DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Amendment
In light of the amendments, the previous 112(a) and double patenting rejections have been withdrawn.
In light of the amendments, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
In light of the amendments, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
In light of the amendments, the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections are withdrawn.
Notice to Applicant
In the amendment dated 05/11/2026, the following has occurred: claims 1-5, 8-12, and 15-17 have been amended; claims 18-19 have been canceled; claims 6-7, 13-14, and 20 remain unchanged; and claims 21-22 have been added.
Claims 1-17 and 20-22 are pending.
Effective Filing Date: 12/31/2019
Response to Arguments
Double Patenting Rejections:
Applicant filed a terminal disclaimer on 05/11/2026. This disclaimer has been accepted and the previous double patenting rejection has been withdrawn in view of this.
35 U.S.C. 112(a) Rejections:
Applicant amended the claims to overcome the previous 112(a) rejections. Examiner withdraws these rejections.
35 U.S.C. 101 Rejections:
Applicant argues that the amended claims include limitations which are not performed by people, and include training of an algorithm, usage of that algorithm, and causing activation of cameras in a safety zone. Examiner however respectfully disagrees. First, the phrase “causing activation” is broad and can include a human’s activation of cameras in a manner such as pressing a button to cause and activation. Furthermore, the training of the learning algorithm is not claimed but the usage of one has now been assessed as an additional element which generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
35 U.S.C. 103 Rejections:
Examiner withdraws the previous rejections in view of the amendments to the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-17 and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 1, 8, and 15 recite the usage of a treatment tube which is delivering medication of a patient, but the specification only recite monitoring of a tube. The tube could theoretically be for other various things such as oxygen as there are no specific details associated with this tube in the specification.
Claims 2-7, 9-14, 16-17, and 20-22 are rejected based on their dependency on the independent claims.
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 1-17 and 20-22 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 1-7 are drawn to a system, claims 8-14 and 21-22 are drawn to a non-transitory media, and claims 15-17 and 20 are drawn to a method, each of which is within the four statutory categories. Claims 1-17 and 20-22 are further directed to an abstract idea on the grounds set out in detail below. As discussed below, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional computer elements, which are recited at a high level of generality, provide conventional computer functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A:
Prong One:
Claim 1 recites a system having a) one or more hardware processors configured to perform a plurality of operations, the operations comprising:
1) determining that a falls risk assessment is to be presented (a) on b) a clinician device, (b) for clinical input comprising falls-risk assessment information (c) in order to include the falls-risk assessment information as an update in c) an electronic health record (EHR) of a patient, wherein determining to present the falls risk assessment comprises utilizing via the one or more hardware processors d) a learning algorithm configured based on instances of medical information indicating patient assignment to a virtual sitter;
2) after determining that the falls risk assessment is to be presented on the clinician device, causing presentation of a prompt at the clinician device for the clinical input comprising the falls-risk assessment information;
3) based on the clinical input: (i) storing the falls-risk assessment information for the patient to the EHR and (ii) initiating generation of an order to assign e) processor based virtual sitter technology;
4) in response to assigning the virtual sitter technology, causing installation of one or more cameras at one or more locations in proximity to a location associated with the patient, the one or more cameras configured to form a safety zone around a treatment tube that delivers medication to the patient in accordance with the virtual sitter technology; and
5) causing activation of the one or more installed cameras, wherein activating the one or more installed cameras initiates creation of a virtual boundary in a three-dimensional (3D) space that corresponds to the safety zone and that envelops at least partially the treatment tube adjacent the location associated with the patient.
Claim 1 recites, in part, performing the steps of 1) determining that a falls risk assessment is to be presented (b) for clinical input comprising falls-risk assessment information (c) in order to include the falls-risk assessment information as an update in a health record (HR) of a patient, wherein determining to present the falls risk assessment comprises utilizing a learning algorithm (when mental or using pen and paper) configured based on instances of medical information indicating patient assignment to a virtual sitter, 2) after determining that the falls risk assessment is to be presented, causing presentation of a prompt for the clinical input comprising the falls-risk assessment information, 3) based on the clinical input: (i) storing the falls-risk assessment information for the patient to the HR and (ii) initiating generation of an order to assign a sitter, 4) in response to assigning the virtual sitter technology, causing installation of one or more cameras at one or more locations in proximity to a location associated with the patient, the one or more cameras configured to form a safety zone around a treatment tube that delivers medication to the patient in accordance with the virtual sitter technology, and 5) causing activation of the one or more installed cameras, wherein activating the one or more installed cameras initiates creation of a virtual boundary in a three-dimensional (3D) space that corresponds to the safety zone and that envelops at least partially the treatment tube adjacent the location associated with the patient. These steps correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, more particularly, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including following rules or instructions). For example, one can determine if a patient needs monitoring and assign a sitter to them. Independent claims 8 and 15 recite similar limitations and are also directed to an abstract idea under the same analysis.
