DETAILED ACTION
This action is made in response to the communication filed on January 9, 2025. This action is made non-final.
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1, 11, and 17 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 .
Examiner Note
Examiner notes the present application claims priority to provisional application 63/317455. However, a review to the provisional application and subsequent non-provisional CIP fail to provide sufficient written description for at least the generative AI model, the classification model, and the generated instructions being more than an alarm. Accordingly, any amendment and/or interpretation beyond what is fully supported in the provisional application and/or CIP applications will not be granted priority as of the provisional filing date.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-14 and 17-19 are provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting being unpatentable over claims 1-14 and 17-19 of copending Application No. 19/231,409 (hereinafter ‘409). Although the claims at issues are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other
Present Application
Co-pending ‘409
1. A method implemented by a computer system hosting an artificial intelligence (Al) model, the method comprising:
receiving, from a first device located in a healthcare facility and providing a first type of healthcare related service, a first input related to the first type of healthcare related service;
receiving, from a second device located in the healthcare facility and providing a second type of healthcare related service, a second input related to the second type of healthcare related service;
generating, by at least using the first input and the second input as part of an input to the Al model, an instruction for a third device providing a third type of healthcare related service, the instruction indicated by an output of the Al model, the third type of healthcare related service being based on the first type of healthcare related service and the second type of healthcare related service; and
causing, by at least sending the instruction to the third device, the third device to perform the third type of healthcare related service.
1. A method implemented by a computer system hosting an artificial intelligence (Al) model, the method comprising:
receiving, from a first device located in a healthcare facility and providing a first type of healthcare related service, a first input related to the first type of healthcare related service;
receiving, from a second device located in the healthcare facility and providing a second type of healthcare related service, a second input related to the second type of healthcare related service;
generating, by at least using the first input and the second input as at least part of an input to the Al model, a first instruction for a third device providing a third type of healthcare related service, the first instruction indicated by an output of the Al model, the third type of healthcare related service being based at least in part on the first type of healthcare related service and the second type of healthcare related service;
generating, by at least using the first input and the second input as at least part of the input to the Al model, a second instruction for a fourth device providing a fourth type of healthcare related service, the second instruction indicated by the output of the Al model, the fourth type of healthcare related service being based at least in part on the first type of healthcare related service and the second type of healthcare related service;
causing, by at least sending the first instruction to the third device, the third device to perform the third type of healthcare related service; and
causing, by at least sending the second instruction to the fourth device, the fourth device to perform the fourth type of healthcare related service.
11. A computer system of a healthcare facility hosting an artificial intelligence (Al) model comprising:
a first device located in the healthcare facility, that provides a first type of healthcare related service;
a second device located in the healthcare facility, that provides a second type of healthcare related service;
a third device that performs a third type of healthcare related service based on an instruction generated by an instruction generation system; and
the instruction generation system comprising:
one or more storage media storing first instructions; and one or more processors configured to execute the instructions to cause the instruction generation system to:
receive, from the first device, a first input related to the first type of healthcare related service;
receive, from the second device, a second input related to the second type of healthcare related service;
generate, by at least using the first input and the second input as part of an input to the Al model, the instruction for the third device, the instruction indicated by an output of the Al model, the third type of healthcare related service being based on the first type of healthcare related service and the second type of healthcare related service; and
send, the instruction to the third device.
11. A computer system of a healthcare facility hosting an artificial intelligence (Al) model comprising:
a first device located in the healthcare facility, that provides a first type of healthcare related service;
a second device located in the healthcare facility, that provides a second type of healthcare related service;
a third device that performs a third type of healthcare related service based at least in part on a first instruction generated by an instruction generation system;
a fourth device that performs a fourth type of healthcare related service based at least in part on a second instruction generated by the instruction generation system; and
the instruction generation system comprising:
one or more storage media storing [[first]] third instructions; and one or more processors configured to execute the third instructions to cause the instruction generation system to:
receive, from the first device, a first input related to the first type of healthcare related service;
receive, from the second device, a second input related to the second type of healthcare related service;
generate, by at least using the first input and the second input as at least part of an input to the Al model, the first instruction for the third device, the first instruction indicated by an output of the Al model, the third type of healthcare related service being based at least in part on the first type of healthcare related service and the second type of healthcare related service;
generate, by at least using the first input and the second input as at least part of an input to the Al model, the second instruction for the fourth device, the second instruction indicated by the output of the Al model, the fourth type of healthcare related service being based at least in part on the first type of healthcare related service and the second type of healthcare related service;[[and]]
send the first instruction to the third device; and
send the second instruction to the fourth device.
