DETAILED ACTION
This action is made in response to the request for continued examination filed on February 6, 2026. This action is made non-final.
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1, 11, and 17 have been amended. 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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on February 6, 2026 has been entered.
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 6, 2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the previous prior art rejection is moot in light of the new grounds of rejection.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the previous 101 rejection is not persuasive.
As to Applicant’s request that the double patenting rejection be held in abeyance, Applicant is reminded that a complete response to a nonstatutory double patenting rejection is either a reply by applicant showing the claims subject to the rejection are patentably distinct from the reference claims, of the filing of a terminal disclaimer in accordance with 37 CRF 1.321 (See MPEP 804).
As to the 101 rejection, applicant argues the claims recite specific elements involving the use of an artificial intelligence model, the generation of instructions for devices, the real-time automated control of healthcare-related services, and permissions related to the IDs interacting with the system, and thus are not reasonably performed by a person following instructions. However, the examiner, respectfully disagrees.
MPEP 2106. 04(a)(2)(II) states that a claimed invention is directed to certain methods of organizing human activity if the identified claim elements contain limitations that encompass fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). The Examiner submits that the identified claim elements represent a series of rules or instructions that a person or persons, with or without the aid of a computer, would follow to provide instructions to a device for performing a healthcare related service. The Furthermore, the Examiner submits that healthcare and performing healthcare related services itself is inherently represents the organization of human activity. Applicant has not pointed to anything in the claims that fall outside of this characterization. Applicant contends the claims permit fine-grain control of actions taken by rooms, devices, people, such that a patient’s preferences of room settings such as shades, televisions, lights, and other devices can be moved with them. However, even if the claims were to be narrowly construed to be interpreted as controlling settings of room devices, is it noted that setting a room to a user’s desired preferences is a human task. Because the claim elements fall under a series of rules or instructions that a person or persons would follow to provide instructions to a device for performing healthcare related services, the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea.
Applicant further contends the claim as a whole integrates the abstract idea into a practical application in that it reflects a specific, technical improvement to address concrete technical problems in the field of healthcare IT and device management. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) states “the word ‘improvements’ in the context of this consideration is limited to improvements to the functioning of a computer or any other technology/technical field, whether in Step 2A Prong Two or in Step 2B.” Here, there is no improvement to the computer nor is there an improvement to another technology. Applicant’s argument that the field of healthcare IT and device management is a technology and the claimed invention improves this field is not persuasive. The claims are confined to a general-purpose computer. Moreover, the entire field of healthcare IT and device management is not reasonably understood to be a problem arising in technology, as it is instead a problem arising in business/healthcare management. The claimed invention is using a computer as a tool and any improvement present is an improvement to the abstract idea of, to paraphrase, to provide instructions to a device for performing healthcare related services.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above. Furthermore, looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually, and there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the function of a computer, technology, or technical field, and their collective functions merely provided conventional computer implementation. Accordingly, whether taken individually or as an ordered combination, the claims are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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 1-20 are provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 19/015,518 (hereinafter ‘518) in further of Mazar (USPPN: 2015/0302538). Although the claims at issues are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other
Claims 1-20 of the present application are identical to claims 1-20 of the ‘518 application, but for the newly added claim limitations and no table/mapping is needed nor provided.
Claims 1-20 of the present application contain all the limitations of claims 1-20 of the ‘518 application but for the “generating, by at least using the first input and the second input as at least part of an 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 an 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 causing, by at least sending the second instruction to the fourth device, the fourth device to perform the fourth type of healthcare related service”. However, the ‘518 application already recites generating a first instruction from the first input and second input as indicated by an output of the AI model and sending the instruction to a third device, wherein merely duplicating the process to include another instruction and another device would have been obvious (e.g., see MPEP 2144.04). Furthermore, Mazar teaches “determining, by the computer system, a permission associated with a physical location of a user or a device, wherein the permission is based at least in part on an association of a user identifier or a device identifier with a room identifier of a room in the healthcare facility” (e.g., see [0015], [0072], [0162], [0177], [0197], [0247] wherein the system can assign a caregiver to patient based on the caregiver’s location, the caregiver be granted access based in part on the caregiver identifier and/or their location in the facility). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to modify ‘518 in view of Mazar before the effective date of the application with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make the modification to easily coordinate patient care across continuously changing stakeholders (e.g., see [0007] of Mazar).
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; determining, by the computer system, a permission associated with a physical location of a user or a device, wherein the permission is based at least in part on an association of a user identifier or a device identifier with a room identifier of a room in the healthcare facility; generating, by at least using the first input, the second input, and the permission associated with the physical location 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, the second type of healthcare related service, and the permission associated with the physical location; generating, by at least using the first input and the second input as at least part of an 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 an 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 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. For example, but for the noted computer elements, the claim encompasses a person following rules or instructions to manage healthcare-related services data in the manner described in the abstract idea. Furthermore, the “determining a permission associated with a physical location of a user or a device, wherein the permission is based at least in part on an association of a user identifier or a device identifier with a room identifier of a room in the healthcare facility” is akin to a person using a remote control within the vicinity of a device to control, which is an 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”, “computer system”, “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 (merely reciting the training makes various data associations and weighted comparisons does not describe how the model is trained) 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.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above. Furthermore, looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually, and there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the function of a computer, technology, or technical field, and their collective functions merely provided conventional computer implementation. Accordingly, whether taken individually or as an ordered combination, the claims are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent Claims
The limitations of dependent but for those addressed below merely set forth further refinements of the abstract idea without changing the analysis already presented. Claims 2-3, 5, 7, 8 (15, 16, 19, 20) merely recite the type of data used to generate an output and/or the type of instruction, 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” or “generally link” under both the practical application and significantly more analysis, as detailed in the analysis above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-13, 15, 17, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Chronis (USPPN: 2021/0007676; hereinafter Chronis) in view of Mazar et al. (USPPN: 2015:0302538; hereainfter Mazar).
