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 .
Status of Claims
In the reply filed on 22 June 2026 the following changes have been made: amendments to claims 1-5, 9-11, 13, and 18-20.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e)
or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has
not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier
filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 63/750,516 fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. For claim 1, the prior-filed application does not disclose “a command center including a cloud server, a database hosting a relational database management system, one or more processors, and a memory, the one or more processors executing fleet analytics management software and command center analytics dashboard software”, “a unified analytics interface for monitoring the stations and visibility into fleet operations and performance indicators,”, and “the hybrid stations each defining a physical enclosure having an interior area for a patient session.” Examiner cannot find disclosure of a command center including a cloud server, a database hosting a relational database management system, one or more processors, and a memory, the one or more processors executing fleet analytics management software and command center analytics dashboard software; cannot find disclosure of a unified analytics interface for monitoring the stations and visibility into fleet operations and performance indicators; and, cannot find disclosure of the hybrid stations each defining a physical enclosure having an interior area for a patient session. For claim 2, the prior-filed application does not disclose tracking of diagnostic efficiency across the stations. Examiner cannot find any disclosure of tracking of diagnostic efficiency across the stations. For claim 3, the prior-filed application does not disclose “a performance reporting system configured to generate analytics for healthcare administrators to assess care quality and identify areas for improvement.” Examiner cannot find any disclosure of a performance reporting system configured to generate analytics for healthcare administrators to assess care quality and identify areas for improvement. For claim 5, the prior-filed application does not disclose “the operational metrics include one or more of financial management metrics, patient experience metrics, uptime and downtime tracking, patient volume analysis, clinician utilization metrics, and productivity metrics.” Examiner cannot find any disclosure of suggestion of one or more of financial management metrics, patient experience metrics, uptime and downtime tracking, patient volume analysis, clinician utilization metrics, and productivity metrics. For claim 6, the prior-filed application does not disclose “the financial management metrics include key performance indicators (KPIs).” Examiner cannot find any disclosure of suggestion of the financial management metrics including key performance indicators (KPIs). For claim 8, the prior-filed application does not disclose “the productivity metrics include absenteeism and presenteeism detection.” Examiner cannot find any disclosure of suggestion of the productivity metrics including absenteeism and presenteeism detection. For claim 9, the prior-filed application does not disclose consultation volumes and average speed of answer. Examiner cannot find any disclosure of suggestion of consultation volumes and average speed of answer. For claim 10, the prior-filed application does not disclose “average speed of answer metrics,” “a unified command center analytics interface for monitoring the stations with single or multiple analytics dashboard capabilities,” “financial management metrics, patient experience metrics, uptime and downtime tracking, patient volume analysis, clinician utilization metrics, and productivity metrics”, and “the stations each defining a physical enclosure having an interior area for a patient session.” Examiner cannot find disclosure of average speed of answer metrics; consultation volumes; average speed of answer metrics; a unified command center analytics interface for monitoring the stations with single or multiple analytics dashboard capabilities; financial management metrics; patient experience metrics; uptime and downtime tracking; patient volume analysis; clinician utilization metrics; productivity metrics; and, the stations each defining a physical enclosure having an interior area for a patient session. For claim 13, the prior-filed application does not disclose “generate performance reports for healthcare administrators.” Examiner cannot find any disclosure of generating performance reports for healthcare administrators. For claim 16, the prior-filed application does not disclose “to provide clinical decision support through AI-powered recommendations based on historical patient data and current medical guidelines.” Examiner cannot find any disclosure of providing clinical decision support through AI-powered recommendations based on historical patient data and current medical guidelines. For claim 17, the prior-filed application does not disclose “generating standardized reports with inventory of stations, installations, active implementations, satisfaction scores, and performance issues monitoring.” Examiner cannot find any disclosure of generating standardized reports with inventory of stations, installations, active implementations, satisfaction scores, and performance issues monitoring. For claim 18, the prior-filed application does not disclose “to implement call routing algorithms that determine appropriate care coordinator assignment based on patient location, provider licensing, and historical data patterns.” Examiner cannot find any disclosure of implementing call routing algorithms that determine appropriate care coordinator assignment based on patient location, provider licensing, and historical data patterns. For claim 19, the prior-filed application does not disclose “tracking metrics such as average hold time, high hold time flags, and provider away time to ensure optimal service delivery.” Examiner cannot find any disclosure of tracking metrics such as average hold time, high hold time flags, and provider away time to ensure optimal service delivery. For claim 20, the prior-filed application does not disclose “consultation volumes”, “average speed of answer metrics”, “financial management metrics, patient experience metrics, uptime and downtime tracking, patient volume analysis, clinician utilization metrics”, “a unified analytics interface for monitoring the stations for care”, and “remote hybrid stations
for care each defining a physical enclosure having an interior area for a patient session.” Examiner cannot find disclosure of consultation volumes, average speed of answer metrics, financial management metrics, patient experience metrics, uptime and downtime tracking, patient volume analysis, clinician utilization metrics, a unified analytics interface for monitoring the stations for care, and remote hybrid stations
for care each defining a physical enclosure having an interior area for a patient session. Accordingly, claims 1-20 are not entitled to the benefit of the prior application.
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has
not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier
filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 63/772,039 fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. For claim 5, the prior-filed application does not disclose “uptime and downtime tracking, patient volume analysis, and productivity metrics.” Examiner cannot find any disclosure of suggestion of one or more of uptime and downtime tracking, patient volume analysis, and productivity metrics. For claim 8, the prior-filed application does not disclose “the productivity metrics include absenteeism and presenteeism detection.” Examiner cannot find any disclosure of suggestion of the productivity metrics including absenteeism and presenteeism detection. For claim 10, the prior-filed application does not disclose “average speed of answer metrics”, and “uptime and downtime tracking, patient volume analysis, and productivity metrics.” Examiner cannot find disclosure of average speed of answer metrics; uptime and downtime tracking, patient volume analysis; and productivity metrics. For claim 17, the prior-filed application does not disclose “generating standardized reports with inventory of stations, installations, active implementations, satisfaction scores, and performance issues monitoring.” Examiner cannot find any disclosure of generating standardized reports with inventory of stations, installations, active implementations, satisfaction scores, and performance issues monitoring. For claim 18, the prior-filed application does not disclose “to implement call routing algorithms that determine appropriate care coordinator assignment based on patient location, provider licensing, and historical data patterns.” Examiner cannot find any disclosure of implementing call routing algorithms that determine appropriate care coordinator assignment based on patient location, provider licensing, and historical data patterns. For claim 20, the prior-filed application does not disclose “uptime and downtime tracking, and patient volume analysis.” Examiner cannot find disclosure of uptime and downtime tracking, and patient volume analysis. Accordingly, claims 5, 8, and 10-20 are not entitled to the benefit of the prior application.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim 2 recites the following:
“a monitoring system ….to track”
Claim 3 recites the following:
“a reporting system ….to generate”
Claim 4 recites the following:
“a resource allocation component ….to analyze”
which are limitations that invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA ),
sixth paragraph. The limitations create a rebuttable presumption that the claim elements are to be treated under § 112(f) based on the use of the word “means” or generic place holder (underlined) with functional language (in italics). The presumption is not rebutted because the limitations do not recite sufficient structure in the claim to perform the functions. When § 112(f) is invoked the broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitations is restricted to the structure in the disclosure and its equivalents.
