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
Claims 1-11 are pending.
This communication is in response to the communication filed August 20, 2026.
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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite systems and methods for managing concurrent breaks, which are statutory categories of inventions.
Specifically, the independent claims, taking claim 11 as exemplary, recite retrieving…a work schedule for a set of clinicians currently working in a common care area; selecting two or more first clinicians (FCs) from the set of clinicians to take a concurrent break; identifying a total pool of patients currently assigned to the FCs; retrieving…break coverage attributes respectively associated with a portion of the set of clinicians; retrieving…break rules; selecting one or more second clinicians (SCs) from the portion of the set of clinicians based in part on an evaluation of the break coverage attributes and the break rules; and assigning one or more of the total pool of patients to each of the selected SCs while complying with their respective break coverage attributes.
The dependent claims recite all of the above limitations and further recite limitations directed to determining a remaining pool of patients, various break coverage attributes and rules, identifying a charge nurse, removing patients assigned, and notifying clinicians and supervisors.
The limitations above are interpreted as being grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas, because the claims involve a series of steps for using various rules and attributes to manage concurrent breaks in a health care environment. See MPEP 2106.04. The claims are interpreted to recite concepts relating using various types of rules and information to manage human behaviors. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Integration into a practical application requires an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Here, the additional elements of the claims include a dynamic attribute database, processor, non-volatile machine-readable memory, staff management computer system, dynamic attribute computer database, task and attribute management computer system, and hospital policies system.
The claims merely use the additional elements as tools to perform abstract ideas and generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. The use of the additional elements as tools to implement the abstract idea and generally to link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment does not render the claim patent eligible, because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. Specifically, the machine-readable memory and processor may be part of a computer system (specification par. 124-128). The various computer systems may use a memory and a processor and may be connected to a database (specification par. 130). The specification par. 25 states that it is specifically intended that the various features of the disclosure described herein can be used in any combination and in some embodiments of the disclosure, any feature or combination of features set forth herein can be excluded or omitted. All systems may be a computer as stated in specification par. 123. The dynamic attribute database is a database that stores and updates information for changeable factors associated with a patient, a staff member, a task, a shift or a break (par. 30, 129-130).
The additional elements do not show an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology, rather the additional elements perform general computing functions and do not indicate how the particular combination improves any technology or provides a technical solution to a technical problem. See Apple v. Ameranth, 842 F.3d 1229, 1240 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The additional elements do not use the exception to affect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease, do not apply the exception using particular machines, and do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, rather the computer elements are generally stated as to their structure and function and are only used to manage tasks in a hospital instead of directly providing specific treatment or prophylaxis. Therefore, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and the additional limitations are not indicative of materializing into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Generic computer elements recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, or conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system (Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network and performing repetitive calculations); Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("The computer required by some of Bancorp’s claims is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims."); See MPEP 2106.05(d) and July 2015 Update: Section IV). Here, the claim limitations of retrieving a work schedule, selecting two or more first clinicians to take a concurrent break, identifying a total pool of patients currently assigned to the first clinicians, retrieving break coverage attributes, retrieving break rules, selecting one or more second clinicians, and assigning one or more of the total pool of patients to each of the selected second clinicians are similar to sending and receiving information.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using computers to perform the steps of retrieving a work schedule, selecting two or more first clinicians to take a concurrent break, identifying a total pool of patients currently assigned to the first clinicians, retrieving break coverage attributes, retrieving break rules, selecting one or more second clinicians, and assigning one or more of the total pool of patients to each of the selected second clinicians amount to no more than using computer related devices to automate or implement the abstract idea for managing concurrent breaks for clinicians.
The use of a computer or processor to merely automate or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself. (See MPEP 2106.05(f) where mere instructions to apply an exception does not render an abstract idea patent eligible). There is no indication that the additional limitations alone or in combination improves the functioning of a computer or any other technology, improves another technology or technical field, or effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
In conclusion, the claims are directed to the abstract idea of managing concurrent breaks for clinicians. The claims do not provide an inventive concept, because the claims do not recite additional elements or a combination of elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception of the claims. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology, and the collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Therefore, whether taken individually or as an order combination, the claims are nonetheless rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Response to Arguments and Amendments
Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed on August 20, 2026 have been fully considered and are addressed below.
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and that the claims recite significantly more than the abstract idea. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant cites McRO for support. The patent-eligible claims in McRO incorporated specific, limited rules that improved a technological process. See 837 F.3d at 1313-16. In contrast, the claims recite a series of broadly worded, result-oriented functions without meaningfully limiting how the claimed method performs those functions. Moreover, the claims do not improve technology or technological processes. At best, the claims recite an improved method of coordinating clinician breaks, which is a method of organizing human activity. See Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. IBGLLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The claims of the ’999 patent do not improve the functioning of the computer, make it operate more efficiently, or solve any technological problem. Instead, they recite a purportedly new arrangement of generic information that assists traders in processing information more quickly.”); Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1378, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The claims are focused on providing information to traders in a way that helps them process information more quickly, not on improving computers or technology.” (citation omitted)).
Applicant states that coordination of clinician breaks is a technical problem. The coordination of clinician breaks is a method of organizing human activity and is not a technical problem and is not rooted in technology. If Applicant asserts that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. The database being continuously updated is not an improvement, it is the nature of a database storing information. There is no indication that the speed of the database is improved due to the inventive concept recited in the claims.
Applicant argues that the finding of 101 step 2B is not supported. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The USPTO memorandum published in light of Berkheimer v. HP stated on pages 3-4 that examiners may rely on a number of considerations as relevant to the evaluation of whether the claimed additional elements amount to an inventive concept. The list of considerations given in the MPEP 2106.05 for step 2B is not intended to be exclusive or limiting. Additional elements can often be analyzed based on more than one type of consideration and the type of consideration is of no import to the eligibility analysis. However, if examiners state that the additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional then, they must cite to an applicant’s specification, court decisions, publications demonstrating the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of elements, or can take official notice.
The previous Office Action did not state that the additional elements were well-understood, routine, and conventional citations, and instead stated that the additional elements alone or in combination do not improve the functioning of a computer or any other technology, do not improve another technology or technical field, and does not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. Moreover, the previous Office Action included citations to the Applicant’s specification to determine the general functionality of the limitations and cited case law to analogize the technologies and functions.
Examiner respectfully submits that the burden of establishing that the claimed subject matter falls under a judicial exception to patent eligibility has been met, along with a showing of how the additional elements are not significantly more than the judicial exception, therefore the claims remain rejected under 101.
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 JAY M. PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-6793 and email is jay.patel2@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8AM-4:30PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Peter H. Choi can be reached on (469)295-9171. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JAY M. PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3686