17. One or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media storing instructions that, upon execution by one or more processors of a system hosting an artificial intelligence (Al) model, cause the system to perform operations comprising:
receiving, from a first device located in a healthcare facility and providing a first type of healthcare related service, a first input related to the first type of healthcare related service;
receiving, from a second device located in the healthcare facility and providing a second type of healthcare related service, a second input related to the second type of healthcare related service;
generating, by at least using the first input and the second input as part of an input to the Al model, an instruction for a third device providing a third type of healthcare related service, the instruction indicated by an output of the Al model, the third type of healthcare related service being based on the first type of healthcare related service and the second type of healthcare related service; and
causing, by at least sending the instruction to the third device the third device to perform the third type of healthcare related service.
17. One or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media storing instructions that, upon execution by one or more processors of a system hosting an artificial intelligence (Al) model, cause the system to perform operations comprising:
receiving, from a first device located in a healthcare facility and providing a first type of healthcare related service, a first input related to the first type of healthcare related service;
receiving, from a second device located in the healthcare facility and providing a second type of healthcare related service, a second input related to the second type of healthcare related service;
generating, by at least using the first input and the second input as at least part of an input to the Al model, a first instruction for a third device providing a third type of healthcare related service, the first instruction indicated by an output of the Al model, the third type of healthcare related service being based at least in part on the first type of healthcare related service and the second type of healthcare related service;
generating, by at least using the first input and the second input as at least part of the input to the Al model, a second instruction for a fourth device providing a fourth type of healthcare related service, the second instruction indicated by the output of the Al model, the fourth type of healthcare related service being based at least in part on the first type of healthcare related service and the second type of healthcare related service;
causing, by at least sending the first instruction to the third device the third device to perform the third type of healthcare related service; and causing, by at least sending the second instruction to the fourth device, the fourth device to perform the fourth type of healthcare related service.
As can be seen from the table above, independent claims 1, 11, and 17 are broader recitations of the independent claims 1, 11, and 17 of the ‘409 application. Claims 1, 11, and 17 of the ‘409 application contain every limitation of claims 1, 11, and 17 of the present application. Similarly, dependent claims 2-10, 12-14, 18, and 19 of the present application are recited in dependent claims 2-10, 12-14, 18, and 19 of the ‘409 application.
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 1-10 recite a method of providing a healthcare related service, which is within the statutory category of a process. Claims 11-16 recite a system of providing a healthcare related service, which is within the statutory class of a machine. Claims 16-20 recites a non-transitory computer readable media for providing a healthcare related service, 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 1-20, 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, 11, and 17 (claim 1 being representative)
receiving, from a first device located in a healthcare facility and providing a first type of healthcare related service, a first input related to the first type of healthcare related service; receiving, from a second device located in the healthcare facility and providing a second type of healthcare related service, a second input related to the second type of healthcare related service; generating, by at least using the first input and the second input as part of an input to the Al model, an instruction for a third device providing a third type of healthcare related service, the instruction indicated by an output of the Al model, the third type of healthcare related service being based on the first type of healthcare related service and the second type of healthcare related service; and causing, by at least sending the instruction to the third device, the third device to perform the third type of healthcare related service..
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) but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting (claims 1, 11, 17) a first/second/third device; (claim 1) storage media, processor, the claimed invention amounts to managing personal behavior. For example, but for the noted computer elements, the claim encompasses a person following rules or instructions to receive and process data in the manner described in the abstract idea. 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.
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 (a first/second/third “device”, “storage media”, “processor”—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)(2) 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. Furthermore, insomuch as the “devices” are not generic computer components, but are various medical devices, they are recited at high levels of generality and were determined to generally link the abstract idea into a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h) indicating generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment does not integrate into a practical application).
The claim further recites the additional elements of (1) an Artificial Intelligence (AI) model and (2) inputting data into the AI model to generate output. When given the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the nonexistent description of AI training in the disclosure, training of an AI model with the noted data amounts to a mathematical concept that creates data associations. As such, training of the AI model is interpreted to be subsumed within the identified abstract idea and the use of the trained model provides nothing more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea, supra. July 2024 Subject Matter Eligibility Examples, Example 47, Claim 2, discussion of item (c) at Pgs. 7-9. Regarding (2), the use of the AI model provides nothing more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer (“apply it”). See MPEP 2106.05(f). MPEP 2106.05(f); July 2024 Subject Matter Eligibility Examples, Example 47, Claim 2, discussion of items (d) and (e) at Pgs. 8-9.
The claims only manipulate abstract data elements into another form. 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 a first/second/third “device”, “storage media”, “processor”—see Specification [0056], [0128] 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. Furthermore, insomuch as the “devices” are not generic computer components, but are various medical devices, they are 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).
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).