The following functional claim limitations:
Of claim 2 recites the following:
“a monitoring system ….to track”
Of claim 3 recites the following:
“a reporting system ….to generate”
Of claim 4 recites the following:
“a resource allocation component ….to analyze”
recite specialized computer functions. A function performed by a programmed
computer requires both the computer and the algorithm that causes the computer to
perform the function. As such, a disclosure of an algorithm to perform these functions and to transform a general purpose computer into a programmed computer is required. Examiner notes that the specification is not clear in providing the specific algorithm and corresponding structure for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation of the function of the sorting mechanism.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s
interpretation of the corresponding structure/algorithm, applicant must identify the
corresponding structure/algorithm with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35
U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the
claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination
Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of
Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention 2.
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim elements “a monitoring system”, “a reporting system”, and “a resource allocation component” are limitations that invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
Programmed computer functions require a computer programmed with an “algorithm” to perform the function. Because “a monitoring system”, “a reporting system”, and “a resource allocation component” relate to specific functions that must be performed by a special purpose computer, the supporting specification must specifically identify the structure (including an algorithm for specialized functions) that performs the claimed functions of the above-mentioned claim elements.
Therefore, the claims are indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claims so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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 2-4 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The claims contain the recitation of “a monitoring system”, “a reporting system”, and “a resource allocation component.” However, applicant’s specification describes no particular manner in how exactly the monitoring system tracks one or more station utilization, physician response times, or diagnostic efficiency across the stations; how a reporting system generates analytics for healthcare administrators to assess care quality and identify areas for improvement; and, how a resource allocation component analyzes operational patterns and suggest optimal allocation strategies. MPEP 2161.01 notes, “When examining computer-implemented functional claims, examiners should determine whether the specification discloses the computer and the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that perform the claimed function in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor possessed the claimed subject matter at the time of filing.” Accordingly, a rejection for lack of written description is necessary.
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.
Step 1
The claim(s) recite(s) subject matter within a statutory category as a machine (claims 1-9), a machine (claims 10-19), and process (claim 20).
INDEPENDENT CLAIMS
Step 2A Prong 1
Claim 1 recites steps of
a command center including a cloud server, a database hosting a relational database management system, one or more processors, and a memory, the one or more processors executing fleet analytics management software and command center analytics dashboard software, the command center being configured to orchestrate a plurality of remote hybrid stations for care, the hybrid stations each defining a physical enclosure having an interior area for a patient session;
and a command center analytics dashboard configured to provide a unified analytics interface for monitoring the stations and visibility into fleet operations and performance indicators;
wherein the command center is further configured to provide management of station for care fleet analytics including monitoring and analysis of one or more of operational metrics across the stations.
Claim 10 recites steps of
a command center including a cloud server, a database hosting a relational database management system, one or more processors, and a memory, the one or more processors executing fleet analytics management software, the command center being configured to provide monitoring capabilities including tracking one or more of a number of open stations for care, patient satisfaction scores, consultation volumes, average speed of answer metrics, and queue monitoring;
a workflow management system including one or more processors of the workflow management system and workflow management software executing on the one or more processors of the workflow management system, the workflow management system being configured to implement protocols for matching patients to clinicians based on one or more of location, licensing requirements, and historical data patterns;
an artificial intelligence (AI) system including one or more processors of the artificial intelligence system and machine learning software executing on the one or more processors of the artificial intelligence system, the artificial intelligence system being configured with Al resource optimization capabilities to continuously analyze one or more of operational patterns and resource utilization to suggest optimal allocation strategies;
a provider tracking system including one or more processors of the provider tracking system and provider tracking software executing on the one or more processors of the provider tracking system, the provider tracking system being configured to monitor one or more of response times, consultation durations, or patient satisfaction scores;
and a command center analytics dashboard including one or more processors of the command center analytics dashboard and dashboard interface software executing on the one or more processors of the command center analytics dashboard, the command center analytics dashboard being configured to provide an interface for monitoring, managing, and analyzing command center processes and data including a unified command center analytics interface for monitoring the stations with single or multiple analytics dashboard capabilities, the stations each defining a physical enclosure having an interior area for a patient session;
wherein the command center is further configured to provide management of station for care fleet analytics including monitoring and analysis of one or more of fleet metrics including financial management metrics, patient experience metrics, uptime and downtime tracking, patient volume analysis, clinician utilization metrics, or productivity metrics.
Claim 20 recites steps of
orchestrating a plurality of remote hybrid stations for care each defining a physical enclosure having an interior area for a patient session through a command center;
providing monitoring capabilities through the command center including tracking one or more of a number of the stations open, patient satisfaction scores, consultation volumes, average speed of answer metrics, or queue monitoring;
providing management of station for care fleet analytics through the command center including monitoring and analysis of one or more of fleet metrics including financial management metrics, patient experience metrics, uptime and downtime tracking, patient volume analysis, or clinician utilization metrics;
implementing workflow management protocols for matching patients to clinicians based on one or more of location, licensing requirements, or historical data patterns;
continuously analyzing one or more of operational patterns and resource utilization through an artificial intelligence system with AI resource optimization capabilities to suggest optimal allocation strategies;
and providing an interface for monitoring, managing, and analyzing command center processes and data through a command center analytics dashboard including a unified analytics interface for monitoring the stations for care.
