www.uspto.gov
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`17/436,797
`
`09/07/2021
`
`Brian E. Brooks
`
`82437US006
`
`2833
`
`3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY
`PO BOX 33427
`ST. PAUL, MN 55133-3427
`
`WILLIAMS, TERESA S
`
`ART UNIT
`
`3686
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`12/08/2023
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
`following e-mail address(es):
`
`LegalUSDocketing@mmm.com
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`
`
`Application No.
`Applicant(s)
`171436, 797
`Brooksetal.
`
`Office Action Summary Art Unit|AIA (FITF)StatusExaminer
`TERESA S WILLIAMS
`3686
`Yes
`
`
`
`-- The MAILING DATEof this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address --
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORYPERIOD FOR REPLYIS SET TO EXPIRE 3 MONTHS FROM THE MAILING
`DATE OF THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensionsof time may be available underthe provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a). In no event, however, may a reply betimely filed after SIX (6) MONTHSfrom the mailing
`date of this communication.
`If NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHSfrom the mailing date of this communication.
`-
`- Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133).
`Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, evenif timely filed, may reduce any earned patent term
`adjustment. See 37 CFR 1.704(b).
`
`Status
`
`1) Responsive to communication(s) filed on 09/07/2021.
`C} A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/werefiled on
`
`2a)() This action is FINAL. 2b)¥)This action is non-final.
`3) An election was madeby the applicant in responseto a restriction requirement set forth during the interview
`on
`; the restriction requirement and election have been incorporated into this action.
`4)(2) Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`closed in accordance with the practice under Exparte Quayle, 1935 C.D. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`1-20 is/are pending in the application.
`)
`Claim(s)
`5a) Of the above claim(s) _ is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`C} Claim(s)__ is/are allowed.
`Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected.
`(] Claim(s)__ is/are objectedto.
`C] Claim(s
`are subjectto restriction and/or election requirement
`)
`* If any claims have been determined allowable, you maybeeligible to benefit from the Patent Prosecution Highway program at a
`participating intellectual property office for the corresponding application. For more information, please see
`http://www.uspto.gov/patents/init_events/pph/index.jsp or send an inquiry to PPHfeedback@uspto.gov.
`
`) ) ) )
`
`Application Papers
`10) The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`11)0) The drawing(s) filedon__ is/are: a)(J accepted or b)( objected to by the Examiner.
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
`Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121(d).
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`12)[¥) Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d)or (f).
`Certified copies:
`c)Z None ofthe:
`b)() Some**
`a)C All
`1.¥) Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`2.2) Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No.
`3.1.) Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been receivedin this National Stage
`application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
`*“ See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`Attachment(s)
`
`1)
`
`Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`
`(LJ Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`(Qj Other:
`4)
`Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/08b)
`2)
`
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date03/02/2022,07/22/2022,
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`3)
`
`PTOL-326 (Rev. 11-13)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mail Date 20231120
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/436,797
`Art Unit: 3686
`
`Page 2
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`Notice of Pre-AlA 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
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`This action is in reply to the application and amendmentfiled on 09/07/2021.
`
`Claims 5-11, 14-17, 20 have been amended.
`
`3.
`
`Claims 21-27 have been cancelled.
`
`4.
`
`Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
`
`35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
`
`Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of
`matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the
`conditions and requirementsof this title.
`
`Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to an
`
`abstract idea withoutsignificantly more.
`
`2019 Revised PatentEligibility Guidance (PEG): Step 1:
`
`Claims 1-20 are directed to a method(i.e., a process). Accordingly, claims 1-20 are all within at
`
`least one of the four statutory categories.
`
`2019 PEG: Step 2A - Prong One:
`
`Regarding Prong One of Step 2A of the 2019 PEG (which collectively includes the guidance in the
`
`January 7, 2019 Federal Register notice and the October 2019 update issued by the USPTO), the claim
`
`limitations are to be analyzed to determine whether they “recite” a judicial exception or in other words
`
`whethera judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claims. An “abstract idea” judicial
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/436,797
`Art Unit: 3686
`
`Page 3
`
`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.
`
`Representative independentclaim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea.
