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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/22/2026 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
It is appropriate for the Examiner to determine whether a claim satisfies the criteria for subject matter eligibility by evaluating the claim in accordance to the Subject Matter Eligibility Test as recited in the following Steps: 1, 2A, and 2B, see MPEP 2106(III.).
Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Test: Step 1:
First, the Examiner is to establish whether the claim falls within any statutory category including a process, a machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, see MPEP 2106.03(II.) and MPEP 2106.03(I).
Claims 1-9 are related to a system, and claims 10-15 are also related to a method (i.e., a process). Claims 16-20 are related to a “non-transitory” processor readable media storing instructions. Accordingly, these claims are all within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Test: Step 2A- Prong One:
Step 2A of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test demonstrates whether a clam is directed to a judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.04(I.). Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry, where Prong One establishes the judicial exception. Regarding Prong One of Step 2A, the claim limitations are to be analyzed to determine whether, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, they “recite” a judicial exception or in other words whether a judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claims. An “abstract idea” judicial exception is subject matter that falls within at least one of the following groupings: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes, see MPEP 2106.04(II.)(A.)(1.) and 2106.04(a)(2).
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite at least one abstract idea as underlined in the following limitations. Specifically, independent claim 1 recites:
A system, comprising:
a processor that executes computer-executable components stored in a non-transitory computer-readable memory, wherein the computer-executable components comprise:
a data ingestion component that receives operational data associated with a plurality of healthcare entities within a hospital system;
a pressure modeling component that calculates real-time pressure scores for the healthcare entities based on department-specific pressure factors and weightings;
a forecasting component that applies an artificial intelligence model to forecast pressure scores for the healthcare entities over a future time window;
a scoring component that assigns pressure levels to healthcare entities using proportional or override logic based on critical factors or critical entities;
an action recommendation component that identifies one or more prescriptive actions for reducing or preventing forecasted pressure, each action associated with an impact score, a cost score, and a trigger condition; and
a user interface component that displays a graphical interface comprising a pressure forecast visualization, a dynamic hot spot summary, and one or more selectable actions.
The Examiner submits that the foregoing underlined limitations constitute “certain methods of organizing human activity”, more specifically managing interactions between people as the following abstract limitations are directed to forecasting and managing operational pressure in a healthcare system:
“calculates” real-time pressure scores for the healthcare entities based on department-specific pressure factors and weightings, which is an abstract limitation of analysis of the pressure factors and weightings that is to be used for the interaction management between people,
“forecast” pressure scores for the healthcare entities over a future time window, which is an abstract limitation of analysis for estimating pressure scores over a future time window that is to be used for the interaction management between people,
“assigns” pressure levels to healthcare entities using proportional or override logic based on critical factors or critical entities, which is an abstract limitation of analysis using proportional logic to determine the pressure levels and recites the interaction between people when assigning to the healthcare entities,
“identifies” one or more prescriptive actions for reducing or preventing forecasted pressure, each action associated with an impact score, a cost score, and a trigger condition, which recites an abstract limitation of analysis to determine the actions as claimed for the management of the interactions with the healthcare entities.
The claim limitations as a whole recite steps for forecasting and managing operational pressure in a healthcare system, which recites the management of the healthcare system and therefore recite managing interactions between people and is a certain method of organizing human activity.
Any limitations not identified above as part of the abstract idea are deemed “additional elements” (i.e., processor) and will be discussed in further detail below.
Accordingly, the claim as a whole recites at least one abstract idea.
Furthermore, dependent claims further define the at least one abstract idea, and thus fails to make the abstract idea any less abstract as noted below:
Claim 2 recites further abstract limitations describing the step of normalizing pressure factor values into percentile-based scores, further describing the abstract idea. Claim 3 recites further abstract limitations of generating hourly pressure score predictions for each entity across a time horizon, further describing the abstract idea. Claim 4 recites further abstract limitations of propagating pressure levels from subordinate to parent entities, further describing the abstract idea. Claim 5 recites further abstract limitations of overriding pressure scores based on a critical factor exceeding a threshold, further describing the abstract idea. Claim 6 recites further abstract limitations of ranking the prescriptive actions based on a composite of the impact score and the cost score, further describing he abstract idea. Claim 7 recites further abstract limitations of indicating drivers of pressure that are used for the abstract idea. Claim 8 recites further abstract limitations of scenario analysis based on forecasted pressure for the abstract idea.