Step 2A Prong 1
These steps for remote asset tracking and dashboard reporting for healthcare, as drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, methods of organizing human activity. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the italicized portions from managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people through managing operations of stations carrying out medical care. This could be analogized to considering historical usage information while inputting data. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance as organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the additional elements, non-italicized portions identified above for claims 1, 10, and 20, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, other than the abstract idea per se, because the additional elements amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to mere instructions to apply an exception (such as
[Claim 1] a command center including a cloud server, a database hosting a relational database management system, one or more processors, and a memory, the one or more processors executing fleet analytics management software and command center analytics dashboard software, the command center being configured; a command center analytics dashboard configured to provide a unified analytics interface; and, the command center is further configured;
[Claim 10] a command center including a cloud server, a database hosting a relational database management system, one or more processors, and a memory, the one or more processors executing fleet analytics management software, the command center being configured; a workflow management system including one or more processors of the workflow management system and workflow management software executing on the one or more processors of the workflow management system, the workflow management system being configured; an artificial intelligence (AI) system including one or more processors of the artificial intelligence system and machine learning software executing on the one or more processors of the artificial intelligence system, the artificial intelligence system being configured with Al resource optimization capabilities; a provider tracking system including one or more processors of the provider tracking system and provider tracking software executing on the one or more processors of the provider tracking system, the provider tracking system being configured; a command center analytics dashboard including one or more processors of the command center analytics dashboard and dashboard interface software executing on the one or more processors of the command center analytics dashboard, the command center analytics dashboard being configured; including a unified command center analytics interface;
[Claim 20] orchestrating […] through an artificial intelligence system with AI resource optimization capabilities; providing an interface; and, through a command center analytics dashboard including a unified analytics interface
amounts to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f))
generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as recitation of [Claim 1] the hybrid stations each defining a physical enclosure having an interior area; [Claim 10] the stations each defining a physical enclosure having an interior area; and, [Claim 20] a plurality of remote hybrid stations for care each defining a physical enclosure having an interior area. As can be seen, employing generic components to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment, does not make the claim patent eligible, see MPEP 2106.05(h))
Each of the above additional element(s) therefore only amounts to mere instructions to implement functions within the abstract idea using generic computer components or other machines within their ordinary capacity; and, generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. These elements are therefore not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the above claims, as a whole, are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to discussion of integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception; and, generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. Additionally, the additional limitations, other than the abstract idea per se, amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to mere instructions to apply an exception in particular fields such as [Claim 1] a command center including a cloud server, a database hosting a relational database management system, one or more processors, and a memory, the one or more processors executing fleet analytics management software and command center analytics dashboard software, the command center being configured; a command center analytics dashboard configured to provide a unified analytics interface; and, the command center is further configured;
[Claim 10] a command center including a cloud server, a database hosting a relational database management system, one or more processors, and a memory, the one or more processors executing fleet analytics management software, the command center being configured; a workflow management system including one or more processors of the workflow management system and workflow management software executing on the one or more processors of the workflow management system, the workflow management system being configured; a provider tracking system including one or more processors of the provider tracking system and provider tracking software executing on the one or more processors of the provider tracking system, the provider tracking system being configured; a command center analytics dashboard including one or more processors of the command center analytics dashboard and dashboard interface software executing on the one or more processors of the command center analytics dashboard, the command center analytics dashboard being configured; including a unified command center analytics interface;
[Claim 20] providing an interface; and, through a command center analytics dashboard including a unified analytics interface, e.g., a commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general-purpose computer, Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, MPEP 2106.05(f); also, [Claim 10] an artificial intelligence (AI) system including one or more processors of the artificial intelligence system and machine learning software executing on the one or more processors of the artificial intelligence system, the artificial intelligence system being configured with Al resource optimization capabilities; and, [Claim 20] orchestrating […] through an artificial intelligence system with AI resource optimization capabilities, e.g., requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer, Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank., MPEP 2106.05(f).
generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as recitation of changes a speed of motion or a direction of motion of the robotic arm. As can be seen, employing generic computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment, does not make the claim patent eligible, see MPEP 2106.05(h))
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.
DEPENDENT CLAIMS
Step 2A Prong 1
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which further narrows or defines the abstract idea embodied in the claims (such as claims 2-9 and 12-19 reciting particular aspects of remote asset tracking and dashboard reporting for healthcare such as
[Claim 2] a monitoring system configured to track one or more
of station utilization, physician response times, or diagnostic efficiency across the stations;
[Claim 3] a reporting system configured to generate analytics
for healthcare administrators to assess care quality and identify areas for improvement;
[Claim 4] a resource allocation component configured to analyze
operational patterns and suggest optimal allocation strategies;
[Claim 5] wherein the operational metrics include one or more of financial management metrics, patient experience metrics, uptime and downtime tracking, patient volume analysis, clinician utilization metrics, or productivity metrics;
[Claim 6] wherein the financial management metrics include key performance indicators (KPIs);
[Claim 7] wherein the patient experience metrics include ratings;
[Claim 8] wherein the productivity metrics include absenteeism and presenteeism detection;
[Claim 9] wherein the command center is configured to provide monitoring capabilities including tracking one or more of a number of the stations open, patient satisfaction scores, consultation volumes, average speed of answer metrics, or queue monitoring;
[Claim 11] wherein the workflow management system is configured to match patients to clinicians based on provider licensing requirements for geographical jurisdictions;
[Claim 12] wherein the artificial intelligence system is configured with AI orchestration and automation capabilities;
[Claim 13] wherein the provider tracking system is configured to generate performance reports for healthcare administrators;
[Claim 14] wherein the command center is configured to coordinate care coordinator selection based on cultural competency requirements that match patient demographics and geographical deployment locations;
[Claim 15] wherein the command center is configured to implement age-based routing protocols that automatically assign pediatric care managers when patients indicate they are under 18 years old versus adult nurse practitioners for patients over 18;
[Claim 16] wherein the artificial intelligence system is configured to provide clinical decision support through AI-powered recommendations based on historical patient data and current medical guidelines;
[Claim 17] wherein the management of station for care fleet analytics includes generating standardized reports with inventory of stations, installations, active implementations, satisfaction scores, and performance issues monitoring;
[Claim 18] wherein the command center is configured to implement call routing algorithms that determine care coordinator assignment based on patient location, provider licensing, and historical data patterns;
[Claim 19] wherein the fleet operations include tracking metrics such as average hold time, high hold time flags, and provider away time for service delivery;
these italicized portions are methods of organizing human activity since they merely describe types of data and determinations that can be performed by humans).
