”).
Also, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of receiving a radio frequency (RF) signal from a device of the patient were determined to generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. This has been re-evaluated under the “significantly more” analysis and has also been found insufficient to provide significantly more. MPEP 2106.05(A) indicates that generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide significantly more. For completeness, the Examiner also notes that the prior art of record indicates that tracking patient location using radio frequency information is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art (see US 2018/0369039 to Bhimavarapu et al. at Para. 0122; US 2017/0032093 to Norton et al. at Para. 0042; US 2014/0184408 to Herbst et al. at Para. 0043; US 2012001669 to Sievenpiper et al. at Para. 0026) and further notes that determining proximity using received signal strength is also well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art (see US 2024/0005432 to Aman et al. at Para. 0606; US 2013/0247194 to Jha et al. at Para. 0099; WO 2021/250238 to Solen at Pg. 15). Accordingly, even in combination, this additional element does not provide significantly more. As such the claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 2-19 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, 7 merely describe(s) the proximity data and/or how it is used, which further defines the abstract idea.
Claim(s) 2, 3, 4, 6 also includes the additional element of a mobile/remote device, a caregiver device, and /or a patient-worn device. The mobile/remote device and caregiver-worn device are presumed to be the mobile device of Claim 1 per the 112(b) interpretation, supra, and do not provide an inventive concept for the reasons noted with respect to Claim 1. The patient-worn device 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.
Claim(s) 8, 11 merely describe(s) how the patient care protocol is arrived at, which further defines the abstract idea.
Claim 11 recites the additional element of a database, which is interpreted to be part of the generic computer of Claim 1 and doesn’t not provide a provide a practical application or significantly more for the reasons noted above.
Claim(s) 9, 10 merely describe(s) the content of the care protocol, which further defines the abstract idea.
Claim(s) 12 merely describe(s) the data gathered that is used to arrive at the protocol, which further defines the abstract idea.
Claim(s) 13 merely describe(s) identifying additional data, which further defines the abstract idea.
Claim(s) 14, 15, 16 merely describe(s) what data is displayed/outputted, which further defines the abstract idea.
Claim(s) 14, 15 also includes the additional elements of on a user interface of a mobile device and a remote device. The user interface of a mobile device is presumed to be the interface of the mobile device of Claim 1 per the 112(b) interpretation, supra, and do not provide an inventive concept for the reasons noted with respect to Claim 1. The remote device 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.
Claim(s) 17 merely describe(s) the image, which further defines the abstract idea.
Claim(s) 18, 19 merely describe(s) how compliance is identified, which further defines the abstract idea.
Claim 19 recites using a trained machine learning agent to identify data. This represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. Implementing an abstract idea using a generic computer or components thereof does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. This has been re-evaluated under the “significantly more” analysis and determined to be insufficient to provide significantly more. MPEP 2106.05(I) indicates that mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer and/or confining the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide significantly more.
Response to Arguments
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 rejection of Claims 1-20, the Examiner has considered the Applicant’s arguments; however, the arguments are not persuasive. Any arguments inadvertently not addressed are unpersuasive for at least the following reasons. Applicant argues:
The instant claims, as amended, recite "determining a received signal strength indicator (RSSI) of the received RF signal to determine a proximity of the patient relative to the caregiver," which is clearly not "methods of organizing human activity."
Regarding (a), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. As described by the Applicant in one of the paragraphs immediately preceding this argument, the Applicant characterized the invention as “methods for assisting caregivers in treating patients by automatically providing the caregiver (though a mobile device that is carried by the caregiver) with patient-specific care protocols and by automatically confirming that the caregiver has performed the care protocol within a time limit.” This represents the organization of human activity; namely, rules or instructions for performing the described caregiver assistance.
In rejecting the claims under 35 U.S.C. §101, the Office Action ignores the claims' technological core: the operation of a caregiver-held mobile device that uses RSSI values from a received RF signal to determine patient-to-caregiver proximity.