Further, claim 10 recites:
A computer-implemented method, comprising:
receiving operational data from a plurality of healthcare entities within a hospital system;
calculating pressure scores for the healthcare entities based on a weighted sum of normalized pressure factor values;
forecasting future pressure scores using an artificial intelligence model trained on historical pressure data;
assigning pressure levels to healthcare entities using override logic for critical factors and proportional logic for aggregate entities;
identifying prescriptive actions to address current or forecasted pressure, each action having a trigger condition, impact score, and cost score; and
displaying, via a graphical user interface, a pressure forecast visualization, a hot spot summary, and selectable recommended actions.
The Examiner submits that the foregoing underlined limitations constitute “certain methods of organizing human activity”, more specifically managing interactions between people as the following abstract limitations are directed to forecasting and managing operational pressure in a healthcare system:
“calculating” pressure scores for the healthcare entities based on a weighted sum of normalized pressure factor values, which is an abstract limitation of analysis of the weighted sum of normalized pressure factors that is to be used for the interaction management between people,
“forecasting” future pressure scores, which is an abstract limitation of analysis for estimating pressure scores that is to be used for the interaction management between people,
“assigning” pressure levels to healthcare entities using override logic for critical factors and proportional logic for aggregate entities, which is an abstract limitation of analysis using proportional logic and override logic to determine the pressure levels and recites the interaction between people when assigning to the healthcare entities,
“identifying” prescriptive actions to address current or forecasted pressure, each action having a trigger condition, impact score, and cost score, which recites an abstract limitation of analysis to determine the actions as claimed for the management of the interactions with the healthcare entities.
The claim limitations as a whole recite steps for forecasting and managing operational pressure in a healthcare system, which recites the management of the healthcare system and therefore recite managing interactions between people and is a certain method of organizing human activity.
Any limitations not identified above as part of the abstract idea are deemed “additional elements” (i.e., user interface) and will be discussed in further detail below.
Accordingly, the claim as a whole recites at least one abstract idea.
Furthermore, dependent claims further define the at least one abstract idea, and thus fails to make the abstract idea any less abstract as noted below:
Claim 11 recites further abstract limitation of updating forecast pressure scores at predetermined time intervals which merely adds to the abstract idea. Claim 12 recites further abstract limitations further describing the assigning of pressure levels as part of the abstract idea that includes categorizing the pressure as claimed. Claim 13 recites further abstract limitations describing the abstract idea by generating a ranked list of actions based on priority level and impact to cost ration. Claim 15 recites further abstract limitations describing the abstract idea by using a color-coded bar chart with a configurable gradient to present the information, further describing the abstract idea.
Further, claim 16 recites:
A computer program product for forecasting and managing operational pressure in a healthcare system, the computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer-readable memory having program instructions embodied therewith, the program instructions executable by a processor to:
receive operational data from a plurality of healthcare entities;
generate real-time pressure scores based on department-specific pressure factor scores and weightings;
forecast future pressure conditions for each entity using an artificial intelligence model trained on historical data;
assign pressure levels to each entity using override and proportional logic;
identify prescriptive actions with associated trigger conditions, impact scores, and cost scores; and
display pressure forecasts, hot spots, and selectable action recommendations within a graphical user interface.