Step 2A Prong 2
Dependent claims 2-4, 9, 11-16, and 18 recite additional subject matter which amount to limitations consistent with the additional elements in the independent claims (the additional limitations in claim 2 (a monitoring system), claim 3 (a reporting system), claim 4 (a resource allocation component), claim 9 (the command center); claim 11 (the workflow management system); claim 12 (wherein the artificial intelligence system is configured with AI orchestration and automation capabilities); claim 13 (the provider tracking system); claim 14 (the command center); claim 15 (the command center); claim 16 (the artificial intelligence system; and, through AI-powered recommendations); and, claim 18 (the command center) amount to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f))). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B
Dependent claims 2-4, 9, 11, 13-15, and 18 recite additional subject matter which, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, amount to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea, e.g., a commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general-purpose computer, Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, MPEP 2106.05(f); and, dependent claims 12 & 16 amount to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea, e.g., requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer, Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank., MPEP 2106.05(f). Also, see [0912] which provides examples of various off-the-shelf computing devices, [0901] which provides a list of various off-the-shelf processors, [0908] which provides examples of various off-the-shelf communication networks, and [0910] which provides examples of off-the-shelf storage components. There is no indication that these additional elements improve the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation.
Therefore, in consideration of all the facts, this is a textbook USC 101 where the present invention is clearly not patent-eligible under USC 101. Additionally, it is evident that the present claims monopolize the fundamental concept of remote asset tracking and dashboard reporting for healthcare, restricting further innovation in this area without offering a specific, technical improvement to how the computer actually operates; “monopolization of those tools through the grant of a patent might tend to impede innovation more than it would tend to promote it.” Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 216, 110 USPQ2d at 1980 (quoting Myriad, 569 U.S. at 589, 106 USPQ2d at 1978 and Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 (2012)).
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148
USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-5, 9-12, 16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Subramanian et al. (US20230317301A1) in view of Solie (US20200168346A1).
Regarding claim 1, Subramanian discloses a command center including a cloud server, a database hosting a relational database management system, one or more processors, and a memory, the one or more processors executing fleet analytics management software and command center analytics dashboard software, the command center being configured to orchestrate aspects of a plurality of remote hybrid stations for care ([0147] “a virtual command center. The system may include a medical internet of things (mIoT) infrastructure that enables the ability for real-time data collection from each bedside […] aggregate medical device data as well as clinical transaction.” [0216] “The app engine server 2602 may communicate, wired or wirelessly, with a database 2604 to store or fetch data. The database 2604 may communicate with cloud storage” [0009] “one or more computer processors, and non-transitory computer readable storage medium comprising machine-executable instructions that, upon execution by the one or more computer processors” [0224] “nonvolatile and volatile memory components”)
and a command center analytics dashboard configured to provide a unified analytics interface for monitoring the stations and visibility into fleet operations and performance indicators ([0190] “The data analytics can be displayed via the virtual command center dashboard such as shown on FIG. 33.” [0006] “In some embodiments, the system extracts raw data from one or more of the disparate devices and sensors and maps the data to a uniform template (see, e.g., FIG. 32 showing aggregation of data extracted from disparate devices and FIG. 29D showing the data mapped to a uniform template shown to a remote healthcare provider via a mobile app dashboard).”)
wherein the command center is further configured to provide management of station for care fleet analytics including monitoring and analysis of one or more of operational metrics across the stations.
([0016] “Comprehensive system that organizes healthcare providers into configurable remote teams based on real time demand and workflow optimization with integrated workflow management and workload distribution. [0213] “a system for data collection and management using a telemedicine system […] The primary functions of the telemedicine system described herein are providing specific clinical and operational insights in real-time, providing the ability for tele-critical care, and provisioning of operational data for situational awareness.”)
Subramanian does not explicitly disclose however Solie teaches the hybrid stations each defining a physical enclosure having an interior area for a patient session ([0012] “an enclosure comprising an interior space” [0072] “securing the patient 114 in the interior chamber 300 while the patient 114 is in session with the medical professional 124”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary still in the art to include in the medical communications techniques of Subramanian the hybrid stations each defining a physical enclosure having an interior area for a patient session as taught by Solie since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 2, Subramanian discloses a monitoring system configured to track one or more of station utilization, physician response times, or diagnostic efficiency across the stations ([0146] “Virtual Command Center for Monitoring System clinical performance and efficiency” [0155] “Examples of operation metrics include information on average response times”)
Regarding claim 3, Subramanian discloses a reporting system configured to generate analytics for healthcare administrators to assess care quality and identify areas for improvement ([0006] “In some embodiments, the system extracts raw data from one or more of the disparate devices and sensors and maps the data to a uniform template” [0010] “In some embodiments, further comprising performing data analytics on the data to generate a suggestion for one or more actions.”)
Note: the limitation “to assess care quality and identify areas for improvement” is interpreted as an intended result.
Regarding claim 4, Subramanian discloses a resource allocation component configured to analyze operational patterns and suggest optimal allocation strategies ([0207] “Using real-time user data from the App which is visible to system administrators in the system Virtual Command Center, decisions can be made using a combination of machine learning and manual processes to optimize functionality of the system.” [0225] “provide suggestions to improve the one or more matching algorithms”)
Regarding claim 5, Subramanian discloses wherein the operational metrics include one or more of financial management metrics, patient experience metrics, uptime and downtime tracking, patient volume analysis, clinician utilization metrics, or productivity metrics ([0151] “The VCC data display may be organized into 4 major domains: Patient Organization, Staffing, Clinical Operational Metrics, and Resource Utilization.”)
Regarding claim 9, Subramanian discloses wherein the command center is configured to provide monitoring capabilities including tracking one or more of a number of the stations open, patient satisfaction scores, consultation volumes, average speed of answer metrics, or queue monitoring ([0155] “The Clinical Operational Metrics domain may allow direct feedback on important parameters relevant to patient and provider interactions. Examples of operation metrics include information on average response times (e.g., to identify lags and potential areas of system stress), healthcare providers capacities, and time trends of patient volume moving through the system (e.g., to allow identification of past and emerging trends).”)