Also, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements (1) an Artificial Intelligence (AI) model and (2) use of the AI model to generate outputs were considered to be part of the abstract idea and “apply it,” respectively. This has been re-evaluated under the “significantly more” analysis and has also been found insufficient to provide significantly more. Training of the AI model is considered part of the abstract idea and thus cannot provide a practical application. Regarding the use of the AI model represented saying “apply it.” Item (2) has been revaluated under the “significantly more” analysis and does not provide “significantly more” to the abstract idea. MPEP 2106.05(A) indicates also indicates that merely adding the words “apply it” or equivalent use cannot provide significantly more. Accordingly, even in combination, this additional element does not provide significantly more. As such the claim is not patent eligible.
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 2-3, 5, 7, 8 (19, 20) merely recite the type of data used to generate an output, which covers a method of organizing human activity (i.e., managing personal behavior including following rules or instructions).
Claims 4, 5, 6, 9, 10 (12-16, 18) further refine the abstract idea described in the independent claim and merely recite different types of devices for sending/receiving data and/or the type of AI model. These additional elements are considered to “apply it” of “generally link” under both the practical application and significantly more analysis, as detailed in the analysis above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-17, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chronis (USPPN: 2021/0007676; hereinafter Chronis).
As to claim 1, Chronis teaches A method implemented by a computer system hosting an artificial intelligence (Al) model (e.g., see Abstract, Fig. 1), the method comprising:
receiving, from a first device located in a healthcare facility and providing a first type of healthcare related service, a first input related to the first type of healthcare related service (e.g., see Fig. 1, [0039]-[0041] wherein patient data is received from multiple sources, including devices within a healthcare facility for providing patient healthcare services, wherein the BRI of “type of healthcare related services” includes a service relating to assessment, prevention, and/or treatment, which is consistent with at least [0178] of Applicant’s originally filed specification);
receiving, from a second device located in the healthcare facility and providing a second type of healthcare related service, a second input related to the second type of healthcare related service (e.g., see Fig. 1, [0039]-[0041] wherein patient data is received from multiple sources, including devices within a healthcare facility for providing patient healthcare services, wherein the BRI of “type of healthcare related services” includes a service relating to assessment, prevention, and/or treatment, which is consistent with at least [0178] of Applicant’s originally filed specification);
generating, by at least using the first input and the second input as part of an input to the Al model, an instruction for a third device providing a third type of healthcare related service, the instruction indicated by an output of the Al model, the third type of healthcare related service being based on the first type of healthcare related service and the second type of healthcare related service (See Examiner Note above. e.g., see Figs. 1, 2, [0060], [0061], [0073], [0076] wherein the received patient data can be provided to a machine learning model to determine whether an alert should be issued to another); and
causing, by at least sending the instruction to the third device, the third device to perform the third type of healthcare related service (See Examiner Note above. e.g., see Fig. 2, [0076], [0084]-[0086] wherein an alert is provided to another device, which is consistent with at least [0186] of Applicant’s originally filed specification).
As to claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Chronis further teaches wherein the first device and the second device are of different types, and wherein the first type of healthcare related service and the second type of healthcare related service are different types of services (e.g., see Fig. 1, [0039] wherein the patient data can be received from multiple different sources).
As to claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Chronis further teaches wherein the first input includes at least one of (i) a medical record or (ii) a message received by the first device from another device located in the healthcare facility (e.g., see [0039]-[0041] wherein the patient data can be patient medical records or patient data received from another device).
As to claim 5, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Chronis further teaches wherein the Al model includes a classification Al model, wherein the instruction is generated when a first classification is generated (e.g., see Fig. 1, [0073], [0084]-[0085] wherein the system learns, using a machine learning model, various types of risk and alerts to provide based on those risks (i.e., classifications)), and wherein the method further comprises:
receiving, from a fourth device providing a fourth type of healthcare related service, a third input (e.g., see Fig. 1, [0039]-[0041] wherein patient data is received from multiple sources, including devices within a healthcare facility for providing patient healthcare services, wherein the BRI of “type of healthcare related services” includes a service relating to assessment, prevention, and/or treatment, which is consistent with at least [0178] of Applicant’s originally filed specification);
generating, by at least using the first input and the third input as part of the input to the Al model, a second classification and a second instruction for the third device (See Examiner Note above. e.g., see Figs. 1, 2, [0060], [0061], [0073], [0076], [0084]-[0085] wherein the received patient data can be provided to a machine learning model to determine whether an alert should be issued to another, wherein the system learns, using a machine learning model, various types of risk and alerts to provide based on those risks (i.e., classifications)); and
causing, by at least sending the second instruction to the third device the third device to perform the third type of healthcare related service (See Examiner Note above. e.g., see Fig. 2, [0076], [0084]-[0086] wherein an alert is provided to another device, which is consistent with at least [0186] of Applicant’s originally filed specification).