The Examiner submits that the foregoing underlined limitations constitute “certain methods of organizing human activity”, more specifically managing interactions between people as the following abstract limitations are directed to forecasting and managing operational pressure in a healthcare system:
“generate” real-time pressure scores based on department-specific pressure factor scores and weightings, which is an abstract limitation of analysis of the pressure factors and weights that is to be used for the interaction management between people,
“forecast” future pressure conditions for each entity, which is an abstract limitation of analysis for estimating pressure scores that is to be used for the interaction management between people,
“assign” pressure levels to each entity using override and proportional logic, which is an abstract limitation of analysis using proportional logic to determine the pressure levels and recites the interaction between people when assigning to the healthcare entities,
“identify” prescriptive actions with associated trigger conditions, impact scores, and cost scores, which recites an abstract limitation of analysis to determine the actions as claimed for the management of the interactions with the healthcare entities.
The claim limitations as a whole recite steps for forecasting and managing operational pressure in a healthcare system, which recites the management of the healthcare system and therefore recite managing interactions between people and is a certain method of organizing human activity.
Any limitations not identified above as part of the abstract idea are deemed “additional elements” (i.e., processor) and will be discussed in further detail below.
Accordingly, the claim as a whole recites at least one abstract idea.
Furthermore, dependent claims further define the at least one abstract idea, and thus fails to make the abstract idea any less abstract as noted below:
Claim 17 recites further abstract limitations further describing the pressure factor scores as including scores for different factors as claimed. Claim 19 recites further abstract limitations further describing the prescriptive actions as claimed for the claimed abstract idea. Claim 20 recites further abstract limitations describing the forecasting by using different factors as claimed and to then simulate alternative operational scenarios, further describing the abstract idea.
Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Test: Step 2A- Prong Two:
Regarding Prong Two of Step 2A, it must be determined whether the claim as a whole integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. It must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrates the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exceptions into a “practical application,” see MPEP 2106.04(II.)(A.)(2.) and 2106.04(d)(I.).
In the present case at claim 1, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted at least one abstract idea are as follows (where the bolded portions are the “additional limitations” while the underlined portions continue to represent the at least one “abstract idea”):
A system, comprising:
a processor that executes computer-executable components stored in a non-transitory computer-readable memory, wherein the computer-executable components comprise (amounts to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)):
a data ingestion component that receives operational data associated with a plurality of healthcare entities within a hospital system (merely data gathering steps as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(g) and Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc.);
a pressure modeling component that (amounts to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)) calculates real-time pressure scores for the healthcare entities based on department-specific pressure factors and weightings;
a forecasting component that applies an artificial intelligence model to (amounts to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)) forecast pressure scores for the healthcare entities over a future time window;
a scoring component that (amounts to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)) assigns pressure levels to healthcare entities using proportional or override logic based on critical factors or critical entities;
an action recommendation component that (amounts to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)) identifies one or more prescriptive actions for reducing or preventing forecasted pressure, each action associated with an impact score, a cost score, and a trigger condition; and
a user interface component that displays a graphical interface comprising a pressure forecast visualization, a dynamic hot spot summary, and one or more selectable actions (amounts to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
For the following reasons, the Examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of:
the overall system comprising a processor that executes computer-executable components stored in a non-transitory computer-readable memory,
a pressure modeling component,
a forecasting component that applies an artificial intelligence model,
a scoring component,
an action recommendation component, and
a user interface component that displays a graphical interface comprising a pressure forecast visualization, a dynamic hot spot summary, and one or more selectable actions,
the Examiner submits that these limitations amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer and generic computing components (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). [0191, 0194, 0197] of the Applicant’s Specification recites the overall generic computing system with the processor and memory. [0073] recites the generically configured pressure modeling component. [0057, 0073] recites the generic AI model that is used for the forecasting component. [0073] recites the generically configured scoring component. [0073] recites the generically configured action recommendation component. [0073, 0084] recites the use of the generic user interface to merely display information. The additional elements recite the use of generic computing components with a non-specific implementation to carry out steps of the abstract idea without showing an improvement to technology, computers or other technical fields, and thus recites mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
Regarding the additional limitation of a data ingestion component that receives operational data associated with a plurality of healthcare entities within a hospital system, this is merely pre-solution activity. The Examiner submits that this additional limitation merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity of collecting data to the at least one abstract idea in a manner that does not meaningfully limit the at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)). [0074] of the Applicant’s Specification recites the step of receiving the operational data from a database. The use of the database for receiving the data is used to perform actions for the system including data gathering for the abstract idea, and thus recites insignificant pre-solution activities.
Taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to forecast and manage operational pressure in a healthcare system, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, see MPEP 2106.04(d), 2106.05(a), 2106.05(b).
The remaining dependent claim limitations not addressed above fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as set below:
Claim 7 recites further additional elements of generic user interface components of displaying multiple hot spots and information, however this merely recites the insignificant computer implementation of the abstract idea. Claim 8 recites further additional elements of generic user interface selectable controls and a generic chat agent to be used in the insignificant computer implementation of the abstract idea. Claim 9 recites further additional elements of generic user interface elements of selectable controls for other selections which is to be used for the insignificant computer implementation of the abstract idea.
Thus, taken alone and in ordered combination, the additional elements do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Further claim 10 recites:
A computer-implemented method, comprising (amounts to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)):
receiving operational data from a plurality of healthcare entities within a hospital system (merely data gathering steps as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(g) and Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc.);
calculating pressure scores for the healthcare entities based on a weighted sum of normalized pressure factor values;
forecasting future pressure scores using an artificial intelligence model trained on historical pressure data (amounts to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f));
assigning pressure levels to healthcare entities using override logic for critical factors and proportional logic for aggregate entities;
identifying prescriptive actions to address current or forecasted pressure, each action having a trigger condition, impact score, and cost score; and
displaying, via a graphical user interface, a pressure forecast visualization, a hot spot summary, and selectable recommended actions (amounts to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
For the following reasons, the Examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of:
A computer-implemented method,
using an artificial intelligence model trained on historical pressure data, and
displaying, via a graphical user interface, a pressure forecast visualization, a hot spot summary, and selectable recommended actions,
the Examiner submits that these limitations amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer and generic computing components (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). [0191, 0194, 0197] of the Applicant’s Specification recites the use of generic computing components to perform the computer implemented method. [0057] recites the use of the generic AI model with generic training steps using the historical data. [0073, 0084] recites the use of the generic user interface to merely display information. The additional elements recite the use of generic computing components with a non-specific implementation to carry out steps of the abstract idea without showing an improvement to technology, computers or other technical fields, and thus recites mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
Regarding the additional limitation of receiving operational data from a plurality of healthcare entities within a hospital system, this is merely pre-solution activity. The Examiner submits that this additional limitation merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity of collecting data to the at least one abstract idea in a manner that does not meaningfully limit the at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)). [0074] of the Applicant’s Specification recites the step of receiving the operational data from a database. The use of the database for receiving the data is used to perform actions for the system including data gathering for the abstract idea, and thus recites insignificant pre-solution activities.
Taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to forecast and manage operational pressure in a healthcare system, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, see MPEP 2106.04(d), 2106.05(a), 2106.05(b).
The remaining dependent claim limitations not addressed above fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as set below:
Claim 11 recites the additional element of merely storing historical pressure data, which recites further the insignificant computer implementation of the abstract idea. Claim 14 recites further additional elements describing the generic user interface elements for a clicking action to view the linked data as claimed, which recites further the insignificant computer implementation of the abstract idea.