Regarding claim 10, Subramanian discloses a command center including a cloud server, a database hosting a relational database management system, one or more processors, and a memory, the one or more processors executing fleet analytics management software, the command center being configured to provide monitoring capabilities including tracking one or more of a number of open stations for care, patient satisfaction scores, consultation volumes, average speed of answer metrics, and queue monitoring ([0155] “The Clinical Operational Metrics domain may allow direct feedback on important parameters relevant to patient and provider interactions. Examples of operation metrics include information on average response times (e.g., to identify lags and potential areas of system stress), healthcare providers capacities, and time trends of patient volume moving through the system (e.g., to allow identification of past and emerging trends).” [0216] “The app engine server 2602 may communicate, wired or wirelessly, with a database 2604 to store or fetch data. The database 2604 may communicate with cloud storage” [0009] “one or more computer processors, and non-transitory computer readable storage medium comprising machine-executable instructions that, upon execution by the one or more computer processors” [0224] “nonvolatile and volatile memory components”)
a workflow management system including one or more processors of the workflow management system and workflow management software executing on the one or more processors of the workflow management system, the workflow management system being configured to implement protocols for matching patients to clinicians based on one or more of location, licensing requirements, or historical data patterns ([0196] “The system's network may simultaneously match providers and patients to needed critical care resources via the telemedicine app, with algorithms to estimate medical demands.” [0221] “The health record data (historical data), combined with the requested consult (i.e., current cause for requesting a consult), may set up preliminary criteria for matching this consult with a healthcare provider.” [0216] “The app engine server 2602 may communicate, wired or wirelessly, with a database 2604 to store or fetch data. The database 2604 may communicate with cloud storage” [0009] “one or more computer processors, and non-transitory computer readable storage medium comprising machine-executable instructions that, upon execution by the one or more computer processors” [0224] “nonvolatile and volatile memory components”)
an artificial intelligence (AI) system including one or more processors of the artificial intelligence system and machine learning software executing on the one or more processors of the artificial intelligence system, the artificial intelligence system being configured with Al resource optimization capabilities to continuously analyze one or more of operational patterns or resource utilization to suggest optimal allocation strategies ([0207] “Using real-time user data from the App which is visible to system administrators in the system Virtual Command Center, decisions can be made using a combination of machine learning and manual processes to optimize functionality of the system.” [0225] “provide suggestions to improve the one or more matching algorithms” [0216] “The app engine server 2602 may communicate, wired or wirelessly, with a database 2604 to store or fetch data. The database 2604 may communicate with cloud storage” [0009] “one or more computer processors, and non-transitory computer readable storage medium comprising machine-executable instructions that, upon execution by the one or more computer processors” [0224] “nonvolatile and volatile memory components”)
a provider tracking system including one or more processors of the provider tracking system and provider tracking software executing on the one or more processors of the provider tracking system, the provider tracking system being configured to monitor one or more of response times, consultation durations, or patient satisfaction scores ([0146] “Virtual Command Center for Monitoring System clinical performance and efficiency” [0155] “Examples of operation metrics include information on average response times” [0216] “The app engine server 2602 may communicate, wired or wirelessly, with a database 2604 to store or fetch data. The database 2604 may communicate with cloud storage” [0009] “one or more computer processors, and non-transitory computer readable storage medium comprising machine-executable instructions that, upon execution by the one or more computer processors” [0224] “nonvolatile and volatile memory components”)
and a command center analytics dashboard including one or more processors of the command center analytics dashboard and dashboard interface software executing on the one or more processors of the command center analytics dashboard, the command center analytics dashboard being configured to provide an interface for monitoring, managing, and analyzing command center processes and data including a unified command center analytics interface for monitoring the stations with single or multiple analytics dashboard capabilities ([0139] “The system (e.g., platform and application) may provide a virtual command center role that ensures validation, control, and/or supervision.” [0190] “The data analytics can be displayed via the virtual command center dashboard such as shown on FIG. 33.” [0006] “In some embodiments, the system extracts raw data from one or more of the disparate devices and sensors and maps the data to a uniform template (see, e.g., FIG. 32 showing aggregation of data extracted from disparate devices and FIG. 29D showing the data mapped to a uniform template shown to a remote healthcare provider via a mobile app dashboard).” [0216] “The app engine server 2602 may communicate, wired or wirelessly, with a database 2604 to store or fetch data. The database 2604 may communicate with cloud storage” [0009] “one or more computer processors, and non-transitory computer readable storage medium comprising machine-executable instructions that, upon execution by the one or more computer processors” [0224] “nonvolatile and volatile memory components”)
wherein the command center is further configured to provide management of station for care fleet analytics including monitoring and analysis of one or more of fleet metrics including financial management metrics, patient experience metrics, uptime and downtime tracking, patient volume analysis, clinician utilization metrics, or productivity metrics ([0016] “Comprehensive system that organizes healthcare providers into configurable remote teams based on real time demand and workflow optimization with integrated workflow management and workload distribution. [0213] “a system for data collection and management using a telemedicine system […] The primary functions of the telemedicine system described herein are providing specific clinical and operational insights in real-time, providing the ability for tele-critical care, and provisioning of operational data for situational awareness.” [0151] “The VCC data display may be organized into 4 major domains: Patient Organization, Staffing, Clinical Operational Metrics, and Resource Utilization.”)
Subramanian does not explicitly disclose however Solie teaches the stations each defining a physical enclosure having an interior area for a patient session ([0012] “an enclosure comprising an interior space” [0072] “securing the patient 114 in the interior chamber 300 while the patient 114 is in session with the medical professional 124”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary still in the art to include in the medical communications techniques of Subramanian the stations each defining a physical enclosure having an interior area for a patient session as taught by Solie since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 11, Subramanian discloses wherein the workflow management system is configured to match patients to clinicians based on provider licensing requirements for specific geographical jurisdictions ([0199] “The provider's credentials, including specialty and licensure requirements were verified and the NPI number may be verified and recorded by the system.” [0221] “The healthcare provider matching engine 1024 may match the healthcare providers as set forth by the information on their profiles.” [0222] “Multiple matching algorithms may be utilized by the healthcare provider matching engine 1024 to identify the optimal group of healthcare providers to present to the user, and it may be operated in real-time. For example, a healthcare provider (i.e., doctor) who specializes in respiratory conditions and is currently in low workload may score a high match score when determining whether to match with a consult for a short of breath.”)
Regarding claim 12, Subramanian discloses wherein the artificial intelligence system is configured with Al orchestration and automation capabilities ([0213] “implement automation into the system to assist in the response. In some embodiments, these operational insights may be studied, labelled, and fed into a machine learning algorithm to improve future operation.”)