As to claim 6, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Chronis further teaches wherein the first device includes a sensor pad or a camera, the third device is an alarm device, and wherein the instruction causes the alarm device to present an alarm indicating patient movement (See Examiner note above. e.g., see [0039]-[0041], [0058], [0076], [0084] wherein the devices can include sensors, cameras, and devices for providing alerts/alarms).
As to claim 7, the rejection of claim 6 is incorporated. Chronis further teaches wherein the second device is a medical record storage device that includes a fall risk indication for the patient (e.g., see Fig. 1, [0039], [0079], [0080] wherein the data includes the patient’s fall risk assessment).
As to claim 8, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Chronis further teaches wherein the third device includes a medical record storage device, and wherein the third type of healthcare related service includes updating a medical record (e.g., see Fig. 1, [0080] teaching medical records can be constantly updated).
As to claim 9, the rejection of claim 8 is incorporated. Chronis further teaches wherein the first device includes at least one of a nurse call device, a user device, a camera, or a sensor pad physically coupled with a bed, and wherein the second device is a different type of device than the first device and includes at least one of a second nurse call device, a second user device, a second camera, or a second sensor pad physically coupled with a second bed (e.g., see [0039]-[0041], [0058], [0076], [0084] wherein the devices can include sensors, cameras, beds and devices for providing alerts/alarms).
As to claim 10, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Chronis further teaches wherein the third device includes an environment control device, and wherein the first device includes a medical record storage device (See examiner note above. e.g., see [0038]-[0041], [0058], [0076], [0084] wherein the device that receive instructions can be beds, lights, restraints, walkers and devices for providing data include medical record database).
As to claim 11, the claim is directed to the computer system implementing the method of claim 1 and is similarly rejected.
As to claim 12, the rejection of claim 11 is incorporated. Chronis further teaches wherein the first device or the second device is a sensor pad, a camera, or a bed (e.g., see [0038]-[0041], [0058] wherein the devices can include sensors, cameras, or beds).
As to claim 13, the rejection of claim 11 is incorporated. Chronis further teaches wherein the third device is a third type of device, is located in the healthcare facility and includes an interface used to perform the third type of healthcare related service (e.g., see [0076] wherein the third device can include a device and interface within a healthcare facility for performing healthcare related services).
As to claim 14, the rejection of claim 11 is incorporated. Chronis further teaches wherein at least one of the first device, the second device, or the third device include at least one of (i) a hub located in a patient room and configured to be communicatively coupled with a nurse call system of the healthcare facility and another device, (ii) a bed controller, (iii) a television control system, (iv) a medical device, or (v) a sensor pad (See examiner note above. e.g., see [0038]-[0041], [0058], [0076], [0084] wherein the device that receive instructions can be beds, lights, restraints, walkers, nursing monitoring station devices, patient interfaces, etc.).
As to claim 15, the rejection of claim 11 is incorporated. Chronis further teaches wherein at least one of the first device, the second device, or the third device include a mobile phone, a camera, or a nurse call system controller (See examiner note above. e.g., see [0038]-[0042], [0058], [0076], [0084] wherein the devices can be sensors, cameras, beds, lights, restraints, walkers, nursing station devices, patient interfaces, phones).
As to claim 16, the rejection of claim 11 is incorporated. Chronis further teaches wherein the third device includes at least one of an alarm, a room control device, a messaging device, or a camera (See examiner note above. e.g., see [0038]-[0041], [0058], [0076], [0084] wherein the device that receive instructions can be beds, lights, restraints, walkers, nursing station devices).
As to claims 17, 19, and 20, the claim is directed to the non-transitory computer-readable storage media implementing the method of claims 1, 5, and 3 and are similarly rejected.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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) 4 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chronis, as applied above, and in further view of Quatro (USPPN: 2025/0045304; hereinafter Quatro) (See Examiner Note above).
As to claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Chronis further teaches wherein generating the instruction further comprises inputting the first input, and the second input (e.g., see Fig. 2, [0073] wherein the data is provided to a machine learning algorithm).
While Chronis teaches the use of a machine learning algorithms, Chronis fails to teach wherein the Al model includes a generative Al model, and inputting a prompt to the generative Al model.
However, in the same field of endeavor of interpreting information, Quatro teaches wherein the Al model includes a generative Al model (e.g., see Fig. 22, [0614]-[0616], [0623] teaching the use of generative AI models), and inputting a prompt to the generative Al model (e.g., see [0625], [0684], [0687] wherein prompts and other received data are provided to the generative AI model).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to modify Chronis in view of Quatro with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make the modification in order to provide for robust generative capabilities for creating and performing analytics and enabling more precise and goal-oriented interactions with the AI systems (e.g., see [0616], [0684] of Quatro).
As to claim 18, the claim is directed to the non-transitory computer-readable storage media implementing the method of claim 4 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
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