Depending claims 2-7, 9-14, 16-17, and 20-22 include all of the limitations of claims 1, 8, and 15, and therefore likewise incorporate the above described abstract idea. Depending claim 5, 12, and 17 adds an additional element of f) electronically communicate; claim 22 adds an additional element of g) an additional learning algorithm; claims 2-5, 9-12, and 16-19 add an additional element of h) electronically monitoring; claims 2-4, 6, 9-11, 13, 16-18, and 20 add an additional element of i) a processor coupled camera; and claims 21 add an additional element of j) electronically receiving which are further assessed below. Claims 2-7, 9-14, 16-17, and 22 further specify elements from the claims which they depend on without adding any additional steps. Claim 21 adds additional, functional limitations to the claims but these additional limitations only further serve to limit the abstract idea. Thus, depending claims 2-7, 9-14, 16-17, and 20-22 are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as independent claims 1, 8, and 15 (Step 2A (Prong One): YES).
Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of – using a) one or more hardware processors, b) a clinician device, c) an electronic health record (EHR), d) a learning algorithm, e) processor based virtual sitter technology, f) electronically communicate, g) an additional learning algorithm, h) electronically monitoring, i) a processor coupled camera, and j) electronically receiving to perform the claimed steps.
The a) one or more hardware processors, b) clinician device, c) electronic health record (EHR), e) processor based virtual sitter technology, f) electronically communicate, h) electronically monitoring, i) processor coupled camera, and j) electronically receiving in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic components performing generic computer functions) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (see: Applicant’s specification for a lack of description of anything non-generic for these components, see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Additionally, the d) learning algorithm and g) additional learning algorithm in these steps generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as machine learning, see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which amount to limitations consistent with the additional elements in the independent claims. 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 and do not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A (Prong Two): NO).
Step 2B:
The claims do 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 elements of using a) one or more hardware processors, b) a clinician device, c) an electronic health record (EHR), d) a learning algorithm, e) processor based virtual sitter technology, f) electronically communicate, g) an additional learning algorithm, h) electronically monitoring, i) a processor coupled camera, and j) electronically receiving to perform the claimed steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and a general linking to a particular technological field that do not offer “significantly more” than the abstract idea itself because the claims do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of any computer itself, or provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. It should be noted that the claims do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the Specification recites mere generic computer components, as discussed above that are being used to apply certain method steps of organizing human activity. Specifically, MPEP 2106.05(f) and MPEP 2106.05(h) recite that the following limitations are not significantly more:
Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2360, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)); and
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, e.g., a claim describing how the abstract idea of hedging could be used in the commodities and energy markets, as discussed in Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 595, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (2010) or a claim limiting the use of a mathematical formula to the petrochemical and oil-refining fields, as discussed in Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-90, 198 USPQ 193, 197-98 (1978) (MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
The current invention administers a treatment utilizing a) one or more hardware processors, b) a clinician device, c) an electronic health record (EHR), e) processor based virtual sitter technology, f) electronically communicate, h) electronically monitoring, i) a processor coupled camera, and j) electronically receiving, thus these computing components are adding the words “apply it” with mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
Additionally, the d) learning algorithm and g) additional learning algorithm generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The following represent an example that courts have identified as generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (e.g. see MPEP 2106.05(h)): Limiting the abstract idea data to machine learning, because limiting application of the abstract idea to machine learning algorithms is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, e.g. see Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A.
Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components or a general linking to a particular technological field cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible (Step 2B: NO).
Claims 1-17 and 20-22 are therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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 Steven G.S. Sanghera whose telephone number is (571)272-6873. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00 (alternating Fri).
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, Shahid Merchant can be reached at 571-270-1360. 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.
/STEVEN G.S. SANGHERA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3684
Prosecution Insights