Regarding claim 16, Subramanian discloses wherein the artificial intelligence system is configured to provide clinical decision support through AI-powered recommendations based on historical patient data and current medical guidelines ([0004] “The system can provide an intuitive device-agnostic mobile-friendly software platform […] to remote intensivist consultation and critical care decision support.” [0221] “The client nodes may then operate alone or in connection with the healthcare provider marching engine 1024 to retrieve health record data associated with the patient (if there is any stored in the data storage 1050). The health record data may include past interactions between this patient and other healthcare providers, historical test results, current medications the patient is intaking, diagnostics, etc.” [0139] “The system may simultaneously match patients in real-time, using an algorithm based on estimated medical demand, and facilitate dynamic staffing ratios based using artificial intelligence (AI)-based recommended guidelines.” [0156] “the system utilizes one or more rules to determine when to route a new inquiry to a given remote healthcare provider depending on their role”)
Regarding claim 18, Subramanian discloses wherein the command center is configured to implement call routing algorithms that determine care coordinator assignment based on patient location, provider licensing, and historical data patterns ([0007] “In some embodiments, the real-time healthcare communication comprises messages, audio calls, video calls, orders, and notes.” [0120] “RN 1, 2, and 3 refer to the local medical care providers for each patient.” [0158] “The user groups function may ensure proper consult routing to the credentialed group of remote healthcare providers and/or maintain data access (e.g., patient medical information) within the credentialed group.” [0225] “In some embodiments, when a patient is treated and recovered from the health condition, the data associated with the consult session may be achieved and saved to the data storage 1050. These data may be later studied, labelled and fed to a machine learning algorithm […] improve the one or more matching algorithms.”)
Regarding claim 20, Subramanian discloses orchestrating […] through a command center ([0147] “a virtual command center. The system may include a medical internet of things (mIoT) infrastructure that enables the ability for real-time data collection from each bedside […] aggregate medical device data as well as clinical transaction.”)
providing monitoring capabilities through the command center including tracking one or more of a number of the stations open, patient satisfaction scores, consultation volumes, average speed of answer metrics, and queue monitoring ([0155] “The Clinical Operational Metrics domain may allow direct feedback on important parameters relevant to patient and provider interactions. Examples of operation metrics include information on average response times (e.g., to identify lags and potential areas of system stress), healthcare providers capacities, and time trends of patient volume moving through the system (e.g., to allow identification of past and emerging trends).”)
providing management of station for care fleet analytics through the command center including monitoring and analysis of one or more of fleet metrics including financial management metrics, patient experience metrics, uptime and downtime tracking, patient volume analysis, or clinician utilization metrics ([0016] “Comprehensive system that organizes healthcare providers into configurable remote teams based on real time demand and workflow optimization with integrated workflow management and workload distribution. [0213] “a system for data collection and management using a telemedicine system […] The primary functions of the telemedicine system described herein are providing specific clinical and operational insights in real-time, providing the ability for tele-critical care, and provisioning of operational data for situational awareness.” [0151] “The VCC data display may be organized into 4 major domains: Patient Organization, Staffing, Clinical Operational Metrics, and Resource Utilization.”)
implementing workflow management protocols for matching patients to clinicians based on one or more of location, licensing requirements, or historical data patterns ([0196] “The system's network may simultaneously match providers and patients to needed critical care resources via the telemedicine app, with algorithms to estimate medical demands.” [0221] “The health record data (historical data), combined with the requested consult (i.e., current cause for requesting a consult), may set up preliminary criteria for matching this consult with a healthcare provider.”)
continuously analyzing one or more of operational patterns or resource utilization through an artificial intelligence system with AI resource optimization capabilities to suggest optimal allocation strategies ([0207] “Using real-time user data from the App which is visible to system administrators in the system Virtual Command Center, decisions can be made using a combination of machine learning and manual processes to optimize functionality of the system.” [0225] “provide suggestions to improve the one or more matching algorithms”)
and providing an interface for monitoring, managing, and analyzing command center processes and data through a command center analytics dashboard including a unified analytics interface for monitoring the stations for care ([0139] “The system (e.g., platform and application) may provide a virtual command center role that ensures validation, control, and/or supervision.” [0190] “The data analytics can be displayed via the virtual command center dashboard such as shown on FIG. 33.” [0006] “In some embodiments, the system extracts raw data from one or more of the disparate devices and sensors and maps the data to a uniform template (see, e.g., FIG. 32 showing aggregation of data extracted from disparate devices and FIG. 29D showing the data mapped to a uniform template shown to a remote healthcare provider via a mobile app dashboard).”))
Subramanian does not explicitly disclose however Solie teaches a plurality of remote hybrid stations for care each defining a physical enclosure having an interior area for a patient session ([0012] “an enclosure comprising an interior space” [0072] “securing the patient 114 in the interior chamber 300 while the patient 114 is in session with the medical professional 124”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary still in the art to include in the medical communications techniques of Subramanian a plurality of remote hybrid stations for care each defining a physical enclosure having an interior area for a patient session as taught by Solie since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim(s) 6-8, 13, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Subramanian et al. (US20230317301A1) in view of Solie (US20200168346A1) and further in view of Ronen et al. (US20250054615A1).
Regarding claim 6, Subramanian in view of Solie does not disclose however Ronen teaches wherein the financial management metrics include key performance indicators (KPIs) ([0812] “Financial performance metrics might include cost per patient visit and revenue generation.”)
Therefore, it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the medical communications techniques of Subramanian and remote medical services techniques of Solie financial management metrics including key performance indicators (KPIs) as taught by Ronen since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 7, Subramanian does not disclose however Ronen teaches wherein the patient experience metrics include ratings ([0812] “patient satisfaction scores can be derived from surveys and feedback forms”)
Therefore, it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the medical communications techniques of Subramanian and remote medical services techniques of Solie patient experience metrics including ratings as taught by Ronen since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 8, Subramanian in view of Solie does not disclose however Ronen teaches wherein the productivity metrics include absenteeism and presenteeism detection ([0810] “from various data points, including […] attendance records”)
Therefore, it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the medical communications techniques of Subramanian and remote medical services techniques of Solie productivity metrics including absenteeism and presenteeism detection as taught by Ronen since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 13, Subramanian does not disclose however Ronen teaches wherein the provider performance tracking system is configured to generate reports for healthcare administrators ([0807] “The operations management report (e.g., report 326) may be based, at least in part, upon a caregiver proficiency score.” [0811] “The operations management report (e.g., report 326) may be based, at least in part, upon a unit/facility operational efficiency score.”)
Therefore, it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in include in the medical communications techniques of Subramanian and remote medical services techniques of Solie the provider performance tracking system generating reports for healthcare administrators as taught by Ronen since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 17, Subramanian does not disclose however Ronen teaches wherein the management of station for care fleet analytics includes generating standardized reports with inventory of stations, installations, active implementations, satisfaction scores, and performance issues monitoring ([0815] “Information process 10 may provide 2610 the operations management report (e.g., report 326) to a user (e.g., user 236). [0817] “These indicators may include […] bed occupancy rates, average length of stay, [….] compliance with safety protocols, and patient satisfaction scores. [0812] “resource utilization metrics could assess the use of […] equipment”)
Therefore, it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in include in the medical communications techniques of Subramanian and remote medical services techniques of Solie generating standardized reports with inventory of stations, installations, active implementations, satisfaction scores, and performance issues monitoring as taught by Ronen since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 19, Subramanian does not disclose however Ronen teaches wherein the fleet operations include tracking metrics such as average hold time, high hold time flags, and provider away time for service delivery ([0812] “a variety of performance metrics […] staff productivity, wait times, […] long wait times”)
Note: for service delivery is interpreted as an intended result.