Regarding (b), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner has not ignored anything. Each and every portion of the claim has been addressed. Specifically, the handheld mobile device is a generic computing component. Further, the RF signals / RSSI values merely represent data that the claim is comparing.
Under Enfish v. Microsoft, claims that "focus on the specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities" rather than on an abstract idea implemented on a computer are not abstract. 822 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Claim 1 improves mobile device functionality by automatically verifying that patient care protocols have been carried out, in part based on RSSI values, to independently insure that a caregiver is close enough to the patient to confirm care. This is an improvement to device operation, not an instruction for human behavior.
Regarding (c), the Examiner respectfully submits that there is no physical improvement to the computer/handheld device within the meaning of Enfish. The functionality surrounding the RF signal / RSSI values is merely the comparison of data and represents part of the rules or instructions for a person to follow, i.e., part of the certain methods of organizing human activity. The actually receipt/transmission of RF signals was analyzed as an additional element and was found to generally link the claim to a particular technological environment as well as being well-understood, routine, and conventional. There is no improvement to the mobile device that is achieved by collecting and comparing RF signal proximity.
That is the type of technological, sensor-processing solution the Federal Circuit has consistently found non-abstract (see also Thales Visionix v. United States, 850 F.3d 1343, 1348-49 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (specific inertial tracking approach not abstract); McRO v. Bandai, 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (specific rule-based processing of data not abstract)).
Regarding (d), the Examiner respectfully submits that the processing of received sensor data represents the identified abstract idea. It is the manipulation of data that represents the rules or instructions. An improved abstract idea is still an abstract idea; the abstract idea cannot provide the improvement. Regarding Thales, the Examiner submits that the sensors in Thales rendered the claims eligible because the represent a non-routine, non-conventional arrangement of known parts. Applicant has not pointed to nor can the Examiner locate anything in the record that indicates that the arrangement of the mobile device (and/or sensors) is non-routine or non-conventional. Further, the Claimed invention is unlike McRo because there is no indication on the record that the claims are performing functions that only humans could previously perform.
The Applicant submits that the claims recite a real-world technological implementation to a technical problem. [the content of the claims are reproduced] Thus, the Applicant's claim ties any alleged abstract idea to RSSI based proximity detection, device-specific interaction between caregiver and patient devices and real-time alerts triggered by physical conditions (e.g., patient proximity and timer expiration). This is not an abstract idea, but rather a closed-loop system that monitors, detects, alerts, and verifies physical actions in a healthcare environment.
Regarding (d), the Examiner respectfully submits that the argued features represent an abstract idea as discussed, supra.
The Office Action alleges that the receipt of a RF signal from the device of a patient merely links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. However, the Applicant submits that the claims recite a non-conventional combination of operations that includes determining a proximity between two people through an RSSI value, performing time-triggered operations, performing visual compliance operations, sending alerts to caregivers to perform care protocols.
Regarding (f), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. As indicated by the Applicant is the paragraph directly preceding this paragraph, the significantly more inquiry asks “whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim.” The features argued by the Applicant are not additional elements. They are the abstract idea. As such, this cannot be persuasive.
The Federal Circuit has ruled that non-conventional, non-generic arrangement of known computer components steps show an inventive concept. (See Bascom Global Internet Services, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
Regarding (g), the Examiner respectfully agrees with this statement, but disagrees that the claimed invention meets this test. There are only two additional elements required by the claim and there is no evidence on record that the elements are arranged in a non-conventional, non-generic way. In fact, there is no particular arrangement claimed at all.
As previously indicated, the Examiner cannot suggest a path forward with respect to the lack of subject matter eligibility.
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:
Aycock et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Patent Publication No. 2023/0101984) which discloses a system for scheduling and tracking patient appointments via determining patient/provider colocation.
Bullington et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,015,756) which discloses a system for tracking the progress of patient appointments using location data of a provider.
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