DETAILED ACTION
This action is in reference to the communication filed on 3 FEB 2025.
Claims 1-13 are present and have been examined.
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 1-13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. As explained below, the claim(s) are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step One: Is the Claim directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? YES
With respect to claim(s) 1-13 the independent claim(s) 1, 12, 13 recite(s) a device, a method, and a non-transitory computer readable medium, each of which is a statutory category of invention.
Step 2A – Prong One: Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature) or an abstract idea? YES
With respect to claim(s)1-13 the independent claim(s) (claims 1, 12, 13) is/are directed, in part, to:
Claim 1: A medical service
acquire action information related to an action of a medical worker;
classify the action information into a plurality of groups based on attribute information related to classification;
derive numerical information related to the action of the medical worker and the number of medical workers based on the action information for each of the plurality of groups; and
derive a representation result in which the numerical information and the number of medical workers are represented in a unit of the classified group.
These claim elements are considered to be abstract ideas because they are directed to concepts performed in the human mind such as observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion. Acquiring information, classifying information, deriving numerical information for the actions, and deriving a representation of the data are all examples of such concepts. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers concepts performed in the human, then it falls within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Additionally, the claims are directed to mathematical concepts such as mathematical relationships, formulas, equations, and/or calculations. Classifying information into a plurality of groups, driving numerical information related to the actions, as well as deriving a representation result using said numerical information are examples of such concepts. If a claim limitation under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical relationships, formulas, equations, and/or calculations, then it falls within the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? NO.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim(s) recite(s) additional element – claim 1 recites a “medical support device” comprising a “processor,” claim 12 recites a “computer,” and claim 13 recites a “non-transitory computer readable storage medium that stores a medical service support program, causing a computer to execute” the claimed steps. The computing elements, such as the processor, computer, and non-transitory computer readable medium, are all recited at a high level of generality and as such amount to no more than adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05f), or generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological field of use/computing environment (see MPEP 2106.05h). Examiner finds no improvement to the functioning of the computer or any other technology or technical field in the device comprising a processor, computer, and/or non-transitory computer readable medium as claimed (see MPEP 2106.05a), nor any other application or use of the judicial exception in some meaningful way beyond a general like between the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05e). Examiner further notes that any sending/receiving of data as in the claims, as well as the actual “storage” in the computer readable medium, are found to be analogous to adding insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception(s) identified (see MPEP 2106.05g).
Accordingly, this/these additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? NO.
The independent claim(s) is/are additionally directed to claim elements such as: claim 1 recites a “medical support device” comprising a “processor,” claim 12 recites a “computer,” and claim 13 recites a “non-transitory computer readable storage medium that stores a medical service support program, causing a computer to execute” each of the claimed limitations. When considered individually, the computing device/processor claim elements only contribute generic recitations of technical elements to the claims. It is readily apparent, for example, that the claim is not directed to any specific improvements of these elements. Examiner looks to Applicant’s specification in:
[0045] FIG. 3 is a diagram showing a hardware configuration of the medical service support device according to the first embodiment. As shown in FIG. 3, the medical service support device 1 includes a central processing unit (CPU) 11, a display 14, an input device 15, a memory 16, and a network interface (I/F) 17 connected to the network 4. The CPU 11, the display 14, the input device 15, the memory 16, and the network I/F 17 are connected to a bus 19. Note that the CPU 11 is an example of a processor according to the present disclosure.
[0108] In this embodiment, each process is executed on an arbitrary computer. The arbitrary computer may execute these processes by means of a processor as hardware, a program as software, or a combination of the processor and the program. In such a case, the processor is configured to execute the various processes in this embodiment in cooperation with the program and may function as each unit or means in this embodiment. In addition, the order in which the processor executes these processes is not limited to the order described in this embodiment and may be changed as appropriate. The arbitrary computer may be a general-purpose computer, a computer for a specific purpose, a workstation, or any other system capable of executing each process.