`
`Specifically, independentclaim 1 recites:
`
`A methodfor optimizing operations at one or more healthcarefacilities, the method comprising:
`
`repeatedly performing the following:
`
`selecting a configuration of input settings for controlling operations of the healthcarefacilities
`
`based on a causal model that measures current causal relationships between input settings anda
`
`measure of success of operations at the healthcarefacilities;
`
`receiving a measure of success of the operation of the healthcarefacilities while controlled
`
`using the configuration of input settings; and
`
`adjusting, based on the measure of success of the operation of the healthcarefacilities while
`
`controlled using the configuration of input settings, the causal model.
`
`The Examiner submits that the foregoing underlined limitations constitute: (a) “certain
`
`methodsof organizing human activity” because adjusting input settings based on a measure of success
`
`of operations at healthcare facilities relates to managing human behavior/interactions between people,
`
`whichis medical workflow activities. Furthermore, the foregoing underlined limitations constitute (b) “a
`
`mental process” because selecting input settings and observing relationships to measure the success of
`
`operations at the healthcarefacilities are observations/evaluations/analysis that can be performed in
`
`the human mind or with a pen and pencil.
`
`Accordingly, the claim describes at least one abstract idea.
`
`Furthermore, dependentclaims 2-20 further define the at least one abstract idea (and thus fail
`
`to make the abstract idea any less abstract) as set forth below.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/436,797
`Art Unit: 3686
`
`Page 4
`
`In relation to claims 3-19, these claims merely recite specific kinds of input settings,
`
`related to outpatient management, measuresof success of operations, measures of operational
`
`efficiency, measures related to reprocessed instruments, measures related to inventory supply,
`
`measuresrelated to medical coding, measures related to document accuracy, the measure of
`
`patient treatment effectiveness, measures related to hospital-acquired infections, set of
`
`external variables and various personnel variables. Claims 2 and 20 (similarly to claim 1) recite
`
`determining steps such as adjusting internal control parameters.
`
`2019 PEG: Step 2A - Prong Two:
`
`Regarding Prong Twoof Step 2A of the 2019 PEG,it must be determined whether the claim as a
`
`whole integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG,it must be
`
`determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate 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 environmentor field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a
`
`“practical application.”
`
`In the present case, for representative independentclaim 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 methodfor optimizing operations at one or more healthcarefacilities, the method comprising:
`
`repeatedly performing the following:
`
`selecting a configuration of input settings for controlling operations of the healthcarefacilities
`
`based on a causal model that measures current causal relationships between input settings anda
`
`measure of success of operations at the healthcare facilities;
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/436,797
`Art Unit: 3686
`
`Page 5
`
`receiving a measure of successof the operation of the healthcare facilities (insignificant pre-
`
`solution activity as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(g), the Examinerfurther submits that such steps
`
`are not unconventional as they merely consist of receiving data over a network. See MPEP
`
`2106.05(d)(Il) Symantec) while controlled using the configuration of input settings; and
`
`adjusting, based on the measure of success of the operation of the healthcare facilities while
`
`controlled using the configuration of input settings, the causal model.
`
`Claim 26:
`
`A system comprising one or more computersand one or more storage devices storing
`
`instructions that when executed by the one or more computers cause the one or more computers
`
`(conventional computer implementation as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) to perform the
`
`operations of the respective method of any one of preceding claims.
`
`Claim 27:
`
`One or more computer-readable storage media storing instructions that when executed by
`
`one or more computers cause the one or more computers (conventional computer implementation as
`
`noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) to perform the operations of the respective method of any one of
`
`the preceding claims.
`
`For the following reasons, the Examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations
`
`do notintegrate the above-noted at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
`
`Regarding the additional limitations of the computer system that includes one or more
`
`computers and one or morestorage devices storing instructions and one or more computer-readable
`
`storage mediastoring instructions, the Examiner submits that these limitations amount to merely using
`
`a computer to perform the at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) and are mereinstructions
`
`to apply the above-noted at least one abstract idea (/d.).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/436,797
`Art Unit: 3686
`
`Page 6
`
`Regarding the additional limitation “receiving a measure of success of the operation of the
`
`healthcarefacilities,” the Examiner submits that this additional limitation merely adds insignificant pre-
`
`solution activity (data gathering; selecting data to be manipulated) to the at least one abstract idea (see
`
`MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
`
`Thus, 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 whenlooking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the
`
`additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvementin the functioning of a
`
`computer or an improvement to another technologyor technical field, apply or use the above-noted
`
`judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition,
`
`implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture thatis
`
`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 2019 PEG and MPEP §
`
`2106.05). Thus, claims 1-20 as a whole do not integrate the above-noted at least one abstract idea into a
`
`practical application.