Thus, taken alone and in ordered combination, the additional elements do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Further claim 16 recites:
A computer program product for forecasting and managing operational pressure in a healthcare system, the computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer-readable memory having program instructions embodied therewith, the program instructions executable by a processor to (amounts to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)):
receive operational data from a plurality of healthcare entities (merely data gathering steps as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(g) and Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc.);
generate real-time pressure scores based on department-specific pressure factor scores and weightings;
forecast future pressure conditions for each entity using an artificial intelligence model trained on historical data (amounts to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f));
assign pressure levels to each entity using override and proportional logic;
identify prescriptive actions with associated trigger conditions, impact scores, and cost scores; and
display pressure forecasts, hot spots, and selectable action recommendations within a graphical user interface (amounts to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
For the following reasons, the Examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of:
a computer program product for forecasting and managing operational pressure in a healthcare system, the computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer-readable memory having program instructions embodied therewith, the program instructions executable by a processor,
using an artificial intelligence model trained on historical data, and
display pressure forecasts, hot spots, and selectable action recommendations within a graphical user interface,
the Examiner submits that these limitations amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer and generic computing components (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). [0191, 0194, 0197, 00212] of the Applicant’s Specification recites the use of generic computing components for the computer program product. [0057] recites the use of the generic AI model using generic training steps with the historical data. [0073, 0084] recites the use of the generic user interface to merely display information. The additional elements recite the use of generic computing components with a non-specific implementation to carry out steps of the abstract idea without showing an improvement to technology, computers or other technical fields, and thus recites mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
Regarding the additional limitation of receive operational data from a plurality of healthcare entities, this is merely pre-solution activity. The Examiner submits that this additional limitation merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity of collecting data to the at least one abstract idea in a manner that does not meaningfully limit the at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)). [0074] of the Applicant’s Specification recites the step of receiving the operational data from a database. The use of the database for receiving the data is used to perform actions for the system including data gathering for the abstract idea, and thus recites insignificant pre-solution activities.
Taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to forecast and manage operational pressure in a healthcare system, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, see MPEP 2106.04(d), 2106.05(a), 2106.05(b).
The remaining dependent claim limitations not addressed above fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as set below:
Claim 18 recites further additional elements of the use of the generic AI model comprising a generic DNN trained on historical hospital operational data, which recites further the insignificant computer implementation of the abstract idea. Claim 20 recites further additional elements of using the generic user interface to merely display data and to then use a generic integrated AI agent to perform tasks, further describing the insignificant computer implementation of the abstract idea.
Thus, taken alone and in ordered combination, the additional elements do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Test: Step 2B:
Regarding Step 2B of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test, the independent claims do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, see MPEP 2106.05(II.). Further, it may need to be established, when determining whether a claim recites significantly more than a judicial exception, that the additional elements recite well understood, routine, and conventional activities, see MPEP 2106.05(d).
Regarding claim 1:
Regarding the additional limitations of:
the overall system comprising a processor that executes computer-executable components stored in a non-transitory computer-readable memory,
a pressure modeling component,
a forecasting component that applies an artificial intelligence model,
a scoring component,
an action recommendation component, and
a user interface component that displays a graphical interface comprising a pressure forecast visualization, a dynamic hot spot summary, and one or more selectable actions,
the Examiner submits that these limitations amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer and generic computing components (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). [0191, 0194, 0197] of the Applicant’s Specification recites the overall generic computing system with the processor and memory. [0073] recites the generically configured pressure modeling component. [0057, 0073] recites the generic AI model that is used for the forecasting component. [0073] recites the generically configured scoring component. [0073] recites the generically configured action recommendation component. [0073, 0084] recites the use of the generic user interface to merely display information. The additional elements recite the use of generic computing components with a non-specific implementation to carry out steps of the abstract idea without showing an improvement to technology, computers or other technical fields, and thus recites mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and does not recite significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding the additional limitation of a data ingestion component that receives operational data associated with a plurality of healthcare entities within a hospital system, this is merely pre-solution activity. The Examiner submits that this additional limitation merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity of collecting data to the at least one abstract idea in a manner that does not meaningfully limit the at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(g) and MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II), specifically “storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93”). [0074] of the Applicant’s Specification recites the step of receiving the operational data from a database. The use of the database for receiving the data is used to perform actions for the system including data gathering for the abstract idea, and thus recites insignificant pre-solution activities and does not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. The receiving and retrieval of data from direct database connections recites well understood, routine, and conventional activity.