[0109] The processor may be configured by one or more hardware, and the type of hardware is not limited. For example, the processor may comprise at least one of programmable logic devices such as CPUs (Central Processing Units), MPUs (Micro Processing Units), and FPGAs (Field Programmable Gate Arrays); dedicated circuits for performing specific processes such as ASICs (Application Specific Integrated Circuits); and other hardware such as a GPU (Graphics Processing Unit) and an NPU (Neural Processing Unit). The hardware may also be a combination of different types of hardware. When multiple hardware are configured to execute one or more processes of a processor, the said multiple hardware may exist in devices that are physically separate from each other, or in the same device. In any embodiment, the order of each process by the processor is not limited to the order described above and may be changed as appropriate. The hardware is configured by an electric circuit (circuitry) etc. that combines circuit elements such as semiconductor devices.
These passages, as well as others, makes it clear that the invention is not directed to a technical improvement. These portions of the specification reference these additional elements in functional terms only – i.e. any computer or processor capable of executing the claimed limitations is suitable. When the claims are considered individually and as a whole, the additional elements noted above, appear to merely apply the abstract concept to a technical environment in a very general sense – i.e. a generic computer receives information from another generic computer, processes the information and then sends information back. The most significant elements of the claims, that is the elements that really outline the inventive elements of the claims, are set forth in the elements identified as an abstract idea. The fact that the generic computing devices are facilitating the abstract concept is not enough to confer statutory subject matter eligibility.
As per dependent claims 2-11:
Dependent claims 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11 are not directed any additional abstract ideas and are also not directed to any additional non-abstract claim elements. Rather, these claims offer further descriptive limitations of elements found in the independent claims and addressed above – such as the types of data considered in the mental processes, and/or the variables of the mathematical calculations, and additional outcomes to each. While these descriptive elements may provide further helpful context for the claimed invention these elements do not serve to confer subject matter eligibility to the invention since their individual and combined significance is still not heavier than the abstract concepts at the core of the claimed invention.
Dependent claims 8, 9 do not recite any additional abstract ideas, nor do they explicitly recite an additional element. In the interest of compact prosecution Examiner notes that the language in these claims at least infers that the “representation result” might be displayed in some way. Examiner notes that the language in question appears to be, at most, descriptive of a display – i.e. the appearance of “representation” in color or other variables, or a superimposed indicator, rather than an improvement to the display or the functioning of the technical elements of a display. Displaying information on a display is typically found to be adding insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception(s) identified (see MPEP 2106.05g), and as such is insufficient to amount to a practical application and/or significantly more than the abstract idea(s) identified with respect to the independent claims.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 10-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Eisenberg (US 20060053035 A1).
In reference to claim 1, 12, 13:
Eisenberg teaches: A medical service support device comprising (at least [fig 2 and related text]):
a processor, wherein the processor is configured to (at least [fig 2 and related text] as in claim 1):
causing a computer to be configured to (at least [fig 2 and related text] as in claim 12): and
a non-transitory computer readable storage medium that stores a medical service support program causing a computer to execute (at least [figs 2, 6, and related text] as in claim 13):
acquire action information related to an action of a medical worker (at least [015] “A workstep is an action or task required to be performed by a healthcare worker as part of a care delivery process flow. A workstep requires an actor (a specified type of individual expected to perform the workstep that has specific privileges required of the individual to accomplish the task) and an outcome (the result of completing the action, successfully or unsuccessfully or, in the absence of an action, a "nil" result). The system uses reproducible terminology to identify a workstep that requires management, a type of individual actor expected to perform the workstep, and the outcomes expected.” At [fig 1 and related text] “A workstep process function 105 generates data indicating expected (or recommended) actions to be performed by a healthcare worker (e.g., a clinician) in response to a clinical trigger event 103. Clinical trigger event 103 may comprise an order for a patient treatment, a documentation data element entry (or observation), entry of patient test result data (generally via an interface from a device or ancillary system), or a workflow engine sub-process. A configuration processor in application 42 (Workflow Management System, FIG. 2) enables a user to enter data identifying types of permitted clinical trigger event 103. “);