`
`For these reasons, representative independentclaim 1 with its dependent claims 2-20, do not
`
`recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
`
`2019 PEG: Step 2B:
`
`Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG,in representative independentclaim 1, regarding the
`
`additional limitations of the system, one or more computers and one or more storage devices storing
`
`instructions and one or more computer-readable storage media storing instructions, the Examiner
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/436,797
`Art Unit: 3686
`
`Page 7
`
`submits that these limitations amount to merely using a computerto perform the at least one abstract
`
`idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
`
`Regarding the additional limitation “receiving a measure of success of the operation of the
`
`healthcarefacilities,” which the Examiner submits that this additional limitation merely adds
`
`insignificant pre-solution activity (data gathering; selecting data to be manipulated) to the at least one
`
`abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)), the Examiner further submits that such steps are not
`
`unconventional as they merely consist of receiving data over a network. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)
`
`Symantec.
`
`In dependent claims 2-20, there is no additional elements.
`
`Therefore, claims 1-20 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
`
`The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections
`
`set forth in this Office action:
`
`A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is
`not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention
`and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the
`effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinaryskill in the art to which the
`claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention
`was made.
`
`The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C.
`
`103 are summarized as follows:
`
`1. Determining the scope and contentsofthe prior art.
`
`2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
`
`3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinentart.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/436,797
`Art Unit: 3686
`
`Page 8
`
`4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or
`
`nonobviousness.
`
`Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-12 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
`
`Glidewell (US 2017/0004263 A1) in view of Rajasenan (US 8,407,081 B1).
`
`Claim 1:
`
`Glidewell discloses a method for optimizing operations at one or more healthcarefacilities, the
`
`method comprising: repeatedly performing (See trend tracking, benchmark quality measures,
`
`exemplary refresh date/time data feed for payroll purposes in PO029-P0030 and key performance
`
`indicators (KPIs) within acceptable thresholds in POO64. See established as useful for hospital facilities
`
`(P0003, POOO8, P0061).) the following:
`
`selecting a configuration of input settings for controlling operations of the healthcarefacilities
`
`based on a causal model (See PO026-P0027, P0034, where monitored, analyzed and reported KPIs such
`
`as labor, accounts receivable (AR) and clinical measures functions. Besides thresholds, warranting alerts
`
`(P0028) serve as input settings selected. Real time data analysis (POOO8) and trend tracking reported
`
`analysis serves as a causal model.) that measurescurrent causal relationships between input settings
`
`and a measureofsuccessof operations at the healthcarefacilities (Besides trend tracker template
`
`(P0029), see exemplary trend report (Fig. 3, 154) as regulated labor hours selected and monitored by a
`
`client according to a nursing home facility mentioned in POO36, POO50-P0051, where labor costs
`
`comparison versus budget construe measurescurrent causal relationships between input settings.);
`
`receiving a measure of success of the operation of the healthcarefacilities while controlled
`
`using the configuration of input settings (Besides trend tracker tool in P0029 to allows users to
`
`benchmark quality measures against their peers, see a set of quality measures (QM’s) as indicatorsin
`
`nursing homes mentioned in P0064 serve as a measure of success of the operation of a healthcare
`
`facility.); and
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/436,797
`Art Unit: 3686
`
`Page 9
`
`Although Glidewell discloses a causal model and the measured successof the operation of the
`
`healthcare facilities as mentioned above, Glidewell does not explicitly teach adjusting the causal model
`
`based on the measure of success of the operation of the healthcarefacilities. Rajasenan teaches:
`
`adjusting, based on the measure ofsuccessof the operation of the healthcare facilities while
`
`controlled using the configuration of input settings, the causal model (See Fig. 3 and column 15,line 65
`
`to column 16,line 15, where the daily action plan is changed and improved due to the impact of the
`
`monitored benchmark sensor activities. The Role-Action for Repair process is applied to overall TIMSA-
`
`DAP(Time, Information, Motivation, Skill, Authority-Daily Action Plan), labor methodology (column 2,
`
`line 57 to column 3, line 12), in a hospital environment (column 6, lines 14-27). Also, see knowledge
`
`base model in column 7, lines 11-24, column 13, lines 46-59.).