Therefore, it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in include in the medical communications techniques of Subramanian and remote medical services techniques of Solie tracking metrics such as average hold time, high hold time flags, and provider away time to ensure optimal service delivery as taught by Ronen since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim(s) 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mallett et al. (US20080195247A1) in view of Solie (US20200168346A1) and further in view of Phillips (US20140108055A1).
Regarding claim 14, Subramanian does not disclose however Phillips teaches wherein the command center is configured to coordinate care coordinator selection based on cultural competency requirements that match patient demographics and geographical deployment locations ([0031] “Thus if, for example, in situations where a patient speaking English as a second language requests a telemedicine interview with a healthcare provider who is not proficient in the patient's primary language, then the system may suggest a translator, and either automatically or upon request provide a list of suitable translators for the patient to choose from. [0070-0071 & 0074] “More specifically, this search matching process can include, but is not limited to searches involving parameters such as various combinations of: A-Preferred Language (of the health practitioner or of the translation service) […] D-Location of Medical Practitioner (e.g. City/State/or Country)”)
Therefore, it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the medical communications techniques of Subramanian and remote medical services techniques of Solie the command center coordinating care coordinator selection based on cultural competency requirements that match patient demographics and geographical deployment locations as taught by Phillips since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim(s) 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mallett et al. (US20080195247A1) in view of Solie (US20200168346A1) and further in view of Schoenberg (US20100222649A1).
Regarding claim 15, Subramanian in view of Solie does not disclose however Schoenberg teaches wherein the command center is configured to implement age-based routing protocols that automatically assign pediatric care managers when patients indicate they are under 18 years old versus adult nurse practitioners for patients over 18 ([0153] “In another example two parents are concerned with a rash developing on their child's left buttock. The parents are connected to a pediatric nurse” [0155] “In another example, a patient is a chronic overweight diabetic that is home bound. The patient develops pain in his shin above the ankle and engages the brokerage which directs him to an internal medicine specialist.”)
Therefore, it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the medical communications techniques of Subramanian and remote medical services techniques of Solie command center implementing age-based routing protocols that automatically assign pediatric care managers when patients indicate they are under 18 years old versus adult nurse practitioners for patients over 18 as taught by Schoenberg since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 22 June 2026 have been considered but are not fully persuasive.
Regarding priority, applicant states that the claims have been amended and support is given for the 112 rejections. Otherwise, applicant asks that the priority objection be held in abeyance until agreement is reached on allowable claims.
Examiner acknowledges the applicant’s statement, but the fact remains that there is still no support for the identified claims in the prior applications. In light of the MPEP and the fact that the present claims are nowhere close to being allowable, the priority issue cannot be held in abeyance.
Regarding the USC 112 interpretation and 112(b), while applicant has amended the claims by adding structure and pointed out support in the specification, examiner asserts that claims 2-4 are still interpreted under USC 112(f) and rejected under 112(b). The cited paragraphs by the applicant for the monitoring system, reporting system, and resource allocation component do not point to any structure and in light of the figures show them as part of software. Therefore, the USC 112(f) and 112(b) rejection is maintained for claims 2-4 and withdrawn for claims 1 and 5-20.
Regarding the USC 112(a) rejection, applicant points to various paragraphs to show 112(a) support and requests withdrawal of the rejection.
Examiner disagrees with the applicant’s arguments and asserts that the cited portions of the specification by the applicant, at least for the claim elements of issue in claims 2-4, are result-focused disclosures that do not detail how the monitoring performs tracking, how the reporting system is really generating analytics, and how the resource allocation component analyzes operation patters and suggest allocation strategies. Therefore, the USC 112(a) rejection is maintained for claims 2-4 and withdrawn for claims 1 and 5-20
Regarding the USC 112(b) rejection, applicant has amended claim 9 to cure the 112(b) issue. Therefore, the USC 112(b) rejection has been withdrawn.
Regarding the USC 101 rejection, applicant argues on pages 11 to 14 applicant argues that the claims integrate any judicial exception into a practical application because the claimed hybrid stations operate in automated computing environments for enterprise wellness programs, corporate environments, educational institutions, government facilities, etc., with limited human assistance. Also, that monitoring uptime, downtime, station inventory, patient volume, etc., across a fleet of automated and physical hybrid stations is a practical problem that cannot be solved by human activity alone. Applicant asserts that the current claim 1 has technical architecture with AI resource optimization for processing where the claimed combination technically coordinates and manages physical infrastructure. Applicant also cites [0609] and [0753] asserting that the amended claim 1 has a nexus with the technical problem and provides a technical improvement similar to Enfish by solving the issues of excessive heat generation and bottleneck separating transactional and analytical data layers. Ex Parte Desjardins is cited by the applicant to assert that the technical improvements in the specification and claimed features are similar to the facts in Desjardins and satisfy the updated guidelines in the MPEP. Applicant concludes that amended claim 1 is eligible for patenting.