classify the action information into a plurality of groups based on attribute information related to classification (at least [fig 1 and related text] “The entered clinical trigger event identification data identifies a clinical problem (e.g., on a problem list), a diagnosis on a diagnosis list, or another data element for use in workstep management. Workstep function 105 generates data representing expected (or recommended) actions or decisions based on a modeled ontology or based on predetermined work effort coordination (e.g., clinical protocol or a guideline requiring a decision to be made by a clinician). Workstep function 105 also generates ancillary data that provides information regarding a type of clinician and privileges and experience required to accomplish the expected (or recommended) actions or make expected decisions. Alternatively, workstep function 105 accesses application 100 on server 110 to determine a type of clinician and associated privileges required to perform the expected task or to make the expected decisions.” At [033-037] “The current case load for individual clinicians is determined from on call practitioner assignment schedules and catalogues, for example. Function 219 provides data indicating the most appropriate clinicians for providing the patient care requirements based on probability of an individual clinician being able to manage the patient in an efficient time frame…. The data indicates, for example, Dr. C. Chordae a solo practitioner in Cardiology is on call but in process of the first of 4 procedures with expected availability in 2.5 hours… Further, Drs. A. Femoral and A. Capsule in the first Orthopedic physician group are each in the operating room without availability for approximately four hours. Function 219 selects Dr. A. Trochanter for the new Emergency Department patient because he is available and has appropriate privileges.”);
derive numerical information related to the action of the medical worker and the number of medical workers based on the action information for each of the plurality of groups (at least [0031-33] “ Function 219 in steps 420 and 424 identifies those appropriately credentialed clinicians with privileges in the facility to perform expected procedures to meet the needs of the patient care requirements derived by function 260. US Regulators (e.g., JCAHO) require medical staff sections of hospitals to maintain privileging allowances for each physician for each function requested by the physician… Function 219 identifies healthcare workers for performing the role of Cardiologist with privileges for temporary pacemaker insertion. The workers include, for example, Drs. A. Arterial, A. Atrial and A. Ventricular in a first Cardiology group (3 of the 10 physicians in the first group) as well as Drs. B. Tricuspid, B. Aortic, and B. Mitral in a second Cardiology group (3 of the 4 physicians in the second group) and Dr. C. Chordae, a solo practitioner in Cardiology… The identified healthcare workers for performing the role of Orthopedic physician with specialty in hip fracture procedures include, for example, Drs. A. Capsule, A. Femoral and A. Trochanter in a first Orthopedic group (3 of the 14 physicians in the first group) as well as Drs. B. Iliac, B. Bursa, and B. Quadricep in a second Orthopedic group (3 of the 9 physicians in the second group) and Dr. C. Fibula, a solo practitioner in Orthopedics. The identified healthcare workers for performing the role of Orthopedic nurse practitioner with joint repair and replacement care privileges include, for example, Nurse Woundcare, Nurse Fixit, Nurse Walker and Nurse Cane.”); and
derive a representation result in which the numerical information and the number of medical workers are represented in a unit of the classified group (at least [033] “ Function 219 in step 428 advantageously determines available clinicians for performing expected procedures to meet the needs of the patient care requirements derived by function 260 and having appropriate privileges determined in step 424. Function 219 identifies clinicians meeting the patient care requirements and provides a table indicating the current activities of the identified clinicians based on current case load (i.e., indicating an intensity of service "case mix" of existing case load)… the current case load for individual clinicians is determined from on call practitioner assignment schedules and catalogues, for example. Function 219 provides data indicating the most appropriate clinicians for providing the patient care requirements based on probability of an individual clinician being able to manage the patient in an efficient time frame. The data indicating appropriate clinicians is automatically used to assign clinician tasks for the patient.”).
In reference to claim 2:
Eisenberg further teaches: wherein the processor is configured to classify the action information into a plurality of groups based on designated attribute information among a plurality of pieces of attribute information (at least [015] “A workstep is an action or task required to be performed by a healthcare worker as part of a care delivery process flow. A workstep requires an actor (a specified type of individual expected to perform the workstep that has specific privileges required of the individual to accomplish the task) and an outcome (the result of completing the action, successfully or unsuccessfully or, in the absence of an action, a "nil" result). The system uses reproducible terminology to identify a workstep that requires management, a type of individual actor expected to perform the workstep, and the outcomes expected.” At [fig 1 and related text] “A workstep process function 105 generates data indicating expected (or recommended) actions to be performed by a healthcare worker (e.g., a clinician) in response to a clinical trigger event 103. Clinical trigger event 103 may comprise an order for a patient treatment, a documentation data element entry (or observation), entry of patient test result data (generally via an interface from a device or ancillary system), or a workflow engine sub-process. A configuration processor in application 42 (Workflow Management System, FIG. 2) enables a user to enter data identifying types of permitted clinical trigger event 103. “).