`
`Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinaryskill in the art of healthcare
`
`organization managementbeforethe effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the
`
`method of Glidewell to include adjusting the causal model based on the measure of successof the
`
`operation of the healthcarefacilities as taught by Rajasenan in order to quickly improve healthcare
`
`organizations that suffer from budget overruns, quality deficits or other workflow process breakdowns.
`
`Regarding claim 2, Rajasenan teaches wherein:
`
`selecting a configuration of input settings comprises selecting the configuration of input
`
`settings based on the causal model and a setof internal control parameters (See column 6,line, 66 to
`
`column 7, line 20, where client-specific parameters serve as selecting the configuration of input settings
`
`for key TIMSA-DAPprogram files.), and
`
`the method further comprises adjusting the internal control parameters based on the
`
`measureof success of the operation of the healthcarefacilities while controlled using the
`
`configuration of input settings (See Fig. 3 and column 15,line 65 to column 16, line 15, where the daily
`
`action plan is changed and improved dueto the impact of the monitored benchmark sensor activities.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/436,797
`Art Unit: 3686
`
`Page 10
`
`The Role-Action for Repair process is applied to overall TIMSA-DAP (Time, Information, Motivation, Skill,
`
`Authority-Daily Action Plan), labor methodology (column 2, line 57 to column 3, line 12), in a hospital
`
`environment (column 6, lines 14-27). Also, see knowledge base model in column 7, lines 11-24, column
`
`13, lines 46-59.).
`
`Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinaryskill in the art of healthcare
`
`organization managementbeforethe effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the
`
`method of Glidewell to include adjusting the causal model based on the input settings based on the
`
`causal model and a set of internal control parameters of the healthcarefacilities as taught by Rajasenan
`
`in order to quickly improve healthcare organizations that suffer from budget overruns, quality deficits or
`
`other workflow process breakdowns.
`
`Regarding claim 3, Glidewell discloses wherein the input settings comprise one or moreof:
`
`a concentration of patients (See P0037, P0062, report financial forecasting for the Medicare
`
`population.); a concentration of medical devices; a concentration of health careclinicians; one or more
`
`input settings related to instrument reprocessing; one or more input settings related to personnel
`
`staffing (See Fig. 4, P0040 setting up which personnel get notified.); one or more inputsettings related
`
`to inventory management; one or more input settings related to environmental control; one or more
`
`input settings related to staff protocol; one or moreinput settings related to document management;
`
`or one or moreinputsettings related to outpatient management(See P0028, P0039 recording
`
`surveying teams activities.).
`
`Regarding claim 5, Rajasenan teaches wherein the input settings related to personnel staffing
`
`comprise one or moreof: a staffing protocol; a scheduling protocol; a number of room visitations per
`
`room per day;or a location of nurse stations (See roles of personnel staff in column 35,lines 44-64,
`
`wherebestactions, practices and protocols impacting the hospital's own order sheets and PFP (Pay for
`
`Performance) order sheets.).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/436,797
`Art Unit: 3686
`
`Page 11
`
`Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinaryskill in the art of healthcare
`
`organization managementbeforethe effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the
`
`method of Glidewell to include a staffing protocol as taught by Rajasenan in order to quickly improve
`
`healthcare organizations that suffer from budget overruns, quality deficits or other workflow process
`
`breakdowns.
`
`Regarding claim 6, Rajasenan teaches wherein the input settings related to inventory
`
`managementcomprise one or moreof: a choice of inventory locations; or an inventory stocking
`
`schedule (See hi/low matrix of supplies budget in column 19, lines 41 to column 20,line 18 to improve a
`
`facility.).