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 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 (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);
generating, by at least using the first input and the second input as at least part of an 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 an 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 (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, such that multiple alerts and/or actions can be sent to multiple devices/interfaces);
causing, by at least sending the first 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/notification/mechanical interventions is provided to another device of multiple devices, which is consistent with at least [0186] of Applicant’s originally filed specification); 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 (See Examiner Note above. e.g., see Fig. 2, [0076], [0084]-[0086] wherein an alert/notification/mechanical interventions is provided to another device of multiple devices, which is consistent with at least [0186] of Applicant’s originally filed specification).
Chronis fails to teach determining, by the computer system, a permission associated with a physical location of a user or a device, wherein the permission is based at least in part on an association of a user identifier or a device identifier with a room identifier of a room in the healthcare facility.
However, in the same field of endeavor of patient care, Mazar teaches determining, by the computer system, a permission associated with a physical location of a user or a device, wherein the permission is based at least in part on an association of a user identifier or a device identifier with a room identifier of a room in the healthcare facility (e.g., see [0015], [0072], [0162], [0177], [0197], [0247] wherein the system can assign a caregiver to patient based on the caregiver’s location, the caregiver be granted access based in part on the caregiver identifier and/or their location in the facility).
As cited above, Chronis teaches generating, by at least using the first input and the second input as at least part of an input to the AI model, a first instruction for a third device providing a third type of healthcare related service…the third type of healthcare service being based at least in part on the first type of healthcare related service and the second type of healthcare related service. Mazar additionally teaches generating by at least using the permission associated with the physical location…the first instruction,…the third type of healthcare related service being based at least in part on the permission associated with the physical location (e.g., see [0015], [0072], [0162], [0177], [0197], [0247] wherein the alerts/notifications are sent to the caregiver based additionally on the caregiver’s location and being granted access to the patient data).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to modify Chronis in view of Mazar before the effective date of the application with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make the modification to easily coordinate patient care across continuously changing stakeholders (e.g., see [0007] of Mazar).
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 first 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 fifth device providing a fifth 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 at least part of the input to the Al model, a second classification and a third 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 third 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 first instruction causes the alarm device to present an alarm indicating patient movement of a patient (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 first 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 that is different than the first 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 15, the rejection of claim 11 is incorporated. Chronis further teaches wherein the third type of healthcare related service is further based at least in part on a time of day (See examiner note above. e.g., see [0073] wherein an identified risk, and healthcare need, can occur based on the time of day).
As to claims 17 and 19, 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.
As to claim 20, the rejection of claim 17 is incorporated. Chronis further teaches wherein the first input and the second input are used by the AI model to determine an occupancy of the room and wherein the first instructions further causes the third device to reduce resource consumption (The claim limitations of “to determine an occupancy of a room” and “to reduce resource consumption” are interpreted as being an intended use or result. Applicant is remined that, typically, no patentable distinction is made by an intended use or result unless some structural difference is imposed by the use or result on the structure or material recited in the claim, or some manipulative difference is imposed by the use or result on the action recited in the claim. An intended use generally does not impart a patentable distinction if it merely states an intention or is a description of how the claimed apparatus is to be used. An intended result is a description of what necessarily happens as a result of the structure or actions recited in the claims (See MPEP 2111.05). Accordingly, where the prior art teaches first and second inputs to a model and providing instructions to a device, then it meets the “to determine an occupancy of a room” and “to reduce resource consumption” limitation. e.g., see rejection above teaching first and second inputs to a model, additionally, [0065], [0078], [0080] wherein the data can be used to determine occupancy which may result in either action or inaction of staff).
Claim(s) 4 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chronis and Mazar, 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 first 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.
Claim(s) 14 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chronis and Mazar, as applied above, and in further view of Janssen (USPPN: 2018/0314801; hereinafter Janssen).
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 includes [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 (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.).
While Chronis teaches a plurality of devices to be communicatively coupled with a nurse call system and other devices, including those in a patient room, Chronis fails to explicitly teach a hub. However, in the same field of endeavor of healthcare management, Janssen teaches a hub (e.g., see Fig. 1, [0025], [0026] teaching a hub, located in a patient’s room, for communicating with a nurse call system and other devices). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to modify Chronis in view of Janssen with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make the modification to continuously monitor multiple characteristics of a patient to improve resource utilization in healthcare environments (e.g., see [0001], [0002] of Janssen).
As to claim 16, the rejection of claim 11 is incorporated. Chronis fails to teach wherein the first instruction is generated based at least in part on a permission associated with a user.
However, in the same field of endeavor of healthcare management, Janssen teaches wherein the first instruction is generated based at least in part on a permission associated with a user (e.g., see Fig. 2, [0040]-[0042] wherein alarm events (i.e., instructions) are generated based at least in part on various permitted alarm event rules for a particular patient). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to modify Chronis in view of Janssen with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make the modification to continuously monitor multiple characteristics of a patient to improve resource utilization in healthcare environments (e.g., see [0001], [0002] of Janssen).
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
Prosecution Insights