In reference to claim 3:
Eisenberg further teaches: wherein the processor is configured to derive designated numerical information among a plurality of pieces of numerical information (at least [0031-33] “ Function 219 in steps 420 and 424 identifies those appropriately credentialed clinicians with privileges in the facility to perform expected procedures to meet the needs of the patient care requirements derived by function 260. US Regulators (e.g., JCAHO) require medical staff sections of hospitals to maintain privileging allowances for each physician for each function requested by the physician… Function 219 identifies healthcare workers for performing the role of Cardiologist with privileges for temporary pacemaker insertion. The workers include, for example, Drs. A. Arterial, A. Atrial and A. Ventricular in a first Cardiology group (3 of the 10 physicians in the first group) as well as Drs. B. Tricuspid, B. Aortic, and B. Mitral in a second Cardiology group (3 of the 4 physicians in the second group) and Dr. C. Chordae, a solo practitioner in Cardiology… The identified healthcare workers for performing the role of Orthopedic physician with specialty in hip fracture procedures include, for example, Drs. A. Capsule, A. Femoral and A. Trochanter in a first Orthopedic group (3 of the 14 physicians in the first group) as well as Drs. B. Iliac, B. Bursa, and B. Quadricep in a second Orthopedic group (3 of the 9 physicians in the second group) and Dr. C. Fibula, a solo practitioner in Orthopedics. The identified healthcare workers for performing the role of Orthopedic nurse practitioner with joint repair and replacement care privileges include, for example, Nurse Woundeare, Nurse Fixit, Nurse Walker and Nurse Cane.” – i.e. the number of doctors/professionals compared to who is available).
In reference to claim 4:
Eisenberg further teaches: wherein the processor is configured to:
extract the action information according to a designated condition (at least [026] patient arrives with conditions/history, see [031-033]; and
derive the numerical information and the number of medical workers based on the extracted action information (at least [031-033] “Function 219 identifies healthcare workers for performing the role of Cardiologist with privileges for temporary pacemaker insertion. The workers include, for example, Drs. A. Arterial, A. Atrial and A. Ventricular in a first Cardiology group (3 of the 10 physicians in the first group) as well as Drs. B. Tricuspid, B. Aortic, and B. Mitral in a second Cardiology group (3 of the 4 physicians in the second group) and Dr. C. Chordae, a solo practitioner in Cardiology… The identified healthcare workers for performing the role of Orthopedic physician with specialty in hip fracture procedures include, for example, Drs. A. Capsule, A. Femoral and A. Trochanter in a first Orthopedic group (3 of the 14 physicians in the first group) as well as Drs. B. Iliac, B. Bursa, and B. Quadricep in a second Orthopedic group (3 of the 9 physicians in the second group) and Dr. C. Fibula, a solo practitioner in Orthopedics.)”).