`
`Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ofordinaryskill in the art of healthcare
`
`organization managementbeforethe effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the
`
`method of Glidewell to include a choice of inventory locations as taught by Rajasenan to quickly
`
`determine whento order and restock medical supplies.
`
`Regarding claim 7, Glidewell discloses wherein the input settings related to environmental
`
`control comprise one or moreof: a choice of temperature of one or more regions of the healthcare
`
`facilities; a choice of humidity of one or more regionsof the healthcare facilities; choice of a sanitation
`
`level of one or moreregionsof the healthcarefacilities; or a location of trip hazards (See POO28-P0029
`
`regional staffing and Trend Trackerfor regional and national reporting analysis.).
`
`Regarding claim 9, Glidewell discloses wherein the input settings related to document
`
`management comprise one or moreof: a protocol for pre-processing documents; a training regimen
`
`for medical coding of documents; a protocol for doctor engagement with a medical coding process; a
`
`time of day that medical coding is done (See labor hours in P0036, format for job codes.); a choice of
`
`medical documentformat: a configuration of document templates; a configuration of prompts
`
`provided during documentdrafting; or a configuration of pre-defined queries of documents.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/436,797
`Art Unit: 3686
`
`Page 12
`
`Regarding claim 10, Rajasenan teaches wherein the input settings related to outpatient
`
`managementcomprise one or more of: an amountof a given prescription provided to a given
`
`outpatient; a type of prescriptions provided to a given outpatient; a protocol for sending prescription
`
`remindersto patients; a protocol for follow-up home visits; a choice of assigned case manager for a
`
`given outpatient; a level of in-home nursing care provided to a given outpatient; or a number of
`
`treatment steps executed for a given outpatient (See [column 6,lines 14-20] the content for the daily
`
`action plans must be developed. Here, the desired daily action plan prompts physicians to document the
`
`presenceor absence of additional information or treatments that influences the service that will be billed
`
`for. Also, see column 50,lines 12-50, 2 treatmentsin a critical path.).
`
`Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ofordinaryskill in the art of healthcare
`
`organization managementbeforethe effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the
`
`method of Glidewell to include a number of treatment steps executed for a given outpatient as taught
`
`by Rajasenan in order to quickly narrow the focus on particular types of patients with treatment costs
`
`that typically go over budget.
`
`Regarding claim 11, Glidewell discloses wherein the measure of success of operations at the
`
`healthcare facilities comprises a measure of operational efficiency of the healthcarefacilities (See
`
`trend tracking, benchmark quality measures and key performanceindicators (KPIs) within acceptable
`
`thresholds in POO64.).
`
`Regarding claim 12, Glidewell discloses wherein the measure of operational efficiency of the
`
`healthcare facilities comprises one or more of: one or more measuresrelated to a reprocessed
`
`instrument; a turnover time; one or more measures related to inventory supply; one or more
`
`measuresrelated to medical coding (See labor hours in P0036, format for job codes.); or one or more
`
`measuresrelated to documentaccuracy.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/436,797
`Art Unit: 3686
`
`Page 13
`
`Regarding claim 14, Rajasenan teaches wherein the measuresrelated to inventory supply
`
`comprise one or more of: an amountof inventory available; or an amountof inventory on backorder
`
`(See hi/low matrix of supplies budget as inventory in column 19, lines 41 to column 20,line 18.).
`
`Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinaryskill in the art of healthcare
`
`organization managementbeforethe effectivefiling date of the claimed invention to modify the
`
`method of Glidewell to include an amountof inventory available as taught by Rajasenan to quickly
`
`determine whento order and restock medical supplies.
`
`Regarding claim 15, Glidewell discloses wherein the measuresrelated to medical coding
`
`comprise one or more of: a measure of human agreement with medical codes; a precision rate of the
`
`medical codes; a recall rate of the medical codes: or a denial rate of the medical codes (See labor
`
`hours in P0036, format for job codes.).
`
`Regarding claim 16, Glidewell discloses wherein the measures related to document accuracy
`
`comprise one or moreof: a proportion of documents containing identified instances of missing
`
`information; or a proportion of documents containing identified instances of incorrect information
`
`(See correcting deficiencies resulting from an inspection/survey in POO39.).