Regarding claim 10:
Regarding the additional limitations of:
A computer-implemented method,
using an artificial intelligence model trained on historical pressure data, and
displaying, via a graphical user interface, a pressure forecast visualization, a hot spot summary, and selectable recommended actions,
the Examiner submits that these limitations amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer and generic computing components (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). [0191, 0194, 0197] of the Applicant’s Specification recites the use of generic computing components to perform the computer implemented method. [0057] recites the use of the generic AI model with generic training steps using the historical data. [0073, 0084] recites the use of the generic user interface to merely display information. The additional elements recite the use of generic computing components with a non-specific implementation to carry out steps of the abstract idea without showing an improvement to technology, computers or other technical fields, and thus recites mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and does not recite significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding the additional limitation of receiving operational data from a plurality of healthcare entities within a hospital system, this is merely pre-solution activity. The Examiner submits that this additional limitation merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity of collecting data to the at least one abstract idea in a manner that does not meaningfully limit the at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(g) and MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II), specifically “storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93”). [0074] of the Applicant’s Specification recites the step of receiving the operational data from a database. The use of the database for receiving the data is used to perform actions for the system including data gathering for the abstract idea, and thus recites insignificant pre-solution activities and does not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. The receiving and retrieval of data from direct database connections recites well understood, routine, and conventional activity.
Regarding claim 16:
Regarding the additional limitations of:
a computer program product for forecasting and managing operational pressure in a healthcare system, the computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer-readable memory having program instructions embodied therewith, the program instructions executable by a processor,
using an artificial intelligence model trained on historical data, and
display pressure forecasts, hot spots, and selectable action recommendations within a graphical user interface,
the Examiner submits that these limitations amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer and generic computing components (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). [0191, 0194, 0197, 00212] of the Applicant’s Specification recites the use of generic computing components for the computer program product. [0057] recites the use of the generic AI model using generic training steps with the historical data. [0073, 0084] recites the use of the generic user interface to merely display information. The additional elements recite the use of generic computing components with a non-specific implementation to carry out steps of the abstract idea without showing an improvement to technology, computers or other technical fields, and thus recites mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and does not recite significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding the additional limitation of receive operational data from a plurality of healthcare entities, this is merely pre-solution activity. The Examiner submits that this additional limitation merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity of collecting data to the at least one abstract idea in a manner that does not meaningfully limit the at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(g) and MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II), specifically “storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93”). [0074] of the Applicant’s Specification recites the step of receiving the operational data from a database. The use of the database for receiving the data is used to perform actions for the system including data gathering for the abstract idea, and thus recites insignificant pre-solution activities and does not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. The receiving and retrieval of data from direct database connections recites well understood, routine, and conventional activity.
The dependent claims do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the dependent claims do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
For the reasons stated, the claims fail the Subject Matter Eligibility Test and therefore claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The following references have been considered as relevant, however have not been used in the above rejections:
US-20190304595-A1 to Bergman et al. teaches of a system for optimization and management for a healthcare system using machine learning and resource composition scores.
US-20200273562-A1 to Tolbert teaches of an automated system for healthcare staffing analysis by using a patient census and to then assign nurses to work a future shift and sending alerts.
WO 2024030958 A1 to Ruiz et al. teaches of a system for using machine learning to consider staffing, volume prediction, simulation data, and acuity data to make reconditions of staffing coverage in a hospital.
NPL “Optimal Hospital Capacity Management During Demand Surges” to Parker et al. teaches of the management of hospital demand during hours of surge using data management that considers the use of data sources to perform forecasting and optimization inputs to output recommendations.
These references do not teach aspects of the current invention individually nor in combination, including but not limited to: “receiving operational data from a plurality of healthcare entities within a hospital system; calculating pressure scores for the healthcare entities based on a weighted sum of normalized pressure factor values; forecasting future pressure scores using an artificial intelligence model trained on historical pressure data; assigning pressure levels to healthcare entities using override logic for critical factors and proportional logic for aggregate entities; identifying prescriptive actions to address current or forecasted pressure, each action having a trigger condition, impact score, and cost score”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CONSTANTINE SIOZOPOULOS whose telephone number is (571)272-6719. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8AM-5PM 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, Jason B Dunham can be reached at (571) 272-8109. 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.
/CONSTANTINE SIOZOPOULOS/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3686
Prosecution Insights