In reference to claim 5:
Eisenberg further teaches: wherein the attribute information includes first attribute information and second attribute information (at least [031-034] practitioners, availability and specialty/qualifications are each attributes), and
the processor is configured to derive a representation result in which the numerical information and the number of medical workers are represented for each of the plurality of groups on a matrix defined by a first axis to which the first attribute information is assigned and a second axis to which the second attribute information is assigned (at least [031-034] numerical groupings of available and/or appropriate providers are determined for each task/action needed, and “Function 219 identifies clinicians meeting the patient care requirements and provides a table indicating the current activities of the identified clinicians based on current case load (i.e., indicating an intensity of service "case mix" of existing case load). Further, an individual clinician case load is adjusted based on assignments made to meet the needs of the patient care requirements derived by function 260.” At [023] clinicians are ranked in the table based on a variety of factors and may be re-assigned based on the numerical ranking)
In reference to claim 6:
Eisenberg further teaches: wherein the processor is configured to sort the plurality of groups with respect to at least one of the first axis or the second axis based on the numerical information or the number of medical workers (at least [023] “he configuration processor in application 100 enables a user to enter data associating individual healthcare workers with notification methods (such as mail, pager, email, phone) ranked according to task priority and compatible with an information system architecture. The notified clinician is provided by unit 107 with actionable information and takes one of the suggested actions (e.g., action A or B) or determines not to act and provides a reason (e.g., reason C or D). Alternatively, the notified clinician requests the particular task be re-assigned. In response to a clinician request to re-assign the particular task, application 100 reassigns the particular task using risk-adjusting function 130 and clinical privilege and competency information repositories 137 and 133 respectively. For this purpose function 130 sorts and ranks clinicians (excluding the clinician initiating the re-assignment request unless there is no alternate competent clinician) by availability and competency. In the case, that there is no alternate competent clinician to the clinician initiating the re-assignment request, this clinician is notified that there is no alternative. Application 100 also monitors performance of tasks by assigned clinicians and stores monitoring data (including the number and type of procedures performed and corresponding outcomes and associated data) in competency information repository 133.”).
In reference to claim 7:
Eisenberg further teaches: wherein the attribute information is at least one of a time slot, a day of a week, a medical worker who performed the action, an action performance date, a room in which the action was performed, a device used for the action, or an action type (at least [041] “ The worker privilege status is determined based on at least one of, a number of times a worker has performed a particular service, a frequency a worker has performed a particular service or procedure and an associated clinical success outcome indicator as well as dates a worker has performed a particular service… The worker availability is determined based on a predetermined worker work schedule. Application 100 in step 709 (or a separate scheduling application in another embodiment) schedules an identified healthcare worker to provide a service to the patient… “At [033-037] “The current case load for individual clinicians is determined from on call practitioner assignment schedules and catalogues, for example. Function 219 provides data indicating the most appropriate clinicians for providing the patient care requirements based on probability of an individual clinician being able to manage the patient in an efficient time frame…. The data indicates, for example, Dr. C. Chordae a solo practitioner in Cardiology is on call but in process of the first of 4 procedures with expected availability in 2.5 hours… Further, Drs. A. Femoral and A. Capsule in the first Orthopedic physician group are each in the operating room without availability for approximately four hours.”).
In reference to claim 10:
Eisenberg further teaches: wherein the processor is configured to: derive a workload in each of the plurality of groups based on at least the numerical information (at least [016-021] patient/caseload balancing based, “ (a) available time block allotment, (b) least eventful workload (patient load), (c) patient-mix of acuity (medical condition severity) risk used to adjust a numerical patient load factor, and (d) worker proximate location.”) ; and
derive the representation result representing the workload in each of the plurality of groups (at least [031-033] “ Function 219 identifies clinicians meeting the patient care requirements and provides a table indicating the current activities of the identified clinicians based on current case load (i.e., indicating an intensity of service "case mix" of existing case load). Further, an individual clinician case load is adjusted based on assignments made to meet the needs of the patient care requirements derived by function 260. The current case load for individual clinicians is determined from on call practitioner assignment schedules and catalogues, for example.“).
In reference to claim 11:
Eisenberg further teaches: wherein the processor is configured to determine the workload based on one or more predetermined threshold values to be emphasized, and derive the representation result in which the determined workload is emphasized (at least [039] “Returning to the process of FIG. 3, in step 224 recommended order request sets are provided to respective clinicians notified by Function 219. The assigned tasks that are not completed in expected time frames are escalated back to the assigned clinician and/or a management level clinician. The system automatically re-assigns non-completed tasks to a new clinician in response to predetermined time limit thresholds being exceeded, or in another embodiment, are re-assigned by a management level clinician. This completes the process of FIG. 3.”).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 8, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eisenberg in view of Almashor et al (US 20200320454 A1, hereinafter Almashor).