`
`Regarding claim 17, Glidewell discloses wherein the measure of success of operations at the
`
`healthcare facilities comprises a measureof patient treatment effectiveness (See efficiency of patient
`
`care evaluated according to length of inpatient stay and discharges in POO46.).
`
`Regarding claim 18, Glidewell discloses wherein the measure of patient treatment
`
`effectiveness comprises one or more of: a readmission rate; one or more measuresrelated to
`
`hospital-acquired infections; a length of stay for a given condition; a mortality rate; a compliance rate
`
`with outpatient treatmentplans; or a number of patient falls (See admissions trending in POO44-P0045
`
`and readmissions rates in PO061.).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/436,797
`Art Unit: 3686
`
`Page 14
`
`Regarding claim 19, Glidewell discloses wherein the measuresrelated to hospital-acquired
`
`infections comprise one or moreof: a hospital-acquired infection rate; or a hospital-acquired infection
`
`type (See P0064, urinary track infections detected in nursing homes.).
`
`Regarding claim 20, Rajasenan teaches wherein:
`
`selecting the configuration of input settings comprises selecting the configuration based on
`
`the causal model and respective measuresof a predeterminedset of external variables (See [column
`
`13, lines 22-59], where selection of data subsets, or variable selection is needed to identify the most
`
`appropriate data for processing.), and
`
`the method further comprises adjusting internal control parameters that parameterize an
`
`impact of the predeterminedset of external variables on the selecting of the configuration (See Fig. 3
`
`and column 15, line 65 to column 16, line 15, where the daily action plan is changed and improved due
`
`to the impact of the monitored benchmark sensor activities. The Role-Action for Repair processis
`
`applied to overall TIMSA-DAP (Time, Information, Motivation, Skill, Authority-Daily Action Plan), labor
`
`methodology (column 2, line 57 to column 3,line 12), in a hospital environment (column 6,lines 14-27).
`
`Also, see knowledge base model in column 7, lines 11-24, column 13,lines 46-59.).
`
`Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinaryskill in the art of healthcare
`
`organization managementbeforethe effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the
`
`method of Glidewell to include adjusting the causal model based on the input settings based on the
`
`causal model and respective measures of a predetermined set of external variables as taught by
`
`Rajasenan to identify the most relevant variables and the complexity of the models neededto identify
`
`relationships and patterns.
`
`Claims 4, 8 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glidewell (US
`
`2017/0004263 A1) in view of Rajasenan (US 8,407,081 B1) further in view of Kobayashi (US
`
`2007/0083286A1).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/436,797
`Art Unit: 3686
`
`Page 15
`
`Regarding claim 4, Kobayashi teaches wherein the input settings related to instrument
`
`reprocessing comprise one or moreof: a protocol defining one or more reprocessing steps; an
`
`ordering of one or more reprocessing steps; a time spent in a given reprocessing step; a choice of
`
`instrumentto be reprocessed during a given instrument reprocessing session; a choice of cleaning
`
`article for a given reprocessing session; a choice of cleaner for a given instrument reprocessing
`
`session; a choice of disinfectants for a given instrument reprocessing session; a choice of sterilant for a
`
`given instrumentreprocessing session; a choice of cleaner technician for a given instrument
`
`reprocessing session; a choice of cleaning automated equipmentfor a given instrument reprocessing
`
`session; or a choice of a monitoring test for a given reprocessing session (See Fig. 11, PO205, where the
`
`reusable medical instruments with subassemblies are washed and thensterilized.).
`
`Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ofordinaryskill in the art of medical instrument
`
`managementbeforethe effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Glidewell
`
`and Rajasenan to include a choiceof sterilant for a given instrument reprocessing session as taught by
`
`Kobayashi which allows hospitals to totally manage both the disposable and lease instruments,
`
`facilitating cost management mentioned in paragraph 9.
`
`Regarding claim 8, Kobayashi teaches wherein theinputsettings related to staff protocol
`
`comprise one or moreof: a contact isolation protocol; a personal protective equipment protocol; a
`
`handwashingprotocol; a protocol r