Examiner disagrees with the applicant’s arguments. Examiner asserts while the applicant has amended the claims, the amendments do not do much to advance prosecution because the present specification provides a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art. The MPEP provides that improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field can signal eligibility, see MPEP 2106.05(a), and provides examples of improvements to computer functionality, MPEP 2106.05(a)(I), and improvements to any other technology of technical field, MPEP 2106.05(a)(I). “In computer-related technologies, the examiner should determine whether the claim purports to improve computer capabilities or, instead, invokes computers merely as a tool”. Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1336, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1689 (Fed. Cir. 2016). In Enfish, the court evaluated the patent eligibility of claims related to a self-referential database. Id. The court concluded the claims were not directed to an abstract idea, but rather to an improvement to computer functionality. Id. It was the specification' s discussion of the prior art and how the invention improved the way the computer stores and retrieves data in memory in combination with the specific data structure recited in the claims that demonstrated eligibility. 822 F.3d at 1339, 118 USPQ2d at 1691. The claim was not simply the addition of general-purpose computers added post-hoc to an abstract idea, but a specific implementation of a solution to a problem in the software arts. 822 F.3d at 1339, 118 USPQ2d at 1691. Unlike Enfish, the instant claimed invention appears to improve upon a judicial exception rather than a problem in the software arts. Rather than improving a computer's algorithm (i.e., solving a technically based problem), the claimed invention purports to solve the non-technological problem of a need for a fully automated, self-contained hybrid station for care that can facilitate comprehensive remote patient care ([005] of specification) by using computers to automate remote asset tracking and dashboard reporting for healthcare (also see page 12 of applicant’s arguments of record). In other words, one of the main/glaring issues with the present invention is that the problems solved by the applicant is not technological problem. Applicant asserts that claim 1 has technical architecture involving AI resource optimization, but examiner points out there is no recitation of AI in claim 1; applicant is arguing non-existing limitations. There is no indication that suggests claim 1 is managing physical infrastructure, but rather claim 1 outlines a high-level application management dashboard. All the applicant is doing is applying known technology for their intended benefit(s) to a new data environment and calling it an improvement (see Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network Corp., Case No.18-2239 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 6, 2020). The argument by the applicant that claim 1 has a nexus to solving the issues of excessive heat generation and bottleneck separating transactional and analytical data layers is a bit of a stretch. Claim 1 does not have a nexus to the problems in [0609] and [0753] cited by the applicant since claim 1 is clearly not a structural fix for hardware heat generation or transactional-analytical database bottlenecks. The scope of claim 1 is directed to remote stations and operational tracking. These functional care metrics are entirely orthogonal to low-level database engine performance or server cooling mechanics. Additionally, claim 1 lacks any mechanism, such as workload distribution algorithms, hardware throttling, or query separation architectures, that directly addresses thermal output or cross-layer data latency.
The examiner asserts the following facts which the applicant will not be able to dispute:
1) the invention does NOT involve a novel algorithm or data structure that significantly improves the computer's functionality,
2) the invention does NOT involve a new hardware component or configuration that works with the computer to achieve a specific technical benefit, and
3) the computer is NOT used in a completely new way demonstrating a significant technical advancement.
It is evident from the specification and claims that the applicant is not improving computer technology, and instead providing an improvement to the abstract idea. An improvement to the abstract idea is not an improvement to computer technology. Thus, examiner does not see how the present claims improve the functioning of a computer or provide improvements to any other technology or technical field. The claimed invention appears similar to the example of improvements that are insufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality such as arranging transactional information on a graphical user interface in a manner that assists traders in processing information more quickly, Trading Technologies v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019). See MPEP 2106.05(a)(I)(viii). The broad claims are lacking concrete limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Examiner points out that the claimed limitations have no indication in the specification that the operations recited invoke any inventive programming, require any specialized computer hardware or other inventive computer components, i.e., a particular machine, or that the claimed invention is implemented using other than generic computer components to perform generic computer functions. See DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256 (fed Cir. 2014) (“[A]fter Alice, there can remain no doubt: recitation of generic computer limitations does not make an otherwise ineligible claim patent-eligible.”). Most importantly, in DDR Holdings & unlike the present claims, the claims at issue specified how interactions with the Internet were manipulated to yield a desired result—a result that overrode the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink. 773 F.3d at 1258; 113 USPQ2d at 1106. The examiner also points out that there is no indication in the specification that the claimed invention affects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. Examiner points to the recitation of artificial intelligence in the claim(s) as generic. "[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention." Alice Corp. v. CLS Banklnt'l, 573 U.S. 208 223 (2014). Applicant does not and cannot contend they invented the concept of artificial intelligence, nor does the specification disclose any artificial intelligence technique. The alleged improvement of using artificial intelligence lies in the abstract idea itself, not to any technological improvement nor to any improvement to the functioning of a computer. See BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1287-88 (Fed. Cir. 2018). The fact pattern of the applicant’s claims is congruent to the Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp., 2025 U.S.P.Q.2d 628 (Fed. Cir. 2025) decision by the Federal Circuit. Just like in Recentive, the present claims do not delineate steps through which the artificial intelligence technology achieves an improvement. See, e.g., IBM v. Zillow Grp., Inc., 50 F.4th 1371, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (holding abstract a claim that "d[id] not sufficiently describe how to achieve [its stated] results in a non-abstract way," because "[s]uch functional claim language, without more, is insufficient for patentability under our law." (quoting Two-Way Media Ltd v. Comcast Cable Commc'ns, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2017))); see also Intell. Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (similar); Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (similar). Claiming a mere concept or functional result without disclosing the implementation details does not overcome USC 101. Applying an established technique to a new field or data set is insufficient for patent eligibility. The fact pattern for Ex parte Desjardins is different than the present case since it was directed to an invention that was providing an improvement to artificial intelligence; not true for the present case. Furthermore, while the claim itself need not recite the end result or the improvement in the specification (e.g., "thereby increasing the bandwidth of the channel"), MPEP 2106.05(a) clearly states that “the claim must be evaluated to ensure the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement in technology. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1316, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2016).” As outlined by the examiner, there is zero improvement to technology in the applicant’s claim(s).To show an involvement of a computer assists in improving technology, the claims must recite details regarding how a computer aids the method, the extent to which the computer aids the method, or the significance of a computer to the performance of the method. Merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient. Thus, the claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology (MPEP 2106.05(a)(II)). In Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Systems the courts found that the claims were “directed to a non-abstract improvement in computer functionality…” (MPEP 2106.04(d)). The present invention clearly does not meet the condition set forth by the courts and thus is not integrated into a practical application. The applicant has not demonstrated that their invention is inventive. There is no justification to withdraw the USC 101. Therefore, the USC 101 rejection is strongly maintained.
Regarding the USC 102 and 103 rejections, applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot since they do not apply to the newly cited reference of record under USC 103: Solie. Subramanian still discloses and discusses fleet analytics management as given in amended claim 1. Applicant’s claims are more generic than the disclosure of Subramanian. Therefore, the USC 102 rejection has been withdrawn while the remaining claims are still rejected under USC 103.
Prior Art Cited but Not Relied Upon
Boulos, Maged N. Kamel, and Guy Haywood. "Opportunistic atrial fibrillation screening and detection in “self-service health check-up stations”: a brief overview of current technology potential and possibilities." Mhealth 7 (2021): 12.
This reference is relevant because is discloses use of an OnMed station.
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 WINSTON FURTADO whose telephone number is (571)272-5349. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 AM to 4:00 PM EST.
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.
/WINSTON R FURTADO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3687
Prosecution Insights