In reference to claim 8:
Eisenberg further teaches: wherein the processor is configured to derive a representation result representing any one of the numerical information or the number of medical workers in each of the plurality of groups (at least [033] “ Function 219 in step 428 advantageously determines available clinicians for performing expected procedures to meet the needs of the patient care requirements derived by function 260 and having appropriate privileges determined in step 424. Function 219 identifies clinicians meeting the patient care requirements and provides a table indicating the current activities of the identified clinicians based on current case load (i.e., indicating an intensity of service "case mix" of existing case load)… the current case load for individual clinicians is determined from on call practitioner assignment schedules and catalogues, for example. Function 219 provides data indicating the most appropriate clinicians for providing the patient care requirements based on probability of an individual clinician being able to manage the patient in an efficient time frame. The data indicating appropriate clinicians is automatically used to assign clinician tasks for the patient.”) Eisenberg as cited teaches demand mapping for the group of professionals, but does not specifically disclose the graphical representation as claimed. Almashor however does teach:
A representation result representing any one of the numerical information or number of medical workers…by regions in which at least one of a color, a density, or a size differs depending on the number of any one of the numerical information or the number of medical workers (at least [062] “According to some embodiments, a user may toggle between a local view (e.g., an augmented reality view of a room the user is in) and a zoomed out view (e.g., a virtual reality view of a representation of the entire facility). In some embodiments, rooms or portions of a facility may be associated with different colors, icons or images that denote different information. For example, in a zoomed out view of a hospital, each ward may be displayed as a box having a circular dot for every nurse in the ward and a rectangle for every bed. In some embodiments, colors can be used to convey additional information. For example, a red dot or a red rectangle may represent a deficiency of nurses or beds, respectively. Similarly, the boxes associated with wards may have different colors based on whether the ward meets a desired threshold (e.g., a ratio of nurses to beds, a maximum rounding time, etc.), allowing a user to quickly make a visual assessment and comparison of wards to one another. The desired thresholds and/or shapes and colors associated with virtual content may be configurable by a user. Further, in some embodiments, resources, demands, queueing times, and any other such objects or metrics may be represented as numbers (e.g., “available nursing staff=10”), graphs (e.g., bar graphs), images or some combination of the above.” Almashor and Eisenberg are analogous references, as both disclose a means of planning safe staffing/personnel levels in a medical setting. As Almashor as cited teaches that providing color coding to discern information would allow a viewing user to make a quick assessment or determine the resource levels in a given group, one of ordinary skill would have found this an obvious inclusion or modification with he graphic demand display/ranking process as taught by Eisenberg in order to quickly make decisions that directly affect patient safety and facility success.
In reference to claim 9:
Eisenberg/Almashor teaches all the limitations above. Almashor further teaches: wherein the processor is configured to superimpose an indicator that indicates the number of the other of the numerical information or the number of medical workers on the region to derive a representation result representing the other of the numerical information or the number of medical workers (at least [062] “Further, in some embodiments, resources, demands, queueing times, and any other such objects or metrics may be represented as numbers (e.g., “available nursing staff=10”), graphs (e.g., bar graphs), images or some combination of the above. In some embodiments, suggestions to modify available resources may be represented as images, such as an image of an extra employee, machine, supplies, bed, or the like presented in virtual reality or augmented reality. According to some embodiments of the invention, suggestions to modify available resources may be represented according to a different visual style than the representation of current or predicted available resources. For example, available resources may be virtually represented as solid objects whereas suggested resources may be represented as transparent or semi-transparent objects. A transparent or semi-transparent representation of an object, person, or item may be referred to as a “ghost image.””) The motivation to combine the superimposed images of Almashor for resource numbers with the numerical information of Eisenberg is the same as with regard to claim 8 above, therefore the motivation to combine is imputed to claim 9.
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2018/0294046, to Kamura, teaches a labor resource management system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHERINE KOLOSOWSKI-GAGER whose telephone number is (571)270-5920. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday.
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, Mamon Obeid can be reached at 571-270-1813. 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.
/KATHERINE . KOLOSOWSKI-GAGER/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3687
/KATHERINE KOLOSOWSKI-GAGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3687